|
This post will describe how much chances did you have to win a ladder match, based on the amount of points that you've won / lost in the end of it.
For this we are going to assume a few things about Blizzard ladder system, none of them are far fetched:
First, that Blizzard ladder system rewards and subtracts points based on the players' winning chances. Since Blizzard has access to million of matches, it's reasonable to assume their formulas are fairly accurate.
Second, that if a player's skill is constant, then his points will reach an amount which reflects his skill level and stay near that point (disregarding bonus pool points). Since ladder points shift towards a player's MMR, this assumption assumes that Blizzard's system is a zero-sum system with regard to MMR, or at the very least that the shifts in MMR are slow occurring.
Lastly, this method is only applicable once your points have reached a level that reflects your MMR. You can tell when you've reached this point when the amount of points that you win for matches, and the amount of points that you lose for matches, both become more or less constant. For most players this will be when they start winning / losing around 12 points per match. For very high MMR players, they might reach this point when they are winning much less than 12 points per match, and losing much more. Similarly for very low MMR players, the opposite is true.
Basically you need to have played enough games first before you can use the method described in this post.
The formula:
WinningChances = 100 - PointsWon * 25/6
Some math:
+ Show Spoiler +WinningChances: How much chance in percents did you have to win the match.
WinAmount: How many points you've won (in case of a win)
LoseAmount: How many points you've lost (in case of a loss)
Note that LoseAmount = WinAmount - 24, due to assumption 2.
WinningChances * WinAmount + (100 - WinningChances) * LoseAmount = 0
The above is true because if you play a great enough number of games, your points will not change.
WinningChances * WinAmount + 100 * LoseAmount - WinningChances * LoseAmount = 0
WinningChances * (WinAmount - LoseAmount) = -100 * LoseAmount
WinningChances = -100 * LoseAmount / (WinAmount - LoseAmount)
WinningChances = -100 * (WinAmount - 24) / (WinAmount - (WinAmount - 24))
WinningChances = -100 * (WinAmount - 24) / 24
WinningChances = -25 * (WinAmount - 24) / 6
WinningChances = (WinAmount - 24) * -25/6
WinningChances = WinAmount * -25/6 + 24*25/6
WinningChances = WinAmount * -25/6 + 100
WinningChances = 100 - WinAmount * 25/6
The numbers:
Points won for a match -- your winning chances
0 100.00
1 95.83
2 91.67
3 87.50
4 83.33
5 79.17
6 75.00
7 70.83
8 66.67
9 62.50
10 58.33
11 54.17
12 50.00
13 45.83
14 41.67
15 37.50
16 33.33
17 29.17
18 25.00
19 20.83
20 16.67
21 12.50
22 8.33
23 4.17
24 0.00
* If you lost the match, simply add 24 to the amount of points that you lost and use the formula. For example if you lost 4 points, then you should look at the row corresponding to 20 points won.
**Note that you should disregard any bonus points won, only actual points matter.
|
Wow never mind. I think I should just sleep. =_=
|
But. If i have a 0% chance of winning, how did i win?
I think you're confusing future odds with informed predictions due to past results.
Also, I doubt the system is that simple. Where did you draw these conclusions from? Is it merely the fact that points go up to +/- 24?
|
I just won 20 straight games using 1/1/1 build against protoss and zerg. How do you calculate this?
|
On August 18 2011 19:25 Fishgle wrote:
But. If i have a 0% chance of winning, how did i win?
I think you're confusing future odds with informed predictions due to past results.
Also, I doubt the system is that simple. Where did you draw these conclusions from? Is it merely the fact that points go up to +/- 24?
It shows 0% of winning because the amount of points won is an integer. Obviously each amount represents a certain range of odds you had at winning. For example a player you have 98% chance to win against falls somewhere between 0 and 1 points won range. Which one is it we can not know.
If blizzard rewarded point fractions then it's likely you would never win a full 24 points, precisely because that would indicate that this is a player that you can not beat.
|
the points won for a match column is for winning streak or every single win?
|
On August 18 2011 19:41 theang123 wrote:
the points won for a match column is for winning streak or every single win?
Every single win.
When you are on a long winning streak, the formula becomes less accurate. This is because MMR is very volatile and changes much faster than your points (this is the reason Blizzard added the entire point system, instead of simply telling us our MMR).
|
so assuming i have 40wins and 25loses, how would the calculation be?
i think having an example is easier for ppl
______________________________________________________________
edit:
sorry OP i misunderstood the calculation.
we just have to see how many points we earn after winning a game to decide the winning rate.
|
pretty cool 
how did you reach those percentages? studied samples of points + winratios?
|
You're starting from the assumption that the range of possible point awards is mapped to the 0-bound at the top and bottom of the distribution. What allows you to make that assumption? It's possible that the max and min are set to a point on the bell curve where you've got a 90%/10% or 80%/20% chance of victory, isn't it?
To be fair, I think the assumption is reasonable, because you could otherwise create some oddness in the way points behaved at the extremes, but I'm still curious if you have some reason behind it other than that it makes sense it would be that way.
|
On August 18 2011 19:51 MyNameIsAlex wrote:pretty cool how did you reach those percentages? studied samples of points + winratios?
I didn't study any samples of win ratios. I reached these percentages from the two assumptions that I mentioned in the OP. Let me clarify:
I am making a statement that for any given 2 players on battle net, if they were to play each other an infinite amount of ladder games (or a sufficient amount), then by the end of it their points will not change much. This is true for any 2 players, assuming that in the initial state their points closely reflected on their MMR, and that the players skill hasn't changed during their matches.
From this statement, I'm extrapolating that by seeing the amount of points won/lost, it's possible to know what odds the system places on each player winning.
|
On August 18 2011 19:56 AmericanUmlaut wrote:
You're starting from the assumption that the range of possible point awards is mapped to the 0-bound at the top and bottom of the distribution. What allows you to make that assumption? It's possible that the max and min are set to a point on the bell curve where you've got a 90%/10% or 80%/20% chance of victory, isn't it?
To be fair, I think the assumption is reasonable, because you could otherwise create some oddness in the way points behaved at the extremes, but I'm still curious if you have some reason behind it other than that it makes sense it would be that way.
Take ELO system for example. It tries to adjust player ratings based off wins / losses in such a way, that no matter the skill difference of 2 opponents, if they kept playing and playing there will be little movement in their points. Otherwise it would be possible for top (or bottom) players to gain an edge and increase their rating by playing with players with a big skill gap from themselves. The same is true for the ladder system. If Blizzard allowed players to get 24 points for a win and lose 0 points for a loss by playing an opponent they have 10% win chance against, then a very effective method of increasing your points would be to play opponents whom you have 10% chance to win against.
|
There is one HUGE assumption in all of this: the correlation is linear. For all we know, a 70% chance to win would still net you 11 points. The only certainties we have on this is 12 points is even, 0 is hugely favored, and 24 is hugely unfavored.
|
On August 18 2011 20:21 aksfjh wrote:
There is one HUGE assumption in all of this: the correlation is linear. For all we know, a 70% chance to win would still net you 11 points. The only certainties we have on this is 12 points is even, 0 is hugely favored, and 24 is hugely unfavored.
If you got 11 points for beating an opponent you had 70% to win against, then after playing 10 games against that player you would end up with 38 more points than you started with (assuming 7 wins 3 losses). It would be extremely weird if the ladder system worked that way, because player's points would keep inflating massively.
|
On August 18 2011 20:25 Not_That wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2011 20:21 aksfjh wrote:
There is one HUGE assumption in all of this: the correlation is linear. For all we know, a 70% chance to win would still net you 11 points. The only certainties we have on this is 12 points is even, 0 is hugely favored, and 24 is hugely unfavored. If you got 11 points for beating an opponent you had 70% to win against, then after playing 10 games against that player you would end up win 38 more points than you started with (assuming 7 wins 3 losses). It would be extremely weird if the ladder system worked that way, because player's points would keep inflating massively.
The points are inflating.. Look at Season 1 points.
|
On August 18 2011 20:26 Giku wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2011 20:25 Not_That wrote:On August 18 2011 20:21 aksfjh wrote:
There is one HUGE assumption in all of this: the correlation is linear. For all we know, a 70% chance to win would still net you 11 points. The only certainties we have on this is 12 points is even, 0 is hugely favored, and 24 is hugely unfavored. If you got 11 points for beating an opponent you had 70% to win against, then after playing 10 games against that player you would end up win 38 more points than you started with (assuming 7 wins 3 losses). It would be extremely weird if the ladder system worked that way, because player's points would keep inflating massively. The points are inflating.. Look at Season 1 points.
