FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Reply to topic Go to page 1, 2  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
alice
PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 12:19    Post subject: Ratings - is this a bug?!? Reply with quote

Hi all.
How goes things with ratings?
I'm a new member at this site.
I won 4 games of halma in a row.
After I finished third my rating were over 1820 (I don't remember exactly) and after I won the fourth my ratings droped down to 1792?!?
So, I'm asking why this thing happened?
I didn't lose any of halma games so there's nothing to spoil the score.

Looking forward to someones clarification on this matter.
Thanks.
Back to top
Groeneveld
PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 12:48    Post subject: Reply with quote

your rating is not a definitive one,

once you played 15 games of a certain game,your will get a rating which
wouldn't drop that much

but in the beginning you can loose ratingpoints when you win,

and this is no bug,

but many people has ask the same,on a similiar site JIJbent.nl



Groeneveld
Back to top
bramOffline
Superadmin
Superadmin
Avatar

Joined: 14 Jul 2005
Total posts: 1067
Gender: Unknown
Netherlands
PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 12:58    Post subject: Reply with quote

it is because you did win, but from a player with a very low rating, in the first 15 games you can loose some points then, but then again if you win from a higher player you gain much more points then you would do if you have 15 games played or more.
Back to top
View user's profile 
alice
PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 13:19    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, thanks for explanation.

I find this system - to be quite frank - stupid. Exclamation

It forces players not to play with unrated or low rated players, and their low status may be just provisional. Maybe they just don't have enough games.

When high ranked player wins a drastically lower ranked one it's rank ought not to move (zero points or +1), instead of substract points.
Back to top
alice
PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 13:21    Post subject: Reply with quote

Groeneveld wrote:

once you played 15 games of a certain game,your will get a rating which
wouldn't drop that much


It shouldn't drop at all.


Anyhow, thank both of you for fast reply!
Back to top
Groeneveld
PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 15:37    Post subject: Reply with quote

when you have played more than 15 games
it depends,when you are playing a low ranked player
you will win a few points
when you play a top ranked player you will get
more....

but heah,you are playing for fun,not for points??

Razz
Back to top
Zapmeister
PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 4:18    Post subject: Reply with quote

alice wrote:
I find this system - to be quite frank - stupid. Exclamation

It forces players not to play with unrated or low rated players, and their low status may be just provisional. Maybe they just don't have enough games.


You are not the first person to point this out and, I suspect, you won't be the last. The provisional rating system, and certain tournament-related issues, are the biggest points of disagreement between the YTMT administrators and their users.
Back to top
alice
PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 8:26    Post subject: Reply with quote

Groeneveld wrote:
when you have played more than 15 games
it depends,when you are playing a low ranked player
you will win a few points
when you play a top ranked player you will get
more....
but heah,you are playing for fun,not for points??
Razz

Provisional rankings, or not - player shouldn't be punished for winning.

I agree, we are here to have fun, but if it's all and only fun - why having points at all?
If you have the ranking system - don't made it illogical.
Back to top
alice
PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 8:30    Post subject: Reply with quote

Zapmeister wrote:
alice wrote:
I find this system - to be quite frank - stupid. Exclamation
It forces players not to play with unrated or low rated players, and their low status may be just provisional. Maybe they just don't have enough games.

You are not the first person to point this out and, I suspect, you won't be the last. The provisional rating system, and certain tournament-related issues, are the biggest points of disagreement between the YTMT administrators and their users.


So why don't they modify the system then?

Oh yeah - and that's the best part: Guy with whom I've played actually gain 100 points!
God job for him I say! klap
Back to top
Zapmeister
PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 8:45    Post subject: Reply with quote

alice wrote:
So why don't they modify the system then?


Because, as you've seen, they won't admit that there's anything wrong with it. Also, even when there is agreement about something, the main developer has very little time to work on the site and only small things have any chance of being done.

But don't let this put you off. The site has a lot of very positive things going for it, which I'm sure you'll discover if you hang around.
Back to top
alice
PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:21    Post subject: Reply with quote

Zapmeister wrote:
alice wrote:
So why don't they modify the system then?

Because, as you've seen, they won't admit that there's anything wrong with it. Also, even when there is agreement about something, the main developer has very little time to work on the site and only small things have any chance of being done.
But don't let this put you off. The site has a lot of very positive things going for it, which I'm sure you'll discover if you hang around.


I hope that this forum isn't made in vain and that someone (administrator, developer, owner, whoever) actually read this.

I'm absolutely willing to give this site a chance.
Back to top
bramOffline
Superadmin
Superadmin
Avatar

Joined: 14 Jul 2005
Total posts: 1067
Gender: Unknown
Netherlands
PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 10:40    Post subject: Reply with quote

Zapmeister wrote:
alice wrote:
I find this system - to be quite frank - stupid. Exclamation

It forces players not to play with unrated or low rated players, and their low status may be just provisional. Maybe they just don't have enough games.


