.net
All site revenue goes to charity

Subject: Netcell Tournament Rankings - "golf style"

Date: Sun Apr 9 03:18:47 2017
User: joeygray
Message:
I here present the "golf-like" overall netcell tournament ranking system. It is modeled very closely after the world golf rankings, which are suitable IMO to the sort of competition we have here. I have chosen what I believe to be reasonable numbers for the minumum ranking of the various tournament types, and give them below in the themes table; these are certainly open to debate and tweaking from the community in the event ya'll find this ranking system interesting and/or valuable. The diminishing returns table is tweaked due to our circumstance of having a lot more tournaments than professional golfers do; again, let me know what you think. The other tables are pretty much taken straight from the world golf ranking calculation documentation you can find on the internet.

** Rules **

1) The week starts with the first tournament after the Masters, and ends a week later with the Masters
2) The ranking period is the previous 12 weeks.
full points for the most recent three weeks
one tenth deduction for each week 4-12. no points older than 12 weeks. See age-out table.
3) Any tournament whose winner did not win half the available games is not counted in the rankings
for deadly and hard-mix tournaments, this number is 3/8ths the available games
this will guard against glitches in the sytem after tournaments are barely underway
occasionally no one participates in a tournament. By definition such tournaments are not counted
4) Each tournament is rated according to its field strength subject to the following adjustments
the nominal field strength is 1/3 the sum of the field's field strength points
if a player has a top 200 ranking in the previous week, the field strength points are as in the rankings table
if a player is not a serious participant, his contribution to the field strength is 1/3 his strength points
a serious participant is one who wins at least half as many games as the winner did
if a player was not ranked in the top 200, the player's field strength points are zero.
if it's a new player to the ratings, the player's field strength points are zero.
each tournament has a minimum ranking as specified in the themes table (Masters is highest)
each tournament with less than 8 serious participants is set to its minimum ranking
5) Each participant in a tournament is granted TR*FNM gross rating points. For now only the top 15 finishers get points.
TR is the tournament rating as described in (4)
FNM is the finish multiplier as given in the finish table. The winner gets the full points, second
gets 0.6, and so on. The table is longer than 15 in case we become able to report more than
the 15 finishers as currently limited. I'm showing 27 to give the idea of how they diminish.
note that there are no ties: even if the wins and times show the same (which would be rare) ,
we assume whichever one is showing first is a split second faster than the latter one.
6) For each week, the final weekly rating is the sum of granted points divided by tournaments played
7) The overall rating is the sum of all rating points over 12 weeks, with weeks 4-12 diminished as above (2),
divided by the number of tournaments played in those weeks.
8) There is a minimum divisor of 7 for weekly rankings, and of 36 for 12 week rankings. See min div table.
9) After sorting players by overall rating, the field strength points for the next week are assigned. See strength table.
The ranking table shows what they were for this (past) weeks ranking, they'll be recalculated before the next run.
10) All players participating in any non-ignored (3) tournament will be ranked (ie, Dr's are ranked)

** END Rules **
Themes Time nr games min rank
Masters 115 36 100
Australian Open 115 d 48 50
British Open 115 d b 48 50
US Open 115 b 36 50
Freakout 115 h 16 40
Threat 85 16 40
Spelunker 85 b h 16 40
Traditional 55 16 25
Potluck 55 16 25
Skeet Shooting 55 d 24 25
Narrow Straits 40 d b 16 15
Quartets 40 b 16 15
Wide Open 40 20 15
Zany Zero 40 16 15
All-in-One 25 8 10
Mini 25 8 10
Quickie 25 8 10
Streaker 25 d b 12 10
Super Quickie 25 32 10
Twelve of a Kind 25 d 12 10
Lightning 10 24* 10
age-out
1 1
2 1
3 1
4 0.9
5 0.8
6 0.7
7 0.6
8 0.5
9 0.4
10 0.3
11 0.2
12 0.1
finish
1 1
2 0.6
3 0.4
4 0.3
5 0.24
6 0.2
7 0.18
8 0.16
9 0.15
10 0.14
11 0.13
12 0.12
13 0.11
14 0.1
15 0.095
16 0.09
17 0.085
18 0.08
19 0.075
20 0.07
21 0.065
22 0.06
23 0.058
24 0.056
25 0.054
26 0.052
27 0.05
ranking strength
1 45
2 37
3 32
4 27
5 24
6 21
7 20
8 19
9 18
10 17
11 16
12 15
13 14
14 13
15 12
16 11
31 10
35 9
39 8
44 7
51 6
56 5
61 4
71 3
81 2
101 1
10000 0
minimum divisor
1 7
2 13
3 18
4 22
5 25
6 28
7 30
8 32
9 33
10 34
11 35
12 36

* almost all themes have their number of games sized to be 'slightly more than what a medium skilled player could finish in the given time'. Lightning, on the other hand, geared as it is for the extreme speedster, is sized so that even the maximum-skill player would be hard pressed to finish them all in that time. (I know, sometimes it is still accomplished!) Accordingly, too many times my software was rejecting Lightnings under rule 3 above, so now my software treats Lightnings special: only 6 wins in 10 minutes by the winner is enough to legitimize that one. Even so Lightnings are still rejected more than any other tournament.

Why have a 'legitimacy' rule (rule 3) at all? I wanted to prevent gaming of the rankings: as much as possible, to prevent a single player from manipulating the rankings by playing more than once in the same tournament.

The d, b, and h columns stand for deadly, blind, and hard-mix tournaments, as players of them already know. At this time blind has no effect at all, and deadly and hard only affect how many games I expect the winner to accomplish as part of the rule 3 test. This, too, is open for discussion. Should these characteristics affect the rating points in some way? If so, I would also add an e (easy) column for such calculation. Also, there is no formal h designation, I invented it for my purposes, but maybe there's some disagreement about which tournaments should be called hard-mix.

*-*-*-*-*

246 players (or that is to say, 246 distinct nicks, some of which are really duplicates I strongly suspect) have played in a tournament since the first of the year. There are 240 tournaments each week, except for the week that had daylight savings time shift in it. From 3 to 10 a week, say 5 on average, have either no participants at all or its winner did not meet rule 3 criteria and it didn't get included. I'm sure some of those actually had serious participation and 'should have' counted, but that's the best I could do with history; perhaps we can devise a way to include future tournaments of that ilk. Anyway, about 2800 tournaments in the past 12 weeks, of which an astounding 901 were played by kenwa.

The post that follows is the top 100 ranked players by this system. I ran all tournaments for the first of the year that followed the Masters on January 1st. The week ending with January 8th's Masters has already aged off. I didn't save any individual week results, so we can consider this post to be the first of these rankings, but they do include 12 weeks of data AND the ranking that came from the week before that. I can report that WRAC has led after every single week. He wins more than half the tournys he enters, finishes in the top three of practically all of them, and he only plays the highest ranked tournaments by minimum rank, so he's kinda hard to beat.

I intend to put out a weekly ranking table, too, which will give in more detail who played what and how they did in the previous week. Time permitting and/or community interest expressed, that is.

Of course I owe big shout-out to the previous ratings crew regime, whose efforts were so much more than this - they designed all the tournaments in the first place, as well as the schedule, and they interfaced with Denny to get the hooks that are in place for me to do this ranking, and their ranking view capability was so much richer than this one. If that system could ever be restored, I'd drop this one in half a heartbeat. Nevertheless, a ranking system is better than no ranking system, IMVHO.

And a moment of silence for our fallen comrade SlowPoker.

