The new ELO-based ranking system

[gamerman01]

Lotta great ideas, this is what I was hoping for!
I read all posts but MrRobotos (will read that next)

But I can tell you right now, even with Martin’s cool ideas on speeding it up, that I am firm on a bracket of no more than 8 for a few major reasons.

Even with byes to reduce total number of games, it only takes one game to stop everything. Going to 16, even with some byes (which means less than 16 players) means many more chances for a weak link of the chain to hold everything up.

You can institute timers like the same as regular league games, but I don’t want the #3 player being bounced by the #12 or whatever in round 1 (assuming 1 and 2 get byes) because he took 4 days for a move.

Going with more than 8 also cheapens the regular season.

The thought of a big 16 man tourney is intriguing and interesting, of course, but there’s not much theater in the #3 mopping up the floor with the #14. Or the #1 to the #16 if there are no byes.

Personally I’d rather see a 2 round, 4 man bracket for the championship for the above reasons.

2022 BM playoffs
#1 is fighting #3
2nd bracket
#1 is fighting #2

2021 BM playoffs
#2 beat #4 for the champ
2nd bracket
#2 beat #4

2020 BM playoffs
#3 beat #5
2nd bracket
#3 beat #4

2019 BM playoffs
#2 beat #4
2nd bracket
#2 beat #1

2018 BM playoffs
#2 beat #1
2nd bracket
#1 beat #2

2017 BM playoffs
#4 beat #2
2nd bracket
#5 beat #7

2016 BM playoffs
#8 beat #2
2nd bracket
#7 beat #4

2015 BM playoffs
#3 beat #4
2nd bracket
#1 beat #2
3rd bracket
#3 beat #4

That is a LOT of actual results that show that almost always, #1-4 win it. The additional brackets give players #9 through #16 more competitive games and a chance to win a bracket and go into all-time league history.

In fact, looking at the data, the #5-#8 seeds are just there to take punches, fall to the mat, and make it a little longer and more interesting.

With brackets of 4, you get winners in September instead of February the next year.

I’m not making a decree and I’m not meaning to argue, just putting my position out there for you to think about.

[gamerman01]

Aaaand, there is another reasons for shorter playoffs than longer.

On the one hand, it makes matchups of players who otherwise haven’t played each other and maybe never would.

On the other hand, it forces players to play someone they didn’t choose. A HUGE part of league play is being able to choose your opponents, which, by the way, makes it VERY different than major sports where they have a set schedule to play 1-2 games against a wide variety of opponents.

Just more food for thought.
I need to read Roboto’s post now about sectioning years and whatever else.

[Arthur Bomber Harris]

@gamerman01 you left off the OOB results. ;). I am a mediocre player but have had a few big upsets in my career as I bribe the dice lords with lots of presents and saved-up karma.

[gamerman01]

@Arthur-Bomber-Harris said in Proposal for a new, ELO-based, ranking system:

@gamerman01 you left off the OOB results.

I did.
Not intentional, just didn’t want to scroll down lol

[gamerman01]

OK, now I have read MrRoboto’s post, and wow, is that eloquent!

I wholeheartedly agree with just about everything he said.

My favorite option is to use ELO at the end of the year for players who met the minimum games requirement and sign up (want in).

Since only 3 games (rightly) required for OOB and PTV, obviously you’re not going to have very accurate ratings in some instances. This has been true under the past system as well (uses averages, and clean slate each year), but now we have a lot more data.

A new player to OOB or PtV will rapidly get a fairly accurate rating (even in 3 games) playing against others who are known quantities. If starting everyone at 1500 at Jan 1, not as accurate.

I really like MrRoboto’s Oysteilo example. He only played 3 games and those 3 games really don’t give much information. He’s better than our beloved Dawg, but couldn’t beat AndrewAAGamer in one game.
This means he’s like most players. Somewhere between the top and bottom.
But with his lifetime rating of 1669 lowering slightly from these 3 games to 1659, we have a much clearer picture of the mad skillz Oysteilo brings to the table than the little sample of 3 2023 games.

[AndrewAAGamer]

@gamerman01 said in Proposal for a new, ELO-based, ranking system:

but couldn’t beat AndrewAAGamer in one game.

He came dang close to it…

[gamerman01]

@AndrewAAGamer said in Proposal for a new, ELO-based, ranking system:

@gamerman01 said in Proposal for a new, ELO-based, ranking system:

but couldn’t beat AndrewAAGamer in one game.

