Rankings July 2007

Talk about any Kick Off Tournament here.

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Danne
5000+ Poster!
5000+ Poster!
Posts: 5252
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2001 12:00 am
Location: Sweden

Re: Rankings July 2007

Postby Danne » Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:46 am

How does the ratingsystem works?

I notice that Gianni T and Alkis gain alot of points although they just play according to their rank.

A player like Jon G who plays alot better than the rank doesnt gain more points than Gianni T and Alkis.

Cause these changes are based on Reading?
User avatar
Abyss
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 5905
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2002 12:00 am
Location: Athens, Greece
Contact:

Postby Abyss » Thu Jul 05, 2007 7:32 am

Federer wins points just by playing according to his rank.

If I remember correctly, the formula to calculate the rankings points worked (before we started using the A=B version) basically like:

Pts gained/lost = 23 pts for a Team A win or 18 pts for a Team B win * Winner's Rankings/Loser's ranking * tournament importance factor

tournament importance = tournament participants / 32

Now that we use A=B, I think it's 20 pts for a win.
User avatar
Bounty Bob
5000+ Poster!
5000+ Poster!
Posts: 5264
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 7:16 pm

Postby Bounty Bob » Thu Jul 05, 2007 8:05 am

Looks about right.

There is also a bonus that is taken from all players at the start of a tournament, put in a pot and then divided amongst the winnner/winners according to how many people are in the tournament.

On top of the 20 points for the win, there are also +3 points for each goal you win by. E.g. a 3-0 win gives you 29pts while a 5-4 gives you 23. The losing player loses the same number of points.

In the event of a draw there are 7 points on offer which go to the lowest ranked player. The ranking differential and tournament performance affect this as they do with the winning points.
Last edited by Bounty Bob on Thu Jul 05, 2007 8:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Danne
5000+ Poster!
5000+ Poster!
Posts: 5252
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2001 12:00 am
Location: Sweden

Postby Danne » Thu Jul 05, 2007 8:05 am

Abyss wrote:Federer wins points just by playing according to his rank.

If I remember correctly, the formula to calculate the rankings points worked (before we started using the A=B version) basically like:

Pts gained/lost = 23 pts for a Team A win or 18 pts for a Team B win * Winner's Rankings/Loser's ranking * tournament importance factor

tournament importance = tournament participants / 32

Now that we use A=B, I think it's 20 pts for a win.


Thanks for the info.

My opinion is:

1. The Losers/Winner ranking part is to small.
Cause it means that if Gianni T will win more than 3 out of 4 games vs a newbie he will gain points vs the newbie. (if we count on a tournament importance of 1). And Gianni T will win vs the newbie at least 99/100 so then it is basically up to be playing as much as possible to get a good rank more than do great results.

2. The tournament importance part is not 100% I think. WC tournament should be 2 or something like that. Someone (Alkis?) should give out numbers to each specific tournament with default 1.

Just my opinion. I don't count on that you will do any changes or even have any such wishes cause I am not a ranked player myself. :) Just share my initial thoughts when I saw the ranking changes.
User avatar
Bounty Bob
5000+ Poster!
5000+ Poster!
Posts: 5264
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 7:16 pm

Postby Bounty Bob » Thu Jul 05, 2007 8:19 am

Danne wrote:1. The Losers/Winner ranking part is to small.
Cause it means that if Gianni T will win more than 3 out of 4 games vs a newbie he will gain points vs the newbie. (if we count on a tournament importance of 1). And obviously all good players will beat the newbie at least 9 out of ten so then it is basically up to be playing as much as possible to get a good rank more than do great results.
A newbie is often playing out of position to their abilities. They start with 1,000 points and gain/lose accordingly. Very soon they will find their level and then the point change starts to be more realistic. For instance, if Gianni beats Wolf 1-0 in a 32 player tournament, then he gets 3.08 points. If Wolf beats Gianni he gets 171.76. Wolf would even get 52.27 in the event of a draw.

There isn't much wrong with the importance. For example, in the above instance of Gianni v Wolf at a 4 player tournament, Gianni would only gain 0.38 points for the 1-0 win and Wolf would gain 21.48. It's proportional to the number of players and works well to stop a good player gaining massively at regular small gatherings.
Last edited by Bounty Bob on Thu Jul 05, 2007 8:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Danne
5000+ Poster!
5000+ Poster!
Posts: 5252
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2001 12:00 am
Location: Sweden

Postby Danne » Thu Jul 05, 2007 8:25 am

I still think it is to little.