Date: Sun Apr 9 03:19:48 2017
User: joeygray
Message:
02 Apr 26 Mar 19 Mar 12 Mar 05 Mar 26 Feb 19 Feb 12 Feb 05 Feb 29 Jan 22 Jan 15 Jan wRate oRate
1411 9 231 6 371 10 362 9 435 10 279 7 76 2 60 1 329 8 334 9 394 9 164 5 45.73 25.66 WRAC
280 2 185 5 277 6 80 3 41 2 104 3 139 4 244 12 209 4 187 4 157 6 130 17 11.43 16.88 Kaos
3230 15 510 25 532 26 437 22 187 11 437 27 348 18 342 14 145 9 32 3 60 2 30 4 15.37 15.9 calicokid
4164 7 68 5 39 3 375 19 193 15 592 27 337 17 264 18 388 21 343 15 261 17 202 3 23.5 11.97 Mastermind
50 0 169 14 68 8 33 2 0 0 78 4 29 3 99 6 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 . 10.93 4cell
6529 34 571 32 239 15 195 18 581 31 402 23 712 37 312 20 430 28 459 32 553 27 654 21 15.57 10.49 ValpoJim
7127 12 187 18 99 9 55 4 204 15 130 9 15 3 69 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 4 10.63 10.15 jimmyp
862 5 170 13 146 9 277 24 78 9 104 10 146 11 189 15 84 7 73 6 6 1 0 0 8.86 9.87 Crunch
999 5 256 13 206 9 224 8 137 6 0 0 235 13 135 8 295 15 231 10 439 24 146 43 14.21 9.78 Darkosi
101092 79 998 78 987 76 1280 89 1677 115 1048 75 1080 79 1247 83 952 59 1183 75 1296 84 932 9 13.83 9.76 kenwa
11263 18 220 8 258 15 255 12 96 5 40 1 271 14 476 25 87 4 352 22 278 18 418 35 14.61 9.43 arch1
12165 14 127 10 170 18 313 21 183 11 288 22 129 10 176 12 134 7 137 9 58 6 167 10 11.85 8.79 DAB
13360 23 301 29 248 16 254 21 312 26 274 19 306 16 261 23 283 24 265 16 262 16 292 8 15.67 8.77 bozkurt
14408 26 246 30 292 23 430 35 387 35 507 38 284 20 411 28 447 29 282 21 330 23 367 4 15.7 8.3 Beowulf
15234 25 305 27 120 11 487 38 487 38 326 27 367 26 408 32 388 26 492 30 246 23 283 27 9.39 8.29 aschdog
16195 23 191 19 225 25 288 30 407 40 179 17 114 18 125 13 177 22 21 4 145 16 0 0 8.51 7.41 xmanlover
17547 50 480 41 295 32 444 38 153 18 456 42 361 40 103 11 448 44 540 46 419 37 638 21 10.94 7.2 yummi
18189 38 301 43 33 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.98 6.99 lionelhutz
1914 1 51 2 0 0 36 2 13 1 34 2 70 3 0 0 86 3 0 0 26 2 40 16 2. 6.59 doormat
2035 3 75 7 4 1 36 3 34 3 73 6 19 2 40 2 51 7 76 7 26 3 73 5 5.03 6.53 j-ann
21246 24 184 13 217 21 166 18 123 11 81 10 159 19 112 10 181 16 115 14 240 23 119 8 10.27 6.44 AndreaDoria
2212 1 40 1 30 1 20 1 40 1 80 3 32 2 12 1 30 1 26 2 27 2 34 25 1.71 6.39 twosheds
2350 5 9 2 0 0 19 3 65 9 94 10 0 0 48 5 58 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 7.28 6.17 hibdibblyabob
2417 3 206 17 47 6 73 12 211 14 308 37 288 25 327 34 229 25 163 19 242 28 548 31 2.43 6.13 sprucegoose
2598 14 102 14 214 30 186 34 55 10 106 17 91 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7.04 6.01 limle
26115 17 78 14 132 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.78 5.85 dpen1000
2762 7 60 9 76 8 120 11 402 36 0 0 291 18 147 10 109 10 230 19 114 10 81 54 8.96 5.83 Pomodoro
2857 5 3 1 36 3 23 2 49 7 38 6 73 6 39 5 63 5 112 5 12 1 133 14 8.23 5.73 mike_la_jolla
29209 13 125 12 53 5 24 3 30 3 92 5 50 3 0 0 124 12 640 44 1005 59 123 13 16.11 5.65 byronsmoot
3074 10 81 10 534 43 518 64 551 61 264 26 323 34 292 31 444 45 364 38 333 36 235 77 7.48 5.64 smkltclnk
31114 8 157 10 139 10 48 4 111 10 41 5 76 7 77 6 46 2 38 4 186 12 85 50 14.26 5.49 BrownsRedSox
32456 33 15 1 0 0 0 0 215 15 539 47 361 28 574 42 634 47 476 40 483 49 425 67 13.85 5.47 rudo
33146 17 143 20 117 11 76 9 51 6 177 21 253 25 190 19 210 29 121 14 175 20 214 20 8.62 5.45 tigertiger
3445 7 82 11 95 11 82 15 96 11 0 0 98 11 112 12 76 10 136 13 43 5 42 8 6.52 5.43 kim1234567
35123 18 155 20 192 24 201 28 156 21 142 16 62 8 51 6 128 19 252 21 203 24 135 11 6.88 5.39 LightRider
36115 15 133 18 119 15 175 15 107 13 288 26 260 29 281 27 29 4 463 48 292 33 100 10 7.7 5.38 watersmooth_silver
37644 84 637 81 663 76 674 86 388 56 275 42 521 74 789 93 685 81 489 51 441 63 651 27 7.67 5.25 Juniper33
3830 5 37 7 26 6 44 5 45 4 7 2 3 1 0 0 44 8 3 1 51 5 0 0 4.41 5.03 Julian
3979 12 94 12 138 14 72 8 117 17 0 0 133 16 140 20 218 19 95 12 113 14 122 12 6.59 5.03 d164280
40147 19 147 20 203 23 96 15 88 13 131 18 133 22 190 20 155 16 124 14 108 16 94 7 7.76 4.95 bugbiten
41167 25 141 20 135 21 105 16 151 12 77 8 54 8 0 0 85 9 112 18 88 15 162 13 6.69 4.86 crre
422 1 46 8 24 3 95 16 67 18 69 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .34 4.79 TOAST
4349 8 59 8 151 17 133 17 78 12 35 8 79 10 40 6 80 7 120 10 32 4 1 28 6.2 4.57 golm
4424 7 18 2 18 4 67 13 28 2 93 13 41 10 110 18 25 6 17 2 4 1 9 0 3.53 4.54 sweety
4529 9 26 6 80 21 99 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.33 4.49 komugi
46319 51 303 45 253 42 259 45 105 15 299 46 298 45 312 46 316 46 140 23 433 52 391 6 6.27 4.33 bort
4746 12 59 10 71 10 33 4 78 11 43 10 34 9 21 4 12 2 0 0 27 6 31 4 3.85 4.19 cellerdweller
48200 31 242 28 147 25 206 38 244 42 196 29 159 30 285 50 237 34 182 25 166 29 258 13 6.47 4.13 Ideasbrewing
4977 9 58 8 0 0 0 0 2 1 42 5 68 6 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 8.63 4.1 gilbertgame27171
5055 9 17 4 74 10 84 12 21 4 16 3 15 3 113 14 69 10 53 9 93 15 69 10 6.13 4.03 bosquer
51332 60 360 62 391 61 313 60 257 45 384 68 226 37 433 70 411 58 253 47 147 28 179 12 5.53 4.03 ketzell
520 0 0 0 0 0 30 3 31 1 6 1 0 0 44 1 27 4 64 2 0 0 31 8 . 3.98 zippyquick
5317 4 91 17 81 17 82 18 190 32 102 20 173 26 128 19 160 27 152 25 105 15 26 5 2.54 3.95 Sylvie6
5421 4 26 4 19 2 18 3 10 2 12 1 41 3 39 6 53 6 64 7 28 2 81 16 3.1 3.91 bigeds
55187 32 67 14 210 42 120 27 182 34 72 13 200 33 112 19 53 11 211 28 116 26 231 1 5.86 3.8 panchi
5626 5 29 5 83 13 44 8 14 3 198 27 254 34 132 22 71 9 88 11 56 11 113 20 3.84 3.8 powerlifter
5750 4 47 7 16 3 0 0 40 6 17 4 0 0 7 2 34 7 40 6 23 2 5 1 7.28 3.76 sissigonfle
5865 12 66 13 82 11 82 15 65 14 92 17 33 7 98 16 98 15 82 14 98 15 55 5 5.46 3.76 imeldamary
5940 6 35 5 34 5 50 5 26 4 21 4 33 5 28 5 62 9 36 5 127 27 20 3 5.82 3.73 1patricia65
6018 4 21 3 32 8 5 1 13 3 0 0 7 1 73 11 23 6 0 0 5 1 0 0 2.69 3.71 sonnycrockett
61135 15 114 21 96 16 177 24 120 21 193 34 123 21 82 15 161 26 215 32 124 24 173 14 9.02 3.66 crochetdeb1
626 1 24 1 25 3 9 1 0 0 29 4 60 4 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .86 3.62 gilbert10021
6332 5 60 14 54 6 69 10 51 10 63 11 25 4 43 10 0 0 31 6 117 16 73 7 4.64 3.54 Peedles
64110 26 171 32 124 18 66 14 169 32 66 13 210 40 174 31 177 34 96 16 175 34 92 11 4.24 3.5 sterling8
6520 2 15 2 26 2 28 3 26 3 20 1 0 0 0 0 18 1 9 1 0 0 9 2 2.88 3.5 MurphysLaw
6650 12 38 4 53 8 10 3 0 0 0 0 50 11 99 25 83 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.21 3.48 webdbbt
6794 23 152 34 208 47 111 28 207 44 238 49 162 32 106 30 165 32 191 46 0 0 0 0 4.11 3.47 riverdog129
683 1 0 0 0 0 56 11 165 27 135 28 46 13 166 34 124 28 20 4 0 0 28 4 .45 3.47 rwl1001
6979 17 62 8 32 9 51 13 30 8 51 15 30 8 80 12 24 6 27 7 51 9 2 0 4.65 3.41 horizone
7042 10 92 19 64 15 66 13 83 17 52 9 39 9 63 18 32 11 39 12 70 11 25 3 4.21 3.38 maisey
71133 31 61 15 146 26 87 15 134 23 101 18 61 11 107 22 111 23 108 20 44 13 109 10 4.32 3.38 anaccount
7275 17 25 6 42 5 48 8 22 3 110 16 96 16 99 19 137 23 75 12 36 10 77 5 4.46 3.32 bluedog
7379 17 44 6 55 8 29 7 91 17 81 15 141 28 56 9 74 13 76 14 54 9 84 23 4.69 3.32 leewayne
74121 28 37 8 234 44 237 50 234 49 209 40 254 44 239 48 233 45 296 50 287 49 241 8 4.32 3.28 gocargo
7574 17 58 11 53 14 47 8 114 18 5 1 50 11 101 20 111 21 152 25 85 17 147 3 4.35 3.26 retiredk9ed
7613 2 25 4 9 2 14 3 6 2 27 4 32 6 54 5 70 10 16 2 25 3 20 11 1.94 3.22 HeyFatLady
77106 33 177 38 155 31 132 35 97 20 157 34 193 38 154 29 140 26 276 45 158 34 262 9 3.22 3.21 Katya
786 1 0 0 35 6 19 2 40 7 34 6 176 23 17 3 117 20 191 26 154 19 145 18 .86 3.16 jbranick3
7941 9 8 3 46 7 30 7 36 7 32 6 61 10 30 8 19 5 34 5 34 10 52 4 4.63 3.14 LKLPT
8072 15 57 16 94 11 58 13 15 4 24 7 66 14 90 18 46 11 63 12 84 17 46 5 4.86 3.11 sticky2
8189 16 88 21 73 17 67 15 41 10 17 4 36 8 83 17 62 15 95 16 39 9 70 6 5.62 3.02 wes
82133 30 78 23 128 36 101 31 114 30 66 18 69 17 79 20 33 11 0 0 0 0 5 1 4.46 3.01 teacher93
8354 10 69 11 72 12 59 10 89 14 95 15 58 8 61 13 26 6 41 7 59 12 52 46 5.42 3. Jonesey
8450 14 148 24 125 22 95 17 23 6 38 5 69 13 19 5 218 40 180 30 136 27 158 33 3.64 2.97 skipperocky
8554 11 86 19 80 18 70 18 34 6 46 11 27 7 17 7 39 13 28 9 4 3 18 9 4.92 2.95 Harbour-Carew
8640 5 25 5 24 6 55 12 52 5 27 5 27 5 66 10 54 9 41 7 57 8 17 24 5.83 2.92 mollynana
8740 9 23 5 13 4 11 3 37 6 61 15 58 10 44 12 35 7 62 14 23 5 5 1 4.49 2.92 Townie
8843 6 12 3 13 3 0 0 20 3 4 2 22 5 15 2 30 5 29 4 9 3 3 1 6.24 2.92 Dr.quack
8938 8 44 10 59 15 86 17 74 20 93 19 54 13 78 16 85 17 114 23 49 12 61 11 4.75 2.92 helka
9034 9 57 11 40 9 73 14 58 13 68 15 32 7 87 17 28 5 79 16 54 8 60 15 3.8 2.91 rufus_r
9112 4 37 9 83 19 69 15 9 2 26 8 31 6 13 4 13 3 43 10 49 12 34 13 1.74 2.88 edc
9213 4 70 19 28 8 47 16 42 14 36 11 21 5 26 6 41 10 0 0 6 2 12 2 1.89 2.83 julie
93118 21 115 19 70 17 69 20 57 15 38 10 70 17 94 20 63 17 91 16 107 22 71 1 5.62 2.81 jackresnick
9454 11 40 7 51 6 45 11 72 14 64 15 48 10 67 13 50 8 51 12 46 11 43 27 4.97 2.8 steveq
9525 7 62 15 26 8 41 11 73 16 113 20 51 14 33 9 47 12 42 13 82 17 25 10 3.59 2.77 rocharl
9630 7 25 7 18 5 4 1 5 1 2 1 27 8 59 13 40 10 0 0 0 0 8 1 4.31 2.71 mpaccm
9728 9 27 9 28 8 35 10 40 10 38 10 36 8 64 20 21 5 45 11 18 5 15 1 3.14 2.69 emjay

