[Attempt at] New PBEM rating system - continued

[Solver]

Well, I do like it .

But, we don't have any iron fists, you know.... except mine .

[ricketyclik]

With respect to the starting level/points, I reckon everyone should start with the same amount, eg 1.000, and then as they win or lose they will move up or down. If winning points cancel out losing points, then the total number of points available remains fixed at starting no. of points x no. of players participating, which makes reading of relative player strengths from the table quite straight forward. eg Solver has 0.137 points out of a total of 26.000 points available - what a loser!

[blackice]

Iron does a body good...except when it is dropped on one's head from cyber space.

I think math if you work out the elo system here in this forum with examples you will find the one game wonder still exists. Try it out you will see the problem.

Baid is good as a start point but I think everyone at the same is fairer. I also think that for the weaker players it gives them a better starting zone. No sense in continuing if all you are is at the bottom.

View it this way you are playing some of the top players in the world. You are new here and just picked the game up. You jump into a rated game against number one. You do not do well understandable, but now you drop even further. It will take what 1-2 years to match their skill. In the mean time your baid put you at the bottom to begin with....

Now if you had the same scenario but started in the middle of the rankings...Hope more fun and by year’s end may be back in the middle, not at the bottom and up a few ranks.

This can be prevented by a rule that, a rated player is obliged to have all his games rated - that will also make him lose points.

I really do not think it is important to force people to be rated some just come out for the fun of it. We have people that just jump into games and fill roles for missing players, more rules... These rules can be avoided if like the challenge ladder you are rated in games because you were challenged and have to accept or lose your spot. I like to play games for the fun of it I would hate to see that dropped. The 10% system allows for a five-player game and only two rated players playing it. Simple.

That one with the beer is a good rule.

Solver make it a law I mean put it in the topped post for how to play this game well

from my experience with the 2 player ELO ranking, i would say that resting your butt on 1 leading game wont do it.

Well toss it out because we did this and it does, but lets see it spanned in the thread again…

someone else would only need 2 leading games to overtake you, and so on.

That would entirely depend on the opponents in the game, if you play two games against weaker opponents then no. If you play one game against strong ones you win that example, simple as that. In this game unless you pick your opponents and you will if your rankings matter we go back to the flaws in the elo system.
The 10% rankings took this pick and choose out of the equation to a degree. You can not force people to play all games they are challenged either, simply because we all have lives.

This lead us to you must be active in at least one game, back to picking the game and the opponents to maximize your points gain. The 10% rankings took this out too by allowing picking your game for maximum points but! That did not assure you top spot in fact it was not going to happen for long if you got it.

they could simply drop out of this game

That we must avoid at all cost, be honest one by one they drop off. Do you moderate? What a freak’in nightmare… This was a major problem with the old and elo systems. We simply do not want this to happen do we? Nope that is a bad idea. We want people to continue to play the game and finish it with some hope of bonus points for finishing it. We want players involved and we want a fair system. Making a rule such as this simply shows the flaws and the nightmare we have been there did that. The 10% system allows for continued play with the assurance it of a bonus at games end. Participation not dead game’s long delays and endless recruitment.

At the same time, the main problem, that I see, with the 10% system, is that someone could just as easily abuse that rating system, and accumulate a bunch of points by just playing many games against very weak players. That isn't fair either.

This was covered and does not wash, if all you want is rankings playing the 10% system this way is a sure way to end up in last. Do the math all you would be doing is wasting your time.

good point, but the penalty would need to be a point adjustment, as the ranking is directly point based.

Oh it is point adjusted all right you drop back below the player below you…one ranking what ever those points may be…

It doesn't have to be necessary for the players to understand the system, a program is all we need.

I disagree in order to maximize your fun, time and rankings you need to understand the system. That said the simpler the system the more fun it is to maximize it…We all agree I bet, simple is better…

what is 'capped' here ?
what is meant by 'static' ?

Game is capped as far as how much one can gain from a game based on the combined wagers read on.
You would get a win the game, finish the game bonus though.
Static ok you have a 10 ranking score wise, 10% is 1. So each and every 9th turn ranking your wager is 1. Not the cumulative rankings from the last turn too. Example turn 9 you get 1 now your ranking is 11. You do not use 11 for turn 18 you use 10 or 1. This is where the cap comes in, when you start the game at 10 your ranking is at 10 your wager for that game will always be 1. You start a new game at 11 your wager until the finish of that game is 1.1 period. Capped, this way people can use the system to their advantage win some lose some but still play from the bottom or the top spot. What we will see is a very active rankings and very aggressive game system. We already did for that matter it was proven tried tested and true.

