The new ELO-based ranking system

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

So in the case of exactly even ratings, E(a) = 1.

However I could see this being an issue as that would make the winner get 0 points if I’m understanding correctly:

I read it as a multiplication but the formula is actually an Exponent, so having exactly even rated opponents results in an E(a) of 2, not 1.

That means that the points awarded to the winner will be significant. If they are in the 70-point stage for K, it will award the full 70 points to the winner and deduct from the loser’s ELO.

Oh, I had misread it as a multiplication, too!

Okay - so all this math is WAY over my head. As long as all you math nerds know what you are doing, I feel fine in your hands.

@MrRoboto And that feature takes the place of the PVP matrix I’ve been doing, so that particular information is not lost -

Great!!

This new system and calculation sheet looks great!

I am new to the league, but I could already see a few disadvantages of the old system - that have now been addressed by the new system.

Great work!
💪

But, unfortunately, I cannot support any system that changes my league standing from #1 to #17
😅😜🤪😈

@MrRoboto I was enjoying seeing standings change as the results come in.

I can’t really expect any system to get things exactly right. As long as players of comparable level are ranked close to each other that would be enough. And that certainly seems to me to be happening here. That being said, I suspect that more data will still make some significant changes to what the standings are. I expect that players like Adam and Axis-D (and JDOW when he appears) and a couple of others will move up relative to the rest of us, and a few others (like me) will consequently move down a bit.

I’m happy to add some data when I have the time. But right now this is only read only for me so not sure how to do that.

The other thing I still have a concern around is the yearly playoffs. If we want a playoffs based on the top 8 (or top 16 as ghostglider suggested) in a given year, I’m not sure how we pull that data from this (such that one’s lifetime ranking doesn’t impact it). I’m sure there is a way but am curious what the thinking is there.

@MrRoboto I’m not sure why but I still am unable to put info in. I can’t use the filter either.

AD is ranked fractionally better than me right now. And Adam is fractionally worse But based on their record over the past few years (they and JDOW are regularly ranked 1,2 and 3 of playoff eligible players) I expect we are going to see them move further ahead and put some distance with the rest of us once we input more data. It would be deserved.

I did do feb 2021 and sent it to Roboto in case anyone else was going to work on this

@farmboy Thanks, I expect to have some time tonight to keep working on it so I’ll plan on Oct-Dec 2020 and January 2021

October 2020 - January 2021 is now complete, @MrRoboto can update when he has time.

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

But, unfortunately, I cannot support any system that changes my league standing from #1 to #17
😅😜🤪😈

There’s one really effective way to remedy that…

Wait, how did you do emojis? As images?

@gamerman01 you can use them if your keyboard supports it (like from mobile) 🤓

I use emojidb.org when on desktop to copy (it seems like the most user-friendly one I’ve found so far)

🔥🔥🔥🔥

Got it, thanks, just what I needed, you are fast

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

I can’t really expect any system to get things exactly right. As long as players of comparable level are ranked close to each other that would be enough.

Right… and I would add, high level of predictability as to who will win. Of course, the greater the difference, the higher the predictability should be

And that certainly seems to me to be happening here. That being said, I suspect that more data will still make some significant changes to what the standings are. I expect that players like Adam and Axis-D (and JDOW when he appears) and a couple of others will move up relative to the rest of us, and a few others (like me) will consequently move down a bit.

The ratings crossing years is new and exciting, and like you, I can’t wait to see how Babe Ruth matches up against Derek Jeter, though arguments can still remain 😆

The other thing I still have a concern around is the yearly playoffs. If we want a playoffs based on the top 8 (or top 16 as ghostglider suggested) in a given year, I’m not sure how we pull that data from this (such that one’s lifetime ranking doesn’t impact it). I’m sure there is a way but am curious what the thinking is there.

Some of the top goals of the system we’ve been using for many years has been

1. Clean 0-0 record every year, while allowing past years’ results to have some impact.
2. Annual playoff focus - the system was designed as an improvement of simple win/loss % while maintaining a focus on post-season playoffs.