Date: Mon Apr 10 10:26:10 2017
User: TNmountainman
Message:
Wow, joey, that's an impressive amount of work and dedication. From someone who's not a tournament player (yet), I sure hope when you tackle the "Netcell Tournament Rankings - Gangnam style", that a lot of that work will not need to be done from scratch. Bravo!

Date: Mon Apr 10 12:10:20 2017
User: joeygray
Message:
Thanks, TN. I called it golf-style to distinguish it from the previous ratings system, which is ELO-style. Maybe there's a real term for what style it is, though. Anyway I was happy to stand on giants' shoulders here; coming up with brand new rating system would have been daunting.

Date: Mon Apr 10 20:18:13 2017
User: WRAC
Message:
Very interesting, joey - thanks for doing this! I would be remiss if I didn't point out that the only reason calicokid isn't leading the pack is because he plays a lot of partial tourneys (starting late, dropping out early, popping in for a few games in the middle). He probably wins at least 90% of the time when he plays for the full duration... at least in the themes I compete in. I can beat him on occasion, but it's definitely the exception when it happens. Kaos, ValpoJim, Mastermind, jimmyp, Beowulf and no doubt a bunch of others also do this to a lesser extent, lowering their ratings too. In other words, my current lead isn't nearly as impressive as it may look. :-) That said, it's still interesting to see where people show up, and very much matches my impression of player skill (after allowing for partial play). Great job!

Date: Mon Apr 10 23:42:08 2017
User: joeygray
Message:
.bow WRAC I have this week's ratings, the code to do them is already done, but posting is delayed while I work three issues: 1) I'm aware, because I used to play it myself back in the day, that the Masters attracts more than 15 players; it was 25 this week. I know because I took a snap of the results at 19:56 EST, just after tournament end and before that gets overwritten at 20:00. I have a mind to incorporate this snap and maybe snaps for certain other tournaments into the rankings and software has to change to do that. I will await for now suggestions from ya'll as to which other tournaments but I can't sign up to do all 240 of them every week. That would call for something like a continuous background task. Did I mention I'm running on an old Dell E510 with Windows XP? WRAC, did you guys ever try to get Denny to save all the finishers instead of just the top 15? Also, I forget whether you guys did this snapping, or just stuck to the top 15 he saves. 2) I'm analyzing the "theme minimums" in light of the idea that the minimum ought to reflect more or less what that tournament usually would get without minimums. Analysis pending. 3) I said I would put out a weekly and an overall result table, but I'm working on a more condensed display that would do both on the same report. I'm pretty sure nobody is really all that interested in all eleven past week columns, even though I need them to do the age off process, so I'll lump them and use the extra space for more interesting stuff. I'll decide shortly whether I'm bogged down and I should just post the weekly run as is, or whether i will do new stuff for this week.

Date: Tue Apr 11 03:31:45 2017
User: Katya
Message:
This is a great idea, Joey. Thanks for all the hard work. I think that since the previous ratings disappeared a number of people have been jumping into tournaments whenever. I know that many times I will play a few games in a tournament in the last few minutes if I log in early to play one that I was particularly planning on. Now if we know about ratings again we'll have to be careful to play from the beginning. It'll be interesting to see how rankings change, though I'm sure the top players will stay about where they are now.

