| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/23/2012 06:51:40 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
And we appreciate that, it's a worthy project, it just needs more work. There has to be a more transparent way to do this that also will be fairer than the previous system. |
Was my example too complicated? I ask seriously. |
Yup. |
|
|
|
09/23/2012 07:02:26 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
And we appreciate that, it's a worthy project, it just needs more work. There has to be a more transparent way to do this that also will be fairer than the previous system. |
Was my example too complicated? I ask seriously.
edit - My example eliminates the worry of members not participating, stacked teams, and weak teams. As the season moves along, there wouldn't be a runaway winner during the season. I can see two downfalls, but I'll ponder them further before I say what they are. |
For those of us who are not mathematicians, and most here are not, it comes down to a matter of trust - I trust that you have thought this through, you ARE the math person after all, and would construct the game fairly... I do understand the concept, like the idea and would appreciate the effort on your part. That's what matters to me. But if the trust isn't there for the general public, that's a problem .... most will see it as too complicated, yes. |
|
|
|
09/23/2012 07:26:14 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by PennyStreet:
For those of us who are not mathematicians, and most here are not, it comes down to a matter of trust - I trust that you have thought this through, you ARE the math person after all, and would construct the game fairly... I do understand the concept, like the idea and would appreciate the effort on your part. That's what matters to me. But if the trust isn't there for the general public, that's a problem .... most will see it as too complicated, yes. |
Fair enough, that's why I'm putting it all out there except for how to give advantages to teams come playoffs. That part I haven't thought through yet. I have an idea, but if the above was complicated, this is a little more so.
I understand some people may not like some of the shit I've said on these forums, but I've always been honest and forthcoming in everything. The spreadsheets after every week would be open and available to everybody to view. There wouldn't be anything hidden from anyone.
I guess after bassbone made his comment, I've had enough with trying to do something positive (there was a lot of PMs deriding change also). Maybe the problem is that the system is obvious to me. Submitting a photo which finishes dead last is the most detrimental thing you could do for your team. It'd be better not to submit anything at all and simply skip the challenge. That was the beauty with what I proposed. |
|
|
|
09/23/2012 07:34:34 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by PennyStreet:
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
And we appreciate that, it's a worthy project, it just needs more work. There has to be a more transparent way to do this that also will be fairer than the previous system. |
Was my example too complicated? I ask seriously.
edit - My example eliminates the worry of members not participating, stacked teams, and weak teams. As the season moves along, there wouldn't be a runaway winner during the season. I can see two downfalls, but I'll ponder them further before I say what they are. |
For those of us who are not mathematicians, and most here are not, it comes down to a matter of trust - I trust that you have thought this through, you ARE the math person after all, and would construct the game fairly... I do understand the concept, like the idea and would appreciate the effort on your part. That's what matters to me. But if the trust isn't there for the general public, that's a problem .... most will see it as too complicated, yes. |
Your example was too complicated for me based on knowing that there will be way more than 4 teams and more than 3 people per team. When you factor in so many scores/people it becomes much more complicated. I'm not against handicaps, but think they should be determined before hand (based on averages or something) and fixed for the duration. Don't quit because some of us aren't as smart as you. But don't belittle us either. In the end, it will come down to the people that really want to play will, no matter how it's setup. |
|
|
|
09/23/2012 08:22:39 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Your example was too complicated for me based on knowing that there will be way more than 4 teams and more than 3 people per team. When you factor in so many scores/people it becomes much more complicated. I'm not against handicaps, but think they should be determined before hand (based on averages or something) and fixed for the duration. |
They can't be. It has to be floating, that's what makes it fair in the end. If they're floating, then if a team composed of "bad" photographers suddenly becomes good, they'll be unstoppable. Conversely, if a team of "good" photographers just slightly loses their edge, they wouldn't stand a chance of ever winning again.
Originally posted by Kelli:
Don't quit because some of us aren't as smart as you. |
It bothers me that people simply want more of the same, especially when no one has stepped up to the plate lately. That's the part I'm finding really frustrating. It has nothing to do with people not understanding the system. I'm pretty sure once it's been implemented and people see how it would work, it would make a lot more sense.
Originally posted by Kelli:
But don't belittle us either. In the end, it will come down to the people that really want to play will, no matter how it's setup. |
I didn't think I belittled anybody. I've read through everything I wrote and don't see the condescending text.
Message edited by author 2012-09-23 20:23:10. |
|
|
|
09/23/2012 08:25:25 PM · #81 |
MUSt we be abrasive?
 Venser has a perfectly good idea and asked for some input.
What do I hear? "Can't be done" "Won't work" "too complicated!"