If Wolf win vs Gianni T he should gain more points than 176.

I just notice how bad players will loose more points the more they play and really good players will gain points the more they play.

but it isnt a big issue. I thank Alkis for a great job with the rankings. It is very intresting to follow.
Last edited by Danne on Thu Jul 05, 2007 8:28 am, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Abyss
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 5905
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2002 12:00 am
Location: Athens, Greece
Contact:

Postby Abyss » Thu Jul 05, 2007 8:25 am

Danne wrote:
Abyss wrote:Federer wins points just by playing according to his rank.

If I remember correctly, the formula to calculate the rankings points worked (before we started using the A=B version) basically like:

Pts gained/lost = 23 pts for a Team A win or 18 pts for a Team B win * Winner's Rankings/Loser's ranking * tournament importance factor

tournament importance = tournament participants / 32

Now that we use A=B, I think it's 20 pts for a win.


Thanks for the info.

My opinion is:

1. The Losers/Winner ranking part is to small.
Cause it means that if Gianni T will win more than 3 out of 4 games vs a newbie he will gain points vs the newbie. (if we count on a tournament importance of 1). And Gianni T will win vs the newbie at least 99/100 so then it is basically up to be playing as much as possible to get a good rank more than do great results.

2. The tournament importance part is weird to me. WC tournament should be 2 or something like that. The rest 1.

Just my opinion. I don't count on that you will do any changes or even have any such wishes cause I am not a ranked player myself. :) Just share my initial thoughts when I saw the ranking changes.


I think that the system works quite well in portraying the relative strength of players who do play with a certain regularity.

I forgot to tell you that additional points are awarded for the goals scored - conceeded.

I'm afraid I don't remember the exact formula, so till Alkis and Robert post, let's see an indicative, but not exact example.Gianni T (3114 pts) faces Gary (746 pts) and beats him 6-1 in a very big 18 player tournament (for the sake of the example I'll consider Gianni's as Team A).

Gianni gains (and subsequently Garry loses)

18 for the win * 746/3114 * 18/32 = 2,42 rankings points
Subsequent wins will give him even less points, since their points difference will be bigger.

So, generally speaking, if they play 30 games and Ganni wins 29, he will get around 64 points

If Garry beats Gianni 1-0 as team B, he will get:

23 for the win * 3114/746 * 18/32 = 48 pts

So, for 1 win our of 30 games, Garry will earn 48 points, while Gianni, for 29/30 wins will get 64.

In this context, don't you think that the system is actually fair?

The only problem is that the strength of newcomers can cause some temporarily unbalance the rankings, till they play in 3-4 tournaments and their ranking points shift towaards their rightfull value.
User avatar
Danne
5000+ Poster!
5000+ Poster!
Posts: 5252
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2001 12:00 am
Location: Sweden

Postby Danne » Thu Jul 05, 2007 8:30 am

Abyss wrote:
Danne wrote:
Abyss wrote:Federer wins points just by playing according to his rank.

If I remember correctly, the formula to calculate the rankings points worked (before we started using the A=B version) basically like:

Pts gained/lost = 23 pts for a Team A win or 18 pts for a Team B win * Winner's Rankings/Loser's ranking * tournament importance factor

tournament importance = tournament participants / 32

Now that we use A=B, I think it's 20 pts for a win.


Thanks for the info.

My opinion is:

1. The Losers/Winner ranking part is to small.
Cause it means that if Gianni T will win more than 3 out of 4 games vs a newbie he will gain points vs the newbie. (if we count on a tournament importance of 1). And Gianni T will win vs the newbie at least 99/100 so then it is basically up to be playing as much as possible to get a good rank more than do great results.

2. The tournament importance part is weird to me. WC tournament should be 2 or something like that. The rest 1.

Just my opinion. I don't count on that you will do any changes or even have any such wishes cause I am not a ranked player myself. :) Just share my initial thoughts when I saw the ranking changes.


I think that the system works quite well in portraying the relative strength of players who do play with a certain regularity.

I forgot to tell you that additional points are awarded for the goals scored - conceeded.

I'm afraid I don't remember the exact formula, so till Alkis and Robert post, let's see an indicative, but not exact example.Gianni T (3114 pts) faces Gary (746 pts) and beats him 6-1 in a very big 18 player tournament (for the sake of the example I'll consider Gianni's as Team A).

