|
On November 12 2010 16:05 zulu_nation8 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 15:56 Adeeler wrote:
Double Extended is definitely more accurate a measure then plain double and is efficient.
Arguing that each round is isolated and shouldn't cause an extended series goes against the whole principal of an isolated tournament where its the battle to have the best winning streak. You can't have it both ways.
Either you have only single elimination or double extended. Plain double is never valid in any circumstance. How this isn't understood by tournament veterans is odd.
Over multiple single eliminations the players rank will become more accurate but the double & double extended speed up the process.
The Idra arguement of his zvt is better the anothers persons matchup is completely irrelevent. Race doesn't matter as you either play to win in a tournament setting beating everyone or you want a league where you can lose but overall your average skill level will be shown.
Round robins are the most accurate most fair but no one has that kind of time. In the context of Almeisan's example, you can look at it as G5 obtaining an advantage for having gone on a win streak in the loser's bracket before meeting Idra, where the advantage is for their series to start out 0-0. In the grand final the winner's bracket winner starts out with an advantage because he went undefeated.
If you stayed in the Winners by knocking someone down beating them you proved you are better in a single elim fashion, the double isn't about giving losers a second chance but placing final standings more accurately.
So the winner between players that have already met should always have the advantage; otherwise you are looking to only have a single elim.
The very late stages should give much less advantage to maintain entertainment value.Semi' maybe quarters onwards.
|
On November 12 2010 15:51 nzb wrote:Show nested quote +
Atm I'm not sure which format I agree with more. But in the study done in the OP, the player model has way too few variables. Maybe Idra performs worse than G5 when facing elimination, or maybe G5 performs better when warmed up after having played a few BO series. In any case if two players are close enough in skill level that they can go 1-1 in two BO series, I can't imagine the regular double elim system to be so unfair that the advantage given by extended series is required to correct an "injustice" within the format. Having a 2-0 lead in a bo7 is too much of an advantage imo.
You are, obviously, right in some sense. But the purpose of the study is to find the "big picture" statistical behavior, and to capture the effects that influence this most heavily. While I'm sure that my model is missing things, objections need to have systematic effect -- that is, in the long run they favor the better players or worse ones, or the winner of the winners' bracket game, etc.. Otherwise, you would expect that they would balance out after enough simulation (and I ran it a million times). Effects that just increase the randomness will change the results somewhat, but they probably will not change the trends, which is what we care about anyway.
My concern is that because skill is so hard to quantify and subject to so many variables, that the extended series format would actually be more detrimental to two players close in skill level than it helps a better player to advance. I'm not sure how valid this concern is, but say for example Bisu is a 3.0 and Jaedong is a 2.9, in your model Bisu will forever be the better player no matter what. But in practice, if Bisu won the first series 2-1, it's entirely possible when facing elimination JD will be pull 0.1 points ahead in skill, so that over the long run JD will perform better than Bisu when facing elimination but not in regular competition. However because of the enormous advantage provided by the extended series format, Bisu will advance an unfair number of times despite being the worse player. In this case I see no other possible format than to have both players start out 0-0.
|
On November 12 2010 16:15 Adeeler wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 16:05 zulu_nation8 wrote:On November 12 2010 15:56 Adeeler wrote:
Double Extended is definitely more accurate a measure then plain double and is efficient.
Arguing that each round is isolated and shouldn't cause an extended series goes against the whole principal of an isolated tournament where its the battle to have the best winning streak. You can't have it both ways.
Either you have only single elimination or double extended. Plain double is never valid in any circumstance. How this isn't understood by tournament veterans is odd.
Over multiple single eliminations the players rank will become more accurate but the double & double extended speed up the process.
The Idra arguement of his zvt is better the anothers persons matchup is completely irrelevent. Race doesn't matter as you either play to win in a tournament setting beating everyone or you want a league where you can lose but overall your average skill level will be shown.
