Main Forum
| Post Reply
|
Top Player Standings
|
|
Play gin-rummy tournaments online
|
| It's now: Oct 13, 3:09pm EST |
Top Player Standings
Posted by
Menkman74
(VIP) 1 May 2004 2:09am
Calc, in the third post of my original run of Top Players, you said that 'ratings are an indication of skill, just not a good one'. Ratings here are not an indication of skill, they are an indication of you playing other players with similar ratings to maintain your number. Again, it is extremely possible to have a rating of 2100 and have a losing record. And if it is POSSIBLE, then how can ratings be any true indication of skill. The two just arent and shouldnt be used in the same breath. Look, I know I know I know you'll want to give examples of the contrary, but just realize that a player with a high rating doesnt necessarily mean they are skillful. With that said all I am looking for is for Game Col to change the way the top players are viewed and change it to one that makes sense... Show me the players with the best records in here and I'll show you the best players on this site.
Always a Pleasure, Never a Chore...
Menk
A suggestion
Posted by
1 May 2004 6:56am
The only solution to satisfy all would be to have as in other game sites a ‘Hall of Fame’ where players are rated and listed by their different achievements, such as most tourneys won, most tourneys played, most wins, most games played, highest rating, ladder rating, etc. A seperate list for everything and then that would give a true picture of each players standings.
You're making this too easy
Posted by
calc_guy
1 May 2004 8:28pm
Calc, in the third post of my original run of Top Players, you said that 'ratings are an indication of skill, just not a good one'.
Correct.
Ratings here are not an indication of skill,
Yes they are.
they are an indication of you playing other players with similar ratings to maintain your number.
Your number is not maintained if you lose all the time -- or even 60% of the time -- to those players. When you win, your rating goes up, when you lose, it goes down -- every time.
Again, it is extremely possible to have a rating of 2100 and have a losing record. And if it is POSSIBLE, then how can ratings be any true indication of skill.
Very simple. The opponents of that 2100 player are equally as skilled as the 2100 player. Skilled people in the above 2000 range tend to play others in the same range to protect themselves from the flaw that gives unfair odds to low rated players.
For example, if I only play 2200 rated players and above, and I win 49% of the time, then I deserve something like a 2100 rating. This ain't exactly rocket science.
There is a principle in statistics called correlation. If your rating goes up when you win and down when you lose, then ratings and win/loss are correlated. There's simply no way around it.
I don't know why you want to make a big deal about this. I've said the correlation is not as high as it could be and should be. What is your object in trying to make people believe there's no correlation whatsoever? I'm beginning to think there's some sort of political agenda here.
calc_guy
From Another Posting
Posted by
Ed_Blue
(VIP) 1 May 2004 10:51pm
Menk, I didn't realizec you started a new thread on this subject. I just posted the following message in your original posting and another to The Webmaster. Both peratin to this point.
Let me start with an appology. My intention was to unite a group that appeared to be drifting apart based on players refusing to join them, under the same criteria as others use, based on a fear of a rating reduction.
I agree, you are entitled to play any way you like. The last thing I want is to antagonize a person I consider a friend. I happen to enjoy playing against you but I fell a bit odd when you stated this would never have happened if this was a rated game and also that my type of player is a weaker player based on W/L percentages.
My points were directed at the players opposed to your postings and that's the sum and substance of it.
Oh yes, I do not play solely for the money involved. This is quite obvious from the level of player I chose to play against. I am lucky in that I can very well afford to play at any stakes but I tend to limit my matches up to $30. I'm sorry, but I truly enjoy competing and I don't mind losing to another player when the match is a good one.
On the other hand, if I beat a higher rated player, I expect that accomplishment to be recognized. By your own admission, you should win most matches and shouldn't be concerned with a loss.
Thanks again and I am truly sorry if I offended you.
