EPT[spoiler] ELO Peaks - Page 6
| Forum Index > BW General |
|
Raithed
China7078 Posts
| ||
|
morfyy
Romania593 Posts
| ||
|
Dyno.
United States286 Posts
granted going undefeated in the OSL wildcard pretty much erased any losses he got from dropping out of OSL (initially) and MSL | ||
|
FirstBorn
Romania3955 Posts
EDIT: having more than 1 thread opened fails. I apologize for my mistake. | ||
|
cz
United States3249 Posts
On February 01 2009 20:21 Dyno. wrote: winner's league is a huge ELO point engine for top players granted going undefeated in the OSL wildcard pretty much erased any losses he got from dropping out of OSL (initially) and MSL You don't understand how ELO works. For the new Winner's League format to positively effect top players one of the following conditions would have to be true: 1) Top players would have to be under-rated in terms of ELO rating. 2) The new format would have to create on average players who are more over-rated in terms of ELO rating than the old format. The first doesn't make sense: top players have played enough games for their ratings to stabilize and be representative of their skill. I don't see any reason for the second condition to be true. | ||
|
-orb-
United States5770 Posts
On February 01 2009 22:36 cz wrote: You don't understand how ELO works. For the new Winner's League format to positively effect top players one of the following conditions would have to be true: 1) Top players would have to be under-rated in terms of ELO rating. 2) The new format would have to create on average players who are more over-rated in terms of ELO rating than the old format. The first doesn't make sense: top players have played enough games for their ratings to stabilize and be representative of their skill. I don't see any reason for the second condition to be true. Where do we find out how elo works? I've never seen an explanation of that anywhere | ||
|
cz
United States3249 Posts
On February 01 2009 22:41 -orb- wrote: Where do we find out how elo works? I've never seen an explanation of that anywhere http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system The real basics is that ELO ratings are (in theory) after a large enough sample of games representative of your skill. In theory the only thing that should effect your ELO rating is an increase or decrease in the skill differential between you and your opponents. If a 2300 rated player plays a 2000 rated player 10000000 times, their ratings will not change. If their ratings do change, it is because one of the players their ratings before meeting was not representative of their skill. There are some different exceptions in starcraft as people have better matchups etc that can create over-under ratedness, ie players with one very strong matchup are under-rated when they play that match-up and over-rated when they play their weakest. | ||
|
Dyno.
United States286 Posts
On February 01 2009 22:36 cz wrote: You don't understand how ELO works. For the new Winner's League format to positively effect top players one of the following conditions would have to be true: 1) Top players would have to be under-rated in terms of ELO rating. 2) The new format would have to create on average players who are more over-rated in terms of ELO rating than the old format. The first doesn't make sense: top players have played enough games for their ratings to stabilize and be representative of their skill. I don't see any reason for the second condition to be true. I do understand how ELO works. "1) Top players would have to be under-rated in terms of ELO rating. The first doesn't make sense: top players have played enough games for their ratings to stabilize and be representative of their skill." A top player being under-rated in terms of his ELO rating is the entire premise of this thread. No one has a "stable" ELO rating (granted the more games they've played, the more stable their rating becomes). The only way someone would have a stable rating, as you describe, would be for them to have played several (~50) games on a daily basis against a wide variety of opponents. However, the case happens to be that most players don't play more than a couple rated games per month. Therefore it is completely reasonable to assume that any player may be over or underrated relative to their ELO rating, due to the sheer fact that they may have recently decreased or increased in skill level without any opportunity to show it in rated games. Bisu's ELO rating is 2314 now (or whatever), but for all we know he's actually playing like a 2400 player at this point in time. The only way he's going to have an opportunity to make his ELO rating reflect his actual skill is to play games. So, as I was saying, Winner's League provides top (and by top I mean the very top) players a good opportunity to increase their rating because they actually get to play (and win) a lot of games. I'm not sure exactly how kespa implements their version of ELO (what kvalue and whatnot), but it's reasonable to assume that, most of the time, winning 2 games and losing 1 will result in a positive increase in rating. The only way it wouldn't is if you were playing players much lower rated than you, and chances are if it it really is a top player, you can assume their loss (at least) wouldn't be against someone rated much lower than them. So going off that, it just comes down to my own theory: that top pros will win at least 2 games in most matches they participate in. If that theory is true, then winner's league is good for top pros. Cliffs: Players need games to prove their worth (increase their rating). Winner's league provides a good opportunity for that. | ||
|
cz
United States3249 Posts