Round robins are the most accurate most fair but no one has that kind of time. In the context of Almeisan's example, you can look at it as G5 obtaining an advantage for having gone on a win streak in the loser's bracket before meeting Idra, where the advantage is for their series to start out 0-0. In the grand final the winner's bracket winner starts out with an advantage because he went undefeated. If you stayed in the Winners by knocking someone down beating them you proved you are better in a single elim fashion, the double isn't about giving losers a second chance but placing final standings more accurately. So the winner between players that have already met should always have the advantage; otherwise you are looking to only have a single elim.
Fair point
On November 12 2010 16:11 Almeisan wrote:
Zulu, I added a bit later about how normal double elim ignores available information. Without that part it is too much an argument about why it's better rather than about why it performs worse in simulations.
There is also the problem that G5 got only eliminated once by Idra. That is a flaw, imo. But it's a flaw of double elim in general and the same flaw single elim has. When the two player meet again in the loser bracket one of them is going to be eliminated out of the tournament. There's no way around that. And in some cases it's just impossible to not have the same match in the loser bracket you had in the winner bracket.
It's possible Idra meets Flash early on and that G5 cheesed vs Flashes 12 CC and wins 2-0. Then Idra loses to Flash in an extended series in the loser bracket and is eliminated technically only once and by Flash. That's a flaw that is in both systems that you can only fix by making it a round robin. But it's different from discarding info.
You're right, I see why the winner of the first series deserves an advantage. I still feel like a 2-0 lead is too much though for the reasons I mentioned in the earlier post.
|
Playing more games always gives you more accuracy. Never less. More info is more info, not less. This doesn't become false the harder skill becomes to quantify.
And if skill is so hard to quantify and the tournament doesn't aim to have the best player win then why not play a tournament, never mind the structure, and then at the end just randomly draw a lot to determine the 'winner'? I mean, where do you draw the line? You wouldn't want to call the first player out the winner, would you? You really do want to know who is the best in that specific tournament.
|
On November 12 2010 16:16 zulu_nation8 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 15:51 nzb wrote:
Atm I'm not sure which format I agree with more. But in the study done in the OP, the player model has way too few variables. Maybe Idra performs worse than G5 when facing elimination, or maybe G5 performs better when warmed up after having played a few BO series. In any case if two players are close enough in skill level that they can go 1-1 in two BO series, I can't imagine the regular double elim system to be so unfair that the advantage given by extended series is required to correct an "injustice" within the format. Having a 2-0 lead in a bo7 is too much of an advantage imo.
You are, obviously, right in some sense. But the purpose of the study is to find the "big picture" statistical behavior, and to capture the effects that influence this most heavily. While I'm sure that my model is missing things, objections need to have systematic effect -- that is, in the long run they favor the better players or worse ones, or the winner of the winners' bracket game, etc.. Otherwise, you would expect that they would balance out after enough simulation (and I ran it a million times). Effects that just increase the randomness will change the results somewhat, but they probably will not change the trends, which is what we care about anyway. My concern is that because skill is so hard to quantify and subject to so many variables, that the extended series format would actually be more detrimental to two players close in skill level than it helps a better player to advance. I'm not sure how valid this concern is, but say for example Bisu is a 3.0 and Jaedong is a 2.9, in your model Bisu will forever be the better player no matter what. But in practice, if Bisu won the first series 2-1, it's entirely possible when facing elimination JD will be pull 0.1 points ahead in skill, so that over the long run JD will perform better than Bisu when facing elimination but not in regular competition. However because of the enormous advantage provided by the extended series format, Bisu will advance an unfair number of times despite being the worse player. In this case I see no other possible format than to have both players start out 0-0.
You can't count in decimals when your base counting measure is 1 as a game is either won(1) or lost (0) in terms of rounds.
Your previous skill in touraments overall (Jaedong 2.9) can never effect your games in you next game, otherwise lottery balls that fell one week would physically effect the next weeks balls. The chance is still between winning and losing there isn't possible to be a partial 0.9 win at the end only
full win or loss.
|
On November 12 2010 16:23 Almeisan wrote:
Playing more games always gives you more accuracy. Never less. More info is more info, not less. This doesn't become false the harder skill becomes to quantify.