Date: Tue Apr 11 17:44:04 2017
User: WRAC
Message:
No need for snaps, joey - complete results are available. I'll send you more information on this privately.

Date: Tue Apr 11 19:02:48 2017
User: jimmyp
Message:
Boy, does this bring back the memories. I remember obsessing over ratings, and there were a few disputes about them. I remember calling out one player who would play one game and then quit if he wasn't in the lead (as you could complete one game and it wouldn't count in the ratings). I remember once starting really late and playing only one game, then starting another and accidentally completing it just before the closing bell, finishing something like 25th and losing 100 points off my rating (edit: it was 157 "unsmoothed" points, which I recovered in 10 games). I remember charting my ratings over time (I can still picture the tablet I started writing them on, keeping it hidden in my work desk). I kinda like being freed from being obsessed over ratings, but that's more on me than it is on the ratings. I am still free to start a quickie 15 minutes in if I want and not worry about it, right? (Oh, shoot, 7:02, I need to start a tournament. Should I? I'm two minutes late. Maybe I'll play one game and check the scoreboard...)

Date: Tue Apr 11 23:43:32 2017
User: joeygray
Message:
Hmmm. I hadn't thought about that aspect jimmyp: to what extent we all have been 'free' of the ratings. Heh heh. For me personally, when there were no ratings any more I stopped playing the tournaments, entirely. But maybe that means *I* got the maximum benefit from that freedom! This is heavy man. Sure you can lose rating in this system too, by playing a few meaningless games at the end of a tournament. Nobody really gains them, so it's not unfair, but you still lose them. I guess throwaway nicks is the way to go. WRAC: Excrement with a capital S! I spent the better part of 4 hours this afternoon changing my software to inject snapshots. Got it working, too. Why oh why didn't I wait a day and then see your post???! Anyways I can be reached at - wait! I just looked over there and you already found me! Cool cause I hate to post my email address anywhere, even that old one. I'll let you know if I have any trouble. Looks like, at first glance, I can mostly use today's code so now lemme retract that capital s.

Date: Tue Apr 11 23:58:03 2017
User: joeygray
Message:
And yeah, I'm just using finishing order, just like in PGA events it don't matter if you beat the next guy behind you by a stroke or ten strokes. Or in our case, by a second or by ten minutes. Iirc the old (Elo) system never took margin of victory into account either, did it? I'd have to look into a Sagarin kind of system.... .e is going to bed

Date: Thu Apr 13 13:04:01 2017
User: joeygray
Message:
09 Apr oR oRPts oG st wR wRPts wG wWn name
1 26.3 3593.78 88 45 38.5 308. 8 5 WRAC
2 20.1 1857.97 55 37 21.69 151.86 4 1 Kaos
3 14.06 3675.73 195 32 17.83 410. 23 15 calicokid
4 11.34 2905.35 156 16 21.91 306.8 14 10 arch1
5 10.91 2368.62 117 18 15.57 109. 6 3 Darkosi
6 10.37 5532.74 330 21 16.48 543.8 33 11 ValpoJim
7 9.72 990.91 83 20 12.71 101.64 8 3 jimmyp
8 9.55 3098.11 169 27 9.82 68.74 5 1 Mastermind
9 9.48 480.96 38 24 . . 0 0 4cell
10 9.11 3593.59 259 14 15.5 464.98 30 13 bozkurt
11 8.81 2025.36 153 15 10.81 140.51 13 5 DAB
12 8.77 13910.76 976 17 12.68 1065.04 84 64 kenwa
13 8.71 1147.23 87 10 12.22 110. 9 0 BrownsRedSox
14 8.49 1472.13 121 19 12.26 134.87 11 3 Crunch
15 8.23 4392.69 332 13 15.18 364.3 24 9 Beowulf
16 7.68 4269.19 334 12 13.03 404.01 31 8 aschdog
17 6.77 2076. 202 11 10.7 246.05 23 3 AndreaDoria
18 6.51 592.46 89 11 6.66 266.6 40 3 dpen1000
19 6.48 2369.21 261 11 8.74 297.07 34 7 xmanlover
20 6.36 4250.63 399 11 . . 0 0 yummi
21 6.27 1616.17 138 11 . . 0 0 Pomodoro
22 6.22 594.43 95 11 7.75 69.71 9 1 lionelhutz
23 6.21 364. 17 11 2.14 15. 1 0 twosheds
24 6.15 472.71 44 11 . . 0 0 j-ann
25 6.03 272.87 32 7 2.33 16.33 2 0 gilbertgame27171
26 5.82 530.27 49 11 2.82 19.72 3 0 mike_la_jolla
27 5.65 999.33 148 11 8.45 143.6 17 4 limle
28 5.6 3756.76 302 10 . . 0 0 rudo
29 5.53 347.29 39 11 . . 0 0 hibdibblyabob
30 5.34 3808.68 401 11 3.5 24.5 3 0 smkltclnk
31 5.3 1918.19 230 9 9.92 248.04 25 3 LightRider
32 5.26 984.51 116 10 11.39 113.87 10 2 kim1234567
33 5.2 330.92 16 11 . . 0 0 doormat
34 5.19 1296.04 179 8 6.54 176.61 27 2 crre
35 5.18 927.34 116 8 7.31 65.75 9 1 golm
36 5.15 1828.25 208 10 9.55 162.3 17 2 tigertiger
37 5.14 2439.96 166 11 11.81 82.68 7 0 byronsmoot
38 5.05 2231.93 233 11 9. 116.98 13 2 sprucegoose
39 4.99 1668.28 213 8 8.35 141.88 17 1 bugbiten
40 4.88 1326.44 160 8 7.69 123.02 16 2 d164280
41 4.86 2378.21 253 9 11.08 110.78 10 2 watersmooth_silver
42 4.83 6378.96 817 9 5.57 167.24 30 1 Juniper33
43 4.69 169. 15 11.27 169. 15 7 Tihh
44 4.52 349.31 53 9 6.11 55. 9 2 Julian
45 4.29 295.52 45 5 2.5 17.5 4 0 sissigonfle
46 4.2 268.2 46 1 6.75 47.23 6 0 boobootori
47 4.17 221.18 20 1 5.88 41.17 6 0 hotnurse
48 4.13 341.79 41 6 .91 6.4 1 0 bigeds
49 4.09 323.29 62 8 2.53 17.7 2 0 TOAST
50 4.04 442.13 80 7 1.76 12.35 2 0 cellerdweller
51 4.03 189.3 17 4 3.66 25.63 2 0 MurphysLaw
52 4.03 3364.45 515 7 5.46 322.25 59 6 bort
53 4. 2491.2 392 7 7.15 221.66 31 3 Ideasbrewing
54 3.93 193.78 18 4 4.21 29.5 3 2 gilbert10021
55 3.81 731.99 125 2 6.21 43.44 7 0 Jonesey
56 3.79 236.61 55 7 . . 0 0 komugi
57 3.75 3712.34 635 6 5.15 200.75 39 1 ketzell
58 3.73 657.57 99 7 6.17 43.21 6 2 bosquer
59 3.71 329.04 48 3 4.66 32.64 5 0 HeyFatLady
60 3.69 1656.77 268 4 5.86 111.37 19 0 crochetdeb1
61 3.57 594.64 102 4 4.54 45.4 10 0 Peedles
62 3.55 1734.03 317 6 5.23 198.55 38 0 panchi
63 3.52 1000.13 148 5 . . 0 0 powerlifter
64 3.52 551.17 85 5 7.74 54.16 5 0 1patricia65
65 3.5 926.93 156 5 8.57 60. 7 0 imeldamary
66 3.45 214.23 38 2 1.71 12. 2 0 Dr.quack
67 3.44 499.19 82 2 3.61 25.27 5 0 mollynana
68 3.41 449.51 78 7 . . 0 0 sweety
69 3.38 714.48 132 1 5.35 107.03 20 1 Ken1232
70 3.31 879.17 156 3 5.16 108.29 21 1 bluedog
71 3.31 209.32 40 5 1.29 9. 2 0 sonnycrockett
72 3.25 172.23 46 1 5. 99.93 20 0 superwombat
73 3.24 1161.32 231 3 4.45 62.36 14 0 anaccount
74 3.21 1670.56 311 4 6.03 126.56 21 1 sterling8
75 3.19 214.07 25 1 . . 0 0 grga
76 3.17 811.71 149 3 3.52 24.66 6 0 leewayne
77 3.1 760.44 154 3 5.25 84.03 16 0 sticky2
78 3.1 429.44 90 4 4.7 42.3 9 0 webdbbt
79 3.09 1235.23 231 2 4.6 128.77 28 0 skipperocky
80 3.07 777.42 167 2 4.34 82.44 19 0 wes
81 3.06 1294.03 222 6 1.14 8. 2 0 Sylvie6
82 3.04 542.7 136 2 3.7 51.73 14 0 Harbour-Carew
83 3.02 545.1 117 4 3.35 23.43 5 0 horizone
84 3. 984.81 208 2 6.23 87.26 14 2 jackresnick