What you're seeing are the bonus pool points causing fixed inflation. I am specifically discussing points not including bonus pool points.
|
On August 18 2011 20:11 Not_That wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2011 19:56 AmericanUmlaut wrote:
You're starting from the assumption that the range of possible point awards is mapped to the 0-bound at the top and bottom of the distribution. What allows you to make that assumption? It's possible that the max and min are set to a point on the bell curve where you've got a 90%/10% or 80%/20% chance of victory, isn't it?
To be fair, I think the assumption is reasonable, because you could otherwise create some oddness in the way points behaved at the extremes, but I'm still curious if you have some reason behind it other than that it makes sense it would be that way. Take ELO system for example. It tries to adjust player ratings based off wins / losses in such a way, that no matter the skill difference of 2 opponents, if they kept playing and playing there will be little movement in their points. Otherwise it would be possible for top (or bottom) players to gain an edge and increase their rating by playing with players with a big skill gap from themselves. The same is true for the ladder system. If Blizzard allowed players to get 24 points for a win and lose 0 points for a loss by playing an opponent they have 10% win chance against, then a very effective method of increasing your points would be to play opponents whom you have 10% chance to win against.
This isn't a problem for Blizzard because you don't decide who you get to play against.
|
On August 18 2011 20:39 Navillus wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2011 20:11 Not_That wrote:On August 18 2011 19:56 AmericanUmlaut wrote:
You're starting from the assumption that the range of possible point awards is mapped to the 0-bound at the top and bottom of the distribution. What allows you to make that assumption? It's possible that the max and min are set to a point on the bell curve where you've got a 90%/10% or 80%/20% chance of victory, isn't it?
To be fair, I think the assumption is reasonable, because you could otherwise create some oddness in the way points behaved at the extremes, but I'm still curious if you have some reason behind it other than that it makes sense it would be that way. Take ELO system for example. It tries to adjust player ratings based off wins / losses in such a way, that no matter the skill difference of 2 opponents, if they kept playing and playing there will be little movement in their points. Otherwise it would be possible for top (or bottom) players to gain an edge and increase their rating by playing with players with a big skill gap from themselves. The same is true for the ladder system. If Blizzard allowed players to get 24 points for a win and lose 0 points for a loss by playing an opponent they have 10% win chance against, then a very effective method of increasing your points would be to play opponents whom you have 10% chance to win against. This isn't a problem for Blizzard because you don't decide who you get to play against.
Even so, it makes sense for the system to be this way. Having a system designed in a way that encourages players to seek out opponents that are higher / similar / lower than themselves is inviting trouble. Players can choose the time of day they play for instance. By playing at hours when ladder is mostly empty they can sometimes find different skilled opponents. Stream sniping proves that players have some control over who their opponent is.
Even if players have no say about what opponent they get, there will be players who play opponents further in skill than themselves more than others simply by pure chance alone. Also consider the top / bottom players. They play players higher / lower rated than themselves regularly.
I think a good ladder system should be built according to the assumption that I made. I can't think of a reason why Blizzard's ladder system would behave differently.
|
On August 18 2011 20:50 Not_That wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2011 20:39 Navillus wrote:On August 18 2011 20:11 Not_That wrote:On August 18 2011 19:56 AmericanUmlaut wrote:
You're starting from the assumption that the range of possible point awards is mapped to the 0-bound at the top and bottom of the distribution. What allows you to make that assumption? It's possible that the max and min are set to a point on the bell curve where you've got a 90%/10% or 80%/20% chance of victory, isn't it?
To be fair, I think the assumption is reasonable, because you could otherwise create some oddness in the way points behaved at the extremes, but I'm still curious if you have some reason behind it other than that it makes sense it would be that way. Take ELO system for example. It tries to adjust player ratings based off wins / losses in such a way, that no matter the skill difference of 2 opponents, if they kept playing and playing there will be little movement in their points. Otherwise it would be possible for top (or bottom) players to gain an edge and increase their rating by playing with players with a big skill gap from themselves. The same is true for the ladder system. If Blizzard allowed players to get 24 points for a win and lose 0 points for a loss by playing an opponent they have 10% win chance against, then a very effective method of increasing your points would be to play opponents whom you have 10% chance to win against. This isn't a problem for Blizzard because you don't decide who you get to play against. Even so, it makes sense for the system to be this way. Having a system designed in a way that encourages players to seek out opponents that are higher / similar / lower than themselves is inviting trouble. Players can choose the time of day they play for instance. By playing at hours when ladder is mostly empty they can sometimes find different skilled opponents. Stream sniping proves that players have some control over who their opponent is. Even if players have no say about what opponent they get, there will be players who play opponents further in skill than themselves more than others simply by pure chance alone. Also consider the top / bottom players. They play players higher / lower rated than themselves regularly. I think a good ladder system should be built according to the assumption that I made. I can't think of a reason why Blizzard's ladder system would behave differently.
Now this is silly, stream sniping affects literally about .0001 percent of the players on the ladder and no one is going to alter the time of day they're playing because it may or may not change the average skill of who they're playing, and honestly even if they did I have no idea how anyone would find out at all how average skill alters over time of day. Frankly I think most of this is useless anyway, the Blizzard matchmaking system is very good at placing people against others who have similar odds at winning, having a 10% chance to win or lose is going to be so rare as to not matter to the overall ladder.
Considering top/bottom I point out that this only affects the extreme top and bottom also something like .0001 percent, and they are going to continue in the direction they're going anyway because they're the very top or bottom.
|
On August 18 2011 20:50 Not_That wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2011 20:39 Navillus wrote:On August 18 2011 20:11 Not_That wrote:On August 18 2011 19:56 AmericanUmlaut wrote:
You're starting from the assumption that the range of possible point awards is mapped to the 0-bound at the top and bottom of the distribution. What allows you to make that assumption? It's possible that the max and min are set to a point on the bell curve where you've got a 90%/10% or 80%/20% chance of victory, isn't it?
To be fair, I think the assumption is reasonable, because you could otherwise create some oddness in the way points behaved at the extremes, but I'm still curious if you have some reason behind it other than that it makes sense it would be that way. Take ELO system for example. It tries to adjust player ratings based off wins / losses in such a way, that no matter the skill difference of 2 opponents, if they kept playing and playing there will be little movement in their points. Otherwise it would be possible for top (or bottom) players to gain an edge and increase their rating by playing with players with a big skill gap from themselves. The same is true for the ladder system. If Blizzard allowed players to get 24 points for a win and lose 0 points for a loss by playing an opponent they have 10% win chance against, then a very effective method of increasing your points would be to play opponents whom you have 10% chance to win against. This isn't a problem for Blizzard because you don't decide who you get to play against. Even so, it makes sense for the system to be this way. Having a system designed in a way that encourages players to seek out opponents that are higher / similar / lower than themselves is inviting trouble. Players can choose the time of day they play for instance. By playing at hours when ladder is mostly empty they can sometimes find different skilled opponents. Stream sniping proves that players have some control over who their opponent is. Even if players have no say about what opponent they get, there will be players who play opponents further in skill than themselves more than others simply by pure chance alone. Also consider the top / bottom players. They play players higher / lower rated than themselves regularly. I think a good ladder system should be built according to the assumption that I made. I can't think of a reason why Blizzard's ladder system would behave differently.
Like I said above, I think your assumptions are reasonable from the standpoint of what makes sense for a ladder system, but based on what you're saying, they are just assumptions and not observations or logical deductions based on observations. There are no natural or mathematical laws forcing Blizzard to design its ladder system well, and based on the parts of b.net that we can observe well, it seems reasonable to suppose they might not have.
Since you'll never (or rarely) face the same opponent many times, the ladder could be built with the goal that your points will stay the same over a very large number of games against the opponents the ladder picks for you, rather than the ELO concept that they'd stay constant against a given opponent. Which means that the earlier poster's idea that the point distribution could be nonlinear would still work, and so would mine that the cutoff points aren't at the 0 bound, since the resulting point drift would be cancelled out by the fact that you're playing opponents both stronger and weaker than yourself.
What you might be able to do to get a better foundation for your assumptions is to go find the b.net game histories of high-level professional players, who in fact are generally matched up against people only on one side of the spectrum from themselves. If you can demonstrate that there is neither upward nor downward drift, that would bolster your argument somewhat, though you'd still have the issue that skill changes over time.
Again, I don't actually think you're wrong, but if we're going to do this kind of thought experiment without evidence, we should really consider the possibilities and not just assume that the most intellectualy pleasing solution is the right one.
|
Lol what? I have streamrolled people who I supposedly have a 0% chance against. Cmon Blizz......
|
On August 18 2011 21:09 TheRPGAddict wrote:
Lol what? I have streamrolled people who I supposedly have a 0% chance against. Cmon Blizz......