And if skill is so hard to quantify and the tournament doesn't aim to have the best player win then why not play a tournament, never mind the structure, and then at the end just randomly draw a lot to determine the 'winner'? I mean, where do you draw the line? You wouldn't want to call the first player out the winner, would you? You really do want to know who is the best in that specific tournament.
Skill is hard to quantify thus a format should try to do at little of it as possible. I understand the advantage provided by extended series is necessary, but trying to determine how much advantage should be given requires some kind of measurement of skill.
|
Why don't they just do a bo5 with nobody at an advantage? Best sides of both spectrum.
There. Problem solved.
|
On November 12 2010 16:28 Adeeler wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 16:16 zulu_nation8 wrote:On November 12 2010 15:51 nzb wrote:
Atm I'm not sure which format I agree with more. But in the study done in the OP, the player model has way too few variables. Maybe Idra performs worse than G5 when facing elimination, or maybe G5 performs better when warmed up after having played a few BO series. In any case if two players are close enough in skill level that they can go 1-1 in two BO series, I can't imagine the regular double elim system to be so unfair that the advantage given by extended series is required to correct an "injustice" within the format. Having a 2-0 lead in a bo7 is too much of an advantage imo.
You are, obviously, right in some sense. But the purpose of the study is to find the "big picture" statistical behavior, and to capture the effects that influence this most heavily. While I'm sure that my model is missing things, objections need to have systematic effect -- that is, in the long run they favor the better players or worse ones, or the winner of the winners' bracket game, etc.. Otherwise, you would expect that they would balance out after enough simulation (and I ran it a million times). Effects that just increase the randomness will change the results somewhat, but they probably will not change the trends, which is what we care about anyway. My concern is that because skill is so hard to quantify and subject to so many variables, that the extended series format would actually be more detrimental to two players close in skill level than it helps a better player to advance. I'm not sure how valid this concern is, but say for example Bisu is a 3.0 and Jaedong is a 2.9, in your model Bisu will forever be the better player no matter what. But in practice, if Bisu won the first series 2-1, it's entirely possible when facing elimination JD will be pull 0.1 points ahead in skill, so that over the long run JD will perform better than Bisu when facing elimination but not in regular competition. However because of the enormous advantage provided by the extended series format, Bisu will advance an unfair number of times despite being the worse player. In this case I see no other possible format than to have both players start out 0-0. You can't count in decimals when your base counting measure is 1 as a game is either won(1) or lost (0) in terms of rounds. Your previous skill in touraments overall (Jaedong 2.9) can never effect your games in you next game, otherwise lottery balls that fell one week would physically effect the next weeks balls. The chance is still between winning and losing there isn't possible to be a partial 0.9 win at the end only full win or loss.
I just made up random numbers but why can't it be probability as in JD wins 55% of all single elimination games vs Bisu, Bisu 45%.
|
On November 12 2010 16:31 ghostsquall wrote:
Why don't they just do a bo5 with nobody at an advantage? Best sides of both spectrum.
There. Problem solved.
You still give the loser an undeserved advantage of resettling their losses so you suggestion changes nothing.
|
On November 12 2010 16:31 ghostsquall wrote:
Why don't they just do a bo5 with nobody at an advantage? Best sides of both spectrum.
There. Problem solved.
Can people stop posting "why not just do another BoX?" It really shows you haven't read the thread..
EDIT: doing another BoX reproduces all of the problems inherent in non-extended series double elim i.e. the player with the worse record advancing, or there is a tie in the net record making the order the series were played in more important than the individual results
|
Your so called statistical analysis is filled with biased side notes and totally neglects a number of the the real reasons behind using the extended series.
Notably that it provides a better ranking for all players not simply better chances of just the best player winning, it prevents things like the 2nd best players going out in the first round. Which your analysis doesn't take into account.
Your "scope" contains "questions" that are not questions, not even rhetorical, but statements that haven't been proven within your analysis or even supported by other statements that are proven.
Your math is solid but it's isolated and applies or has been applied to only certain circumstances ranges without really taking into account the varying factors that have to be considered. Such as were does seeding fit into this?
It is used and without that being factored into any math it is essentially worthless.
