Advertisement
by Steroga » Thu Jul 09, 2009 6:56 am
by Taeshan » Thu Jul 09, 2009 8:14 am
by Bluth Corporation » Thu Jul 09, 2009 8:14 am
Dancougar wrote:I'm actually not sure how you would drop off the world... Elos aren't weighted over time, so if you're at 1408 and you disappear, that rating isn't going to degrade until they play someone again or they're manually dropped
by Dancougar » Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:07 am
Bluth Corporation wrote:Everyone starts with a rating of 1500. Come next World Bowl, those with an established rating carry it over, while newcomers get a new 1500 rating. Come time for WB4, everything from WB1 is sliced off the spreadsheet, and ratings are now calculated with everyone in WB2 starting with a 1500 rating, including those who had ratings from WB1, while those who participated in WB1 but not WB2 or WB3 or WB4 no longer have any games being included in the calculation and so are dropped from the list. When WB5 rolls around, WB2 is dropped from the front end and only games in WB3, WB4, and WB5 are included, and so on.
Bluth Corporation wrote:Incidentally, it IS possible to degrade ratings over time, by using a higher K-factor for more recent World Bowls than for more distant ones--but it would mean that not only are rating increases smaller, but rating decreases aren't as big either. This is also how you would weight different tournaments, or individual rounds within tournaments (something I happen to be generally opposed to with a couple of exceptions, but that's a different discussion, and of course any Elo proposal adopted by the WB community wouldn't necessarily have to match my own personal preferences).
by Bluth Corporation » Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:21 am
Dancougar wrote:
Hmm, makes sense, although then you end up in a situation where newcomers get a jump over teams which have performed poorly over the past three Bowls, and we have similar nastiness to what happened on MD1.
by Bluth Corporation » Thu Jul 09, 2009 11:08 am
by Dancougar » Thu Jul 09, 2009 1:25 pm
Bluth Corporation wrote:I'll be finishing the page on Dancougar's host bid (unless you want to do it yourself)
by Vephrall » Thu Jul 09, 2009 3:59 pm
Bluth Corporation wrote:In an earlier post, I outlined a means of dealing with that: basically, it involves calculating the LOWEST POSSIBLE rating attainable given the number of games possible over the last three World Bowls, which is just 1500-(K*number of preliminary-round games). Or you could just give all newcomers a rating X points lower than the lowest currently-held rating, etc.
by Newmanistan » Thu Jul 09, 2009 6:48 pm
by The Babbage Islands » Thu Jul 09, 2009 7:22 pm
by Dancougar » Thu Jul 09, 2009 8:09 pm
Newmanistan wrote:From Bluth on jolt thread:
For those of you who understand the Elo system, what I did was, instead of assigning a "score" of 1 for a win and 0 for a loss, the "score" is now equal to the fraction of the points in the entire game scored by a given team. So in a game that ends with a score 15-5, the winner's "score" for Elo purposes will be 15/20=0.75, and the loser's will be 5/20=0.75.
by The Fanboyists » Thu Jul 09, 2009 8:37 pm
by Dancougar » Fri Jul 10, 2009 6:22 am
The Fanboyists wrote:But wouldn't the margin of victory only make a difference in blowouts? Ultimately, when RL rankings are done, isn't MoV taken into account as well (especially in college FB rankings, for instance)?
by The Fanboyists » Fri Jul 10, 2009 7:41 am
by Dancougar » Fri Jul 10, 2009 9:43 am
by Cassadaigua » Fri Jul 10, 2009 9:49 am
by Bluth Corporation » Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:04 am
by Cassadaigua » Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:05 am
Bluth Corporation wrote:Why shouldn't a heavy underdog holding coming up short but nonetheless making a valiant effort in a 28-26 loss to a powerhouse get more credit than the same underdog just rolling over and being trounced 49-3?
by The Fanboyists » Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:11 am
by Bluth Corporation » Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:12 am
by Taeshan » Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:37 am
Cassadaigua wrote:Bluth Corporation wrote:Why shouldn't a heavy underdog holding coming up short but nonetheless making a valiant effort in a 28-26 loss to a powerhouse get more credit than the same underdog just rolling over and being trounced 49-3?
In each case, they lost. That's why. I played three sports in high school, there was never a such thing as a moral victory. Either you win, or you lose. (or draw)
by Steroga » Fri Jul 10, 2009 10:55 am
by Bluth Corporation » Fri Jul 10, 2009 11:01 am
by Dancougar » Fri Jul 10, 2009 2:21 pm
by Bluth Corporation » Fri Jul 10, 2009 2:34 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Darmen
Advertisement