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 |
|
1 | 411 | 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
|
2 | 80 | 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
|
3 | 230 | 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
|
4 | 164 | 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
|
5 | 0 | 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
|
6 | 529 | 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
|
7 | 127 | 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
|
8 | 62 | 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
|
9 | 99 | 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
|
10 | 1092 | 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
|
11 | 263 | 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
|
12 | 165 | 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
|
13 | 360 | 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
|
14 | 408 | 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
|
15 | 234 | 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
|
16 | 195 | 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
|
17 | 547 | 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
|
18 | 189 | 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
|
19 | 14 | 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
|
20 | 35 | 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
|
21 | 246 | 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
|
22 | 12 | 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
|
23 | 50 | 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
|
24 | 17 | 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
|
25 | 98 | 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
|
26 | 115 | 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
|
27 | 62 | 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
|
28 | 57 | 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
|
29 | 209 | 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
|
30 | 74 | 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
|
31 | 114 | 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
|
32 | 456 | 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
|
33 | 146 | 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
|
34 | 45 | 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
|
35 | 123 | 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
|
36 | 115 | 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
|
37 | 644 | 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
|
38 | 30 | 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
|
39 | 79 | 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
|
40 | 147 | 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
|
41 | 167 | 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
|
42 | 2 | 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
|
43 | 49 | 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
|
44 | 24 | 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
|
45 | 29 | 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
|
46 | 319 | 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
|
47 | 46 | 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
|
48 | 200 | 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
|
49 | 77 | 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
|
50 | 55 | 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
|
51 | 332 | 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
|
52 | 0 | 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
|
53 | 17 | 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
|
54 | 21 | 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
|
55 | 187 | 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
|
56 | 26 | 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
|
57 | 50 | 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
|
58 | 65 | 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
|
59 | 40 | 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
|
60 | 18 | 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
|
61 | 135 | 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
|
62 | 6 | 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
|
63 | 32 | 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
|
64 | 110 | 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
|
65 | 20 | 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
|
66 | 50 | 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
|
67 | 94 | 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
|
68 | 3 | 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
|
69 | 79 | 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
|
70 | 42 | 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
|
71 | 133 | 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
|
72 | 75 | 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
|
73 | 79 | 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
|
74 | 121 | 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
|
75 | 74 | 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
|
76 | 13 | 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
|
77 | 106 | 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
|
78 | 6 | 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
|
79 | 41 | 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
|
80 | 72 | 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
|
81 | 89 | 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
|
82 | 133 | 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
|
83 | 54 | 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
|
84 | 50 | 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
|
85 | 54 | 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
|
86 | 40 | 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
|
87 | 40 | 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
|
88 | 43 | 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
|
89 | 38 | 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
|
90 | 34 | 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
|
91 | 12 | 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
|
92 | 13 | 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
|
93 | 118 | 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
|
94 | 54 | 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
|
95 | 25 | 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
|
96 | 30 | 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
|
97 | 28 | 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