## HW Data

### HW Data

I do not have access to HW player records; but we can gain some insight based on the data available to us as players. As example, we know the Number of HW Players online and their ranking at any given point in time.

I've put together a graph below representing a ONE-TIME snapshot of the players online at HW. A one time snapshot is not necessarily a "bullet-proof" example of statisitics; but it gives us some things to consider. If we think back to our High School math days; we probably all remember a little bit about statistics and the Bell Curve. If we combine the data we have access to about HW and apply that data to a Bell Curve; it gives us some insight into HW.

As example:

872 Players online one evening.

1548 was the average arithmetic rating of those 872 players (872 ratings added/872 = 1548. Thank goodness for copy and paste into an Excel spreadsheet)

1528 was the Median average of those 872 players. (Meaning 436 players above 1528 and 436 players below)

1964 was the highest rating online.

1226 was the lowest rating online.

Now lets apply the Bell Curve. Statistics tells us that 68% of the players will fall within one standard deviation of the mean. That suggests 558 players of the 872. Those 558 players fell between a rating of 1458 to 1643.

Statistics tells us that additional 28% of the players will fall withing two standard deviations of the mean. That suggests another 280 players or 140 below 1458 to 1336 and another 140 above 1643 to 1832. The range of players between two standard deviations or 96% (68% plus 28%) equals 838 players betwen a rating of 1336 and 1832.

That now leaves 4% of the players or 34 players outside of two standard deviations or 2% below 1336 (17 players) and 2% above 1832 (17 players).

So what ratings are the majority of HW games being played ? Well if the number of players online equates to games (some do just chat in the lobbys); then 68% of the games are being played between 1458 and 1643.

If someone is looking for a high rated game (let's assume above 1832). There were only 17 players rated above 1832 online or a 2% chance of a game.

Some have suggested that we need to change the rating system or reset everyone; the new ratings would still be plugged into the Bell Curve. 68% of the players are still going to fall within the mean average. The mean average might go up or even go down; it could be higher than 1528 or even lower. But the Bell Curve remains a constant.

There will always be the problem of 2% of the highest rated players not being able to find a game equal to their ranking. It's a statistical given.

For the 68% of the players within one standard deviation of the mean; games will ALWAYS be plentiful.

It makes no difference whether the rating system is changed, provs status is deleted, game table settings are changed, etc. etc. etc.

2% will never be happy.

I've put together a graph below representing a ONE-TIME snapshot of the players online at HW. A one time snapshot is not necessarily a "bullet-proof" example of statisitics; but it gives us some things to consider. If we think back to our High School math days; we probably all remember a little bit about statistics and the Bell Curve. If we combine the data we have access to about HW and apply that data to a Bell Curve; it gives us some insight into HW.

As example:

872 Players online one evening.

1548 was the average arithmetic rating of those 872 players (872 ratings added/872 = 1548. Thank goodness for copy and paste into an Excel spreadsheet)

1528 was the Median average of those 872 players. (Meaning 436 players above 1528 and 436 players below)

1964 was the highest rating online.

1226 was the lowest rating online.

Now lets apply the Bell Curve. Statistics tells us that 68% of the players will fall within one standard deviation of the mean. That suggests 558 players of the 872. Those 558 players fell between a rating of 1458 to 1643.

Statistics tells us that additional 28% of the players will fall withing two standard deviations of the mean. That suggests another 280 players or 140 below 1458 to 1336 and another 140 above 1643 to 1832. The range of players between two standard deviations or 96% (68% plus 28%) equals 838 players betwen a rating of 1336 and 1832.

That now leaves 4% of the players or 34 players outside of two standard deviations or 2% below 1336 (17 players) and 2% above 1832 (17 players).

So what ratings are the majority of HW games being played ? Well if the number of players online equates to games (some do just chat in the lobbys); then 68% of the games are being played between 1458 and 1643.

If someone is looking for a high rated game (let's assume above 1832). There were only 17 players rated above 1832 online or a 2% chance of a game.