Date: Thu Apr 13 13:16:23 2017
User: joeygray
Message:
Heh. I should have tried it on format_test_please_ignore first... but anyway, not too bad. The column headings are: ---oR: overall rating, the table is sorted on this ---oRPts: rating points accumulated last 12 weeks ---oG : number of tournaments played last 12 weeks ---st: This player's strength-of-field value for this run* ---wR: weekly rating, this past week only ---wRPts: rating points accumulated this week ---wG: tournaments played this week ---wWn: tournaments won this week As you can see, the weekly rating is a straight division, points over games. The overall rating is not, due to the 'age-off' process described in previous post. *Strength of field can sort of be used to see a player's trend, since it reflects where they sorted last week. Maybe more to the point would be for me to save last weeks rank order and print that. I see I've got a little more space in the posted table, any suggestions for another column or two?

Date: Thu Apr 13 13:28:27 2017
User: joeygray
Message:
Oh, and thanks to WRAC's kind efforts in supplying me with the extended finishes, all participants, are included in the calculations. This week this affected the following tournaments: *Run for week ending Sunday, April 09, 2017 "Masters (Sun Apr 9 18:00, 2017) 25 players in the field" "Skeet Shooting (Sun Apr 9 16:00, 2017) 17 players in the field" "Freakout (Sun Apr 9 12:00, 2017) 16 players in the field" "US Open (Sat Apr 8 21:00, 2017) 20 players in the field" "Freakout (Fri Apr 7 18:00, 2017) 19 players in the field" "Spelunker (Wed Apr 5 18:00, 2017) 16 players in the field" "Threat (Wed Apr 5 12:00, 2017) 17 players in the field" "Threat (Tue Apr 4 15:00, 2017) 17 players in the field" "Threat (Mon Apr 3 18:00, 2017) 18 players in the field" "Streaker (Mon Apr 3 17:00, 2017) 16 players in the field" "British Open (Mon Apr 3 15:00, 2017) 23 players in the field" And just for the record, the following tournaments this week did not count: *Run for week ending Sunday, April 09, 2017 "Lightning (Sun Apr 9 05:45, 2017) 3 player(s), limle only won 5" "Zany Zero (Sun Apr 9 05:00, 2017) 5 player(s), limle only won 5" "Lightning (Sun Apr 9 04:45, 2017) No results "Lightning (Fri Apr 7 10:45, 2017) 3 player(s), jack only won 5" "Traditional (Wed Apr 5 09:00, 2017) 6 player(s), panchi only won 4" "Lightning (Wed Apr 5 05:45, 2017) 1 player(s), bozkurt only won 3" "Lightning (Tue Apr 4 19:45, 2017) 1 player(s), steeler only won 1" Super Quickie (Mon Apr 3 08:30, 2017) No results Quickie (Mon Apr 3 06:00, 2017) No results Traditional (Mon Apr 3 05:00, 2017) No results "Mini (Mon Apr 3 04:30, 2017) 1 player(s), arch1 only won 1" "Lightning (Mon Apr 3 02:45, 2017) 2 player(s), bozkurt only won 5" I'm not going to post these logs every week but these came from last week.

Date: Mon Apr 17 11:37:44 2017
User: joeygray
Message:
Here is the table for this week's run, ending with the Easter Sunday Masters. That was once again won by WRAC! Two points I want to mention and hope to get advice on from the group.

1) I'm thinking I have the minimum value of the Masters, currently set to 100, set too high. It's twice as high as any other tournament. I'm definitely going to lower it, but do you think I should lower it all the way to 50, the value of the other 'majors', or should I continue with the concept that it's our prestige tournament and lower it to 75. Or is 60 a better choice.

2) I note here that CubicSprock, having won both tourny's he played in this week in his first appearance of the year, would have sorted all the way up to third on the list, except for the minimum divisor (rule 8 above) that requires one to have played 36 tournaments over the past 12 weeks to get full credit for your points. His points got divided by 36 and he sorted 157th, thus not appearing in the following list. This is just what the world Golf Rankings organization does in ranking folks lower if they don't play much. But we don't have to stick to what they do exactly, does anyone think either this should be treated different, or that the minimum divisor is too large?