As I mentioned in the OP, you have to wait until your ladder points roughly reach your MMR before using the formula I present. It is common for players with few games and in the beginning of ladder seasons to get 24 points for a win, and lose 0 for a loss.
|
On August 18 2011 20:25 Not_That wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2011 20:21 aksfjh wrote:
There is one HUGE assumption in all of this: the correlation is linear. For all we know, a 70% chance to win would still net you 11 points. The only certainties we have on this is 12 points is even, 0 is hugely favored, and 24 is hugely unfavored. If you got 11 points for beating an opponent you had 70% to win against, then after playing 10 games against that player you would end up with 38 more points than you started with (assuming 7 wins 3 losses). It would be extremely weird if the ladder system worked that way, because player's points would keep inflating massively.
As long as point gains were correctly countered by point losses (in a non mirror format outside of 50-50), you wouldn't see inflation. If you lost to that player you get +11 from with a 70% win-ratio, it would be -26. The key would be that the system isn't exactly zero-sum, but it would still approach equilibrium. These systems are usually adopted as modifiers at top and bottom edges of ladder systems.
After doing my own investigation, it does seem to point to a zero-sum system, although there could still be minor discrepancies that would end up in zero-sum not being adhered to (like somebody gaining 13 points and the opponent losing 12). It would take a lot of data to say for certain if it's as linear as you suggest.
|
Is this official or were did you get the numbers from? I was certain that time of the match also affected points but whatever. I do think that there is a relation betwen skill gap and points but...
I'm not sure you are correct
|
On August 18 2011 22:02 JackDragon wrote:
Is this official or were did you get the numbers from? I was certain that time of the match also affected points but whatever. I do think that there is a relation betwen skill gap and points but...
I'm not sure you are correct
It's not official, it's something I thought of and I explain how I came to the numbers I did in the OP.
Match duration definitely does not affect points. You can read about it in the ladder sticky.
|
Your stats seem quite generous. I am the underdog on every single match I've won in the past 20 weeks dude.
You probably need to offset the tiers by 2 or maybe even 3 levels.
|
On August 18 2011 22:07 Not_That wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2011 22:02 JackDragon wrote:
Is this official or were did you get the numbers from? I was certain that time of the match also affected points but whatever. I do think that there is a relation betwen skill gap and points but...
I'm not sure you are correct
It's not official, it's something I thought of and I explain how I came to the numbers I did in the OP. Match duration definitely does not affect points. You can read about it in the ladder sticky.
I can't find were it says that the points aren't reflecting game length, or that it only reflects mmr gap.
I mean even so it is a bit to simplified to actually work. Saying that the skill is constant and that it only works when you have reached your true mmr makes it not very usefull.
What I mean is this:
"The important thing to remember is that "favored" does not always mean "better" unless both players' points have approximately reached their MMRs. Until that time, the "favored" indicator only serves to determine how many points a match is worth, and is not an indicator of skill."
which mens that both have to fit their mmr for your formula to even be true.
|
On August 18 2011 22:57 JackDragon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2011 22:07 Not_That wrote:On August 18 2011 22:02 JackDragon wrote:
Is this official or were did you get the numbers from? I was certain that time of the match also affected points but whatever. I do think that there is a relation betwen skill gap and points but...
I'm not sure you are correct
It's not official, it's something I thought of and I explain how I came to the numbers I did in the OP. Match duration definitely does not affect points. You can read about it in the ladder sticky. I can't find were it says that the points aren't reflecting game length, or that it only reflects mmr gap. I mean even so it is a bit to simplified to actually work. Saying that the skill is constant and that it only works when you have reached your true mmr makes it not very usefull. What I mean is this: "The important thing to remember is that "favored" does not always mean "better" unless both players' points have approximately reached their MMRs. Until that time, the "favored" indicator only serves to determine how many points a match is worth, and is not an indicator of skill." which mens that both have to fit their mmr for your formula to even be true.
It states specifically that points won/lost are only based off of who won in another thread by excalibur_z. In the sticky it can be seen from the part discussing the favoured system. If you won more points for longer games, score, or anything else it would be entirely abusable.
It's not true that both players' points have to fit their MMR for my formula to be true. It is sufficient that your points match your MMR for you to be able to calculate what was your chance to win. It would only be required for your opponent's MMR to match his points for the formula to be also applicable to your opponent.
The part you quote is referring to the 'favored' / 'slightly favored' / 'even' caption at the beginning of matches, and how both sides can see each other as 'favored', etc.
Small note although I hate to make this any more complicated than it already is, but I can not resist:
If for some reason you are confident that your opponent's current points better reflect his MMR than your current points reflect your MMR, then it is entirely possible to calculate your winning chances based off of his points won / lost - simply calculate HIS winning chances, and yours are equal to 100 minus his chances. Just be sure you aren't counting his bonus pool points.
|
On August 18 2011 23:10 Not_That wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2011 22:57 JackDragon wrote:On August 18 2011 22:07 Not_That wrote:On August 18 2011 22:02 JackDragon wrote:
Is this official or were did you get the numbers from? I was certain that time of the match also affected points but whatever. I do think that there is a relation betwen skill gap and points but...
I'm not sure you are correct
It's not official, it's something I thought of and I explain how I came to the numbers I did in the OP. Match duration definitely does not affect points. You can read about it in the ladder sticky. I can't find were it says that the points aren't reflecting game length, or that it only reflects mmr gap. I mean even so it is a bit to simplified to actually work. Saying that the skill is constant and that it only works when you have reached your true mmr makes it not very usefull. What I mean is this: "The important thing to remember is that "favored" does not always mean "better" unless both players' points have approximately reached their MMRs. Until that time, the "favored" indicator only serves to determine how many points a match is worth, and is not an indicator of skill." which mens that both have to fit their mmr for your formula to even be true. It states specifically that points won/lost are only based off of who won in another thread by excalibur_z. In the sticky it can be seen from the part discussing the favoured system. If you won more points for longer games, score, or anything else it would be entirely abusable. It's not true that both players' points have to fit their MMR for my formula to be true. It is sufficient that your points match your MMR for you to be able to calculate what was your chance to win. It would only be required for your opponent's MMR to match his points for the formula to be also applicable to your opponent. The part you quote is referring to the 'favored' / 'slightly favored' / 'even' caption at the beginning of matches, and how both sides can see each other as 'favored', etc. Small note although I hate to make this any more complicated than it already is, but I can not resist: If for some reason you are confident that your opponent's current points better reflect his MMR than your current points reflect your MMR, then it is entirely possible to calculate your winning chances based off of his points won / lost - simply calculate HIS winning chances, and yours are equal to 100 minus his chances. Just be sure you aren't counting his bonus pool points.
I found the thread and post else I wouldn't be able to qoute from it right? I just can't find within that post were it says that it is pure mmr. I am dyslectic so it is possible that I missed it but please show me.
I qouted it because the number of points you get are depending on favored/even etc. so if you are favoured then you will get more points correct? But as it says you can't say favoured is the same as better untill BOTH players have approximaly reached their mmr, and is not a indicator of skill. And that is almoste the exact opposit of what you say. Or well tecnicaly it isn't since you assume that they have stabilized their mmr/points, but I think you get my point
And if both see each other as favoured and both then would win 4 points then the win chance according to your formula don't add up to 100%. because you have to agree that if my win chance is 70% then my opponent should have a 30% chance to win right? soo... if both people can see each other as favoured then wouldn't that make this void?
|
On August 18 2011 23:38 JackDragon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2011 23:10 Not_That wrote:On August 18 2011 22:57 JackDragon wrote:On August 18 2011 22:07 Not_That wrote:On August 18 2011 22:02 JackDragon wrote:
Is this official or were did you get the numbers from? I was certain that time of the match also affected points but whatever. I do think that there is a relation betwen skill gap and points but...