The following is not to be down on the new ELO system that has many big improvements, but is a demonstration of the quandary that farmboy poses. How do you get a good playoff matchup each year and get good annual ELO results without taking into account any information that occurred before January 1 of this year?

I resisted ELO for years because the rating only goes up or down a limited amount per game, and everyone starts in the same place. If God plays against a tomato, His rating goes from 1500 to 1560, and the tomato’s goes from 1500 to 1440. They would have to play a lot of games before God gets to the perfect 3,000 (indeed it may even be impossible for Him if there is not strong enough competition to play against) and before the tomato goes down to its rightful 0000.

ELO does not do well in our league within a single year and creating good playoff matchups based on that year, and one reason is one player is playing 6 games (the minimum for playoff) and another is playing 50, and everyone else is in between.

However, like farmboy I think there’s some kind of solution.

Without even thinking very long and hard about it, I think it involves factoring in lifetime results, or results over the past few years.

In response to the complaints/criticisms about “circular references”, there is a very good reason for why points are adjusted after a past opponent changes tiers.
Just one example is when we get a new-comer to the league who’s actually a veteran of A&A and online Triple A. They come in as a completely unknown quantity, one of our guys graciously takes him on, and the new-comer blindsides him. All we know is he’s 1-0. He continues to win, and at the end of the year he has a real nice 5.67 average.

Under the current system the first guy and the second guy, and the third guy who faced him and got ambushed are adjusted up as this new guy rises tiers, and rightly so. They played against strong competition and lost.

With ELO, there is no correction whatsoever - if you lose against a newcomer, it makes no difference whatsoever how good he actually is.

In the past, the complaint has been that your average points per game will lower even if you win. This presupposes that the goal of the ranking system is to earn points and see how high you can get. If that is your goal, then you won’t take on a player more than a tier or two below you because you dont’ want your average to drop. But not everyone is like that. Maximum points has never been the #1 goal of the ranking system. Sizing up the strength of your potential opponent, having a clean slate each year while also taking into account historical strength in making good playoff matchups have been higher goals. The misconception is quite understandable, but players with this complaint do not understand the ordering of these priorities.

Now doesn’t this mean it’s much riskier to play a newcomer under ELO? Under the current system, if it turns out he’s a wiz, you get credit for that if he plays a few games before year-end. Under ELO, your score will go up when you beat him in his first game here, but there is absolutely no account for how good that player actually was or is. He’s just another 1500.

And man this part annoys me! Maybe you are using the wrong term.

A circular reference is “a formula that visits its own or another cell more than once in its chain of calculations, creating an infinite loop.”

There are no circular references. There isn’t even a formula. There are no infinite loops.
You can take any given player at any given time and tally up the points from each player they’ve defeated, in that player’s current tier which is always known, and similarly with each loss.

The major strength of this characteristic of the past system is that anyone, especially me, can accurately verify exactly how many points divided by how many games and error check. A player can see exactly why his average is what it is.

There is no circular reference. There is no infinte loop.
I do understand that there are instances where it matters which result is put in, in which order. I have never seen how this makes any significant difference, and the fact remains, every average can be verified by the wins and losses against various tiers. I don’t think a player is going to be 5.43 instead of 5.20 because of this novelty exception.

Anyway.

I am only trying to educate and work together to make the ELO system as awesome as it can be.
The lifetime, multi-year results are awesome, and are quite accurate because there is more data than in a single year and the inherent limitation of players with only 1 or 3 games played is overcome by the large quantity of data.

We’ll figure out how to make good single year results and playoffs, which have always been the top priorities of league play.

I understand it will come across that I am angry and defensive because “my” rankings are being criticized and shoved to the side, but that is really not why I’m writing this way.

I am enthusiastic and entering data and validating data and working with MrRoboto and his (to me) incredible prowess with formulas, spreadsheets, math, and computers in general,
And I am super excited about the multi-year data and how the results are stacking up like for the past 3 years to look very accurate to me. With a database and queries, filters, sorting etc the sky is the limit. And it would have been good if this happened 10 years ago.

So! Don’t get me wrong.

I just really want to educate when I see, even constructive and well-meaning and intelligent criticisms, that are made without understanding all angles/factors/history/theory.

Not to mention it’s fun.