That's all mostly negative criticism but you don't need anyone to tell you what you got right, you already know that.
|
On November 12 2010 16:33 zulu_nation8 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 16:28 Adeeler wrote:On November 12 2010 16:16 zulu_nation8 wrote:On November 12 2010 15:51 nzb wrote:
Atm I'm not sure which format I agree with more. But in the study done in the OP, the player model has way too few variables. Maybe Idra performs worse than G5 when facing elimination, or maybe G5 performs better when warmed up after having played a few BO series. In any case if two players are close enough in skill level that they can go 1-1 in two BO series, I can't imagine the regular double elim system to be so unfair that the advantage given by extended series is required to correct an "injustice" within the format. Having a 2-0 lead in a bo7 is too much of an advantage imo.
You are, obviously, right in some sense. But the purpose of the study is to find the "big picture" statistical behavior, and to capture the effects that influence this most heavily. While I'm sure that my model is missing things, objections need to have systematic effect -- that is, in the long run they favor the better players or worse ones, or the winner of the winners' bracket game, etc.. Otherwise, you would expect that they would balance out after enough simulation (and I ran it a million times). Effects that just increase the randomness will change the results somewhat, but they probably will not change the trends, which is what we care about anyway. My concern is that because skill is so hard to quantify and subject to so many variables, that the extended series format would actually be more detrimental to two players close in skill level than it helps a better player to advance. I'm not sure how valid this concern is, but say for example Bisu is a 3.0 and Jaedong is a 2.9, in your model Bisu will forever be the better player no matter what. But in practice, if Bisu won the first series 2-1, it's entirely possible when facing elimination JD will be pull 0.1 points ahead in skill, so that over the long run JD will perform better than Bisu when facing elimination but not in regular competition. However because of the enormous advantage provided by the extended series format, Bisu will advance an unfair number of times despite being the worse player. In this case I see no other possible format than to have both players start out 0-0. You can't count in decimals when your base counting measure is 1 as a game is either won(1) or lost (0) in terms of rounds. Your previous skill in touraments overall (Jaedong 2.9) can never effect your games in you next game, otherwise lottery balls that fell one week would physically effect the next weeks balls. The chance is still between winning and losing there isn't possible to be a partial 0.9 win at the end only full win or loss. I just made up random numbers but why can't it be probability as in JD wins 55% of all single elimination games vs Bisu, Bisu 45%.
Because a game can only result in a win or loss. I.e. you can't cause a win by only killing 55% of the enemies base only by killing 100% a full win.
Draws are counted as win for both or neither.
|
On November 12 2010 16:39 Adeeler wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 16:33 zulu_nation8 wrote:On November 12 2010 16:28 Adeeler wrote:On November 12 2010 16:16 zulu_nation8 wrote:On November 12 2010 15:51 nzb wrote:
Atm I'm not sure which format I agree with more. But in the study done in the OP, the player model has way too few variables. Maybe Idra performs worse than G5 when facing elimination, or maybe G5 performs better when warmed up after having played a few BO series. In any case if two players are close enough in skill level that they can go 1-1 in two BO series, I can't imagine the regular double elim system to be so unfair that the advantage given by extended series is required to correct an "injustice" within the format. Having a 2-0 lead in a bo7 is too much of an advantage imo.