Now really. I'm arithmetic challenged, let alone mathematics challenged! But this can be SO simple. (and if you look at the Bowling link I posted earlier on, you might see it as well)
Handicap is the difference between photographer's average and 6.0 (we'll say)
Alice has an average of 5.4335 (whoopie!) She has a "handicap" of .565. (the difference between 5.4335 and 6.0) In voting she gets a score of 5.7757 on her Entry. add the "handicap" and Alice gets a final score of 6.3407. (double whoopie!)
BUT, it's a moving average! Her average goes up next week to whatever it goes up to (don't ask me to do THAT arithmetic--anyhow, it's posted every week on DPC.) So next week she has to work harder to get a high score.
Now, Jason has an average of 6.40. No handicap for him. He has to shoot 'scratch' and maintain his high scores. If he shoots a 5.77 (for example) too bad for him. As Venser so (er) elegantly puts it, he has to "keep kicking ass" to stay ahead.
There are formulas for this kind of computation. that's for the math geeks. I just know it can be done.
For a change, let's be positive and see if we can work together. (yeah, I had to get the sermon in there)
|
|
|
|
09/23/2012 08:41:06 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
... wall of text I appreciate .... |
Exactly, except the handicap will be between the two teams competing that week instead of some baseline. This implies the better team has to beat the lower ranked by more than the handicap in order to win that week. It would pretty difficult for any team to go X-0, or 0-X throughout the season because of this. Your link is what got me thinking to do it like this. There had to be slight modifications, but it is based off a similar formula bowling uses.
The handicap needs to move because as presumably some teams will get worse or better as the season goes on. If it didn't move, starting the season in last would be the biggest advantage.
Come playoffs the handicap would need to be altered since there should be an incentive for winning the season. And this would need to be carried throughout the rankings, since 2nd should get something over 3rd, 3rd over 4th, and so on. This part I haven't figured out yet. But it'd be weeks away and I'm sure I could machinate something out.
Message edited by author 2012-09-23 20:55:06. |
|
|
|
09/23/2012 08:59:22 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
MUSt we be abrasive?
Venser has a perfectly good idea and asked for some input.
What do I hear? "Can't be done" "Won't work" "too complicated!"
Now really. I'm arithmetic challenged, let alone mathematics challenged! But this can be SO simple. (and if you look at the Bowling link I posted earlier on, you might see it as well)
Handicap is the difference between photographer's average and 6.0 (we'll say)
Alice has an average of 5.4335 (whoopie!) She has a "handicap" of .565. (the difference between 5.4335 and 6.0) In voting she gets a score of 5.7757 on her Entry. add the "handicap" and Alice gets a final score of 6.3407. (double whoopie!)
BUT, it's a moving average! Her average goes up next week to whatever it goes up to (don't ask me to do THAT arithmetic--anyhow, it's posted every week on DPC.) So next week she has to work harder to get a high score.
Now, Jason has an average of 6.40. No handicap for him. He has to shoot 'scratch' and maintain his high scores. If he shoots a 5.77 (for example) too bad for him. As Venser so (er) elegantly puts it, he has to "keep kicking ass" to stay ahead.
There are formulas for this kind of computation. that's for the math geeks. I just know it can be done.
For a change, let's be positive and see if we can work together. (yeah, I had to get the sermon in there) |
+1 - Rock it Venser.... I'm in and your math and methodology is fine and well.
|
|
|
|
09/23/2012 09:02:38 PM · #84 |
| Also, in the playoffs, the highest ranked team would always play the lowest ranked team throughout the rounds. Drives me nuts when leagues don't have this implemented. |
|
|
|
09/23/2012 09:04:22 PM · #85 |
Obviously, there are a lot of people here who would LOVE to have another DPL.
Okay, next question to Venser:
What do you need from the rest of us to help implement your idea?
|
|
|
|
09/23/2012 09:10:05 PM · #86 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
What do you need from the rest of us to help implement your idea? |
Make dinner, listen to my wife babble, and bathe my daughter to free up some time.
The only thing off the top of my head is I noticed SDW had was a sign up sheet based off of google spreadsheets which recorded the values in another sheet. Don't know how to implement that in google's interface. Haven't looked at their code, but going to assume it's close to doing VBA in Excel.
Seriously, I'll ask later when I need help. Right now I would rather someone looks over my proposed method, who has the ability, to make sure I'm not deceiving myself into thinking it'll work. Pretty sure I haven't made any obvious mistakes, but it'd be better to get right before it starts.
Message edited by author 2012-09-23 21:22:05. |
|
|
|
09/23/2012 09:45:50 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by Venser:
Originally posted by sfalice:
What do you need from the rest of us to help implement your idea? |
Make dinner, listen to my wife babble, and bathe my daughter to free up some time.
The only thing off the top of my head is I noticed SDW had was a sign up sheet based off of google spreadsheets which recorded the values in another sheet. Don't know how to implement that in google's interface. Haven't looked at their code, but going to assume it's close to doing VBA in Excel.