Gianni gains (and subsequently Garry loses)

18 for the win * 746/3114 * 18/32 = 2,42 rankings points
Subsequent wins will give him even less points, since their points difference will be bigger.

So, generally speaking, if they play 30 games and Ganni wins 29, he will get around 64 points

If Garry beats Gianni 1-0 as team B, he will get:

23 for the win * 3114/746 * 18/32 = 48 pts

So, for 1 win our of 30 games, Garry will earn 48 points, while Gianni, for 29/30 wins will get 64.

In this context, don't you think that the system is actually fair?

The only problem is that the strength of newcomers can cause some temporarily unbalance the rankings, till they play in 3-4 tournaments and their ranking points shift towaards their rightfull value.


To create a perfect rankingsystem isnt possible I think. All formats will have advantages and disadvantages. The system seems to work fine.

My personal opinion is that the the loser/winner rank part should be bigger though. But everyone has their own system that they prefer.. :)
User avatar
Abyss
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 5905
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2002 12:00 am
Location: Athens, Greece
Contact:

Postby Abyss » Thu Jul 05, 2007 8:41 am

Danne wrote:My personal opinion is that the the loser/winner rank part should be bigger though. But everyone has their own system that they prefer.. :)


But this would also decrease the points the worse player will get for beating a better-ranked player.
User avatar
Danne
5000+ Poster!
5000+ Poster!
Posts: 5252
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2001 12:00 am
Location: Sweden

Postby Danne » Thu Jul 05, 2007 8:47 am

Abyss wrote:
Danne wrote:My personal opinion is that the the loser/winner rank part should be bigger though. But everyone has their own system that they prefer.. :)


But this would also decrease the points the worse player will get for beating a better-ranked player.

really? ... I am to tired to think...

I meant. (lets skip the formula.. :) )

* The bad player should gain more points when he wins. The good player should lose more points when he lose.
* The good player should gain less points when he wins. The bad player should lose less points when he lose.
Last edited by Danne on Thu Jul 05, 2007 8:52 am, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Bounty Bob
5000+ Poster!
5000+ Poster!
Posts: 5264
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 7:16 pm

Postby Bounty Bob » Thu Jul 05, 2007 8:50 am

My only issues with the ranking system are goal difference and the tournament win bonus. Goal difference isn't necessary and without it, there would be no reason at all to smash 10+ past a newbie. Rank only needs to be based on who beat who to work properly.

The tournament win bonus also seems a bit wrong as it takes an equal amount off of all players and gives them to the best ones. Those players already gain from beating everyone else anyway, so it doesn't seem fair and I believe it causes a larger gulf than necessary between player ranks. At the UK champs, Gianni got 95.4 points as a bonus and this is nearly 30% of his total gain for that event.

This isn't sour grapes though as I've won 7 tournaments myself, so have had some benefit from the bonus. It really isn't right though.

I occasionally see peopople moaning about the rankings and it's usually those low down, (obviously doesn't apply to you Danne). But then then if they are that worried about it, they should just get better and climb. The lower down you are the more you have to gain from your wins, so it works well in that respect. Look at me for example, shirt of shame at the Milan world cup, stuck near the bottom of the rankings for a long while, hit rock bottom at under 500pts and now pushing for a place in the top 30 with 1170 points.

Having said everything and I've said it very recently somewhere else, we're a bunch of players having some fun and it's not as if we are playing professionally. With that in mind the rankings really don't matter a stuff and even without my tweaks, the same players would be up the top. There is only one thing that means anything in it all... Is Mark B above Sascha W? :twisted: :lol:
User avatar
Abyss
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 5905
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2002 12:00 am
Location: Athens, Greece
Contact:

Postby Abyss » Thu Jul 05, 2007 8:51 am

Danne wrote:
I meant. (lets skip the formula.. :) )

* The bad player should gain more points when he wins. The good player should lose more points when he lose.
* The good player should gain less points when he wins. The bad player should lose less points when he lose.


:) OK, got it
User avatar
Bounty Bob
5000+ Poster!
5000+ Poster!
Posts: 5264
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 7:16 pm

Postby Bounty Bob » Thu Jul 05, 2007 8:52 am

Danne wrote:*The bad player should gain more points when he wins. The good player should lose more points when he lose.
* The good player should gain less points when he wins. The bad player should lose less points when he lose.
That's exactly what does happen, see my Wolf v Gianni examples above. :?

Even if the changes were adjusted, wouldn't the proportional differences between all the players be the same anyway? So Gianni would still have 266% of the points that I have :?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests