|
On July 11 2013 06:54 Milkis wrote:
That's what it would come down to, yeah. It's unfortunate I suppose, but what I'm trying to point out is that it's very limiting in the future not being able to add in maps. The problems you point out is only going to get worse, but at that point you've already completely ruled out the possibility of adding something important in.
On the DB side, it'll take only a few minutes to write all the models needed to implement maps. You are right that if we don't do it now, it will only gets worse but we hadn't had a new regular uploader in the last three months whereas we commits from 2 new dev. Unless there is a massive decision on their side to have this feature, I don't think we will integrate that in the near future.
PS : Also if only maps were standardized.
|
Scotland380 Posts
I'll jump in to the map discussion and say adding maps kinda sucks. Most tournaments don't track their own maps played. Dreamhack don't track any maps and they don't even track walkovers.
ESL have brackets that display replays but 90% don't get uploaded.
MLG made all their maps not show up in match histories
There are also tournaments that like to make their own versions of maps just to be different.
On top of tournaments sucking, more and more players hide their match histories.
Having said all that, I think map data is a good thing to try and have.
|
On July 11 2013 06:54 Milkis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 06:32 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On July 11 2013 06:24 Milkis wrote:On July 11 2013 06:21 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On July 11 2013 06:11 Milkis wrote:
Being afraid of "uncertainty" is a silly thing when you're working with statistics, because I'm sure you'll gain more in accuracy from a cost from variance.
[...]
On the contrary Proleague format is the most map dependent one because of how they select players to go in a match. There's more to analyze and look at.
I don't think you understand what I was getting at. The moment that player ratings and the prediction system become dependent on maps as well, both will become significantly less accurate simply because there are less games to work with. Therein lies the issue with the uncertainty. If what you're asking for is simple stuff like map winrate statistics and whatnot, that would be much simpler to do, but at the same time redundant because TLPD already does it and it would be very hard for us to add a significant amount to that (again, lack of information for many tournaments that aren't on TLPD). Let's put it this way. I'm not asking to add a dummy for each map, but having the map in the database would be useful so you can easily calculate win rates to feed the racial win rates on each map for your rating system. I'm just saying maps play a huge role in prediction (even if that effect is averaged out in simple racial win rates) and I'm surprised it isn't being considered atm. Does that make sense? Yes. Maps do play a huge role in prediction. But with the exception of Antiga, Daybreak and Cloud Kingdom (all of which are obviously no longer relevant), there simply aren't enough games played on singular maps that implementing this would benefit the system in any significant, noticeable way. In an ideal world, there would be far more tournaments for players to compete in, and for us this would solve most if not all of our problems. Most big maps have ~150 games of each match up played in it. Should be "enough". :
Just a quick note, with 150 samples (for a real hidden percentage value close to 50%) you get a confidence interval of roughly +/- 9% at 95% confidence level.
In other words, if Bel'Shir Vestige has 150 pro games of PvZ played on it, and exactly 75 are wins and 75 are false, the only thing I can say is that "With 95% confidence, the win ratio is between 41% and 59%". ("And in 5% of the cases, I am so wrong that in fact, the percentage is lower than 41% or higher than 59%. Lol.") Seeing how we scream bloody murder if the win ratio is at 55/45 I don't see this being really useful.
Basically, I believe we would require at least 1000 samples of a single matchup on a single map, which shows empirical win ratio of 58% at least to have any significant conclusion.
Edit : OK, I reread that and perhaps what I wrote may be perceived as rude. Every discussion is valuable. I do data mining and machine learning, and I simply love to have more data. The more I have, the more magic I can do. But I also need to moderate my excitement, because a lot of information is in fact irrelevant (fun fact : one big big big part of data mining is getting rid of data. I just love how in DNA analysis, getting rid of 99.9% of the information is not unheard of. In I-don't-remember-what-study, the final predictor for a cancer used only 19 genes out of 40.000).
|
Every SC2 tournament on earth should be forced to post all match results in a standard form that's then sucked into the Aligulac database 
|
On July 11 2013 22:29 Leviance wrote:Every SC2 tournament on earth should be forced to post all match results in a standard form that's then sucked into the Aligulac database
If we continue our development as we do right now. It's quite possible we would able to provide an advanced API for that.
|
Is there a way how to filter player's stats in only one tournament/league?
So for example, I would like to see Fantasy's stats only in SPL in both WoL and HotS for every matchup.
And then I would like to check say JangBi's stats in SPL, only HotS, PvT only.
Is there a way how to do that?
(If not, than take this as "this is what would be nice to get next" kinda feedback ^^)
|
On July 11 2013 23:12 Ammanas wrote:
Is there a way how to filter player's stats in only one tournament/league?