On February 01 2009 23:36 Dyno. wrote: I do understand how ELO works. "1) Top players would have to be under-rated in terms of ELO rating. The first doesn't make sense: top players have played enough games for their ratings to stabilize and be representative of their skill." A top player being under-rated in terms of his ELO rating is the entire premise of this thread. No one has a "stable" ELO rating (granted the more games they've played, the more stable their rating becomes). The only way someone would have a stable rating, as you describe, would be for them to have played several (~50) games on a daily basis against a wide variety of opponents. However, the case happens to be that most players don't play more than a couple rated games per month. Therefore it is completely reasonable to assume that any player may be over or underrated relative to their ELO rating, due to the sheer fact that they may have recently decreased or increased in skill level without any opportunity to show it in rated games. Bisu's ELO rating is 2314 now (or whatever), but for all we know he's actually playing like a 2400 player at this point in time. The only way he's going to have an opportunity to make his ELO rating reflect his actual skill is to play games. So, as I was saying, Winner's League provides top (and by top I mean the very top) players a good opportunity to increase their rating because they actually get to play (and win) a lot of games. I'm not sure exactly how kespa implements their version of ELO (what kvalue and whatnot), but it's reasonable to assume that, most of the time, winning 2 games and losing 1 will result in a positive increase in rating. The only way it wouldn't is if you were playing players much lower rated than you, and chances are if it it really is a top player, you can assume their loss (at least) wouldn't be against someone rated much lower than them. So going off that, it just comes down to my own theory: that top pros will win at least 2 games in most matches they participate in. If that theory is true, then winner's league is good for top pros. Cliffs: Players need games to prove their worth (increase their rating). Winner's league provides a good opportunity for that. Your original phrasing was that the winners league was a "huge point engine for top players". Getting to play more games is once again irrelevant unless one of the conditions I stated is met: you have yet to demonstrate that either is. Saying that top player's ratings haven't stabilized doesn't mean anything with respect to probably change in future rating (ie "huge point engine"). You have to demonstrate that one of the two conditions I said is true. You try to fulfill that by saying, using Bisu as an example, that: 1) His rating hasn't stabilized. 2) He could be playing like a 2400 rated player. As I stated earlier, #1 is irrelevant to the discussion unless Bisu is currently under-rated (one of my conditions). If Bisu's rating hasn't stabilized, without outside evidence there is no reason to believe it has stabilized lower than his skill actually is (your argument). That has not been demonstrated. Your #2 claim (playing like 2400 player), basically stating that Bisu could be under-rated, is irrelevant as I have no reason to believe Bisu is under-rated OR over-rated. The two possibilities, in absence of solid reasons otherwise, cancel each other out. Now you might, by say examining Bisu's games, find what you believe to be evidence showing he is playing better than he has been recently, and therefore he is under-rated. The problem is that Bisu was only an example: I was responding to your comment which stated "top players...", not Bisu. You'd have to demonstrate that the category called "top players" is underrated (and to a significant amount) for the new Winner's League to be an "ELO gold mine". Cliffs: In the absence of outside evidence, the likelihood that players will increase/decrease their ratings cancel each other out. There is also no reason to believe that due to players ratings having not yet stabilized they will increase: the likelihood that "top players" unstabilized ratings are over or below a players actual skill cancel out. | ||
|
DreaM)XeRO
Korea (South)4667 Posts
On January 04 2009 11:32 LosingID8 wrote: HB has officially jinxed poor kim taek yong. the slump starts now! Rofl | ||
|
Fzero
United States1503 Posts
His record in January is 17-6. I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone with 17 wins in a month. | ||
|
29 fps
United States5725 Posts
| ||
|
Zoler
Sweden6339 Posts
On February 02 2009 15:30 29 fps wrote: what's the difference between the ELO ranking and the KeSPA ranking? | ||
|
x89titan
Philippines1130 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + but he wont get more than 2301. | ||
|
eshlow
United States5210 Posts
On February 02 2009 15:46 x89titan wrote: he probably will make it since he's very hot right now. + Show Spoiler + but he wont get more than 2301. He's made 2314..... twice. | ||
|
SonuvBob
Aiur21550 Posts
On February 02 2009 15:30 29 fps wrote: what's the difference between the ELO ranking and the KeSPA ranking? it seems like they're not the same because the highest on the KeSPA ranking has less than the "starting" 2000 pts. KeSPA FAQ about the ranking formula: On June 05 2008 07:29 joohyunee wrote: There are three different categories: overall ranking, proleague ranking, and individual ranking. The math behind the ranks: ① Decaying of points through time The results from the last 3 months are applied 100%, but for every month afterwards, 10% of the points gained "decays"; (so basically a game played 3+ months ago would count for only 90% of the point gained, 4+ months 80% until 12 months afterwards would count 0% into kespa ranking) ② Application of points from proleague Unlike the individual leagues where the points gained through a win depend on the current rank according to kespa, the proleague wins count as an individual "win", (meaning who the opponent is doesn't change the amount of points earned through the win). However, in a setting where a player plays in the "ace match" or the "closer", there is a 50% bonus for the win. If a player wins an ace match in the post season, there is an additional 50% bonus for that win (so 200% points earned for a win one ace match) There is also bonus points for the players that win the "most wins" prize in the individual and teamplay (2v2) matches. (explains why flower/justin was so high up in kespa a couple of months ago) ③ Controlling the points in the individual leagues In the case of individual leagues, it is impossible to justify a specific amount of point that a player earns for a win. The amount of points gained depend on their performance in the league, but there is a 500 extra point bonus for winning the league. And there is no bonus for the amount of money earned (they used to give OSL more kespa points than MSL because OSL gave out more money but it doesn't matter now that MSL gives as much money to the MSL winner) Sounds like they have no idea what they're doing and just make up random rules. :p | ||
|
x89titan
Philippines1130 Posts
i am so uninformed. | ||
|
Aurious
Canada1772 Posts
| ||
|
Piste
6183 Posts
| ||
disciple
9071 Posts
| ||
| ||