I'm not sure you are correct
It's not official, it's something I thought of and I explain how I came to the numbers I did in the OP. Match duration definitely does not affect points. You can read about it in the ladder sticky. I can't find were it says that the points aren't reflecting game length, or that it only reflects mmr gap. I mean even so it is a bit to simplified to actually work. Saying that the skill is constant and that it only works when you have reached your true mmr makes it not very usefull. What I mean is this: "The important thing to remember is that "favored" does not always mean "better" unless both players' points have approximately reached their MMRs. Until that time, the "favored" indicator only serves to determine how many points a match is worth, and is not an indicator of skill." which mens that both have to fit their mmr for your formula to even be true. It states specifically that points won/lost are only based off of who won in another thread by excalibur_z. In the sticky it can be seen from the part discussing the favoured system. If you won more points for longer games, score, or anything else it would be entirely abusable. It's not true that both players' points have to fit their MMR for my formula to be true. It is sufficient that your points match your MMR for you to be able to calculate what was your chance to win. It would only be required for your opponent's MMR to match his points for the formula to be also applicable to your opponent. The part you quote is referring to the 'favored' / 'slightly favored' / 'even' caption at the beginning of matches, and how both sides can see each other as 'favored', etc. Small note although I hate to make this any more complicated than it already is, but I can not resist: If for some reason you are confident that your opponent's current points better reflect his MMR than your current points reflect your MMR, then it is entirely possible to calculate your winning chances based off of his points won / lost - simply calculate HIS winning chances, and yours are equal to 100 minus his chances. Just be sure you aren't counting his bonus pool points. I found the thread and post else I wouldn't be able to qoute from it right? I just can't find within that post were it says that it is pure mmr. I am dyslectic so it is possible that I missed it but please show me.
yes you missed it, it's right here:
On February 22 2011 15:13 Excalibur_Z wrote:PromotionBy outperforming the rest of your league, it is possible to get promoted into a higher league. If you are in Bronze but playing against Gold players, you would expect to be promoted to Gold, but that doesn't always happen immediately. This is because the system requires a certain degree of confidence before players can be moved to a new league, otherwise they would bounce around from league to league too frequently for leagues to be meaningful. That confidence is measured in two ways: First, the player must prove that he is capable of maintaining a certain level of skill. This is done by measuring the moving average of a player's MMR. The below image should help demonstrate. When this moving average stabilizes within the confines of a league, a player can be promoted into that league. ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/aYJDn.jpg) The second factor is a "confidence buffer" that exists between leagues. That is, if a Bronze player is only slightly better than the lowest-rated Silver players according to his moving average, that is not reason alone to promote him, even though he has crossed into the Silver MMR region. If that player slumped, he would fall right back into Bronze within a couple of games, only to return to Silver a couple of games later, making his promotion far less meaningful. Leagues are sticky, therefore the moving average must cross beyond the destination league's confidence buffer, cementing that player's position within the higher league. In the picture above, the confidence buffer is represented by the yellow glow region. Note that these are the only two factors required for promotion. Any in-game behaviors or statistics beyond winning, losing, and the opponent's MMR are not relevant to the system.
|
On August 18 2011 23:38 JackDragon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2011 23:10 Not_That wrote:On August 18 2011 22:57 JackDragon wrote:On August 18 2011 22:07 Not_That wrote:On August 18 2011 22:02 JackDragon wrote:
Is this official or were did you get the numbers from? I was certain that time of the match also affected points but whatever. I do think that there is a relation betwen skill gap and points but...
I'm not sure you are correct
It's not official, it's something I thought of and I explain how I came to the numbers I did in the OP. Match duration definitely does not affect points. You can read about it in the ladder sticky. I can't find were it says that the points aren't reflecting game length, or that it only reflects mmr gap. I mean even so it is a bit to simplified to actually work. Saying that the skill is constant and that it only works when you have reached your true mmr makes it not very usefull. What I mean is this: "The important thing to remember is that "favored" does not always mean "better" unless both players' points have approximately reached their MMRs. Until that time, the "favored" indicator only serves to determine how many points a match is worth, and is not an indicator of skill." which mens that both have to fit their mmr for your formula to even be true. It states specifically that points won/lost are only based off of who won in another thread by excalibur_z. In the sticky it can be seen from the part discussing the favoured system. If you won more points for longer games, score, or anything else it would be entirely abusable. It's not true that both players' points have to fit their MMR for my formula to be true. It is sufficient that your points match your MMR for you to be able to calculate what was your chance to win. It would only be required for your opponent's MMR to match his points for the formula to be also applicable to your opponent. The part you quote is referring to the 'favored' / 'slightly favored' / 'even' caption at the beginning of matches, and how both sides can see each other as 'favored', etc. Small note although I hate to make this any more complicated than it already is, but I can not resist: If for some reason you are confident that your opponent's current points better reflect his MMR than your current points reflect your MMR, then it is entirely possible to calculate your winning chances based off of his points won / lost - simply calculate HIS winning chances, and yours are equal to 100 minus his chances. Just be sure you aren't counting his bonus pool points. I found the thread and post else I wouldn't be able to qoute from it right? I just can't find within that post were it says that it is pure mmr. I am dyslectic so it is possible that I missed it but please show me. I qouted it because the number of points you get are depending on favored/even etc. so if you are favoured then you will get more points correct? But as it says you can't say favoured is the same as better untill BOTH players have approximaly reached their mmr, and is not a indicator of skill. And that is almoste the exact opposit of what you say. Or well tecnicaly it isn't since you assume that they have stabilized their mmr/points, but I think you get my point And if both see each other as favoured and both then would win 4 points then the win chance according to your formula don't add up to 100%. because you have to agree that if my win chance is 70% then my opponent should have a 30% chance to win right? soo... if both people can see each other as favoured then wouldn't that make this void?
In the case where both teams/players are favored, the point system definitely doesn't follow zero-sum conventions. This works because of how the point system is set up.
A good way to think of ladder points is like somebody pulling a long rope, with your points on the following end and MMR on the pulling end. MMR is going to move up and down rather violently as it goes along, but the points will only follow the general trends. MMR is assumed to be a zero-sum system (all points gained by one player are lost by another), so as your points follow MMR, they will also appear to be zero sum. At the beginning of each season, however, everybody starts out at the same level and they have to get up to their MMR. Since the only way to gain/lose points is by winning and losing matches, you will often get in a situation where both players are essentially gaining points and feeding points into the system. MMR never changes, but this is what occurs on the point end.
|
On August 18 2011 23:38 JackDragon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2011 23:10 Not_That wrote:On August 18 2011 22:57 JackDragon wrote:On August 18 2011 22:07 Not_That wrote:On August 18 2011 22:02 JackDragon wrote:
Is this official or were did you get the numbers from? I was certain that time of the match also affected points but whatever. I do think that there is a relation betwen skill gap and points but...
I'm not sure you are correct
It's not official, it's something I thought of and I explain how I came to the numbers I did in the OP. Match duration definitely does not affect points. You can read about it in the ladder sticky. I can't find were it says that the points aren't reflecting game length, or that it only reflects mmr gap. I mean even so it is a bit to simplified to actually work. Saying that the skill is constant and that it only works when you have reached your true mmr makes it not very usefull. What I mean is this: "The important thing to remember is that "favored" does not always mean "better" unless both players' points have approximately reached their MMRs. Until that time, the "favored" indicator only serves to determine how many points a match is worth, and is not an indicator of skill." which mens that both have to fit their mmr for your formula to even be true. It states specifically that points won/lost are only based off of who won in another thread by excalibur_z. In the sticky it can be seen from the part discussing the favoured system. If you won more points for longer games, score, or anything else it would be entirely abusable. It's not true that both players' points have to fit their MMR for my formula to be true. It is sufficient that your points match your MMR for you to be able to calculate what was your chance to win. It would only be required for your opponent's MMR to match his points for the formula to be also applicable to your opponent. The part you quote is referring to the 'favored' / 'slightly favored' / 'even' caption at the beginning of matches, and how both sides can see each other as 'favored', etc. Small note although I hate to make this any more complicated than it already is, but I can not resist: If for some reason you are confident that your opponent's current points better reflect his MMR than your current points reflect your MMR, then it is entirely possible to calculate your winning chances based off of his points won / lost - simply calculate HIS winning chances, and yours are equal to 100 minus his chances. Just be sure you aren't counting his bonus pool points. I found the thread and post else I wouldn't be able to qoute from it right? I just can't find within that post were it says that it is pure mmr. I am dyslectic so it is possible that I missed it but please show me. I qouted it because the number of points you get are depending on favored/even etc. so if you are favoured then you will get more points correct? But as it says you can't say favoured is the same as better untill BOTH players have approximaly reached their mmr, and is not a indicator of skill. And that is almoste the exact opposit of what you say. Or well tecnicaly it isn't since you assume that they have stabilized their mmr/points, but I think you get my point And if both see each other as favoured and both then would win 4 points then the win chance according to your formula don't add up to 100%. because you have to agree that if my win chance is 70% then my opponent should have a 30% chance to win right? soo... if both people can see each other as favoured then wouldn't that make this void?
Your points are compared to your opponent's MMR, and vice versa. You win more points the bigger the difference between your opponent's MMR, and your points.
It is entirely possible for both players to have points lower (or higher) than their respective MMRs. In this case (with a few rare exceptions) the winner receives a lot of points, and the loser losses a few points. However this doesn't contradicts what I am saying.
As long as YOUR points roughly match YOUR MMR, then you can use my formula. This is because you receive information from the system (the amount of points YOU gained / lost), and this information effectively tells you something about the comparison between YOUR MMR (your points act as a proxy to your MMR) and your opponent's MMR, which is what the system used to predict the match results.
