Page 1 of 1

Ratings, Ratios and Percentages..........

Posted: Fri Nov 21, 2003 11:13 am
by the count24
There has been a lot of controversy over ratings. Do i think ones rating reflects how good he or she is? No. But is there a better way to rate players such as by ratio or percentages? I don't think that's the answer either.

If the ratings went only by percentage wins, two top flight players would find less experienced players to always play against making the game less fun. With the hardwood rating system, two top flight players (say 1700+) can play against two lower rated players (at about 1400) and be credited 5 pts for a win. But if these players happen to lose, they will lose 25 pts. That means they have to win 5:1 approximately to keep their rating even. Due to the fact that 1400 players are good players, and are bound to fall into some lucky cards, making it impossible for higher rated players to take advantage.

So, what this rating reflects is how well someone is doing in the last 12 games. A rating can jump from the 1400's to the 1700's within a short number of sessions, so don't give up or feel discouraged if the cards haven't been falling your way.

Posted: Fri Nov 21, 2003 12:31 pm
by Jonas
yep, and keep in mind that the rise and drop of a player per game isn't greater that 32 points if I recall correctly.

Someday we would like to find a way to deal with luck in the system without some massive modification to the way the game is played.

Until then, this is the best we came up with so far.

Posted: Fri Nov 21, 2003 2:36 pm
by Hero
Well, I will admit that people could abuse the system if the ratings were based on purely the win ratio... I never thought of it actually being the sole way to rate someone in terms of making a ladder... but perhaps it could be done... maybe it could be set up that a game can only be rated (counting for the ladder) if you play opponents with around the same ratio as you. If they don't it doesn't count for the ladder, but it could still show on your profile whether you win or lose. This way you could see in your profile something like this : ladder games: win % -- 50%
non-ladder: win % -- 54%
And only ladder games show up on the top 25 page, or something like that.
Perhaps this could work or perhaps we just need to rethink the whole point distribution system.
Either way your win/loss ratio should be shown on your profile, along with how many times you called, got euchred, went alone, succeded at going alone. I would love to know that info.

Well that was my input...till the next

Posted: Fri Nov 21, 2003 3:08 pm
by Jonas
Well the tricky part about Euchre, Spades and HEarts is that thier is a element of luck which we don't really account for.

Luck/chance is a hard thing to account for on a individual game. Even the best players lose to bad cards. but thats why its called "chance"

my 2 cents

Posted: Fri Nov 21, 2003 10:32 pm
Well alright whiz brought alot of light to the whole rating thing for me and if we look at it as thought the rating system right now rates us as though we need 2 win every 5/6 games and i quote "5 to 1" that means that to maintain the hightest rating you need 2 have an 83% win ratio. Which is crazy because yesterday among the TOP 25 the win ratios fell like this. Please imagine a percent behind each number cuz i don't wanna type it lol. 59;62;55;52;54;58;57;57;52;61;57;57;60;57;50;52;53;51;59;54;54;55;59;59;57. Those were the win percentages of the top 25 yesterday. So if the point system seems 2 be in favor of a 5 to 1 ratio game wise then no one is near being at the 83% that requires to be on the top all the time to be a true indicator. Right? lol So maybe if we can adjust the win loss pt systen to reflect maybe a 65 % win ratio this will skew the curve a little more toward reality and give us a more true indicator of games over all instead of the last dozen or so? I'm sure that can be done. There has 2 be a formula now in place in the programming language that can be adjusted and tested. Jonas???? U R the master! Please advise!!!!

Posted: Fri Nov 21, 2003 10:36 pm
by Jonas
No I'm more the messenger of stuff. The last math class I was in, I got a sympathy D ;)

Posted: Fri Nov 21, 2003 10:38 pm
by duffer36
GTO, I think Jonas might be feeling a bit overwhelmed right now because of the furor raised in the spades version. There are a few people highly upset about some of their nics being reset. Maybe after that cools down or is remedied SCE can revisit the ratings idea but I have a guess they may shy away from it for a while. Believe me when I say I would not want to be in Jonas's shoes right now!!!!

I have faith in SCE that eventually they will come to some sort of happy ground in regards to an ideal ratings system. I just wish everyone else did as well, especialy in spades, as it appears that is where the greatest problem with cheating to acheive a high rating is situated. I wish Jonas, Dan, Manny and the rest good luck with this situation!

My 2 cents

Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2003 6:14 am
Duffer i appreciate your input but i wasn't asking that it be something looked into right now. I was merely giving my opinion on how I feel the rating system could be adjusted 2 be a more accurate reflection of player ability. My question posed 2 jonas was merely in the respect of whether it is possible within the programming environment not that it be something that should be looked into RIGHT NOW. THere certainly is no urgency about the thing i was merely giving my educated opinion on the post topic.

And Jonas bless u for putting up with all of us peeps and i'm so sorry that you get 2 b the messenger. That's a tough position sometimes. Sorry 2 hear about your D. lol

Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2003 11:39 am
by duffer36
GTO, I simply meant to let you know about the furor in the spades forum in case you weren't aware of it yet. I didn't assume that you meant right now. Kind of a head's up, and more actually to sorta help Jonas a bit as I saw him on the forums til the wee hours last night, lol. He's black and blue from the abuse over there. Seems as though the euchre players are taking it more in stride than the other games.

Maybe if we can come up with a new system, perhaps SCE could look into it. I am in agreement that there has got to be SOMETHING better out there for ratings. Also I am pretty sure that the ratings calculations done here are the same as is done in Rankmonster, if you are familiar with their system.

Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2003 4:57 am
TY Duffer

p.s. i know my sig is a little big right now, bear with me it won't show when i tag it to my personal page.

Pass & Punt Partner!

Posted: Sun Dec 21, 2003 4:37 pm
by Venture
interesting ideas. i think a good way to rate players would account for

-the player's win/loss ratio
-the player's average partner's win/loss ratio
-the player's average partner's opponent's win/loss ratio
-the player's average opponent's win/loss ratio.
-the player's average opponent's opponent's win/loss ratio.

this way you'd get a boost if you don't always play with a good partner (and if your partner plays against winning opponents) and if you play against winning opponents (who also play against winning opponents). i'm no mathematician, so i don't know how it would all fit into a formula, but i assume it could be done (it's similar to college basketball's RPI).

i also really like hero's suggestion to record all kinds of stats so we could compare the styles of winning players and find out how we all really play.


Posted: Sun Dec 21, 2003 11:41 pm
Just would like 2 clarify for those of u who take it the wrong way; it would be nice to have different game setting options such as win percentage. Not a complete change from the rating system that we have now.

Happy Holidays Everyone

Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2003 3:07 pm
by mickodie
Good idea Venture.
the player's win/loss ratio
-the player's average partner's win/loss ratio
-the player's average partner's opponent's win/loss ratio
-the player's average opponent's win/loss ratio.
-the player's average opponent's opponent's win/loss ratio.
I am not a big follower of ratings, but there are people who get in a game just to lose and drop the rating of others. This sounds like it would take that into account for the rating.

Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2003 3:25 pm
by Gray Goose

Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2003 8:50 pm
by Venture
i forgot to add

-the player's average partner's partner's record
-the player's average opponent's partner's record

and of course, games that you yourself played in don't get taken into account as far as your opponents' and partner's records go (as far as they impact your rating), because then youd penalize yourself a little for bringing down your opponent's records more than youd help yourself bringing up your partner's average partner's record by winning (and it'd hurt you to make your opponents seem worse and your partners seem better). make sense? lol