Ranking Etiquette
Viewing forum thread.
Back to Game Queries.
Back to Forum List.
18:26 Sat 2 Oct 10 (BST)
[Link]
Not necessarily - the only thing Chris failed to mention was his own skill so it would be impossible to presume those things
if chris is the higher rank (800 for example) then they could both have rank correct for their skill, then chris's rank goes above his skill and his opponents rank goes below their skill - making it easy to get it back
chris' skill would still be above his opponents but he could easily use the current system to keep playing that same opponent who he knows he can beat yet knows that they can easily gain their rank back because they will be ranked below their skill
janmb said:
Since your example claims that you will beat this opponent enough of the time to consistently gain rank from it (which he loses), that means his skill is significantly lower than yours.
Assuming you are already at your "correct" rank, where rank=skill, this means that your opponent started off with higher rank than skill, and that you bring this down toward his correct level by beating him more than you lose.
Assuming you are already at your "correct" rank, where rank=skill, this means that your opponent started off with higher rank than skill, and that you bring this down toward his correct level by beating him more than you lose.
Not necessarily - the only thing Chris failed to mention was his own skill so it would be impossible to presume those things
if chris is the higher rank (800 for example) then they could both have rank correct for their skill, then chris's rank goes above his skill and his opponents rank goes below their skill - making it easy to get it back
chris' skill would still be above his opponents but he could easily use the current system to keep playing that same opponent who he knows he can beat yet knows that they can easily gain their rank back because they will be ranked below their skill
18:55 Sat 2 Oct 10 (BST)
[Link]
Yeah bit imprecise on my part too, the correction assumption that necessarily can be made for that example is that chris' own rank would have to be worse than his skill and/or his opponent would have to have higher rank than skill. One or both of those need to be true for that example to be possible, or the win rate described won't gain him any rank.
zantetsukenz said:
Not necessarily - the only thing Chris failed to mention was his own skill so it would be impossible to presume those things
Yeah bit imprecise on my part too, the correction assumption that necessarily can be made for that example is that chris' own rank would have to be worse than his skill and/or his opponent would have to have higher rank than skill. One or both of those need to be true for that example to be possible, or the win rate described won't gain him any rank.
18:59 Sat 2 Oct 10 (BST)
[Link]
No it is not.
The only way for that to happen would be if you started off played them at a rank that is significantly lower than your own skill level.
In any other scenario, there is no way for you to bring that player below his correct rank, unless the two of you were cheating in terms of voluntarily losing games.
Your entire example seems based on a faulty belief that there exists a player that you can beat "more" than your true skill difference would normally suggest. This is not the case.
chris said:
What is my 'correct' rank - it is only based on my games against one player? Isn't that a major issue?
No it is not.
chris said:
Through their multitude of games against me their rank goes artificially low
The only way for that to happen would be if you started off played them at a rank that is significantly lower than your own skill level.
In any other scenario, there is no way for you to bring that player below his correct rank, unless the two of you were cheating in terms of voluntarily losing games.
Your entire example seems based on a faulty belief that there exists a player that you can beat "more" than your true skill difference would normally suggest. This is not the case.
19:07 Sat 2 Oct 10 (BST)
[Link]
Yeah bit imprecise on my part too, the correction assumption that necessarily can be made for that example is that chris' own rank would have to be worse than his skill and/or his opponent would have to have higher rank than skill. One or both of those need to be true for that example to be possible, or the win rate described won't gain him any rank.
not really true - 800 beating a 750 is going to get you ranking points - when the 800 knows they're better than the 750 and knows what to do to beat them then they can get a win rate higher than what is expected of them in the way the score for a win is calculated
not necessarily skill above rank in general, just between those two that the fictional Chris is going to win a greater amount more points than lose (which will slow down as his opponents rank goes back to 750 and he slowly increases from 800 upwards
janmb said:
zantetsukenz said:
Not necessarily - the only thing Chris failed to mention was his own skill so it would be impossible to presume those things
Yeah bit imprecise on my part too, the correction assumption that necessarily can be made for that example is that chris' own rank would have to be worse than his skill and/or his opponent would have to have higher rank than skill. One or both of those need to be true for that example to be possible, or the win rate described won't gain him any rank.
not really true - 800 beating a 750 is going to get you ranking points - when the 800 knows they're better than the 750 and knows what to do to beat them then they can get a win rate higher than what is expected of them in the way the score for a win is calculated
not necessarily skill above rank in general, just between those two that the fictional Chris is going to win a greater amount more points than lose (which will slow down as his opponents rank goes back to 750 and he slowly increases from 800 upwards
19:14 Sat 2 Oct 10 (BST)
[Link]
Not really a faulty belief - your opinion is your own, you cant proclaim you are right (otherwise everyone would be as people aren't going to argue something they think is wrong)
You yourself said it was possible for certain players to beat others more than the 'true difference'
janmb said:
Your entire example seems based on a faulty belief that there exists a player that you can beat "more" than your true skill difference would normally suggest. This is not the case.