Perhaps it will be clearer with an example using fictional numbers:
Suppose your points roughly match your MMR. You have 1000 points and ~1000 MMR. You are playing an opponent who is new to the ladder, he only played 10 games. He currently has 700 MMR and 200 points. You win the game, and receive 3 points (because your points are much higher than your opponent's MMR). Your opponent losses 0 points (because HIS points are much much lower than your MMR). You observe the 3 points that you won, and using my formula infer that you had 87.5% chance to beat your opponent. Comparing your MMR to his MMR, it indeed makes sense. That fact that his points haven't reached 700 yet is meaningless.
I hope this helps clear things up a bit.
|
On August 18 2011 23:38 JackDragon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2011 23:10 Not_That wrote:On August 18 2011 22:57 JackDragon wrote:On August 18 2011 22:07 Not_That wrote:On August 18 2011 22:02 JackDragon wrote:
Is this official or were did you get the numbers from? I was certain that time of the match also affected points but whatever. I do think that there is a relation betwen skill gap and points but...
I'm not sure you are correct
It's not official, it's something I thought of and I explain how I came to the numbers I did in the OP. Match duration definitely does not affect points. You can read about it in the ladder sticky. I can't find were it says that the points aren't reflecting game length, or that it only reflects mmr gap. I mean even so it is a bit to simplified to actually work. Saying that the skill is constant and that it only works when you have reached your true mmr makes it not very usefull. What I mean is this: "The important thing to remember is that "favored" does not always mean "better" unless both players' points have approximately reached their MMRs. Until that time, the "favored" indicator only serves to determine how many points a match is worth, and is not an indicator of skill." which mens that both have to fit their mmr for your formula to even be true. It states specifically that points won/lost are only based off of who won in another thread by excalibur_z. In the sticky it can be seen from the part discussing the favoured system. If you won more points for longer games, score, or anything else it would be entirely abusable. It's not true that both players' points have to fit their MMR for my formula to be true. It is sufficient that your points match your MMR for you to be able to calculate what was your chance to win. It would only be required for your opponent's MMR to match his points for the formula to be also applicable to your opponent. The part you quote is referring to the 'favored' / 'slightly favored' / 'even' caption at the beginning of matches, and how both sides can see each other as 'favored', etc. Small note although I hate to make this any more complicated than it already is, but I can not resist: If for some reason you are confident that your opponent's current points better reflect his MMR than your current points reflect your MMR, then it is entirely possible to calculate your winning chances based off of his points won / lost - simply calculate HIS winning chances, and yours are equal to 100 minus his chances. Just be sure you aren't counting his bonus pool points. I qouted it because the number of points you get are depending on favored/even etc. so if you are favoured then you will get more points correct? But as it says you can't say favoured is the same as better untill BOTH players have approximaly reached their mmr, and is not a indicator of skill. And that is almoste the exact opposit of what you say. Or well tecnicaly it isn't since you assume that they have stabilized their mmr/points, but I think you get my point And if both see each other as favoured and both then would win 4 points then the win chance according to your formula don't add up to 100%. because you have to agree that if my win chance is 70% then my opponent should have a 30% chance to win right? soo... if both people can see each other as favoured then wouldn't that make this void?
Whether you're favoured depends on the opponent's mmr but your points (think I have that the right way round). As the ladder guide says, the favoured ratings do not sum to zero when one or more players' points do not accurately reflect their mmr. Thus if the opponent's points are not close to his mmr the likelihood of winning calculated using this method would not be zero sum either (whether yours do or not).
Regardless, I think the OP makes too many assumptions for this to be useful, especially in assuming a linear correlation.
|
I honestly believe that Blizzards MMR is very similar to Xbox Lives "TrueSkill" rating. Theres a ton of information on how matchmaking works and how it adjusts based on games played etc.
http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/trueskill/
I've studied this quite extensively, and I can say it only moves violently if very few games are played, otherwise a single game doesn't change that much. I believe Blizzards to be much of the same.
Either way I really love the breakdown of the win percentage prediction to points, even if its not 100% accurate I think its pretty close. Thank you for posting that!
Edit: Also this article is pretty interesting on TrueSkill as well http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/trueskill/details.aspx
|
On August 19 2011 00:01 IronDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2011 23:38 JackDragon wrote:On August 18 2011 23:10 Not_That wrote:On August 18 2011 22:57 JackDragon wrote:On August 18 2011 22:07 Not_That wrote:On August 18 2011 22:02 JackDragon wrote:
Is this official or were did you get the numbers from? I was certain that time of the match also affected points but whatever. I do think that there is a relation betwen skill gap and points but...
I'm not sure you are correct
It's not official, it's something I thought of and I explain how I came to the numbers I did in the OP. Match duration definitely does not affect points. You can read about it in the ladder sticky. I can't find were it says that the points aren't reflecting game length, or that it only reflects mmr gap. I mean even so it is a bit to simplified to actually work. Saying that the skill is constant and that it only works when you have reached your true mmr makes it not very usefull. What I mean is this: "The important thing to remember is that "favored" does not always mean "better" unless both players' points have approximately reached their MMRs. Until that time, the "favored" indicator only serves to determine how many points a match is worth, and is not an indicator of skill." which mens that both have to fit their mmr for your formula to even be true. It states specifically that points won/lost are only based off of who won in another thread by excalibur_z. In the sticky it can be seen from the part discussing the favoured system. If you won more points for longer games, score, or anything else it would be entirely abusable. It's not true that both players' points have to fit their MMR for my formula to be true. It is sufficient that your points match your MMR for you to be able to calculate what was your chance to win. It would only be required for your opponent's MMR to match his points for the formula to be also applicable to your opponent. The part you quote is referring to the 'favored' / 'slightly favored' / 'even' caption at the beginning of matches, and how both sides can see each other as 'favored', etc. Small note although I hate to make this any more complicated than it already is, but I can not resist: If for some reason you are confident that your opponent's current points better reflect his MMR than your current points reflect your MMR, then it is entirely possible to calculate your winning chances based off of his points won / lost - simply calculate HIS winning chances, and yours are equal to 100 minus his chances. Just be sure you aren't counting his bonus pool points. I qouted it because the number of points you get are depending on favored/even etc. so if you are favoured then you will get more points correct? But as it says you can't say favoured is the same as better untill BOTH players have approximaly reached their mmr, and is not a indicator of skill. And that is almoste the exact opposit of what you say. Or well tecnicaly it isn't since you assume that they have stabilized their mmr/points, but I think you get my point And if both see each other as favoured and both then would win 4 points then the win chance according to your formula don't add up to 100%. because you have to agree that if my win chance is 70% then my opponent should have a 30% chance to win right? soo... if both people can see each other as favoured then wouldn't that make this void? Whether you're favoured depends on the opponent's mmr but your points (think I have that the right way round). As the ladder guide says, the favoured ratings do not sum to zero when one or more players' points do not accurately reflect their mmr. Thus if the opponent's points are not close to his mmr the likelihood of winning calculated using this method would not be zero sum either (whether yours do or not). Regardless, I think the OP makes too many assumptions for this to be useful, especially in assuming a linear correlation.
I have no problem with you (or anyone else) thinking I am making too many assumptions. I just want to point out linear correlation is not one of my assumptions. It is a result (and a somewhat surprising result in my eyes) I obtained from assuming that when any 2 players play each other a large enough amount of games, their points will remain roughly the same. You can read it in the math spoiler.
|
On August 19 2011 00:07 Not_That wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2011 00:01 IronDoc wrote:On August 18 2011 23:38 JackDragon wrote:On August 18 2011 23:10 Not_That wrote:On August 18 2011 22:57 JackDragon wrote:On August 18 2011 22:07 Not_That wrote:On August 18 2011 22:02 JackDragon wrote:
Is this official or were did you get the numbers from? I was certain that time of the match also affected points but whatever. I do think that there is a relation betwen skill gap and points but...
