|
So I've been looking at the rankings a lot lately, and I'm really glad that Bisu's first. He's actually first on elo and kespa rankings. I've heard from a lot of people that elo is crap and that kespa is a much more accurate system of ranking. Now, I have no idea how either of them work, but I have always assumed that kespa was more "accurate" based on the skill level of the opponent. Something recently led me to oppose that. Recently, Leta, Jangbi, and Bisu have been beast. On february kespa rankings, this was ther order.
1 (P)Bisu SK Telecom T1 1849.5 + 2 + 99.0
2 (T)Flash KTF MagicNs 1824.3 - - 82.7
3 (P)Stork Samsung KHAN 1811.3 - 2 - 213
4 (Z)Jaedong Hwaseung Oz 1708.5 + 1 + 146.2
5 (P)BeSt SK Telecom T1 1598.3 - 1 - 123
6 (P)JangBi
What the heck?? stork and best have been suffering lately and they're still up there. on elo its this
(P)Bisu 김택용 P SK Telecom T1 2314 pts 2353 pts
(Z)Jaedong 이제동 Z Hwaseung Oz 2278 pts 2309 pts
(T)Flash 이영호 T KTF MagicNs 2276 pts 2336 pts
(P)JangBi 허영무 P Samsung KHAN 2249 pts 2290 pts
(T)Leta 신상문 T OnGameNet SPARKYZ 2190 pts 2259 pts
which is more of what I expected. Maybe kespa is a more long term ranking system. But then they woudlnt have the rankings for each month. I dont know how either of them work, but I think that elo is more dependable according to how the players are doing right now.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
KeSPA rankings are calculated solely based on points assigned by winning at different stages of tournaments. Every win is a gain, every loss is merely missed points. It calculates a 3 month period and adds them up. It has nothing to do with anything else, it is just an assignment of points based on how KeSPA rates the worth of the different stages in leagues.
ELO is pretty simple, every player starts with 2000. A win gives you points, a loss makes you lose points. Winning against a player with a higher ELO than you gives you more points, losing to a player with lower ELO than you makes you lose more points. Winning against a player with lower ELO gives you less, losing against a higher ELO means you lose fewer points. Pretty simple.
That said, both of them are entirely results-based and have no concrete reflection on the players themselves and how they'll perform on any given day. They're just statistics.
|
afaik, KeSPA takes into account results over the last 12 months.
that'll explain much of it
EDIT: Hm it's only 3 months now?
|
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
KeSPA takes into account for the past year or so of records, I believe. And ELO can drop drastically if you go on a losing streak.
|
KeSPA ranks are definitely more long term. They value the last couple months at 100%, then reduce by 10% the value of each of the months proceeding, so even if people start sucking the current month, they have lots of other months of good play.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
Someone confirm that KeSPA is only 3 months, please. It's definitely not a year, that's ancient history.
|
When sAviOr began to slump in around 2008 he was still ranked really high on Kespa for MONTHS. Because of his era of dominance. While his ELO dropped rather quickly at least in comparison.
KeSPA rankings are more solid I think, and if you earn a lot of points its harder to come farther down, I can't remember how KeSPA is scored however. But ELO effects players more drastically for more games in a short period, so I would say for determining who is hot at the moment, or a rising star, ELO is where to look. When someone starts performing better they get more points, while people at the top are getting less points. So a player like Leta was able to storm the ELO rankings.
For a good example, NaDa's ELO is inconsistent, and pretty low barring a few random sparks of his former glory, so he hasn't really been top 30 ELO in a while, however someone recently made a thread celebrating NaDa being top 30 in KeSPA for 8 years. Keep in mind that he had a major slump, which would of shot him out of ELO ranking, what kept him high in KeSPA would of been his prior level of dominance, which earned him a lot of points. While that level of dominance would of made his ELO drop drastically.
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
if you want an accurate reflection of who is playing the best right now, read the Power Rank. A new one comes out today.
|
How has Bisu been suffering lately D:. He's smashing the crap outta everyone in WL.
|
United States10328 Posts
On March 04 2009 13:37 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:
if you want an accurate reflection of who is playing the best right now, read the Power Rank. A new one comes out today.
