Originally posted by huckleberryhoundWhile I'd much prefer to enter tournaments that I had a good chance of winning or even making it to the second round, my tournament entry rating looks remarkably like what I flatteringly consider to be my "normal" level of about 1550. The change works for me even if I don’t like it.
Maybe you could raise your game a bit ?
My highest rating was a peak due to a lot of wins in a row, but what i've realised is that playing higher rated players is good for your game, and 100 points higher is entirely feasable for anyone. Don't forget that others will be in the same boat as you, and players that would normally sail through your ol ...[text shortened]... s poorly thought out.
edit, just saw your last post, but i still think mine is relaevant.
Originally posted by drdonSamecase with me as well. Where I don't fancy myself a strong 1300 player, I can hold my own against most that are. It would be my own undoing If I were to fail at this level. Not because I am misplaced due to an unreasonable rating.
While I'd much prefer to enter tournaments that I had a good chance of winning or even making it to the second round, my tournament entry rating looks remarkably like what I flatteringly consider to be my "normal" level of about 1550. The change works for me even if I don’t like it.
I also know I fluxuate in a rating from 1150 to 1350 with an all time peak of 1388 (my highest for the year) So I am thinking that the figure to look for shouldn't be 100, but rather 150. This is for those players (like myself) who are constantly playing 100+ games. I think it to show a truer rating reflection for tournaments.
It looks like this may take a few more iterations before we get the best formula. I have reduced it from 365 days to 100 days after reviewing a number of cases where the Tournament Entry Rating was clearly unreasonable.
I realize that this makes it easier for someone determined to enter a tournament below their level to drop the points, but we may well find that we have to handle such events on a case by case basis, and remove players from tournaments manually.
It is also tempting to increase the maximum number of points difference between the entry rating and the high rating from 100 to 150, but I am going to leave it as it is at the moment and continue going through random profiles to see how fair the current system appears.
Originally posted by ChrisJust a side thought, since all this changing is being done. Can you add an all time high listing on our home page. For no other reason than a reference. Not to be used in any tournament settings.
It looks like this may take a few more iterations before we get the best formula. I have reduced it from 365 days to 100 days after reviewing a number of cases where the Tournament Entry Rating was clearly unreasonable.
I realize that this makes it easier for someone determined to enter a tournament below their level to drop the points, but we may well fin ...[text shortened]... he moment and continue going through random profiles to see how fair the current system appears.
Originally posted by KJCavalierOr even better, allow the rating graph to scroll back through a member's entire RHP career.
Just a side thought, since all this changing is being done. Can you add an all time high listing on our home page. For no other reason than a reference. Not to be used in any tournament settings.
Originally posted by ChrisHappy again
It looks like this may take a few more iterations before we get the best formula. I have reduced it from 365 days to 100 days after reviewing a number of cases where the Tournament Entry Rating was clearly unreasonable.
I realize that this makes it easier for someone determined to enter a tournament below their level to drop the points, but we may well fin ...[text shortened]... he moment and continue going through random profiles to see how fair the current system appears.
Current 1284
Highest Rating 1405 (Last 100 Days)
Tournament Entry Rating 1344
I can now play with people near my own ability 🙂
As for people who deliberately drop ratings to enter lower rated tournaments they still have to do so for over 3 months which means they must be gae sad individuals.
I am sure the new settings will give more realistic entry threshholds to most people
🙂
Originally posted by adramforallI agree. It looks good now. Let the tournaments be many and the play good.
Happy again
Current 1284
Highest Rating 1405 (Last 100 Days)
Tournament Entry Rating 1344
I can now play with people near my own ability 🙂
As for people who deliberately drop ratings to enter lower rated tournaments they still have to do so for over 3 months which means they must be [b]gae sad individuals.
I am sure the new settings will give more realistic entry threshholds to most people
🙂[/b]
Originally posted by ChrisWell, something seems to have changed because there appear to be people with tournament entry ratings 100 pts below their 100 day high (eg User 252100) - has it been changed as well now?
It is also tempting to increase the maximum number of points difference between the entry rating and the high rating from 100 to 150, but I am going to leave it as it is at the moment and continue going through random profiles to see how fair the current system appears.
Just my 2d worth - how about a 300-game rolling average? No real penalty for a peak - no real advantage from a dip. After each game, new_entry_rating = ((old_entry_rating *299) +current_rating)/300. East to implement, and giving a result consistent with the rating graph.
Don't see what all the fuss is about - I can see only positives here.
There are banded and unbanded tournaments. You have the choice to enter or not. If you enter an unbanded tournament, you pretty much know you'll be facing some really strong players and your chances of winning are slight. However, if you don't play stronger players, you don't get better. With regard to banded tourneys, I have had the experience, like everyone else, of facing players 300-400 points above the banding, especially those who come and go from the site with the resultant ratings fluctuations. This new system makes this difficult to happen in future.
And anyway, where's the fun in winning lower-rated tourneys? How can you take yourself seriously, or expect others to, when you win a tournament without breaking sweat because it's like taking candy from a kid.
I have one tournament victory and it was a struggle - some games were really touch and go (except a couple of timeouts but that's the rules). In the end, I felt it as an achievement.
This seems to work for me:
Rating 2004
Highest Rating 2075 (Last 100 Days)
Tournament Entry Rating 2039
However, the method used to obtain the tournament entry rating needs to included in the FAQ to head off the hundreds of questions that will asked about it.
And this new system doesn't in any way deal with new players who enter ~1400 bands and then turn out to be 2000 players.
Originally posted by XanthosNZbut how can you deal with that? The only way that i can see is to not allow new memebers to enter touneys for a time (maybe 6 months). But this is unreasonable, because you subscribe to play in tourneys. Do you have a plausible solution to this problem?
And this new system doesn't in any way deal with new players who enter ~1400 bands and then turn out to be 2000 players.[/b]
Originally posted by TDR1It doesn't have to be six months (which could easily be unreasonable), but it does need to be something. It wouldn't be a complete block though as they can enter the unbanded tournaments, just not the banded ones. As it's pretty difficult to find games against the stronger players as a provisional, it's hard to rise to a relaistic final rating.
but how can you deal with that? The only way that i can see is to not allow new memebers to enter touneys for a time (maybe 6 months). But this is unreasonable, because you subscribe to play in tourneys. Do you have a plausible solution to this problem?
A simpler solution could be 30 games after provisional status has ended, or some kind of predictive rating (as Ragnorak has no doubt indicated beforehand).
- Joined
- 05 Aug 04
- Moves
- 220454
Originally posted by CauselessOneSorry to disagree but that would not stop the sandbaggers. They would simply enter loads of tourni's resign all the games after a couple of moves and hey presto. Low rating after 300 games.
Just my 2d worth - how about a 300-game rolling average? No real penalty for a peak - no real advantage from a dip. After each game, new_entry_rating = ((old_entry_rating *299) +current_rating)/300. East to implement, and giving a result consistent with the rating graph.
Seen it done.
- Joined
- 05 Aug 04
- Moves
- 220454
I believe that this system needs one final tweek to take into account those that have a break. They could come back after 3 months on a much lower rating than their average.
I have earlier suggested a (max - a percentage) as a floor. eg. (Max -10 percent) (after 30 games from joining to allow settling.)
Would it be possible to have this as a lowest rating in the event someone going awol for 3 months? It could be shown as 'tournament entry level floor'
cheers
John