I'm not sure you are correct
It's not official, it's something I thought of and I explain how I came to the numbers I did in the OP. Match duration definitely does not affect points. You can read about it in the ladder sticky. I can't find were it says that the points aren't reflecting game length, or that it only reflects mmr gap. I mean even so it is a bit to simplified to actually work. Saying that the skill is constant and that it only works when you have reached your true mmr makes it not very usefull. What I mean is this: "The important thing to remember is that "favored" does not always mean "better" unless both players' points have approximately reached their MMRs. Until that time, the "favored" indicator only serves to determine how many points a match is worth, and is not an indicator of skill." which mens that both have to fit their mmr for your formula to even be true. It states specifically that points won/lost are only based off of who won in another thread by excalibur_z. In the sticky it can be seen from the part discussing the favoured system. If you won more points for longer games, score, or anything else it would be entirely abusable. It's not true that both players' points have to fit their MMR for my formula to be true. It is sufficient that your points match your MMR for you to be able to calculate what was your chance to win. It would only be required for your opponent's MMR to match his points for the formula to be also applicable to your opponent. The part you quote is referring to the 'favored' / 'slightly favored' / 'even' caption at the beginning of matches, and how both sides can see each other as 'favored', etc. Small note although I hate to make this any more complicated than it already is, but I can not resist: If for some reason you are confident that your opponent's current points better reflect his MMR than your current points reflect your MMR, then it is entirely possible to calculate your winning chances based off of his points won / lost - simply calculate HIS winning chances, and yours are equal to 100 minus his chances. Just be sure you aren't counting his bonus pool points. I qouted it because the number of points you get are depending on favored/even etc. so if you are favoured then you will get more points correct? But as it says you can't say favoured is the same as better untill BOTH players have approximaly reached their mmr, and is not a indicator of skill. And that is almoste the exact opposit of what you say. Or well tecnicaly it isn't since you assume that they have stabilized their mmr/points, but I think you get my point And if both see each other as favoured and both then would win 4 points then the win chance according to your formula don't add up to 100%. because you have to agree that if my win chance is 70% then my opponent should have a 30% chance to win right? soo... if both people can see each other as favoured then wouldn't that make this void? Whether you're favoured depends on the opponent's mmr but your points (think I have that the right way round). As the ladder guide says, the favoured ratings do not sum to zero when one or more players' points do not accurately reflect their mmr. Thus if the opponent's points are not close to his mmr the likelihood of winning calculated using this method would not be zero sum either (whether yours do or not). Regardless, I think the OP makes too many assumptions for this to be useful, especially in assuming a linear correlation. I have no problem with you (or anyone else) thinking I am making too many assumptions. I just want to point out linear correlation is not one of my assumptions. It is a result (and a somewhat surprising result in my eyes) I obtained from assuming that when any 2 players play each other a large enough amount of games, their points will remain roughly the same. You can read it in the math spoiler.
Yeah sorry you're right. What you are in fact assuming is that battle.net is designed to keep your points level. You assert that battle.net assigns a probability to the outcome that you win and adjusts the variable of the points you stand to win so that the expected gain in points from the game equates to 0.
I haven't decided whether or not I agree with that assumption.
|
On August 18 2011 23:44 BlasiuS wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2011 23:38 JackDragon wrote:On August 18 2011 23:10 Not_That wrote:On August 18 2011 22:57 JackDragon wrote:On August 18 2011 22:07 Not_That wrote:On August 18 2011 22:02 JackDragon wrote:
Is this official or were did you get the numbers from? I was certain that time of the match also affected points but whatever. I do think that there is a relation betwen skill gap and points but...
I'm not sure you are correct
It's not official, it's something I thought of and I explain how I came to the numbers I did in the OP. Match duration definitely does not affect points. You can read about it in the ladder sticky. I can't find were it says that the points aren't reflecting game length, or that it only reflects mmr gap. I mean even so it is a bit to simplified to actually work. Saying that the skill is constant and that it only works when you have reached your true mmr makes it not very usefull. What I mean is this: "The important thing to remember is that "favored" does not always mean "better" unless both players' points have approximately reached their MMRs. Until that time, the "favored" indicator only serves to determine how many points a match is worth, and is not an indicator of skill." which mens that both have to fit their mmr for your formula to even be true. It states specifically that points won/lost are only based off of who won in another thread by excalibur_z. In the sticky it can be seen from the part discussing the favoured system. If you won more points for longer games, score, or anything else it would be entirely abusable. It's not true that both players' points have to fit their MMR for my formula to be true. It is sufficient that your points match your MMR for you to be able to calculate what was your chance to win. It would only be required for your opponent's MMR to match his points for the formula to be also applicable to your opponent. The part you quote is referring to the 'favored' / 'slightly favored' / 'even' caption at the beginning of matches, and how both sides can see each other as 'favored', etc. Small note although I hate to make this any more complicated than it already is, but I can not resist: If for some reason you are confident that your opponent's current points better reflect his MMR than your current points reflect your MMR, then it is entirely possible to calculate your winning chances based off of his points won / lost - simply calculate HIS winning chances, and yours are equal to 100 minus his chances. Just be sure you aren't counting his bonus pool points. I found the thread and post else I wouldn't be able to qoute from it right? I just can't find within that post were it says that it is pure mmr. I am dyslectic so it is possible that I missed it but please show me. yes you missed it, it's right here: Show nested quote +On February 22 2011 15:13 Excalibur_Z wrote:PromotionBy outperforming the rest of your league, it is possible to get promoted into a higher league. If you are in Bronze but playing against Gold players, you would expect to be promoted to Gold, but that doesn't always happen immediately. This is because the system requires a certain degree of confidence before players can be moved to a new league, otherwise they would bounce around from league to league too frequently for leagues to be meaningful. That confidence is measured in two ways: First, the player must prove that he is capable of maintaining a certain level of skill. This is done by measuring the moving average of a player's MMR. The below image should help demonstrate. When this moving average stabilizes within the confines of a league, a player can be promoted into that league. The second factor is a "confidence buffer" that exists between leagues. That is, if a Bronze player is only slightly better than the lowest-rated Silver players according to his moving average, that is not reason alone to promote him, even though he has crossed into the Silver MMR region. If that player slumped, he would fall right back into Bronze within a couple of games, only to return to Silver a couple of games later, making his promotion far less meaningful. Leagues are sticky, therefore the moving average must cross beyond the destination league's confidence buffer, cementing that player's position within the higher league. In the picture above, the confidence buffer is represented by the yellow glow region. Note that these are the only two factors required for promotion. Any in-game behaviors or statistics beyond winning, losing, and the opponent's MMR are not relevant to the system.
But thats talking about promotions, not points. You could also see that as number of points don't matter when it comes to promotions. Which is true, points don't matter. So they don't actually say that time have nothing to do with points gained.
Also IronDoc, what I mean is doesn't his argument base on that likelihood in winning does sum to zero? I would argue that for the formula to be correct our likelihood of winning needs to sum to zero or it won't add up.
Example from my last game: I won 13 points he lost 12 points (before bonus pool) and so I had 45.83% chance to win right? And he would have 50% chance of winning. And this would mean that there is 4.17% chance for it to be tie or what? well I guess that could be but...
Point being. If the persons likelihood of winning don't add up you can not say that your formula appropriately reflects the truth.
|
On August 19 2011 00:44 JackDragon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2011 23:44 BlasiuS wrote:On August 18 2011 23:38 JackDragon wrote:On August 18 2011 23:10 Not_That wrote:On August 18 2011 22:57 JackDragon wrote:On August 18 2011 22:07 Not_That wrote:On August 18 2011 22:02 JackDragon wrote:
Is this official or were did you get the numbers from? I was certain that time of the match also affected points but whatever. I do think that there is a relation betwen skill gap and points but...