You are not the first person to point this out and, I suspect, you won't be the last. The provisional rating system, and certain tournament-related issues, are the biggest points of disagreement between the YTMT administrators and their users.


I do not agree with you, because a few people do not agree it is not most of the users. And the reason why people complain about the provisional system is because they do not understand it.

Anyway, the provisional system is not something we came up with, it is very normal system used by almost every rating system based on ELO-ratings. It has to be in place otherwise it takes around a 100 games for you to get you on your normal rating instead of 15. If we do not use provisional ratings your gain when you win a game is to little. So it has to go in big steps and that even means you can loose rating points if you play against a player with a lesser rating. But if you think about it, it is correct behaviour, the only thing the provisional rating system tries to do is to get you on your normal rating as fast as possible.

Same thing about tournaments, it is a very well balanced system and has some disadvantages but other systems have more. We will not change it because every other solution (like 5 games in knock out phase) have more disadvantages.
Back to top
View user's profile 
Zapmeister
PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 11:24    Post subject: Reply with quote

bram wrote:
I do not agree with you, because a few people do not agree it is not most of the users. And the reason why people complain about the provisional system is because they do not understand it.


Only a few people post to the forum and virtually all of the posts that are made about the provisional ratings are negative.

It's not a question of understanding the maths. The complaint is that, because the system punishes anyone that plays against a much lower rated player, people are discouraged from doing that. Its the effect of the system, not its underlying mathematical detail, that is at issue.

I believe you when you say its part of the ELO system, which is widely used elsewhere - I read up in the system on wikipedia, and I recognize that you're not going to change it. However, I felt that it was OK to point out to Alice that she is not alone in disliking the system, but that the site is a good one in other respects.
Back to top
alice
PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 11:27    Post subject: Reply with quote

bram wrote:
Zapmeister wrote:
alice wrote:
I find this system - to be quite frank - stupid. Exclamation

It forces players not to play with unrated or low rated players, and their low status may be just provisional. Maybe they just don't have enough games.


You are not the first person to point this out and, I suspect, you won't be the last. The provisional rating system, and certain tournament-related issues, are the biggest points of disagreement between the YTMT administrators and their users.


I do not agree with you, because a few people do not agree it is not most of the users. And the reason why people complain about the provisional system is because they do not understand it.

Anyway, the provisional system is not something we came up with, it is very normal system used by almost every rating system based on ELO-ratings. It has to be in place otherwise it takes around a 100 games for you to get you on your normal rating instead of 15. If we do not use provisional ratings your gain when you win a game is to little. So it has to go in big steps and that even means you can loose rating points if you play against a player with a lesser rating. But if you think about it, it is correct behaviour, the only thing the provisional rating system tries to do is to get you on your normal rating as fast as possible.

Same thing about tournaments, it is a very well balanced system and has some disadvantages but other systems have more. We will not change it because every other solution (like 5 games in knock out phase) have more disadvantages.


It's obvious that you don't agree with me - if you do you'd modify the system. Neutral

I've started a few games - posting invitations in waiting room - NOT KNOWING who will accept my games. Our ratings - mine and my opponenmts was the same at the beggining (1500). I finished 3 games and my rating rises and when I won the 4. one I loose the points and my opponent gain a 100 points. So he's gone up from 1500 to 1600 and I loose cca 50.

So, I keep asking myself WHAT IS NORMAL ABOUT THAT?

And how will your well balanced system balance rating of my opponent who was rewarded for loosing as well as my rank which is demoted due to win?

Isn't it logical to score a minimal or NO POINTS at all when playing with lower ranked player then to loose points?!?

I don't mind having 0 or +1, or some such amount of points, but I mind loosing them.
Consequently lower ranked players shouldn't be rewarded, or punished either, with some large amount of points. 0 or -1 after loosing a game to higher ranked player is quite ok.

Since this site doesn't have many halma players if I set the point level when inviting people to play the chance to get a game in some reasonable term (1-2 days) is very slim, and if I don't set the rank range for oponent I'm in the jeopardy to ruin rating again.

I am really curious about tournament rating and winning system. Alas, I didn't play any of it for now, but since I applied for some I'm eager to see how it goes.

Maybe if you win a tournament with, at your misfortune, higher rank then your opponent, tournament winner is some other player? Question
Back to top
Zapmeister
PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 11:31    Post subject: Reply with quote

bram wrote:
Same thing about tournaments, it is a very well balanced system and has some disadvantages but other systems have more. We will not change it because every other solution (like 5 games in knock out phase) have more disadvantages.


You never explained the disadvantage of the suggestion I've made twice now, which is to award the color advantage to the higher TPR in the 5th game of a 5-game knockout phase.

In the existing system, the higher TPR awards the whole round, in my system it only awards the color advantage in one game. That has to be preferable, doesn't it?
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Go to page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group