Some have suggested that we need to change the rating system or reset everyone; the new ratings would still be plugged into the Bell Curve. 68% of the players are still going to fall within the mean average. The mean average might go up or even go down; it could be higher than 1528 or even lower. But the Bell Curve remains a constant.

There will always be the problem of 2% of the highest rated players not being able to find a game equal to their ranking. It's a statistical given.

For the 68% of the players within one standard deviation of the mean; games will ALWAYS be plentiful.

It makes no difference whether the rating system is changed, provs status is deleted, game table settings are changed, etc. etc. etc.

2% will never be happy.

Last edited by abcba123 on Mon Oct 30, 2006 2:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.

- Primal Instincts
- Grand Master
**Posts:**3698**Joined:**Fri Aug 05, 2005 12:40 pm**Location:**Deep in The Mountains/Wash State/Wyoming

I just want to point out, however, that the data are not normally distriubted, which means that they don't really fit the bell curve.

It is pretty good within + or - 1 stnadard diviation, but then breaks down pretty much.

You can see that the diference in ratings between the mean and the next lower 439 players is 212 rating points. The difference between the mean and the next highest 439 players is 284 points.

If the data were normally distributed, these standard deviation breaks (which really are not where they show on the graph) would be equal.

Quite an undertaking.

- Midnightguy
- Big Poster
**Posts:**540**Joined:**Tue Jan 14, 2003 12:32 am

So this graph is only of current players? I recalled seeing a graph provided by Dan ages ago his rating average he came up with was around 1450-75. Perhaps he used an average of all players who have a name, not sure. I would have expected to see your results on this chart about the same or close to 1500.

The results are very interesting and thank you for sharing abc.

The results are very interesting and thank you for sharing abc.

It merely paints a picture of a one time snapshot.

And yes Rob, the numbers were of those online; we as players have no other data to look at.

It's been well over a year since some of the lobby splits and quite a few months have gone by since the Zone changed it's format.

It would appear that the number of HW spades players has almost doubled; but yet the pattern remains the same.

Rating averages remain at the low end of 1500 (which is where I thought Jonas had said before).

Regular spades is still only about 20% of the games played here.

68% of the players have no problem finding a game. We will always have the top 2% who complain that they can't find a game.

It is kinda funny though that I never hear the bottom 2% complain about finding a game ???

The 2% thing is very likely a gross misinterpretation of the data, and is related to what I mentioned in the previous thread about the survey data.

If any group of players was to have a hard time finding games at HW, they would tend to stop showing up. To conclude by observation of who IS there that that group was defined by the observed percenatage would be ignoring the fact that the data are substantially defined by the situation.

It is like going to a restaurant that serves hamburgers, and keeps only enough pieces of cheese to serve a handful of cheeseburgers per day, doing a survey to see how many patrons are eating cheeseburgers, and then concluding that the demand for cheeseburgers is not a relevant concern.

Not saying what is best for HW, just pointing out that data do not always portray what they might appear to at first.

The number of players in the 1832+ range who were observed playing were obviously NOT the ONLY players with that rating! Galt, if all the high rated players logged on with their high nicks, there would be no problem finding those high rated games you are always looking for!

It puzzles me to no end that you think that by making some changes to the site that you will magically see more high rated games appearing. No matter WHAT happens to the site, the distribution of players is going to remain the same. The only way it will change is if the PLAYERS THEMSELVES do something to make the change!

Personally, having taught math and stats for a number of years and having studied the data available to the players, I would conclude that abcba123's analysis is pretty accurate. Even if the mean rating were to change to something higher, that rating would STILL represent the SAME group of players!!! And the current 1800+ players would move to become 2000+ players, or whatever the new ratings warrant. And the simple fact that his +1/-1 SD's are unequal is a minor point that if adjusted for would not make any significant change to the results. Remember, this is just a sampling that may or may not be a totally accurate reflection of the TOTAL population at HW, but it should not be THAT far off.