So for example, I would like to see Fantasy's stats only in SPL in both WoL and HotS for every matchup.
And then I would like to check say JangBi's stats in SPL, only HotS, PvT only.
Is there a way how to do that?
(If not, than take this as "this is what would be nice to get next" kinda feedback ^^)
You could do a search, as it allows you to search both by name and by event: http://aligulac.com/results/search/?op=search&after=&before=&players=fantasy&eventtext=proleague&bo=all&offline=both&game=all
That's not quite ideal, though, as the search will include everything you're searching for (who'd have thought), so if there'd be another event with "proleague" in the name, it would include that, too. Still, that's the best we have for now.
|
On July 11 2013 23:20 Conti wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 23:12 Ammanas wrote:
Is there a way how to filter player's stats in only one tournament/league?
So for example, I would like to see Fantasy's stats only in SPL in both WoL and HotS for every matchup.
And then I would like to check say JangBi's stats in SPL, only HotS, PvT only.
Is there a way how to do that?
(If not, than take this as "this is what would be nice to get next" kinda feedback ^^) You could do a search, as it allows you to search both by name and by event: http://aligulac.com/results/search/?op=search&after=&before=&players=fantasy&eventtext=proleague&bo=all&offline=both&game=allThat's not quite ideal, though, as the search will include everything you're searching for (who'd have thought), so if there'd be another event with "proleague" in the name, it would include that, too. Still, that's the best we have for now.
Thanks, that's good enough!
|
5003 Posts
On July 11 2013 17:23 fezvez wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 06:54 Milkis wrote:On July 11 2013 06:32 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On July 11 2013 06:24 Milkis wrote:On July 11 2013 06:21 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On July 11 2013 06:11 Milkis wrote:
Being afraid of "uncertainty" is a silly thing when you're working with statistics, because I'm sure you'll gain more in accuracy from a cost from variance.
[...]
On the contrary Proleague format is the most map dependent one because of how they select players to go in a match. There's more to analyze and look at.
I don't think you understand what I was getting at. The moment that player ratings and the prediction system become dependent on maps as well, both will become significantly less accurate simply because there are less games to work with. Therein lies the issue with the uncertainty. If what you're asking for is simple stuff like map winrate statistics and whatnot, that would be much simpler to do, but at the same time redundant because TLPD already does it and it would be very hard for us to add a significant amount to that (again, lack of information for many tournaments that aren't on TLPD). Let's put it this way. I'm not asking to add a dummy for each map, but having the map in the database would be useful so you can easily calculate win rates to feed the racial win rates on each map for your rating system. I'm just saying maps play a huge role in prediction (even if that effect is averaged out in simple racial win rates) and I'm surprised it isn't being considered atm. Does that make sense? Yes. Maps do play a huge role in prediction. But with the exception of Antiga, Daybreak and Cloud Kingdom (all of which are obviously no longer relevant), there simply aren't enough games played on singular maps that implementing this would benefit the system in any significant, noticeable way. In an ideal world, there would be far more tournaments for players to compete in, and for us this would solve most if not all of our problems. Most big maps have ~150 games of each match up played in it. Should be "enough". : Just a quick note, with 150 samples (for a real hidden percentage value close to 50%) you get a confidence interval of roughly +/- 9% at 95% confidence level. In other words, if Bel'Shir Vestige has 150 pro games of PvZ played on it, and exactly 75 are wins and 75 are false, the only thing I can say is that "With 95% confidence, the win ratio is between 41% and 59%". ("And in 5% of the cases, I am so wrong that in fact, the percentage is lower than 41% or higher than 59%. Lol.") Seeing how we scream bloody murder if the win ratio is at 55/45 I don't see this being really useful. Basically, I believe we would require at least 1000 samples of a single matchup on a single map, which shows empirical win ratio of 58% at least to have any significant conclusion. Edit : OK, I reread that and perhaps what I wrote may be perceived as rude. Every discussion is valuable. I do data mining and machine learning, and I simply love to have more data. The more I have, the more magic I can do. But I also need to moderate my excitement, because a lot of information is in fact irrelevant (fun fact : one big big big part of data mining is getting rid of data. I just love how in DNA analysis, getting rid of 99.9% of the information is not unheard of. In I-don't-remember-what-study, the final predictor for a cancer used only 19 genes out of 40.000).
