Forum
Open discussion about the alternate score ranking
|
superxchloe wrote
at 8:56 PM, Tuesday August 31, 2010 EDT
General opinions?
Should tourney points be included, rather than games*ppg? What do you think about the current weighting? It's 4/3/2/1/0/-1/-2 which is close to 1 (.98) for someone with 14 percent across the board. What about a minimum number of games? I've been hovering around 30-35 for the current month, but I'd like to see what the general consensus is. Keep in mind that having a larger number of games is NOT advantageous to the asr. What about adding a component that makes having a larger number of games advantageous? For example, multiplying further by the cube root of the number of games is an option. This gives an edge to those with a large number of games, but the disparity between the multiplier for 100 games and 500 games is relatively small as compared to the tapl/tazd (4.64 and 7.93 versus 10 and 22.4). Alternatively, I could add a quarter of the number of games played to the score or half the number of games played to the asr or something like that. Some reference info: The average asr of the top 100, after removing outliers (loobee, monte, and nexon) is 226 (standard dev. 147) while the average number of games played is 258 (standard dev 145). If there's more info you want, let me know. |
|
Contador wrote
at 12:39 AM, Wednesday September 1, 2010 EDT 1. tl;dr
2. Ideas belong in the ideas section. 3. Assuming it's a good idea, it won't get implemented, just like the thousands of good ideas floating around here. 4. Stop trying to be useful with your standard deviation business. No one cares. 5. If that's an actual picture of you, I feel sorry for you. |
|
kdiceplaya! wrote
at 1:30 AM, Wednesday September 1, 2010 EDT I don't understand exactly what this measures, though i like the idea of additional stats. Good work Chloe!
Also, WTF is contador's problem? I mean, really? What an A-Hole Comment on an idea post. Go be mean to yourself instead, and put the mirror back on the wall buddy. Finally...Chloe=Super Cute |
|
skrumgaer wrote
at 6:45 AM, Wednesday September 1, 2010 EDT Chloe, you are cute.
Walt Whitman wrote: I have perceiv?d that to be with those I like is enough, To stop in company with the rest at evening is enough, To be surrounded by beautiful, curious, breathing, laughing flesh is enough, To pass among them, or touch any one, or rest my arm ever so lightly round his or her neck for a moment?what is this, then? |
|
|
superxchloe wrote
at 6:58 AM, Wednesday September 1, 2010 EDT it's not an idea Contador. It's a stat I've been running this month that moondust has run inconsistently in the past. I wouldn't have titled this 'open discussion' if it were an idea.
And thank you, skrum and kdp. [: |
|
Vermont wrote
at 9:25 AM, Wednesday September 1, 2010 EDT Chloe, this scoring method is far superior to the TAZD. Thanks for being willing to actually listen to concerns and keep this going. You rock.
|
|
jurgen wrote
at 9:44 AM, Wednesday September 1, 2010 EDT in short, my opinion on this subject
* yes you rock chloe! * no tourney points * weighing looks perfect or you need to go with halves: 5/3/1,5/0,5/0/1/-2 * my guts says 35-40 maybe even 50 but as long as it's 30+ it seems good * the same good stats over 200 games should get a (small) bonus over the same stats with 50 games |
|
|
skrumgaer wrote
at 9:49 AM, Wednesday September 1, 2010 EDT Vermont should know.
He placed 62nd in the asr and 71st in the TAZD. |
|
dasfury wrote
at 11:04 AM, Wednesday September 1, 2010 EDT Open response: i approve if im in the top 10.
|
|
|
superxchloe wrote
at 11:19 AM, Wednesday September 1, 2010 EDT Yeah jurgen, as I've mentioned previously I don't mind encouraging people to play more games. Maybe a 20 point bonus for every hundred games played or similar?
|
|
|
superxchloe wrote
at 11:20 AM, Wednesday September 1, 2010 EDT btw das you were 7th for August.
|