The Bell Curve has survived as crucial a tool of statisticians for so long for a reason. We may want to dispute the findings, but they are derived from collected factual DATA, and what can be done to improve on that (except maybe be a little more careful and precise!!!)?

It puzzles me to no end that you think that by making some changes to the site that you will magically see more high rated games appearing. No matter WHAT happens to the site, the distribution of players is going to remain the same. The only way it will change is if the PLAYERS THEMSELVES do something to make the change!

Personally, having taught math and stats for a number of years and having studied the data available to the players, I would conclude that abcba123's analysis is pretty accurate. Even if the mean rating were to change to something higher, that rating would STILL represent the SAME group of players!!! And the current 1800+ players would move to become 2000+ players, or whatever the new ratings warrant. And the simple fact that his +1/-1 SD's are unequal is a minor point that if adjusted for would not make any significant change to the results. Remember, this is just a sampling that may or may not be a totally accurate reflection of the TOTAL population at HW, but it should not be THAT far off.

The Bell Curve has survived as crucial a tool of statisticians for so long for a reason. We may want to dispute the findings, but they are derived from collected factual DATA, and what can be done to improve on that (except maybe be a little more careful and precise!!!)?

*Playing games should be FUN - seek out your own level! Don't frustrate others unnecessarily.*I would think it would not be wise for HW to change it's game site for 2% of the players.

I know this may sound redundant; but the best way to attract this 2% or those who want only high rated regular games is to form a league. And the only way that league will even have a chance at success is if the "notables" run it and actively participate in it.

xxxxxxx does not even offer rated games.

One can only wonder why a player who cares only about high rated games would choose to play at a site which does not offer rated games, and why, at a site where players don't really care about ratings it is almost impossible to get people to play a social game.

One can also only wonder why people have a hard time understanding the problems caused by the provi system when there is another current thread disussing the the extremes that players go to in order to deal with the system.

Somehow, it is better to have players (remember that these are all of the newbies who need the nurturing of the provi system) have to experience being kicked off of tables, rather than think of a way where people don't have to be treated rudely and players don't need to find ways to work around the system.

It's kind of paradoxical.

- Dust In The Wind
- Guide
**Posts:**5343**Joined:**Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:29 pm**Location:**North Ga Mts

When I really want to just relax, I play social 2 - 3 times a week and 3-5 games and have for the most part had just that a good game where everyone plays and we look for that game to go to last hand and all have a chance to win. Anyone that has let rating become too important I would suggest just trying it, you might find it is as I say..... relaxing and fun.

JUST DUST

JUST DUST

TO BE OR NOT TO BE..... NOW WHAT KIND OF QUESTION IS THAT??? TO BE OF COURSE!!!!!

Each gamesite has it's own personality derived from the people who play there. If a site has no rating system; that's what people get used too. If a site has a provi system; that's what people get used too. There are benefits to it. I played at a site that if someone booted or quit; it was an automatic loss with no chance of a bot or replacement player. Everyone was used to playing that way. There were benefits to playing there that way. HW has elected to use bots. There are benefits to playing that way. Players can argue the benefits of either system. Ultimately, HW has decided to have Provis and Bots and whatever else...Galt wrote:I have been playing for maybe the last 5 weeks or so at xxxxxxxxxx.

xxxxxxx does not even offer rated games.

One can only wonder why a player who cares only about high rated games would choose to play at a site which does not offer rated games, and why, at a site where players don't really care about ratings it is almost impossible to get people to play a social game.

One can also only wonder why people have a hard time understanding the problems caused by the provi system when there is another current thread disussing the the extremes that players go to in order to deal with the system.

Somehow, it is better to have players (remember that these are all of the newbies who need the nurturing of the provi system) have to experience being kicked off of tables, rather than think of a way where people don't have to be treated rudely and players don't need to find ways to work around the system.

It's kind of paradoxical.

In regards to the kicking of players; it's hard to quantify who or how many players are actually doing such. Someone says it's a lot. What is a lot ? Somone else says they rarely see it or only see one player who does it all the time. It's impossible to quantify from a player's perspective.