I'm not sure you are correct
It's not official, it's something I thought of and I explain how I came to the numbers I did in the OP. Match duration definitely does not affect points. You can read about it in the ladder sticky. I can't find were it says that the points aren't reflecting game length, or that it only reflects mmr gap. I mean even so it is a bit to simplified to actually work. Saying that the skill is constant and that it only works when you have reached your true mmr makes it not very usefull. What I mean is this: "The important thing to remember is that "favored" does not always mean "better" unless both players' points have approximately reached their MMRs. Until that time, the "favored" indicator only serves to determine how many points a match is worth, and is not an indicator of skill." which mens that both have to fit their mmr for your formula to even be true. It states specifically that points won/lost are only based off of who won in another thread by excalibur_z. In the sticky it can be seen from the part discussing the favoured system. If you won more points for longer games, score, or anything else it would be entirely abusable. It's not true that both players' points have to fit their MMR for my formula to be true. It is sufficient that your points match your MMR for you to be able to calculate what was your chance to win. It would only be required for your opponent's MMR to match his points for the formula to be also applicable to your opponent. The part you quote is referring to the 'favored' / 'slightly favored' / 'even' caption at the beginning of matches, and how both sides can see each other as 'favored', etc. Small note although I hate to make this any more complicated than it already is, but I can not resist: If for some reason you are confident that your opponent's current points better reflect his MMR than your current points reflect your MMR, then it is entirely possible to calculate your winning chances based off of his points won / lost - simply calculate HIS winning chances, and yours are equal to 100 minus his chances. Just be sure you aren't counting his bonus pool points. I found the thread and post else I wouldn't be able to qoute from it right? I just can't find within that post were it says that it is pure mmr. I am dyslectic so it is possible that I missed it but please show me. yes you missed it, it's right here: On February 22 2011 15:13 Excalibur_Z wrote:PromotionBy outperforming the rest of your league, it is possible to get promoted into a higher league. If you are in Bronze but playing against Gold players, you would expect to be promoted to Gold, but that doesn't always happen immediately. This is because the system requires a certain degree of confidence before players can be moved to a new league, otherwise they would bounce around from league to league too frequently for leagues to be meaningful. That confidence is measured in two ways: First, the player must prove that he is capable of maintaining a certain level of skill. This is done by measuring the moving average of a player's MMR. The below image should help demonstrate. When this moving average stabilizes within the confines of a league, a player can be promoted into that league. The second factor is a "confidence buffer" that exists between leagues. That is, if a Bronze player is only slightly better than the lowest-rated Silver players according to his moving average, that is not reason alone to promote him, even though he has crossed into the Silver MMR region. If that player slumped, he would fall right back into Bronze within a couple of games, only to return to Silver a couple of games later, making his promotion far less meaningful. Leagues are sticky, therefore the moving average must cross beyond the destination league's confidence buffer, cementing that player's position within the higher league. In the picture above, the confidence buffer is represented by the yellow glow region. Note that these are the only two factors required for promotion. Any in-game behaviors or statistics beyond winning, losing, and the opponent's MMR are not relevant to the system. But thats talking about promotions, not points. You could also see that as number of points don't matter when it comes to promotions. Which is true, points don't matter. So they don't actually say that time have nothing to do with points gained. Also IronDoc, what I mean is doesn't his argument base on that likelihood in winning does sum to zero? I would argue that for the formula to be correct our likelihood of winning needs to sum to zero or it won't add up. Example from my last game: I won 13 points he lost 12 points (before bonus pool) and so I had 45.83% chance to win right? And he would have 50% chance of winning. And this would mean that there is 4.17% chance for it to be tie or what? well I guess that could be but... Point being. If the persons likelihood of winning don't add up you can not say that your formula appropriately reflects the truth.
Reread the hypothetical example that I gave earlier. I think it explains it nicely.
|
On August 19 2011 00:44 JackDragon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2011 23:44 BlasiuS wrote:On August 18 2011 23:38 JackDragon wrote:On August 18 2011 23:10 Not_That wrote:On August 18 2011 22:57 JackDragon wrote:On August 18 2011 22:07 Not_That wrote:On August 18 2011 22:02 JackDragon wrote:
Is this official or were did you get the numbers from? I was certain that time of the match also affected points but whatever. I do think that there is a relation betwen skill gap and points but...
I'm not sure you are correct
It's not official, it's something I thought of and I explain how I came to the numbers I did in the OP. Match duration definitely does not affect points. You can read about it in the ladder sticky. I can't find were it says that the points aren't reflecting game length, or that it only reflects mmr gap. I mean even so it is a bit to simplified to actually work. Saying that the skill is constant and that it only works when you have reached your true mmr makes it not very usefull. What I mean is this: "The important thing to remember is that "favored" does not always mean "better" unless both players' points have approximately reached their MMRs. Until that time, the "favored" indicator only serves to determine how many points a match is worth, and is not an indicator of skill." which mens that both have to fit their mmr for your formula to even be true. It states specifically that points won/lost are only based off of who won in another thread by excalibur_z. In the sticky it can be seen from the part discussing the favoured system. If you won more points for longer games, score, or anything else it would be entirely abusable. It's not true that both players' points have to fit their MMR for my formula to be true. It is sufficient that your points match your MMR for you to be able to calculate what was your chance to win. It would only be required for your opponent's MMR to match his points for the formula to be also applicable to your opponent. The part you quote is referring to the 'favored' / 'slightly favored' / 'even' caption at the beginning of matches, and how both sides can see each other as 'favored', etc. Small note although I hate to make this any more complicated than it already is, but I can not resist: If for some reason you are confident that your opponent's current points better reflect his MMR than your current points reflect your MMR, then it is entirely possible to calculate your winning chances based off of his points won / lost - simply calculate HIS winning chances, and yours are equal to 100 minus his chances. Just be sure you aren't counting his bonus pool points. I found the thread and post else I wouldn't be able to qoute from it right? I just can't find within that post were it says that it is pure mmr. I am dyslectic so it is possible that I missed it but please show me. yes you missed it, it's right here: On February 22 2011 15:13 Excalibur_Z wrote:PromotionBy outperforming the rest of your league, it is possible to get promoted into a higher league. If you are in Bronze but playing against Gold players, you would expect to be promoted to Gold, but that doesn't always happen immediately. This is because the system requires a certain degree of confidence before players can be moved to a new league, otherwise they would bounce around from league to league too frequently for leagues to be meaningful. That confidence is measured in two ways: First, the player must prove that he is capable of maintaining a certain level of skill. This is done by measuring the moving average of a player's MMR. The below image should help demonstrate. When this moving average stabilizes within the confines of a league, a player can be promoted into that league. The second factor is a "confidence buffer" that exists between leagues. That is, if a Bronze player is only slightly better than the lowest-rated Silver players according to his moving average, that is not reason alone to promote him, even though he has crossed into the Silver MMR region. If that player slumped, he would fall right back into Bronze within a couple of games, only to return to Silver a couple of games later, making his promotion far less meaningful. Leagues are sticky, therefore the moving average must cross beyond the destination league's confidence buffer, cementing that player's position within the higher league. In the picture above, the confidence buffer is represented by the yellow glow region. Note that these are the only two factors required for promotion. Any in-game behaviors or statistics beyond winning, losing, and the opponent's MMR are not relevant to the system. But thats talking about promotions, not points. You could also see that as number of points don't matter when it comes to promotions. Which is true, points don't matter. So they don't actually say that time have nothing to do with points gained. Also IronDoc, what I mean is doesn't his argument base on that likelihood in winning does sum to zero? I would argue that for the formula to be correct our likelihood of winning needs to sum to zero or it won't add up. Example from my last game: I won 13 points he lost 12 points (before bonus pool) and so I had 45.83% chance to win right? And he would have 50% chance of winning. And this would mean that there is 4.17% chance for it to be tie or what? well I guess that could be but... Point being. If the persons likelihood of winning don't add up you can not say that your formula appropriately reflects the truth.
But if his points reflected his mmr and yours did, then the points would zero sum too. You can only look at the points (and infer a likelihood of winning) on the side of a player whose mmr and point value are close enough to be assumed identical. Essentially, the thing is that if the points won/lost don't zero sum, at least one players' points are not reflective of mmr.
|
I too have a system for calculating my chances of winning a match after I played it.
If I won: 100%
If I lost: 0%
|
On August 19 2011 00:51 IronDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On August 19 2011 00:44 JackDragon wrote:On August 18 2011 23:44 BlasiuS wrote:On August 18 2011 23:38 JackDragon wrote:On August 18 2011 23:10 Not_That wrote:On August 18 2011 22:57 JackDragon wrote:On August 18 2011 22:07 Not_That wrote:On August 18 2011 22:02 JackDragon wrote:
Is this official or were did you get the numbers from? I was certain that time of the match also affected points but whatever. I do think that there is a relation betwen skill gap and points but...