You are, obviously, right in some sense. But the purpose of the study is to find the "big picture" statistical behavior, and to capture the effects that influence this most heavily. While I'm sure that my model is missing things, objections need to have systematic effect -- that is, in the long run they favor the better players or worse ones, or the winner of the winners' bracket game, etc.. Otherwise, you would expect that they would balance out after enough simulation (and I ran it a million times). Effects that just increase the randomness will change the results somewhat, but they probably will not change the trends, which is what we care about anyway. My concern is that because skill is so hard to quantify and subject to so many variables, that the extended series format would actually be more detrimental to two players close in skill level than it helps a better player to advance. I'm not sure how valid this concern is, but say for example Bisu is a 3.0 and Jaedong is a 2.9, in your model Bisu will forever be the better player no matter what. But in practice, if Bisu won the first series 2-1, it's entirely possible when facing elimination JD will be pull 0.1 points ahead in skill, so that over the long run JD will perform better than Bisu when facing elimination but not in regular competition. However because of the enormous advantage provided by the extended series format, Bisu will advance an unfair number of times despite being the worse player. In this case I see no other possible format than to have both players start out 0-0. You can't count in decimals when your base counting measure is 1 as a game is either won(1) or lost (0) in terms of rounds. Your previous skill in touraments overall (Jaedong 2.9) can never effect your games in you next game, otherwise lottery balls that fell one week would physically effect the next weeks balls. The chance is still between winning and losing there isn't possible to be a partial 0.9 win at the end only full win or loss. I just made up random numbers but why can't it be probability as in JD wins 55% of all single elimination games vs Bisu, Bisu 45%. Because a game can only result in a win or loss. I.e. you can't cause a win by only killing 55% of the enemies base only by killing 100% a full win. Draws are counted as win for both or neither. Are you trolling or are you just honestly clueless about what he is talking about?
|
On November 12 2010 16:30 zulu_nation8 wrote:
Skill is hard to quantify thus a format should try to do at little of it as possible.
The harder skill is to qualify the harder you ought to try. Otherwise the tournament becomes meaningless. You really want a game and some tournament setup where skilled players don't win more than unskilled players? Do you really want to know who is lucky on that given day rather than something else?
I understand the advantage provided by extended series is necessary, but trying to determine how much advantage should be given requires some kind of measurement of skill.
Where is an advantage given? You either count all games or you count only those in the loser bracket. Counting all games doesn't make the first games count for more. It's just that with a bo3 in the loser bracket while ignoring the previous games you get more deviation from the expected results. It favours the less skilled player over the more skilled one because if there were no deviation we would have 100% chance for the most skilled player to win.
|
On November 12 2010 16:38 Kazang wrote:
Your so called statistical analysis is filled with biased side notes and totally neglects a number of the the real reasons behind using the extended series.
Notably that it provides a better ranking for all players not simply better chances of just the best player winning, it prevents things like the 2nd best players going out in the first round. Which your analysis doesn't take into account.
Your "scope" contains "questions" that are not questions, not even rhetorical, but statements that haven't been proven within your analysis or even supported by other statements that are proven.
Your math is solid but it's isolated and applies or has been applied to only certain circumstances ranges without really taking into account the varying factors that have to be considered. Such as were does seeding fit into this?
It is used and without that being factored into any math it is essentially worthless.
That's all mostly negative criticism but you don't need anyone to tell you what you got right, you already know that.
Wow people still posting to point out flaws in model? Read the thread before posting, YES there are flaws in the model, we can't have a perfect model. Again, simplest model is best model to make decisions with, because we can't just add in these non-quantifiable factors in the model and expect it to work. Sounds like you just wanted to pint out flaws.
Where is the bias in his analysis or scope? Read the scope, which specifically says its NOT concerned with the questions listed.
Can we actually talk about his conclusion, that is, this simple model tells us that while extended series contributes a little bit to making the tournament outcome "fairer", in reality, it does not have big enough effect to be absolutely certain, considering all other factors.
So whether they should continue with what they are doing, or just do regular double elimination since statistically its not SO different, or come up with a whole new tournament method.
|
On November 12 2010 17:30 scion wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2010 16:38 Kazang wrote:
Your so called statistical analysis is filled with biased side notes and totally neglects a number of the the real reasons behind using the extended series.
Notably that it provides a better ranking for all players not simply better chances of just the best player winning, it prevents things like the 2nd best players going out in the first round. Which your analysis doesn't take into account.
Your "scope" contains "questions" that are not questions, not even rhetorical, but statements that haven't been proven within your analysis or even supported by other statements that are proven.
Your math is solid but it's isolated and applies or has been applied to only certain circumstances ranges without really taking into account the varying factors that have to be considered. Such as were does seeding fit into this?
It is used and without that being factored into any math it is essentially worthless.