Not really a faulty belief - your opinion is your own, you cant proclaim you are right (otherwise everyone would be as people aren't going to argue something they think is wrong)
janmb said:
Fair enough, there exists a few players who for whatever reasons have real nervous breakdowns against certain, specific opponents, and who will therefore play a lot worse against them than they do in general, but those are extreme exceptions and you'd be stretching it if claiming it is possible to find players whose nemesis is YOU.
You yourself said it was possible for certain players to beat others more than the 'true difference'
19:15 Sat 2 Oct 10 (BST)
[Link]
That's where both of you go wrong....
If the 800 player beats the 750 player in question more than it takes for the 800 player to break even and actually gain rank, that means one of two things (or both): Either the 800 player is really better than that, and/or the 750 player is worse than that.
In either case, if the 800 player in question finds he can beat that player enough to gain rank from it, that means that both players are converging on the rank that correctly describe their skill.
Chris seems to base his ideas on the incorrect assumption that the "750" player can then go regain his rank from others... Well, this is not the case since the player did not hold a 750 skill level in the first place and will therefore not climb back to 750 or higher from playing others either.
zantetsukenz said:
not really true - 800 beating a 750 is going to get you ranking points - when the 800 knows they're better than the 750 and knows what to do to beat them then they can get a win rate higher than what is expected of them in the way the score for a win is calculated
That's where both of you go wrong....
If the 800 player beats the 750 player in question more than it takes for the 800 player to break even and actually gain rank, that means one of two things (or both): Either the 800 player is really better than that, and/or the 750 player is worse than that.
In either case, if the 800 player in question finds he can beat that player enough to gain rank from it, that means that both players are converging on the rank that correctly describe their skill.
Chris seems to base his ideas on the incorrect assumption that the "750" player can then go regain his rank from others... Well, this is not the case since the player did not hold a 750 skill level in the first place and will therefore not climb back to 750 or higher from playing others either.
19:16 Sat 2 Oct 10 (BST)
[Link]
And I also pointed out that finding such players and making sure to play them enough for this to really matter one bit, is near impossible and certainly not a factor large enough to impact the ranking system significantly at all.
zantetsukenz said:
You yourself said it was possible for certain players to beat others more than the 'true difference'
And I also pointed out that finding such players and making sure to play them enough for this to really matter one bit, is near impossible and certainly not a factor large enough to impact the ranking system significantly at all.
19:19 Sat 2 Oct 10 (BST)
[Link]
Like so many times in the past, I suggest we simply agree to disagree on this.
I clearly lack the teaching skills (not my field of expertise at all, and contrary to so many others I can actually admit and relate to the fact that I have weak sides too ) to get these points past you anyways so lets just move on.
Especially me and Chris have had the same exchanges time and time again and nothing more can possibly come of it.
I clearly lack the teaching skills (not my field of expertise at all, and contrary to so many others I can actually admit and relate to the fact that I have weak sides too ) to get these points past you anyways so lets just move on.
Especially me and Chris have had the same exchanges time and time again and nothing more can possibly come of it.
19:21 Sat 2 Oct 10 (BST)
[Link]
You said it yourself (and seem to be ignoring the fact) - certain players have 'breakdowns' against others
if they are both at the correct rank (800 and 750) then the 800 is going to win more than the 750, and the ratio expected by the funkypool system is not particularly reflective of the ratio this may turn out to be - especially those where there are 'breakdowns'
the 750 would drop rank below skill and so would be able to play others whose skill is less than theres but rank is even and eventually gain rank
the 800 would gain rank above their skill - but due to not playing anyone else except the person who has 'breakdowns' their rank remains above what their skill is
if they are both at the correct rank (800 and 750) then the 800 is going to win more than the 750, and the ratio expected by the funkypool system is not particularly reflective of the ratio this may turn out to be - especially those where there are 'breakdowns'
the 750 would drop rank below skill and so would be able to play others whose skill is less than theres but rank is even and eventually gain rank
the 800 would gain rank above their skill - but due to not playing anyone else except the person who has 'breakdowns' their rank remains above what their skill is
19:25 Sat 2 Oct 10 (BST)
[Link]
Yes, there are a few players of that nature.
But please read ALL of my posts, not just isolated extracts taken out of context. I also pointed out that this type of player is hard to find and even less likely to stay playing you enough for this to make a difference at all.
zantetsukenz said:
You said it yourself (and seem to be ignoring the fact) - certain players have 'breakdowns' against others
Yes, there are a few players of that nature.
But please read ALL of my posts, not just isolated extracts taken out of context. I also pointed out that this type of player is hard to find and even less likely to stay playing you enough for this to make a difference at all.
Deleted User
(IP Logged)
(IP Logged)
19:26 Sat 2 Oct 10 (BST)
[Link]
Don't do yourself down - your teaching and explanatory skills are excellent - always have been
it's your subject matter that is flawed
janmb said:
I clearly lack the teaching skills (not my field of expertise at all, and contrary to so many others I can actually admit and relate to the fact that I have weak sides too ) to get these points past you anyways so lets just move on.
Don't do yourself down - your teaching and explanatory skills are excellent - always have been
it's your subject matter that is flawed
| Unable to post | |
|---|---|
| Reason: | You must log in before you can post |
Ranking Etiquette
Back to Top of this Page
Back to Game Queries.
Back to Forum List.