Thas means very tight rankings, no one game wonders and a newbie who is good as some are ( Paul as an example) would still have to play in order for him to get and keep top spot.
It also means you could not play all newbies and expect to be in top spot. Or for that matter all good players in one game as the rankings change so would the odds of that happening.

[Mathemagician]

sorry ice,
as usual i didnt understand what you mean...

[Solver]

Math, do you believe you can run some tests with the systems?

[Mathemagician]

sure, as long as i understand them.

[quinns]

-- Off Topic --
Solver the Running Beer,
What does this mean: "I can kill you whenever I please... but not today. - The Cigarette Smoking Man"

My guess is that you do not like smokers. My second guess is that you believe second hand smoke is very deadly. Are those good guesses?

[Solver]

Not at all, Quinns . The Cigarette Smokinh Man is the guy in my avatar (well, avatars are off currently, but you may remember him).

I am against smoking as I believe it's a waste of health and money, but I have nothing against smokers. The Cigarette Smoking Man is a character from the X-Files series, and has to be my favorite TV character... the phrase is just what the character said in one the episodes .

[quinns]

Originally posted by Solver
Not at all, Quinns . The Cigarette Smokinh Man is the guy in my avatar (well, avatars are off currently, but you may remember him).

I am against smoking as I believe it's a waste of health and money, but I have nothing against smokers. The Cigarette Smoking Man is a character from the X-Files series, and has to be my favorite TV character... the phrase is just what the character said in one the episodes .

Oh... I see. Thanks for the explanation.

[blackice]

To answer your question Steve with regards to Solvers "Smoking Man"

For nothing can seem foul to those that win.

Edited in good taste...

[Mathemagician]

Originally posted by blackice
Explain to us all here how Math is to compare systems to which he does not fully understand?

Now explain to us all here why when he asked to explain a system which you know you did not assist him?

err. sorry ice in the defence of solver, i must say that i was mostly referring to the 10% system and your explanations there.

The mere fact we have done this three times already and Solver said the past is irrelivant is enough for me let alone the community. We have voted and it appears Solver would rather forget that fact by puting it in the past....

at least i cannot remember a poll on this since im subscribed to any thread on this topic, and definitely not since i opened this thread to bring the suggestion up again.

Math could you send me details of your system?

well, as i said, i (for now) gave up on the attempt to incorporate as much of the ELO 2 player system into an ELO-based multi-player system.
do you want to see my unsuccessful attempts on the system, or the excel sheet where i programmed the now dismissed formulas ?

[blackice]

err. sorry ice in the defence of solver, i must say that i was mostly referring to the 10% system and your explanations there.

I know that was exactly my point, how can you do comparisons not knowing how the 10% system works.

at least i cannot remember a poll on this since im subscribed to any thread on this topic, and definitely not since i opened this thread to bring the suggestion up again.

More than likely not it was done at the time the 10% came out.

do you want to see my unsuccessful attempts on the system, or

No thanks I have a few of my own, which again was the point we have done all this before.


To explain more about the 10%

JIMBO 20.000
KIDDLE 20.00
Ralph 20.00


So they all wager 10% for a game..

JIMBO 2
KIDDLE 2
Ralph 2

So round nine scoring:

3 player game..1ST..54%..2nd..31%..3rd..15%

The pot for this game was 6 points [2 points wagered by each player] Jimbo won the round, kiddle in second Ralph last so...

Jimbo gets: 3.24 [54% of 6 points] his take of the pot. Jimbo's ranking score is now 23.24. For the next nineth turn ranking [turn 18] Jimbo does not wager 2.34 [10% of his new ranking score] nope, his wager was 2 and will remain 2 until the game ends.

You see before it was the new rankings score of 23.24 [ So 2.32 ]that would be used. Every nineth turn scoring the new rankings score of each player would be taken and used. So do you see what I mean by "capped"?

Capped BTW has not been play tested...

[Mathemagician]

so assuming the ranking stays the same all the time, the leading player gets (54% * 6) - 2 = 1.24 points all the time, while the losing player gets (15% * 6) - 2 = - 1.10 points all the time ?

so the leading player ends up with INFINITY and the losing player with either - INFINITY or 0 ?

[Solver]

Why make it all so complex, with all that capped stuff? Can we not simply go with merely 10% original stuff?

[TheBirdMan]

Apolyton Lawyers