16 Apr oR oRPts oG st wR wRPts wG wWn name
1 27.35 3523.78 86 45 46.41 324.89 7 6 WRAC
2 19.24 1700.41 49 37 . . 0 0 Kaos
3 13.11 3956.39 212 32 17.93 340.67 19 17 calicokid
4 11.84 2029.46 98 24 14.29 100. 5 4 Darkosi
5 11.32 2722.18 144 27 13.57 95. 6 2 arch1
6 10.8 5737.54 346 21 17.63 758.21 43 21 ValpoJim
7 9.05 3522.59 251 17 23.88 191. 8 5 bozkurt
8 8.91 2907.75 157 19 10.21 71.5 5 1 Mastermind
9 8.85 1039.24 88 20 6.9 48.33 5 2 jimmyp
10 8.81 1052.77 86 14 8.37 92.11 11 0 BrownsRedSox
11 8.73 13742.93 976 15 13.44 1129.08 84 53 kenwa
12 8.65 514.8 40 18 4.83 33.83 2 0 4cell
13 8.25 2101.57 159 16 11.21 134.58 12 5 DAB
14 8.15 4455.5 339 12 13.11 393.39 30 8 Beowulf
15 7.79 1563.18 128 13 12.13 97.04 8 2 Crunch
16 7.46 4354.52 340 11 11.43 331.38 29 12 aschdog
17 7.17 2102.89 206 11 9.89 266.91 27 4 AndreaDoria
18 6.67 1595.84 120 9 12.38 161. 13 4 byronsmoot
19 6.42 2474.6 273 11 8.96 250.77 28 5 xmanlover
20 6.22 4041.56 382 11 10.5 210. 20 13 yummi
21 6.19 597.46 91 11 .71 5. 2 0 dpen1000
22 6.14 1706.11 217 10 9.4 498.4 53 13 crre
23 5.93 671.53 107 11 6.43 77.1 12 2 lionelhutz
24 5.83 357. 16 11 2.86 20. 1 0 twosheds
25 5.56 1514.53 130 11 1.86 13. 2 0 Pomodoro
26 5.54 446.65 41 11 . . 0 0 j-ann
27 5.53 272.87 32 11 . . 0 0 gilbertgame27171
28 5.53 1867.86 220 10 10.92 152.83 14 3 LightRider
29 5.47 562.4 52 11 6.38 44.66 4 0 mike_la_jolla
30 5.37 3277.53 254 11 .57 4. 1 0 rudo
31 5.29 1053.72 154 11 7.77 54.39 6 0 limle
32 5.2 2356.34 247 8 10.03 270.77 27 5 watersmooth_silver
33 5.11 2162.92 223 9 9.62 173.08 18 4 sprucegoose
34 5.03 1036.79 124 10 7.33 95.28 13 1 kim1234567
35 4.92 494.15 66 4 8.85 70.76 8 0 1patricia65
36 4.89 3513.48 370 11 5.5 38.51 5 1 smkltclnk
37 4.88 1652.51 188 9 . . 0 0 tigertiger
38 4.8 1667.45 215 8 5.96 107.33 18 0 bugbiten
39 4.79 1349.32 168 8 6.19 136.11 22 2 d164280
40 4.77 347.29 39 11 . . 0 0 hibdibblyabob
41 4.73 350.2 56 7 6.5 52. 8 2 Julian
42 4.69 169. 15 8 . . 0 0 Tihh
43 4.64 894.94 112 9 . . 0 0 golm
44 4.63 6300.87 811 8 6.38 363.81 57 4 Juniper33
45 4.41 322.7 50 7 7.17 50.19 7 0 sissigonfle
46 4.32 304.81 14 10 . . 0 0 doormat
47 4.11 188.06 17 7 1.4 9.81 1 0 hotnurse
48 4.06 3188.14 507 6 5.84 256.92 44 7 bort
49 3.99 279.31 49 7 3.13 21.91 5 0 boobootori
50 3.97 2516.98 392 6 6.64 192.48 29 2 Ideasbrewing
51 3.89 600.61 90 5 5.18 36.24 6 0 bosquer
52 3.87 427.58 77 7 1.84 12.9 3 0 cellerdweller
53 3.85 217.2 23 3 5.9 41.31 4 2 grga
54 3.8 331.06 41 7 2.57 18. 2 0 bigeds
55 3.75 724.77 124 6 4.72 51.9 11 0 Jonesey
56 3.66 534.2 101 4 3.81 57.16 15 0 Peedles
57 3.64 1637.6 262 5 5.87 105.59 18 0 crochetdeb1
58 3.63 189.3 17 6 . . 0 0 MurphysLaw
59 3.57 324.79 63 7 .21 1.5 1 0 TOAST
60 3.55 1751.37 317 4 5.14 133.65 26 0 panchi
61 3.54 146. 7 1 8. 56. 2 0 kangaroo
62 3.54 3791.92 647 5 5.67 226.68 40 1 ketzell
63 3.51 487.29 81 4 6.51 45.6 7 2 mollynana
64 3.49 883.08 149 4 6.81 54.5 8 0 imeldamary
65 3.49 193.78 18 6 . . 0 0 gilbert10021
66 3.44 326.24 50 5 3.17 22.2 5 0 HeyFatLady
67 3.42 191.43 48 3 3.09 21.6 3 0 superwombat
68 3.38 241.41 57 5 .69 4.8 2 0 komugi
69 3.34 422.4 80 2 6.37 63.7 10 1 LKLPT
70 3.27 739.88 147 3 6.42 64.2 10 1 sticky2
71 3.23 1561.35 285 3 8.33 66.62 8 0 sterling8
72 3.23 912.17 160 4 5. 69.97 14 0 bluedog
73 3.23 1220.39 234 3 6.5 104.04 16 0 anaccount
74 3.2 204.37 35 4 . . 0 0 Dr.quack
75 3.2 150.24 36 2 2.59 18.1 5 0 Loki
76 3.18 492.16 85 4 5.83 46.66 8 0 sweety
77 3.16 971.92 203 2 5.54 94.15 17 0 jackresnick
78 3.11 771.34 145 4 4.37 56.86 13 0 Ken1232
79 3.11 951.57 139 4 1.19 8.33 2 0 powerlifter
80 3.08 1176.49 223 3 4.11 78.16 19 0 skipperocky
81 3.05 462.2 107 2 4.68 74.95 16 0 edc
82 3.04 961.06 182 2 6.11 97.8 16 0 retiredk9ed
83 3.03 839.57 183 3 4.07 101.68 25 0 wes
84 3.02 490.95 99 2 1.39 9.7 3 0 SophieB
85 3.02 823.43 155 3 4.42 66.32 15 0 leewayne
86 3.01 560.02 115 1 5.38 112.91 21 1 VicBenz
87 2.97 611.2 149 2 4.55 72.81 16 1 Harbour-Carew
88 2.95 1292.12 222 2 6.87 103.1 15 0 Sylvie6
89 2.95 529.46 110 2 5.81 63.9 11 0 Townie
90 2.93 1982.22 406 2 5.07 197.78 39 3 Katya

Date: Mon Apr 17 19:39:22 2017
User: WRAC
Message:
Thanks for the update, Joey! My opinions, for whatever they're worth: 1. I would think twice before lowering the minimum value for the Masters. This tournament consistently features a much higher level of competition than any other. However, if you feel your formula already takes this into account sufficiently, then go ahead and lower it. 2. So CubicSprock is back playing tourneys, is he? From what I saw, he was the best tournament player ever here (not to knock mickyiw, goatee or peter75, but CS was great at *everything*). Then again, that was before calicokid raised his tough-game skills to a new level. It would be interesting to watch them go head-to-head now. In any case, 2 tournaments definitely doesn't seem like enough to attain a #3 ranking (even if we know it's actually too *low*). 36 tourneys over 12 weeks (3 per week) seems like a pretty low bar, so I'd be inclined to keep it there.

Date: Mon Apr 17 20:41:24 2017
User: joeygray
Message:
.nod WRAC I actually thought, and maybe still do, 36 isn't high enough! But on my initial tests the majority were getting penalized so I lowered it from the 60 it started at. But 5 tournaments a week doesn't seem like too stringent a requirement... Of course our situation isn't comparable to what goes on in golf in this respect: for us, some people (kenwa) play ten or more tournaments every day, while others might hit 3 a day and that still is in all fairness pretty darn regular participation. In golf it's once a week and most all the players are between half of that and all of it, there's no room for a big spread. I'll juss leave it at 36. And remember, if you want to get off the minimum divisor you just have to knuckle down and bang out 5 a day that first week!