He came dang close to it…

Thank you!!
And that proves MrRoboto’s point and mine.

A loss is a loss and a system based on wins and losses doesn’t care how close a game is.
The lifetime ELO for him does show it.
With only 3 games, and a near miss against AndrewAAGamer, a year that stands alone merely shows a sterile:

2 wins at Dawg
1 loss to Andrew

Put that on your tombstone

[MrRoboto]

Conclusion:

The ELO ranking is the most accurate way we ever had to get the actual strength of every player, especially compared to each other. It is even more accurate the more games you have played (20+ games should be sufficient to give a very accurate assessment).

On the flipside, you should take the ELO rating of player with less than 10 completed games with a grain of salt.

But among us active players, you can very comfortably rely on the rankings to choose your opponents: Do you seek a challenge, take on players with 100 more points than yourself.
Are you looking for equal strength, search within plus / minus 100 points of your own rating. And if you want some low risk, low reward game to just have fun and slowly and slightly climb the rankings, go lower than 100 points below your own ranking.

[MrRoboto]

Or, if you are @Adam514 , just ignore ELO and farm each and every one of us, enjoying a 90% winrate over 165 games

[axis-dominion]

What’s all the argument about anyway? :)

Hope you all are having a great holiday season. I do miss this community.

So this is cool, thanks for putting this together:

According to this, I still have the most wins by a significant margin, even after sitting out for an entire year now lol

BTW I am 2-0 against the 2nd ranked player. Adam, however, has always been better than me I will admit that. I think he has beaten me at least 2 out of every 3 games, maybe more idk I’d have to look back.

[gamerman01]

No argument, just discussion among very analytical people about how to do year by year playoffs

What a pleasant surprise -
Where ya been?!

You did see there are sheets for each version?

[Arthur Bomber Harris]

@AndrewAAGamer oysteilo beat me twice, once as Allies and once as Axis, by convincing beatdowns. I gave up in one game when Egypt and my UK forces got so thoroughly crushed on I2 that there was no coming back.

I was so relieved when you knocked him out of the tournament since I wasn’t looking forward to a third beat down.

[axis-dominion]

@gamerman01 got busy working for a startup, then when that didn’t go as planned i joined another one… also, i have been playing a lot of Twilight Imperium 4th ed (TI4), and that’s quite a game! here’s a pic yesterday’s game with a group of friends (I was the pink faction):

[JDOW]

@axis-dominion said in Proposal for a new, ELO-based, ranking system:

BTW I am 2-0 against the 2nd ranked player. Adam, however, has always been better than me I will admit that. I think he has beaten me at least 2 out of every 3 games, maybe more idk I’d have to look back.

Well, I made the mistake not playing you earlier when it was easy to beat you because you regularly blundered ;-)

Then, you stopped blundering and became super strong, and this is when I started playing you. I am still traumatized by our play-off match in which a surprise Neutral Crush entirely wrecked my (I believe at this point decent) position within a single turn :-(

So yes, getting your scalp at least once is a reason for me to return to the league^^

I am btw 2:1 vs Adam :D (Probably one win not recorded because it may have taken place in a Tournament and may not have counted for the league)

[gamerman01]

Ummmmm…
It’s just a fact that if @JDOW and @axis-dominion returned, the league would be at full strength on top maybe like never before (according to the life-time ELOs)

[oysteilo]

just to get this straight.

are we just continuing on the old results or is everyone starting at 1500 elo on jan 1.2024?
My understaning was to start everyone at 1500

[Martin]

My understanding is that the ELO system is a life long rating and should take into account all games ever played. It will continue based no the hundreds of game results that were just input.

[MrRoboto]

@Martin said in Proposal for a new, ELO-based, ranking system:

My understanding is that the ELO system is a life long rating and should take into account all games ever played. It will continue based no the hundreds of game results that were just input.

This.

The system works best when you have around 15-20 games or more. It would only weaken the accuracy if we started on 1-1-2024 instead of all games ever.

As of today, 4519 games have been counted - a little bit more than “hundreds” ;-)

[oysteilo]

OK

But, honestly this has not been comunicated clearly. you are now making scores based on revised conditions that was not know when games were started. It is a fundamental change and if I played someones “m*m” 10 years ago it should not count now.

I understand the desire to make it accurate but if fundamental changes are made date zero must be clearly communicated. It should be 01.01.2024, not a random date in 2014 or whatever

[Martin]

“now making scores based on revised conditions that was not know when games were started.” --> What difference would it make? No-one would have played differently - everyone plays to win.