That's all mostly negative criticism but you don't need anyone to tell you what you got right, you already know that. Wow people still posting to point out flaws in model? Read the thread before posting, YES there are flaws in the model, we can't have a perfect model. Again, simplest model is best model to make decisions with, because we can't just add in these non-quantifiable factors in the model and expect it to work. Sounds like you just wanted to pint out flaws. Where is the bias in his analysis or scope? Read the scope, which specifically says its NOT concerned with the questions listed. Can we actually talk about his conclusion, that is, this simple model tells us that while extended series contributes a little bit to making the tournament outcome "fairer", in reality, it does not have big enough effect to be absolutely certain, considering all other factors. So whether they should continue with what they are doing, or just do regular double elimination since statistically its not SO different, or come up with a whole new tournament method.
Yeah no wonder people are pointing out flaws in the model...... It is kind of important if you are going to use it as evidence or basis for a decision.
You don't need a mathematical model to point out the logical benefits of a extended series. So why apply a flawed mathematical model at all if you are going to then factor in other external factors?
If the model is flawed, which it most certainly is, how can you logically use it as an argument for anything?
The scale of the model is also quite ridiculous, round robin for a 128 man tournament like MLG Dallas is 8128 games, how the hell can you compare that to single elimination of 126 games in the same graph? The scale is insane, the accuracy difference is far bigger than than those little jpgs show since the number of games is the biggest factor at work in a live tournament. The comparison is more misleading than anything to someone who hasn't already thought about this.
I also read the scope clearly, I'm pointing out a mistake in the writing; it says "here are questions" then lists statements.
Of course I want to point out the flaws, duh..... You cannot base an argument or discussion on a flawed premise, if you do it's just pointless.
As it is the model shows nothing of value, other than the fact this the extended series is better even when not taking into account the full range of benefits the extended series offers.
So then what is the point of it?
|
I'd be interested to know how much of the extra accuracy in the extended series comes from the extra games played, and how much from it specifically being an extended series. We already know that playing more games will result in greater accuracy in results.
If you compare it to a normal double elimination where people meeting each other again play a Bo5 instead, would it eliminate the accuracy difference between normal and extended double elimination? That system would have a small chance of having an extra game compared to the extended series, so if the effect was simply from extra games, it should be more accurate than the extended series format.
Sorry if you answered this already, and I missed it somewhere.
|
Surely the important thing is that extended series SUCK for the viewer, at the end of the day thats all that should matter - making an entertaining tournament.
|
Wow, a lot of haters in this topic that don't understand the point of modelling. Models are not meant to be a 100% perfect representation of reality but are used to draw out insights into the behaviour of a system. Every model has limiting assumptions and these should be should considered when interpreting the results and drawing conclusions, just as nzb has done. Also, just because some assumptions are limiting does not mean they will necessarily have a large effect on the results - this should be reasoned through. Anyways good job nzb.
On November 12 2010 13:07 nzb wrote:
I didn't talk about this in the main post, because its just my opinion and wasn't backed by any numbers, but I think a good format would be:
- Play swiss-style tournament to determine the top 8-16 players.
- Play single elimination to get champion.
This would be a very reliable way to determine the top 8 or 16, and then would switch into overdrive to determine the champ. It would be very exciting, similar to how the NCAA does March Madness. I would love it if we could get someone to do some special event using this format just to try it out.
For interest, the 'Magic: the Gathering' Pro Tour has used that format for the last ~10 years:
http://www.wizards.com/Magic/Magazine/Events.aspx
The format is exciting with the single elimination Top 8, however it can be ruthless to some competitors who dominate the swiss rounds and then get knocked out early in the single elim. One of the issues is that the later stages of the swiss rounds can be pretty boring, as most matches are drawn between the top players who have already secured a Top 8 spot, and luck-based, when a number of players can draw into the Top 8 but one gets matched against a lower player and has to play it out (or against a higher player who refuses to draw to help a friend advance in the rankings) while the others draw amongst themselves.
|
This really isn't a question of mathematics imo it's a question of preference. I agree with both camps but I'd say extended series aren't what I prefer. You can't be statistical when it comes to this I'd say the best thing would be to have a poll with the pro gamers to determine how they feel about it and decide that way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