Seriously, I'll ask later when I need help. Right now I would rather someone looks over my proposed method, who has the ability, to make sure I'm not deceiving myself into thinking it'll work. Pretty sure I haven't made any obvious mistakes, but it'd be better to get right before it starts. |
Okay. All this is out of my area of expertise. But with luck, there are folks in our community who will quietly come on board and lend a hand. |
|
|
|
09/23/2012 09:50:02 PM · #88 |
Hi,
I m interested, but I m not sure i m sitting in your head. Could you break this down further?
Here's what i m thinking based on what i read of your example on page 3:
You have two elements, players and teams.
1. Team members shift around every week.
2. Each member's performance affects their final score (handicap)
3. There is also a handicap that's associated with the teams (this is the part i don't understand)
I m not even sure i m reading this right, but if i am - there's a handicap associated with the team despite it changing members every week(who already have handicaps associated with them). What's the advantage of this?
edit: also not super math savvy, but i feel like this isn't too "out there"
Message edited by author 2012-09-23 22:01:53. |
|
|
|
09/23/2012 10:00:08 PM · #89 |
So if I understand this correctly, each individual will be handicapped against some specific (albeit arbitrary) standard, in a way similar to golfers against par or bowlers against 300. Each week the handicap for each player will change, based on his/her performance the previous week. The team handicap will be, in some way, a sum of the individual handicaps, and that will in effect tell us by how many cumulative points the "stronger" team will have to outscore the "weaker" team in order to win the "match" that week?
If I have that right, THAT's understandable in a way the more mathematical (and specific) example was not...
So here's my next question: my starting handicap will be based on my lifetime average, presumably. But no scores I get any longer individually impact that average very much at all, because I have entered so many tournaments. So, how do you propose indexing these averages/handicaps to make them valid and meaningful? Golf, for example, indexes the best 10 of a player's most-recent 20 scores in a moving average that is recalculated every 2 weeks... |
|
|
|
09/23/2012 10:00:16 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by Devinder:
1. Team members shift around every week. |
No, teams would be static. If there was a member of a team who doesn't participate, we could swap a member then, but the idea is teams progress, grow, and help each other throughout the season. Hopefully by the end, members of a team remain in contact and help each other out.
Originally posted by Devinder:
2. Each member's performance affects their final score (handicap) |
Not really. I'll address this below.
Originally posted by Devinder:
3. There is also a handicap that's associated with the teams (this is the part i don't understand) |
From above, every member of a team will affect the team average, thus handicap. The handicap ultimately would only be associated with the team.
Originally posted by Devinder:
I m not even sure i m reading this right, but if i am - there's a handicap associated with the team despite it changing members every week(who already have handicaps associated with them). What's the advantage of this? |
Does the above make sense. Teams are static, so it seems you slightly misunderstood what I wrote. Do you still have this last question? |
|
|
|
09/23/2012 10:03:48 PM · #91 |
no this is pretty clear now. I was having the thought: " wouldn't it make sense if teams were static?", when it turns out i was just reading it wrong.
I m on board, this would push me into participation |
|
|
|
09/23/2012 10:13:22 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Each week the handicap for each player will change, based on his/her performance the previous week. The team handicap will be, in some way, a sum of the individual handicaps, and that will in effect tell us by how many cumulative points the "stronger" team will have to outscore the "weaker" team in order to win the "match" that week? |
No, and yes.
I'm only going to look at team handicap, not individual. So the first week, there will be no handicap system in place. Everyone will be on equal footing. After that weeks challenge is over, we can have handicap week two.
EX - After the end of week one, the best finishes from the members of team A over the three challenges are the following: 100%, 80%, and 75%. Their score therefore would be (100+80+75)/3 = 85. Team B over the course of the week finished as such: 90%, 80%, 70%, and 60%. Their score would be (90+80+70+60)/4 = 75.
Now come week two, if Team A and B were to compete against each other, team B would get a 10 point handicap.
Now, that score of 85 from Team A would carry over to week 3. So if in week 2, Team A finished 100%, 100%, 91%, their score for that week would be 97. Their handicap score to compare to another team would be (97+85)/2 = 91. This would carry on throughout the season.
------------------
Let me know if anything doesn't make sense. I'm trying to be as explicit as possible to alleviate confusion.