Date: Mon Apr 24 19:25:57 2017
User: joeygray
Message:
I have lowered the minimum rank of the Masters to be 75, which is still 50% more than any other tournament's minumum. Since this doesn't affect the previous 11 weeks, you don't see much effect yet. Also added the trend column.
23 Apr t oR oRPts oG st wR wRPts wG wWn name
1 - 27.72 3482.76 85 45 36.69 293.53 8 5 WRAC
2 - 17.81 1562.01 47 37 7. 49. 2 1 Kaos
3 - 12.68 4319.15 225 32 24.7 395.22 16 12 calicokid
4 ^1 12.39 2705.95 140 24 18.69 336.5 18 8 arch1
5 v1 11.8 1929.46 94 27 18.81 131.67 6 4 Darkosi
6 - 11.03 5736.39 340 21 17.64 458.68 26 12 ValpoJim
7 ^11 9.69 1103.97 84 11 18.64 149.09 8 5 byronsmoot
8 v1 9.01 3443.59 241 20 26.57 186. 6 3 bozkurt
9 ^1 8.68 1139.91 92 17 12.59 125.86 10 1 BrownsRedSox
10 ^1 8.59 13666.13 986 16 13.02 1106.3 85 60 kenwa
11 ^2 8.04 2162.27 165 14 13.19 197.82 15 6 DAB
12 ^2 7.98 4506.73 342 13 13.91 333.78 24 6 Beowulf
13 v5 7.91 2564.25 142 19 . . 0 0 Mastermind
14 v5 7.84 1039.24 88 18 . . 0 0 jimmyp
15 v3 7.63 513. 39 15 . . 0 0 4cell
16 - 7.43 4170.82 334 11 12.86 308.69 24 5 aschdog
17 v2 7.08 1490.18 122 12 . . 0 0 Crunch
18 v1 6.88 2011.42 195 11 3.48 24.37 3 0 AndreaDoria
19 ^3 6.34 1803.42 227 11 7.5 209.9 28 4 crre
20 - 6.16 3735.24 362 11 9.02 234.64 26 14 yummi
21 v2 6.07 2688.14 296 11 8.7 234.84 27 6 xmanlover
22 v1 5.8 606.04 93 11 1.23 8.58 2 0 dpen1000
23 ^9 5.8 2086.22 221 10 8.77 192.99 22 5 watersmooth_silver
24 ^3 5.73 311.56 37 11 5.53 38.69 5 0 gilbertgame27171
25 ^3 5.7 1771.37 215 11 9.73 155.73 16 1 LightRider
26 ^15 5.6 548.68 79 8 8.42 202.08 24 5 Julian
27 ^6 5.42 2267.66 225 10 12.77 268.24 21 5 sprucegoose
28 v5 5.4 715.35 116 11 4.87 43.82 9 0 lionelhutz
29 v4 5.3 1325.94 116 11 5.93 41.49 5 0 Pomodoro
30 ^1 5.23 1314. 189 10 7.44 260.28 35 6 limle
31 v5 5.22 375.29 35 11 .8 5.6 1 0 j-ann
32 v3 5.2 485.22 52 11 5.07 35.5 5 0 mike_la_jolla
33 ^1 5.16 972.7 119 10 9.11 72.88 8 1 kim1234567
34 ^104 5. 180.15 22 1 7.56 113.4 15 1 aprcosta
35 v11 4.94 331. 14 11 . . 0 0 twosheds
36 ^2 4.94 1787.2 230 9 8.43 244.41 29 2 bugbiten
37 v2 4.93 520.57 71 9 6.25 62.52 10 0 1patricia65
38 ^1 4.89 1463.65 185 8 7.24 210.05 29 3 d164280
39 v9 4.88 2813.22 215 11 1.71 12. 1 0 rudo
40 ^5 4.77 344.97 54 7 6.25 62.5 10 1 sissigonfle
41 ^1 4.69 169. 15 8 . . 0 0 Tihh
42 v6 4.57 3275.43 348 9 7.91 126.49 16 1 smkltclnk
43 v6 4.54 1601.16 185 9 6.42 70.65 11 0 tigertiger
44 v1 4.49 830.69 110 8 7.04 56.3 8 1 golm
45 v1 4.44 6320.07 830 7 7.27 508.68 70 12 Juniper33
46 ^38 4.15 499.29 96 2 6.28 144.41 23 3 SophieB
47 ^3 4.07 2597.58 395 7 9.4 263.18 28 3 Ideasbrewing
48 ^10 3.95 207.96 19 5 3.99 27.9 3 0 MurphysLaw
49 v2 3.95 155.53 16 7 1.14 8. 1 0 hotnurse
50 ^3 3.89 193.12 24 6 2.71 18.98 4 0 grga
51 v11 3.88 347.29 39 8 . . 0 0 hibdibblyabob
52 ^5 3.86 1592.14 254 5 7.06 169.56 24 1 crochetdeb1
53 ^10 3.86 508.51 79 4 8.95 62.62 5 1 mollynana
54 v6 3.86 3272.78 524 7 5.62 224.88 40 5 bort
55 v4 3.74 597.55 93 6 4.2 50.44 12 0 bosquer
56 v7 3.69 279.68 49 7 .94 6.58 2 0 boobootori
57 v1 3.64 572.15 109 5 4.98 69.66 14 0 Peedles
58 ^2 3.62 1741.52 327 5 5.31 201.95 38 2 panchi
59 v4 3.56 758.25 134 6 4.43 75.3 17 0 Jonesey
60 ^4 3.55 882.6 148 4 6.3 81.95 13 2 imeldamary
61 ^9 3.49 781.15 151 4 6.53 104.5 16 2 sticky2
62 v16 3.48 304.81 14 7 . . 0 0 doormat
63 v9 3.47 266.7 34 6 . . 0 0 bigeds
64 ^56 3.44 147.27 7 1 6.86 48. 2 0 firenze
65 ^4 3.42 442.07 84 4 5.97 53.76 9 0 LKLPT
66 v4 3.41 3818.95 655 4 5.11 280.97 55 0 ketzell
67 v15 3.35 437.81 80 6 1.46 10.22 3 0 cellerdweller
68 ^26 3.32 179.53 44 2 4.51 54.15 12 0 PistolPete
69 v4 3.31 203.78 19 4 1.43 10. 1 1 gilbert10021
70 ^12 3.3 942.8 185 2 4.78 133.98 28 0 retiredk9ed
71 v10 3.29 146. 7 4 . . 0 0 kangaroo
72 ^31 3.29 138.79 15 1 4.82 33.77 5 0 pcu
73 v6 3.24 195.93 50 4 .64 4.5 2 0 superwombat
74 ^6 3.23 1108. 217 3 4.66 111.88 24 0 skipperocky
75 v9 3.23 335.96 53 4 3.74 26.21 5 0 HeyFatLady
76 v4 3.17 913.52 164 3 4.8 76.75 16 0 bluedog
77 - 3.12 980.33 212 3 4. 99.98 25 0 jackresnick
78 ^12 3.12 1903.51 394 2 5.99 197.56 33 3 Katya
79 v8 3.12 1622.58 302 3 4.76 157.23 33 1 sterling8
80 v21 3.1 341.38 68 5 2.37 16.58 5 0 TOAST
81 - 3.09 460.37 108 2 3.81 41.86 11 0 edc
82 v4 3.09 727.87 140 3 4.16 41.65 10 0 Ken1232
83 ^6 3.09 515.23 108 2 3.99 47.82 12 0 Townie
84 v1 3.08 821.52 184 2 4.57 77.64 17 1 wes
85 ^2 3.08 703.1 167 2 4.46 120.47 27 2 Harbour-Carew
86 v11 3.06 189.12 47 3 3.53 38.88 11 0 Loki
87 v14 3.03 1117.08 216 3 .79 5.5 2 0 anaccount
88 v3 3.02 841.75 162 2 4.54 95.3 21 1 leewayne
89 ^3 3.02 573.43 122 2 5.46 81.9 15 0 horizone
90 v2 3.01 1253.55 216 2 5.98 113.7 19 1 Sylvie6
91 v23 3.01 267.83 65 4 3.3 26.43 8 0 komugi
92 v6 3. 524.21 109 2 2.39 16.76 4 0 VicBenz

Date: Tue Apr 25 02:09:46 2017
User: bozkurt
Message:
Is there something wrong here? According to wR column I am the second best yet I am 1 place down in oR column. And I wonder why wRPts/wG value is different for me. 186/6=31 but I see 26.57 instead. Is there a penalty of some sort?

Date: Tue Apr 25 09:04:05 2017
User: joeygray
Message:
Yes, there is a weekly minimum of 7 tournaments. Didn't I say that above? (*scrolls up*) Yep, rule 8. I meant, originally, to print out a sorted-by-weekly list as well as the 12 week list, and maybe break down how people did in the various tournament types, but... well, it's a lot of posting and a huge list of names and I have to consider how to organize the material and... well, anyway, the seven was to make sure that you "don't just play the masters".

Date: Wed Apr 26 10:59:49 2017
User: CubicSprock
Message:
Thanks for this joey. Nice to see some form of ratings return! Question for you on rule #7, "7) The overall rating is the sum of all rating points over 12 weeks, with weeks 4-12 diminished as above (2), divided by the number of tournaments played in those weeks. " Shouldn't the tournaments played also be aged out? So if rating points for week 10 only count as .3, shouldn't the games played also only count as .3. My thinking is someone who has played a lot in the past 3 weeks, but not much in weeks 4-12 would have a huge advantage over someone who has played consistently across all 12 weeks. Someone who plays the same number of tournaments per week ends up having rating points multiplied by an average of 7.5/12 = 0.625. Someone with all tournaments in the past 3 weeks would have a multiplier of 1. I like the age off, but think it should occur for both tournaments played and points earned. And you could keep the minimum multiplier at 36 effective tournaments.

Date: Wed Apr 26 11:38:57 2017
User: bozkurt
Message:
I need an explanation please. How come byronsmoot (currently at 7th) can find a place above me (currently at 8th) with lesser wR value (18.64) compared to mine (26.57)? He's up 11 places is with bigger wR value than that of 10 of those below him except for mine.

Date: Wed Apr 26 11:53:48 2017
User: CubicSprock
Message:
bozkurt, it looks like byronsmoot had a bunch of old tournaments age out, which was hurting the rating in previous weeks. Went from 120 tournaments in the past 12 weeks to 84 in the past 12, while playing 8, which means 44 tournaments aged out. This is actually related to my point in the last post where old tournaments can really hurt your rating since the points gradually age out but the tournaments played (the divisor) does not age out (just goes from 1 to 0 after 12 weeks).

Date: Wed Apr 26 12:29:27 2017
User: bozkurt
Message:
But according age-out table, last week is 1 and 12th week is 0.1. How can it happen? Is there something wrong here? Maybe your point should be taken into account.

Date: Wed Apr 26 14:03:20 2017
User: joeygray
Message:
CS: the way I saw it, if I diminish the numerator and the denominator equally, how have I diminished the results at all; in other words, how is the aging actually counting less for the oldest weeks? But I see your point, too, people who stopped playing as much get counted against worse than people who've played at a steady rate... Maybe this needs more thought. Or maybe I got to go back to the golf site again and make sure of what they're doing. When I get a chance. Boz, I don't understand. The table is sorted in order of the 12 week rating, not the weekly rating. What am I missing?

Date: Wed Apr 26 17:01:11 2017
User: CubicSprock
Message:
joey, the results are still diminished as long as you have newer results to compare against. Someone who earns 20 points this week in 1 tournament and 10 points in a tournament 7 weeks ago, there score would be (20 + 10*.5)/(1+1*.5) = 25/1.5 = 16.7. (closer to the 20 than the 10). If they haven't played any new tournaments the age out would have less impact until the player's divisor falls below 36.

