Since this stat merely measures variation from the norm, and has nothing to do with actual skill, why are we still promoting it?

Granted, we all like to win stuff (I'm about ~35th, not that bad...I just need to play more games evidently) but can't we use one of the other stats?

Perhaps one that doesn't rank 0% firsts the same as 28% firsts? Or one that doesn't rank 20% firsts as just as beneficial as 20% sevenths? (I'm assuming you are using 14% as your norm for each place.)

verms, as much as chloe and i appreciate you trying to convince skrum about the weaknesses of tazd, i bet she finds it equally annoying that we have both posted at least twice explaining that the 14% norm is for TAPL, whereas TAZD does NOT use 14% norm, but the average of the worst 100 players. skrum has this detailed in one of his blog posts.

but even though i am apparently 1st this month, i agree that TAZD should be tweaked in such a way to reward positive deviation for 1st through 3rd and penalize positive deviation for 5th through 7th. or hell, make it reflect Ryan's definitions of 1st through 7th, so that 1st a superhigh positive reward for deviation, 3rd gets a tiny positive reward (like the +10 at every table level), and 7th gets a superlow. TAZD is a great base to start with, it just needs a tweak.

Honestly, regardless of the zero datum you pick, the calculation is still completely lousy as far as indicating skill. Have a super high % of 4ths (or 7ths)? Up goes your TAZD!

Have a really low percentage of 1sts? Up goes your TAZD!

Serves no real point.

(Assuming 14% makes the math simpler. The critiques are still true. The specific percentages are listed on skrum's wall.)

And monte, what you propose is basically exactly what I proposed in the previous tazd thread, which is what someone else proposed in the thread before that.

But since skrum is the only one with the patience/time/desire to do the math, we'll gladly take whatever he puts out there. (Thanks skrum, even if I am being a big pain.)

agreed verms. and thanks skrum. if i had the ability to code in a way that i could yank numbers off the internet (i.e. monthly leaderboards, then player stats), then i would love to help you out more than just typing in suggestions. :)

And I thought I was a nerd!

ahah nix

Vermont:

If variation from the norm is not accounted for by skill, what accounts for it?

monte:

I do have a stat that measures skill at a table, the convolution integral. Here are the players ranked by CI:

#DIV/0! Bombardier DS 65
1.00 happytoscrap
0.61 Shevar
0.47 Optical
0.43 Rowdyazell
0.43 the full monte
0.40 ourbee1985
0.38 Fatman_x
0.36 Gurgi
0.34 Gauntlet15
0.34 BAMMBI
0.34 Vermont
0.33 Straffestof
0.31 kolof
0.31 crystal4444
0.30 jokerswild91
0.29 leeeroy jenkins
0.28 GreekScrbbles
0.28 Panpil
0.28 Solimyr
0.27 DoubleDogDareYa
0.27 Dex Dexter
0.26 Iumentum
0.26 nexon
0.26 Zosod
0.25 Loobee
0.25 espyy
0.24 look-ic
0.24 PeaceDog
0.23 fgfx
0.23 tommy walker
0.22 segamatic
0.22 HadjiMurad
0.21 .3rdbase.
0.21 the reaI nix
0.21 kostur
0.21 cool g
0.20 Mustang
0.19 droppinSCIENCE
0.19 skylancer
0.18 rmc
0.17 Donald Krunk
0.17 ModHat_Sam
0.17 pizza_the_hutt
0.17 AlexBallDrop
0.17 Kdice_CPR
0.17 ffbsensei
0.17 Noob Slayer
0.17 Redge100
0.16 stinkydude
0.16 One Cup
0.15 kdiceplaya!
0.14 kalande
0.14 EddyB
0.14 Jily
0.14 Dauphin
0.14 barmat
0.13 StopHammerTime
0.13 Mitsi the cat
0.13 ManOMan
0.12 Drucifer85
0.12 avifer
0.12 70PriestJubie
0.12 Fonias
0.12 zaxxon
0.11 jurgen
0.11 t1n
0.10 franklyghost
0.10 NO_CHAT
0.10 XzibitX
0.09 Sensei_Mata
0.09 aismo
0.09 rocka09
0.08 Az_Balu
0.07 DJohnson
0.07 orland
0.07 novajlija
0.07 stakaboo
0.07 Jitterbug
0.07 greekboi
0.06 pacode
0.06 phuze
0.05 CaptainFantastic
0.04 crabface
0.03 demos70
0.02 ziada
0.02 REMCO
0.00 TheONLYprophet
0.00 EInegro
-0.01 CriticalDog
-0.02 THRILLHO
-0.05 Lukazz
-0.06 noamlang1
-0.10 Grisu
-0.11 natewoof
-0.13 MadHat_Sam
-0.15 vashthestabde
-0.21 PATTIE CAKES
-0.23 Kehoe
-0.26 bhp12345

Unfortunately, it does not account for average level of table. If we had total buy-in or buy-in per game **cough** we could put that in.

The weightings are for the old scoring. The weights are:

90 40 15 -10 -30-45 -60

skrum: POSITIVE variation from the norm for higher positions, and NEGATIVE variation from the norm for lower positions.

i think it was chloe that made the argument that the way TAZD is now, you are vehemently defending the idea that it takes massive amounts of skill to do the following 1 thousand times:

1) click sit in
2) wait for game to start
3) instantly flag 7th as soon as game starts

we all agree (except you) that this is the opposite of skill. yet TAZD rewards this play, because it simply rewards devation, and not just the correct deviation (100% 7ths should be penalized, not rewarded).

please tell me if you are not following this argument. cheers.