Forum
Anyone wanna do an alternative skill ranking yearly competition?
|
superxchloe wrote
at 11:54 PM, Thursday August 5, 2010 EDT
using a slightly modified version of moondust's alternative skill ranking formula:
((games*PPG)/1000)(4(% 1sts) + 3(% 2nds) + 2(% 3rds) + 1(% 4ths) + 0(% 5ths) - 1(% 6ths) - 2(% 7ths)) Basically, this alternative ranking is a weighted average. In a sense, you get 4 points for every percentage point you have in first, 3 for second, 2 for third, 1 for fourth, none for fifth, and you lose 1 for 6th, and lose 2 for seventh. Then the sum of your points is multiplied by the points you earn at regular tables, and divided by a thousand. The difference between this formula and the original is division by 100000 overall instead of 10000 (because I convert the percentages to decimals), since regular table scores are much larger yearly than monthly. I might also use a different weighting... the current 4/3/2/1/0/-1/-2 I think doesn't take enough for seventh. I propose 5/3/1/0/-1/-2/-3, keeping in mind that bad starts often cause 7ths. Would anyone be interested? I could do top 100 monthly if anyone would want to see that also. |
|
greekboi wrote
at 1:26 AM, Friday August 6, 2010 EDT yeah lets do it for this month see if its cool
|
|
|
greekboi wrote
at 1:27 AM, Friday August 6, 2010 EDT for the record though im not a TAZD hater i think its cool...although i still dont get how noam's stats add up to a high tazd they dont look like anyone else's near the top
|
|
its really chase wrote
at 1:35 AM, Friday August 6, 2010 EDT quantity over quality
|
|
leekstep wrote
at 2:20 AM, Friday August 6, 2010 EDT I think that would be close to TAPL (or TAZD?)
A really interesting 'alternative' would be to give a stronger bonus for 1sts while leaving a similar value ratio to what you mentioned for all other 6 losing positions. |
|
the full monte wrote
at 8:04 AM, Friday August 6, 2010 EDT noam destroys tazd, because tazd is a sum of squared differences from the expected values (which are obtained by averaging the lowest ranked 100, if i remember right).
since it's a squared difference, it doesn't matter if you have more or less than the expected value. let's look at 7th place percentages. if the expected is 18%, and ive got a good month where i only get 6% 7ths, that means i get 12^2=144 points (these are all estimates, skrum will attest). but if you look at noams percentages, he has an insane percentage of 7ths (i.e. he sucks), like 46%. thus, he gets 28^2=784 points. if this is the case, i would suggest that skrum tweak the formula so that it remains a squared difference, but not a strict sum. have positions 1st->3rd be a sum, and positions 5th->7th be a negative sum. not sure how to handle 4th. if this were done, noams insane tazd would all of a sudden be an insanely negative tazd. |
|
skrumgaer wrote
at 8:29 AM, Friday August 6, 2010 EDT Monte:
Noam has responded in regard to why he has so many sevenths (on the thread on the Advisorblog). On zero level tables he cuts his losses quickly, considering fourths, fifths, sixths, and sevenths to be equivalent. If your score is zero, you suffer no point penalty for a bad place of finish. In insurance lingo, this is called moral hazard. If you have insurance, you tend to take more risky behavior. Since noam is not gaming the TAZD, and the TAZD is not the cause of his having so many sevenths, I will let his TAZD stand. He has chosen the strategy that seems best to him to improve his score at kDice. If you think that he should not be leading the 2010 TAZD, play more games. |
|
Vermont wrote
at 9:43 AM, Friday August 6, 2010 EDT Why should his rationale for WHY he got that many 7ths matter? It's still overwhelmingly obvious that his statistics are terrible yet he is "winning" the TAZD. The bottom line, which several of us have already mentioned, is that the TAZD is in no way tied to skill, merely deviation from the average.
The bottom line is that the calculation has nothing to do with skill; it just measures deviation from the average. That's great and all, but honestly, who cares, especially when it gives someone with such obviously poor %s not just a good position, but the top spot. The calculation chloe suggests is far more useful and would actually rank skill, rather than how much you can differ from 14% in any place. |
|
|
the full monte wrote
at 9:48 AM, Friday August 6, 2010 EDT chloe's is sort of like a merger between tazd and points (how Ryan determines who is best). except, Ryan has clear cutoffs between 1st/2nd and 5th/6th.
but i like that it includes PPG, so that fiero cant rape this competition by hiding on 500 tables. oh wait, who is fiero? |
|
|
superxchloe wrote
at 10:11 AM, Friday August 6, 2010 EDT leek: This is a weighted average rather than a goodness of fit test (which measures deviation from some standard) which makes it quite different from the TAPL/TAZD not only because you lose points for low places, but because it doesn't take into account the number of games you've played. The other reason noam is killing in the tazd is because he plays like 500 games a month (whereas monte plays less than 150), and more games = higher tazd.
Monte's description of how the tazd is calculated is accurate- if the expected percentage for first is 12%, getting 10% is equivalent to getting 14%, since they are the same 'distance' from 12. moondust has done this before (http://kdice.com/discussion/topics/44798227 and http://kdice.com/discussion/topics/44798373) but only ever monthly, and nothing's been posted for July. I can do the July stats, and can post them with comparison to the TAZD to illustrate the differences (after my econ final this afternoon). |
|
|
greekboi wrote
at 10:43 AM, Friday August 6, 2010 EDT 15% 14% 11% 7% 9% 10% 31%
12% 11% 11% 10% 7% 9% 37% these are the statistics of a good kdicer? man skrum i thought u were smart but it looks to me like this guy just gets 1-6 roughly evenly, and gets a huge majority of 7ths. good kdicers (i.e. me, monte, etc..) get over 50% 1st-3rd. How can you argue for Tazd when this is the case? |