Date: Thu Apr 27 01:26:23 2017
User: bozkurt
Message:
Joey, my points is pointed out by CS more or less. The aged out week should have less impact. Yet I lose one place to somebody whose last week score is worse than me. You have the details of the calculation. You should know better. How would you explain it?

Date: Thu Apr 27 20:36:11 2017
User: joeygray
Message:
1) I rechecked, and I'm indeed doing exactly what those golf ratings do: they diminish the numerator (results) of the tournaments as they age, but not the denominator. Of course it's worth noting that here I'm aging some 2800 tournaments every week, including circa 240 being added and the same being deleted. They are holding record of around 200 tournaments over the course of two years, with two or three added and the same deleted every week (and nobody playing more than 1 a week.) CS, your example points out exactly what I was saying: if I had no aging process at all, that 20 result and that 10 result would come out to 15; but by diminishing both numerator and denominator you raise the person to 17-odd. Not that I'm saying this is absolutely wrong but it isn't what I would be trying for. 2) As in the golf world, rolling results off the back end, whether we age or not, can have counterintuitive effects. To give two examples from the golf world, when Bubba Watson finished 4th at the 2012 Arnold Palmer Invitational and promptly dropped two spots in the ratings, to people he had beaten; when Luke Donald later that year as the number 1 player finished in the money at the RBC Heritage but dropped to #2 behind McIlroy who didn't even play. On a local level, we saw this when Tony was running the SSC and WWCs. You could know ahead of time it was a good week to pick up ground on that person in front of you if their result twelve weeks ago was real good! Incidentally, that was both the good and the bad about the ELO ratings: whatever you did lasted 'forever'. Having said that, no objection here if we decide to do things different. Rather than following what WGR did, use them as a jumping off point for what we do. As noted already there are several key differences in our respective situations: We have the same schedule every week. We are trying to rate very disparate playing rates instead of very similar playing rates We are dropping off some 8% of results every week instead of 1% We are rating some who play very seriously vs others who may 'just play a few games for fun' We have much smaller fields per tournament And no doubt others I haven't thought of. So for starters I would recalculate using CS's both-way diminish, and then try to evaluate for a lot of players what changed. Do you want me to post that? We could also do away with aging entirely. I'd just keep saving ratings points and games played and never diminish anything. Or we could age without diminishing: keep the 12 weeks but then just abruptly drop the earliest week whenever adding the new one. With that scheme perhaps double or triple the current week results to keep a flavor of currentness. Lots of things we could do, and I don't feel any need to be king of it all. :)

Date: Fri Apr 28 01:54:34 2017
User: bozkurt
Message:
Out of curiosity I have extracted the weekly results from your posts: wRPts/wG: byronsmoot - bozkurt ======================== 209/13=16.07 - 360/23=15.65 125/12=10.42 - 301/29=10.38 (last 13 weeks below) 53/7= 7.57 - 248/16=15.5 (the week aged out) 24/7= 3.43 - 254/21=12.10 30/7= 4.26 - 312/26 = 12 92/7=13.14 - 274/19=14.42 50/7=7.14 - 306/16=19.12 (no results) - 261/23=11.35 124/12=10.33 - 283/24=11.79 640/44=14.55 - 265/16=16.56 1005/59=17.03 - 262/16=16.38 123/13=9.46 - 292/8=36.5 82.68/7=11.81 - 464.98/30=15.5 161/13=12.38 - 191/8=23.88 149.09/8=18.64 - 186/7=26.57 (the last week) Based on these figures, it doesn't make sense to me that byronsmoot would pass me this last week. This is like a paradox. This reminds me the following:

Link: PE problem 236

Date: Fri Apr 28 06:00:38 2017
User: bozkurt
Message:
Another question for joey: For 15-Jan week Beowulf: 367 4 (wRPts wG) How can you gain 367 points using only 4 tournaments? And I made a mistake in my previous post. The correct data should be as follows: wRPts/wG byronsmoot vs. bozkurt 123/13=9.46 - 292/8=36.5 1005/59=17.03 - 262/16=16.38 (last 13 weeks below) 640/44=14.55 - 265/16=16.56 (the week aged out) 124/12=10.33 - 283/24=11.79 (no results) - 261/23=11.35 50/7=7.14 - 306/16=19.12 92/7=13.14 - 274/19=14.42 30/7= 4.26 - 312/26 = 12 24/7= 3.43 - 254/21=12.10 53/7= 7.57 - 248/16=15.5 125/12=10.42 - 301/29=10.38 209/13=16.07 - 360/23=15.65 82.68/7=11.81 - 464.98/30=15.5 161/13=12.38 - 191/8=23.88 149.09/8=18.64 - 186/7=26.57 (the last week)

Date: Sat Apr 29 22:50:53 2017
User: CubicSprock
Message:
I imagine in golf the denominator is more consistent and the minimum is much higher (though I'm surprised they bother with a denominator at all). With most players playing 1 tournament per week in golf they won't have the inconsistency in the denominator the way freecell allows. I'd be interested in seeing the stats with a roll off for both. Another question, how many of these tournaments actually get above the minimum value? If my understanding is correct it seems like very few would have a value above the minimum between needing 8 competitive participants and having those participants total strength be more than 3 times the minimum value of the tournament. If this is the case really all you should do to get a high rating is play at unpopular times in the 40 point minimum tournaments.

Date: Sun Apr 30 12:53:09 2017
User: joeygray
Message:
Yep. I'm collecting stats on that, and while I been too not-at-home this week to look at it, I'm pretty sure less than 5% of the tournaments break their minimums. The most egregious of these, the masters, I already adjusted downward, but I was thinking about tweaking all those numbers to make field strength come into play more. I did try my best to keep it from being all you have to do is sleaze in, play a couple games at an odd time, and reap points, but maybe I should tweak that, too. I dunno, I wanted to make sure that nobody gets gypped out of points just because nobody else showed up, as long as they themselves played seriously, but maybe there should be a second, even-more-minimum minimum over all tournaments with a low participation rate. Of course you've observed that the minimums correlate with the length of the tournament, shorter ones get less points. As a result, it's a lot easier to boost a short tournament's points via field strength just because the minimum is lower to start with, but it isn't actually happening, I don't think. I'll be home later this evening and hopefully look closer at my stats. I want to look at what bozkurt said about the 367 points, too. Just haven't had the time this week.

Date: Sun Apr 30 22:45:37 2017
User: CubicSprock
Message:
Okay, it sounds like we have similar observations. I'll throw a few ideas out there... So instead of having a minimum value which is used if the strength/3 isn't sufficient or there aren't 8 serious participants, how about starting tournaments out with some base points. So then each tournament would be worth base points + strength of field/3. The 8 serious participant would then be ignored. I wouldn't do a ton of base points...maybe 15 for masters, 10 for the other majors, 5 for all other tournaments. This makes the strength of field always matter, but also gives people a little extra incentive to play the major tournaments. Another option which could be used in combination or alone from the above one would be to add a new variable, lets call it weight of a tournament. The weight variable could decouple the minimum strength of field from the type of tournament. Minimum strength could either be calculated as above or it could be set to 15 (for example, but chosen b/c it is equal to strength contribution of #1 ranked player). The weight would vary by length of tournament, longer tournaments get a higher weight...but this will impact both the numerator and denominator in the calculation. So a tournament with a weight of 4 would have your score multiplied by 4, but would also count as 4 weighted tournaments played. I'd still use actual tournaments played to meet minimum requirements (just multiply final score by n/36 if you've played 35 or less tournaments). Tournaments would need to meet a number of 'serious' players requirements to receive normal weight, probably 5 as the current 8 seems a little high, if they don't they receive a weight of 1. Here is the weights I envision. 1 - Any tournament that doesn't meet minimum serious player requirement 2 - 10-25 minute tournaments 3 - 40-55 minute tournaments 4 - 85-115 minute non-majors 5 (or 6) - Australian, British, & U.S. Open 6 (or 8) - Masters

Post follow-up
Username: New user? Create a free account here
Password: Note: username and password are case-sensitive
Message:
Editor by summernote.org
Email notification:

All content copyright ©2024 Freecell.net
By using our games you consent to our minimal use of cookies to maintain basic state.
Maintained by Dennis Cronin