Only HW can answer as to how often someone is kicked; if HW even has the ability to monitor or record such. I doubt that they do as it is embedded in the individual game log.

So once again, we want to make a change to HW that is based on no real data. What is a lot ? What is rarely ? Let's change HW because I got kicked ?? Let's change it because Lil Abner kicks players all the time. Says who ?

Let's get rid of Prov status because I like only high rated games ? Let's get rid of Prov status because I don't want to play "those kind of" players.

I'm equally amazed at how someone can play 5 weeks at a social game site with no ratings; and then complain about HW not having high rated games ???

A paradox indeed.

HW is a ratings driven site. For some reason, there is a system in place which, while providing virtually nothing of value that could not be provided through simple social games, discourages higher rated players from playing there nics, encourages a multitude of nics, encourages the rude treatment of players, encourages higher skilled players to leave, and maybe most important of all, encourages a false perception of HW outside of the HW coomunity (among a huge percentage of the Spading population) that is a gamesite where virtually nobody knows how to play Spades.

There also is no paradox if a person likes to play both rated and social games. Each has its benefit for challenge, fun, relaxation, meeting new people, helping newer players, etc.

I'll try to be brief. If there are so many players out in your "spading community" complaining about HW; then you have your answer !Galt wrote:Vid, there is no paradox.

HW is a ratings driven site. For some reason, there is a system in place which, while providing virtually nothing of value that could not be provided through simple social games, discourages higher rated players from playing there nics, encourages a multitude of nics, encourages the rude treatment of players, encourages higher skilled players to leave, and maybe most important of all, encourages a false perception of HW outside of the HW coomunity (among a huge percentage of the Spading population) that is a gamesite where virtually nobody knows how to play Spades.

There also is no paradox if a person likes to play both rated and social games. Each has its benefit for challenge, fun, relaxation, meeting new people, helping newer players, etc.

FORM A LEAGUE.

If there is that many people out there that want what you want; then a LEAGUE should not be a problem to create.

The LEAGUE CONTROLS everything. You want HIGH RATE ONLY ? Make it your rule. You DON'T want PROV games ? Make it your rule. You don't even need FOOMS or CHAT. Ban the use of such in YOUR league.

I can't remember who now; but the point was made that HW continues to grow and has actually practically doubled it's spades players. I know I can remember days where 300 or so players was all that was around. Now HW is nearly at 1000 SPADES PLAYERS ONLINE !!!

SOMEBODY out there OBVIOUSLY LIKES HW the way it is !!!!!!!!!

And if you look at the type of spades games the players are playing; it is NOT regular. While that MAY be a BAD thing for you; it is OBVIOUSLY a GOOD thing for the majority of players. Because HW continues to GROW !

I think people like alternate games; especially when you see 80% of the games played at HW being something other than REGULAR. I also think the reason people play at HW is for FUN. If HW was so driven by ratings; then why are over half the players online below a 1528 rating ????

I think the people obsessed by ratings are the 2% who want HW to BE something that it is NOT.

And the ONLY way to get what you want is to FORM A LEAGUE.

Paradox indeed !

I don't recall saying anything about anybody complaining about HW.

I do recall when HW had fewer players than it did today, it was before the rooms were changed. At that time we had all of the same reactions to that suggestion...

HW was perfect the way that it was, changing the rooms would destroy all of the fun that everybody was having, changing the rooms would benefit only the high rated players, people who didn't like HW the way that it was should just go play someplace else, and on and on and on.

All that turned out to be true was that changing the rooms turned out to be a good thing for HW and everybody who plays here, and has helped to facilitate the nice growth that the site has experienced.

Doing away with the provi system, over time, would do exactly the same thing.

Will HW continue to be a great site if this change is never made???... of course it will.

Would it be better in the long run if this system, which arbitrarily forces players to play in games that are often grossly mismatched and in which they often are playing even though tney don't really want to, and which, by the way, most likley slows the process of a player achieving an accurate rating, was to be phased out?

It's hard to imagine how it couldn't.