I'm not sure you are correct
It's not official, it's something I thought of and I explain how I came to the numbers I did in the OP. Match duration definitely does not affect points. You can read about it in the ladder sticky. I can't find were it says that the points aren't reflecting game length, or that it only reflects mmr gap. I mean even so it is a bit to simplified to actually work. Saying that the skill is constant and that it only works when you have reached your true mmr makes it not very usefull. What I mean is this: "The important thing to remember is that "favored" does not always mean "better" unless both players' points have approximately reached their MMRs. Until that time, the "favored" indicator only serves to determine how many points a match is worth, and is not an indicator of skill." which mens that both have to fit their mmr for your formula to even be true. It states specifically that points won/lost are only based off of who won in another thread by excalibur_z. In the sticky it can be seen from the part discussing the favoured system. If you won more points for longer games, score, or anything else it would be entirely abusable. It's not true that both players' points have to fit their MMR for my formula to be true. It is sufficient that your points match your MMR for you to be able to calculate what was your chance to win. It would only be required for your opponent's MMR to match his points for the formula to be also applicable to your opponent. The part you quote is referring to the 'favored' / 'slightly favored' / 'even' caption at the beginning of matches, and how both sides can see each other as 'favored', etc. Small note although I hate to make this any more complicated than it already is, but I can not resist: If for some reason you are confident that your opponent's current points better reflect his MMR than your current points reflect your MMR, then it is entirely possible to calculate your winning chances based off of his points won / lost - simply calculate HIS winning chances, and yours are equal to 100 minus his chances. Just be sure you aren't counting his bonus pool points. I found the thread and post else I wouldn't be able to qoute from it right? I just can't find within that post were it says that it is pure mmr. I am dyslectic so it is possible that I missed it but please show me. yes you missed it, it's right here: On February 22 2011 15:13 Excalibur_Z wrote:PromotionBy outperforming the rest of your league, it is possible to get promoted into a higher league. If you are in Bronze but playing against Gold players, you would expect to be promoted to Gold, but that doesn't always happen immediately. This is because the system requires a certain degree of confidence before players can be moved to a new league, otherwise they would bounce around from league to league too frequently for leagues to be meaningful. That confidence is measured in two ways: First, the player must prove that he is capable of maintaining a certain level of skill. This is done by measuring the moving average of a player's MMR. The below image should help demonstrate. When this moving average stabilizes within the confines of a league, a player can be promoted into that league. The second factor is a "confidence buffer" that exists between leagues. That is, if a Bronze player is only slightly better than the lowest-rated Silver players according to his moving average, that is not reason alone to promote him, even though he has crossed into the Silver MMR region. If that player slumped, he would fall right back into Bronze within a couple of games, only to return to Silver a couple of games later, making his promotion far less meaningful. Leagues are sticky, therefore the moving average must cross beyond the destination league's confidence buffer, cementing that player's position within the higher league. In the picture above, the confidence buffer is represented by the yellow glow region. Note that these are the only two factors required for promotion. Any in-game behaviors or statistics beyond winning, losing, and the opponent's MMR are not relevant to the system. But thats talking about promotions, not points. You could also see that as number of points don't matter when it comes to promotions. Which is true, points don't matter. So they don't actually say that time have nothing to do with points gained. Also IronDoc, what I mean is doesn't his argument base on that likelihood in winning does sum to zero? I would argue that for the formula to be correct our likelihood of winning needs to sum to zero or it won't add up. Example from my last game: I won 13 points he lost 12 points (before bonus pool) and so I had 45.83% chance to win right? And he would have 50% chance of winning. And this would mean that there is 4.17% chance for it to be tie or what? well I guess that could be but... Point being. If the persons likelihood of winning don't add up you can not say that your formula appropriately reflects the truth. But if his points reflected his mmr and yours did, then the points would zero sum too. You can only look at the points (and infer a likelihood of winning) on the side of a player whose mmr and point value are close enough to be assumed identical. Essentially, the thing is that if the points won/lost don't zero sum, at least one players' points are not reflective of mmr.
Indeed that makes sense.
Not_That. I don't really know much about how mmr works to know if the numbers fitt so I don't know if how to compare mmr. But If i undestand it right IronDoc summed it up nicly.
I guess the thing missing then would be to know how close you are to your mmr and how close your opponent are to his. Before then I don't think we can comfirm or deny this theory.
|
Well, as long as your points are close to your MMR, it should be roughly accurate. The only thing to consider is that, if your MMR grows or shrinks too fast, these points might not correctly reflect your MMR and chance of winning.
|
So there is a way to find out your mmr?
|
United States12235 Posts
On August 19 2011 00:44 JackDragon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2011 23:44 BlasiuS wrote:On August 18 2011 23:38 JackDragon wrote:On August 18 2011 23:10 Not_That wrote:On August 18 2011 22:57 JackDragon wrote:On August 18 2011 22:07 Not_That wrote:On August 18 2011 22:02 JackDragon wrote:
Is this official or were did you get the numbers from? I was certain that time of the match also affected points but whatever. I do think that there is a relation betwen skill gap and points but...
I'm not sure you are correct
It's not official, it's something I thought of and I explain how I came to the numbers I did in the OP. Match duration definitely does not affect points. You can read about it in the ladder sticky. I can't find were it says that the points aren't reflecting game length, or that it only reflects mmr gap. I mean even so it is a bit to simplified to actually work. Saying that the skill is constant and that it only works when you have reached your true mmr makes it not very usefull. What I mean is this: "The important thing to remember is that "favored" does not always mean "better" unless both players' points have approximately reached their MMRs. Until that time, the "favored" indicator only serves to determine how many points a match is worth, and is not an indicator of skill." which mens that both have to fit their mmr for your formula to even be true. It states specifically that points won/lost are only based off of who won in another thread by excalibur_z. In the sticky it can be seen from the part discussing the favoured system. If you won more points for longer games, score, or anything else it would be entirely abusable. It's not true that both players' points have to fit their MMR for my formula to be true. It is sufficient that your points match your MMR for you to be able to calculate what was your chance to win. It would only be required for your opponent's MMR to match his points for the formula to be also applicable to your opponent. The part you quote is referring to the 'favored' / 'slightly favored' / 'even' caption at the beginning of matches, and how both sides can see each other as 'favored', etc. Small note although I hate to make this any more complicated than it already is, but I can not resist: If for some reason you are confident that your opponent's current points better reflect his MMR than your current points reflect your MMR, then it is entirely possible to calculate your winning chances based off of his points won / lost - simply calculate HIS winning chances, and yours are equal to 100 minus his chances. Just be sure you aren't counting his bonus pool points. I found the thread and post else I wouldn't be able to qoute from it right? I just can't find within that post were it says that it is pure mmr. I am dyslectic so it is possible that I missed it but please show me. yes you missed it, it's right here: On February 22 2011 15:13 Excalibur_Z wrote:PromotionBy outperforming the rest of your league, it is possible to get promoted into a higher league. If you are in Bronze but playing against Gold players, you would expect to be promoted to Gold, but that doesn't always happen immediately. This is because the system requires a certain degree of confidence before players can be moved to a new league, otherwise they would bounce around from league to league too frequently for leagues to be meaningful. That confidence is measured in two ways: First, the player must prove that he is capable of maintaining a certain level of skill. This is done by measuring the moving average of a player's MMR. The below image should help demonstrate. When this moving average stabilizes within the confines of a league, a player can be promoted into that league. The second factor is a "confidence buffer" that exists between leagues. That is, if a Bronze player is only slightly better than the lowest-rated Silver players according to his moving average, that is not reason alone to promote him, even though he has crossed into the Silver MMR region. If that player slumped, he would fall right back into Bronze within a couple of games, only to return to Silver a couple of games later, making his promotion far less meaningful. Leagues are sticky, therefore the moving average must cross beyond the destination league's confidence buffer, cementing that player's position within the higher league. In the picture above, the confidence buffer is represented by the yellow glow region. Note that these are the only two factors required for promotion. Any in-game behaviors or statistics beyond winning, losing, and the opponent's MMR are not relevant to the system. But thats talking about promotions, not points. You could also see that as number of points don't matter when it comes to promotions. Which is true, points don't matter. So they don't actually say that time have nothing to do with points gained. Also IronDoc, what I mean is doesn't his argument base on that likelihood in winning does sum to zero? I would argue that for the formula to be correct our likelihood of winning needs to sum to zero or it won't add up. Example from my last game: I won 13 points he lost 12 points (before bonus pool) and so I had 45.83% chance to win right? And he would have 50% chance of winning. And this would mean that there is 4.17% chance for it to be tie or what? well I guess that could be but... Point being. If the persons likelihood of winning don't add up you can not say that your formula appropriately reflects the truth.
Points earned also have nothing to do with how the game is played or how long the game is or any other in-game factor. There, I just said it =)
|
United States12235 Posts
So this is an interesting topic because we've felt for a long time that MMR is zero-sum between any two players. The amount of MMR earned is directly related to your chances of winning a game, and in that regard it's no different from an Elo system. For example, in chess, a 1650-rated player would win over a 1550 player 64% of the time, and the amount of rating that either player stands to gain or lose will reflect that probability. And, quite obviously, points drift toward MMR. It then follows that if your points and your opponent's points each match their respective MMRs, their points earned and lost will be zero-sum. This is all assuming sigmas are equal though which they're not always and Vanick yelled at me about and sigma influences MMR change and Elo has no sigma something something.
What is interesting to consider is whether we can determine those winning percentages based only on the points earned and lost because those don't always match up with MMR. One measure I use is if the opponent lost 12 points or earned 12 points (excluding bonus pool) for a game, then it must mean that my MMR is roughly equal to his points barring any division offsets. For example, the other day Vanick and I played a 2v2, we're in Diamond and they're in Master league. They only had about 50 adjusted points while we had about 200, and they lost 12 points from our game while we won 12 points. This meant that our MMRs were close to each others' points, but also meant our points were of equal value. Given knowledge of division tier offsets, we could then determine that based on the 150-point difference, there was a very high probability that we were in the highest Diamond tier.
I'll definitely have to think about this more. Outcome probability is obvious when you're talking about MMR vs MMR, but things get cloudier when you're trying to go in reverse by analyzing point gains since those aren't always zero-sum. Good topic.
EDIT: Forgot about the impact of sigma ffffffffff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