Hey, It's All Good
Posted by
Menkman74
(VIP) 1 May 2004 10:59pm
LOL. Calc. you kill me with your disections and mathematical responses. Even though I can probably come close to jabbing with you on correlations and permutations and combinations yada yada yada, let me just play dumb guy here which I can be pretty good at. Call me Mr. Layman as I'll put it in his terms.
Ratings are not an indication of skill. What was funny is that when you dissected my message which I know you like to do, you said 'yes they are' and backed it by saying 'they are an indication of you playing other players with similar ratings to maintain your number' Well, well, well! You are 100% right on the money. They ARE AN INDICATION OF YOU PLAYING OTHER PLAYERS WITH SIMILAR RATINGS TO MAINTAIN YOUR NUMBER. Thats EXACTLY all they are. You're playing high RATED players, not necessarily highly SKILLFUL players. A highly rated player could get there with a below average record if he/she keeps playing high rated players b/c even if they are a 45-50% gin plyer, their rating will go up 25-30 pts sometimes for every 5 points it will go down if they lose.
Let me play Calc_Guy for a sec...
'For example, if I only play 2200 rated players and above, and I win 49% of the time, then I deserve something like a 2100 rating. This ain't exactly rocket science.'
Well DUH! You and me actually AGREE! Of course you deserve a 2100 rating b/c you are playing 2100 RATED PLAYERS. AND in your example, the 2100 rated player is a 49% gin player. Highly skillful?? No way. Highly rated? Of course. There is absolutely no way that player is considered a top player. The rating system is screwed up here, no doubt. But when we are talking about the finitive way to gauge a players gin success here at Game Colony, do me a favor and double click their name, look at their record and judge from there. No more math analogies though ok. Let's try and keep it on a common sense level where a player with a 800-400 record and a 1650 rating isnt even in the same league as a 400-800 record player with a 2100 rating which is very possible. Not likely, but possible.
Hey, by the way, the original post wasnt geared to you or for you to be defensive with this. It was intended for Game Colony to review how they recognize the top players here. I'll tell ya right now, I do not want to see someone who is up there b/c they decided to play for rating at this time when they are an average player. I'm hoping they take this positive feedback and do whats best for the site, show us the top players by their long term record and give props where props are due.
Always a Pleasure, Never a Chore...
Menk
Menk, try and pay attention
Posted by
calc_guy
1 May 2004 11:49pm
Your quote from my post: 'they are an indication of you playing other players with similar ratings to maintain your number.' was a quote from YOUR post! If you may notice, I started a new paragraph when I said wrote it (actually, copied and pasted it), and put it in italics. This is widely understood to mean I am quoting you in order to respond.
Didn't you recognize your own words?  This is a tradition that's understood on many boards on the internet, but maybe it hasn't hit here yet. I copied it, in order to disagree with it!
But thanks for your comments, anyway.
Ed, I'm glad we can still call one another 'friend,' and hope to play you again some day soon. In a couple weeks, I'll probably get tired of doing the rating thing, and then maybe go after the ladder or who-knows-what. It's really not a big issue to me.
I do not say, nor have I ever said, that the top rated person is the best gin player on gc. Nor do I think the top win/loss percentage is the best. Nor the top o' the ladder. It'd probably be possible to figure out who the best 10-15 players are by carefully analysing all the stats kept by gamecolony. But I don't think I'm one of 'em, so idunreelycare.
gl and g cards,
calc_guy
Reply to this topic
|
Play gin-rummy tournaments online
At GameColony.com you can play games of skill only -- play for free or play for $prizes!.
According to the statutes of most states in the United States, gambling is defined as: "risking something of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance". (Also see No Gambling!). The skill (as opposed to chance) is predominant in games of skill. Playing games of skill for $prizes, therefore, has nothing to do with gambling as it is not a contest of chance -- the more skillful player will win far more often. The chance element of a 'gamble' is either insignificant or missing. When players compete in tournaments or games of skill for $prizes -- it is "competitive entertainment" rather then "gambling". The more skilled winner will always win more matches, tournaments and $prizes.
|
|