Message edited by author 2012-09-23 22:14:11. |
|
|
|
09/23/2012 10:17:47 PM · #93 |
| Just so you know -- as I am sure you already know :-), Venser, you won't please 100% of the people on DPC but thank you for your thought and hard work that you are putting into this. It is appreciated. |
|
|
|
09/23/2012 10:18:04 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by Venser:
Let me know if anything doesn't make sense. I'm trying to be as explicit as possible to alleviate confusion. |
Is this accumulating over the entire season (the sample to average gets larger and larger) or is it a brand-new handicap each week based only on the previous week's performance? |
|
|
|
09/23/2012 10:23:20 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Venser:
Let me know if anything doesn't make sense. I'm trying to be as explicit as possible to alleviate confusion. |
Is this accumulating over the entire season (the sample to average gets larger and larger) or is it a brand-new handicap each week based only on the previous week's performance? |
Larger and larger. Then it wouldn't be subject to a weekly fluctuation of a team missing a member or simply having an off or good week.
Message edited by author 2012-09-23 22:33:49. |
|
|
|
09/23/2012 10:34:50 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by Venser:
Larger and larger. Then it wouldn't be subject to a weekly fluctuation of a team missing a member, or simply having an off week. |
Good. So, another question: why not START with an average based on team members' performance over a specific preceding period of time? Otherwise a "stacked" team might have a huge advantage in round 1, if not subsequently, and whoever plays them first would get the short end of that particular stick.
Message edited by author 2012-09-23 22:35:20. |
|
|
|
09/23/2012 10:55:10 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Good. So, another question: why not START with an average based on team members' performance over a specific preceding period of time? Otherwise a "stacked" team might have a huge advantage in round 1, if not subsequently, and whoever plays them first would get the short end of that particular stick. |
A stacked team would have a huge advantage round 1 since there wouldn't be any handicap in place. That should be the only week they have that advantage.
Let's talk this through, because I know others are thinking the same thing.
Week 1 - Team Stacked vs Team Newcomers. Stacked's best finishes are 100%, 90%, 80%. Their percentile average is 90%. Team Newcomers finishes are 40%, 40%, 55%. Their percentile average is 45%.
Week 2 - Team Stacked vs Team Mediocre. Lets say Mediocre finished with an average percentile score of 70%. The handicap would be 20 points for them.
So there wouldn't be a subsequent advantage throughout the season. When they play Team Also Newcomers, the handicap would be quite substantial, so Team Stacked would always have to have their A game and also hope someone from Team Also Newcomers doesn't have a breakthrough image. |
|
|
|
09/23/2012 11:12:01 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by Venser:
A stacked team would have a huge advantage round 1 since there wouldn't be any handicap in place. That should be the only week they have that advantage. |
Right, that's my point; so can we TRY to put in place a system that applies a "starting" handicap to all the teams? Is there a reason this CAN'T be done? For example, these handicaps are based on percentile rankings, right? So we could, arguably, calculate the percentiles for the last 10 entries for each team member and get a starting handicap that way? Or whatever works? Am I missing something? |
|
|
|
09/23/2012 11:23:00 PM · #99 |
I don't think it really matters what you do or if you even really need to spell out the scoring particulars. As long as it says "League" somewhere you'll have more than enough participants. I personally don't care at all how the scoring goes and I'm interested.
I do, however, care about how the teams are formed. I'm 100% against random team formation, as being able to choose is the only way I can ensure I wouldn't end up with NiallOTuama again. Yeesh.
That said, I do see a small issue with the scoring. I would put my money on Team Mediocre and Team Newcomer over Team Awesome, as Team Mediocre and other up-and-comers would be much more likely to improve their percentile standing than those already finishing in the >90% range. That in itself, however, might make some of the top shooters/teams reconsider the overall makeup of their team, and in a nice, tidy circle your system suddenly makes sense as it does a bit of self-regulating. |
|
|
|
09/23/2012 11:31:10 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
So we could, arguably, calculate the percentiles for the last 10 entries for each team member and get a starting handicap that way? |
Yes, we could calculate a starting average that way. I was being obtuse before and didn't read what you wrote. It went over my head.
Setting up these first handicap rankings would be extremely time consuming, but doable. No, you weren't missing anything. Just another thing I'll have to do because out of fairness, it makes sense. The previous ten entries is a good number because they're all visible on the same page.
Originally posted by bohemka:
I do, however, care about how the teams are formed. I'm 100% against random team formation, as being able to choose is the only way I can ensure I wouldn't end up with NiallOTuama again. Yeesh. |
Teams can be formed in any manner now.
Originally posted by bohemka:
That said, I do see a small issue with the scoring. I would put my money on Team Mediocre and Team Newcomer over Team Awesome, as Team Mediocre and other up-and-comers would be much more likely to improve their percentile standing than those already finishing in the >90% range. That in itself, however, might make some of the top shooters/teams reconsider the overall makeup of their team, and in a nice, tidy circle your system suddenly makes sense as it does a bit of self-regulating. |
That's the point of the system. Stacking a team is actually disadvantageous. The whole point was to have balanced teams. Any team which gradually improves over the season should do the best overall.
Message edited by author 2012-09-23 23:35:49. |
|