<3 fakesteve (also posted at 13:37 gives ++points)
|
I think ELO takes into account all games, while Kespa is the last year but points decay as time goes on so Flash's OSL win last March/April (can't remember which one) counts much less than Bisu's MSL win (after adjusting for 1 being an OSL and 1 an MSL). The reason Kespa reacts slower is as FS explained you don't lose points for a loss, ELO you do. Another part if it is our ELO updates within a day or so of the games that were played, so if Ganzi (lowest rated player) got an all kill tonight against Flash, Bisu, Jaedong, and Leta (forget they are on different teams) tomorrow Ganzi's ELO rank would have shot up ~60 points while it would take a month to see any effect on the Kespa rank.
|
On March 04 2009 13:37 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:
if you want an accurate reflection of who is playing the best right now, read the Power Rank. A new one comes out today.
Considering the top 5 in the current power rank are the same as the current top 5 elo (albeit in a somewhat different order), I'm not sure there's a huge difference, although the comments/analysis on power rank are nice.
|
lol @ steve and the self-promotion. haha
i agree that they're just stats. doesnt really matter. just like a 70% win rate doesnt mean you'll win EVERY match
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
On March 04 2009 13:49 gravity wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2009 13:37 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote:
if you want an accurate reflection of who is playing the best right now, read the Power Rank. A new one comes out today. Considering the top 5 in the current power rank are the same as the current top 5 elo (albeit in a somewhat different order), I'm not sure there's a huge difference, although the comments/analysis on power rank are nice.
The focus is entirely different. The order is too. There's correlation but no causation.
|
Why are they starting ELO rating at 2000 when in all other ladders i've seen (such as the original bnet one) it is 1000?
|
@OP
That's interesting, because I've always felt that ELO was the more "accurate" system. The difference between ELO and KeSPA is that ELO is a skill based system (within assumptions), while KeSPA is an achievement based system.
A player's ELO depends on how good are the opponents the player beats (and loses to), where "how good the opponent is" is defined recursively as how many good opponent that opponent has beaten.
KeSPA points are gained according to how far one goes through the individual leagues, with some points gained through proleague performance. So KeSPA ranking is about recent achievement, and a finals game matters a lot more than a qualifying game. Contrast that to ELO where each game counts equally regardless of the context.
The assumptions mentioned earlier for ELO-- one main assumption is that every player has an inherent skill level that stays constant over the player's lifetime. This is why ELO is often called a skill based system. Like Fakesteve said, the assumption is not realistic and both ELO and KeSPA says nothing about how a player will perform on a given day. While it is unrealistic, it doesn't come from nowhere. A player who is this good at a certain time is generally about more or less good some other time.
(More about the skill assumption: if every player has a certain inherent skill level, and we postulate that so and so skill level A always has a X% chance of beating skill level B-- for example a 2250 has a 70% chance of beating a 2130-- then we see that games are just a reflection of the players true skill. The games and who wins are the data from which we try to guess the hidden variable of skill. The more games in total-- the more data-- the closer we are to calculating the player's "true" skill level. This is why ELO is mathematically awesome.)
|
On March 04 2009 14:18 Eatme wrote:
Why are they starting ELO rating at 2000 when in all other ladders i've seen (such as the original bnet one) it is 1000?
To highlight how much better the progamers are than the standard scrubs that populate all the other ladders.
Actually I have no clue, but that sounds reasonable to me!
|
In terms of accuracy I'd say ELO > Power Rank > Kespa.
|
On March 04 2009 14:22 huameng wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2009 14:18 Eatme wrote:
Why are they starting ELO rating at 2000 when in all other ladders i've seen (such as the original bnet one) it is 1000? To highlight how much better the progamers are than the standard scrubs that populate all the other ladders. Actually I have no clue, but that sounds reasonable to me!
Well top progamers would have about 2000 on a normal ladder I guess.
|
On March 04 2009 14:18 Eatme wrote:
Why are they starting ELO rating at 2000 when in all other ladders i've seen (such as the original bnet one) it is 1000?
starting value has no effect on elo systems (within reason) and was chosen arbitrarily in the case of tl i believe. the only reason 1000 is common is because people view it as a nice round number.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