In a straight forward t.test, you're right -- because you're interested in an estimation of the the property of the map itself. If map is some of the many covariates you're using to estimate something else (such as probability of victory, or player skill), the standard errors shouldn't be too bad. But you're also right in that, you need a certain amount of "imbalance" in the map before you get a noticeable difference in prediction.
|
As far as the map discussion is concerned, I'm of the same opinion that has been expressed. It'd be cool to have, but it seems to be a pretty high effort to usefulness ratio. Let TLPD have their one advantage (they need it! lawl).
On July 11 2013 23:20 Conti wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2013 23:12 Ammanas wrote:
Is there a way how to filter player's stats in only one tournament/league?
So for example, I would like to see Fantasy's stats only in SPL in both WoL and HotS for every matchup.
And then I would like to check say JangBi's stats in SPL, only HotS, PvT only.
Is there a way how to do that?
(If not, than take this as "this is what would be nice to get next" kinda feedback ^^) You could do a search, as it allows you to search both by name and by event: http://aligulac.com/results/search/?op=search&after=&before=&players=fantasy&eventtext=proleague&bo=all&offline=both&game=allThat's not quite ideal, though, as the search will include everything you're searching for (who'd have thought), so if there'd be another event with "proleague" in the name, it would include that, too. Still, that's the best we have for now.
Since a month or so ago you can also use quotation marks, so for example "Group E" will just find anything called Group E instead of everything with E in the name. 
|
Edit: Disregard, I just read the notes right in front of my face <_<
Is there functionality to indicate different "best of's" during a Single Elimination bracket?
Ex: 16 players in Single Elim. R1 = Bo3, R2 = Bo5, R3 = Bo5, Finals = Bo7. Could I type 3,5,5,7 into the "Best of" field?
|
When I choose "Best Zergs (All)"  Stephano is in there (No5), but when I choose
"Best Zergs" (Non-Koreans), Sen is better (higher ranked) than Stephano, yet he is not in the best Zerg (All) list, athough Stephano is.
Something's not right there.
|
On July 12 2013 01:33 Leviance wrote:When I choose "Best Zergs (All)" Stephano is in there (No5), but when I choose "Best Zergs" (Non-Koreans), Sen is better (higher ranked) than Stephano, yet he is not in the best Zerg (All) list, athough Stephano is. Something's not right there.
I'm confused, are you talking about Rankings here or Records (aka History)?
|
On July 12 2013 00:54 justdmg wrote:
Edit: Disregard, I just read the notes right in front of my face <_<
Is there functionality to indicate different "best of's" during a Single Elimination bracket?
Ex: 16 players in Single Elim. R1 = Bo3, R2 = Bo5, R3 = Bo5, Finals = Bo7. Could I type 3,5,5,7 into the "Best of" field?
Yes.
On July 12 2013 01:33 Leviance wrote:When I choose "Best Zergs (All)" Stephano is in there (No5), but when I choose "Best Zergs" (Non-Koreans), Sen is better (higher ranked) than Stephano, yet he is not in the best Zerg (All) list, athough Stephano is. Something's not right there.
Yeah, I can't reproduce this. Where do you see this, exactly?
|
United States8477 Posts
Has there ever been a suggestion to have the option to add in ace matches for proleague style league predictions? For example, in today's STX vs SKT match, have the option to enter in Rain and Innovation as the aces. Then the output would be something like:
33% STX wins in first 6 sets
33% SKT wins in first 6 sets
33% Goes to ace match
Ace Match
60% Innovation vs Rain 40%
Overall
55% STX wins
45% SKT wins
|
On July 12 2013 03:31 monk wrote:
Has there ever been a suggestion to have the option to add in ace matches for proleague style league predictions? For example, in today's STX vs SKT match, have the option to enter in Rain and Innovation as the aces. Then the output would be something like:
33% STX wins in first 6 sets
33% SKT wins in first 6 sets
33% Goes to ace match
Ace Match
60% Innovation vs Rain 40%
Overall
55% STX wins
45% SKT wins
'tis now an issue
https://github.com/TheBB/aligulac/issues/74
|
On July 12 2013 03:31 monk wrote:
Has there ever been a suggestion to have the option to add in ace matches for proleague style league predictions?
You can do this already, in fact. It's just not very well advertised. Just add the ace match players as if you entered a match with seven players. There's nothing to keep you from repeating players.
|
On July 12 2013 04:39 TheBB wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2013 03:31 monk wrote:
Has there ever been a suggestion to have the option to add in ace matches for proleague style league predictions? You can do this already, in fact. It's just not very well advertised. Just add the ace match players as if you entered a match with seven players. There's nothing to keep you from repeating players.
Like this?
http://aligulac.com/m/EVkjXHJo4A6uKDGg/
|
United States8477 Posts
Ah cool. My suggestion would just be to make the output look a bit more customized so that it's clear the final match is a hypothetical one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
