Calgary & Edmonton & Saskatoon
| Topic: Worlds Points Revised |
| ||
|
http://50.6.129.168/foos/Worlds_2011_Points_Update_09-21-11.pdf They made a mistake and put way too many points into the event for how many points were gained. And have now redone the points, I see major controversy coming because of this! If anyone knows how much points systems can generate critiscism its me! Simon you are no longer a Pro, congrats! |
Posted: Sep 21 2011 1:03PM
| ||
|
Damn, now I can't quit yet.  |
| ||
|
Ben is still AM |
| ||
|
Yes looks better now. I thought the bonus factor was out of whack. |
| ||
|
1034 down to 751 is quite the jump backwards! |
| ||
|
seriously..... a couple of beginners beat pros in open doubles and i won a match in am singles and i lose a point....how does this happen the only points i have is a bye in expert singles from HOFC??? |
| ||
|
>>>the only points i have is a bye in expert singles from HOFC???<<< yeah, and you barely won that one  |
| ||
|
yeah she would have kicked my ass |
| ||
|
i like how me and darcy got 67th in Open Doubles and Dave ahn and phil peros got 68th this is confusing to me how the point system works |
| ||
|
Eh, the rating system they're using doesn't go by ELO. If it was, you'd definitely see a jump in your points. They give points based on your seed. So if you're 3rd seed and go out before you get to third or better you lose points. Conversely, a beginner who is ranked 55th in an event gains points if they finish better than 55th in that event. We won our first match against a good team in Open but we still didn't finish above our seed so we don't gain points. |
| ||
|
we were the 92nd out 93.....i think we did good |
| ||
|
Dan your results this time were a lot better than Vegas, which is a good sign. Keep it up and you will be gaining a ton of points soon. |
| ||
|
I wish I was knew there was bonus points before the tournament. Might have changed my tune for some of the events, but likely not. They never used them any other tournament this year that I have been to/seen. |
| ||
|
They used the exact same points formula for every event this year. |
| ||
|
Definitely didn't use bonus points at Colorado state from what I saw. |
| ||
|
Here is what was posted about the points before the year started, they have done updates after each tournament with a file that looks just like the worlds one posted above, I'm not sure where the Colorado State one is but I'm sure it was posted at some time. http://66.116.186.14/foos/NewPointSystem.pdf |
| ||
|
Excellent info. Thanks for the link. |
| ||
|
No problem |
| ||
|
Hey Will - so if I am reading it right, it looks like players get rewarded more for doing well in expert mixed, then in pro singles? You seem to have a better understanding so I thought I would ask. Also, by "more" I mean based on that TCP per event, so if the total points for pro singles was the same as expert mixed, I would get more bonus points for that event? |
| ||
|
I'm not Will but this is what I see percentage wise yes, but the pool is so much bigger in pro singles. (more players) Remember they are not using 2% of your points. They are using 1% |
| ||
|
I email Ahmad asking him a few questions about this, he said: "I have been making several tweaks along the way to make the system work better so there are differences between how this last event was rated and Colorado States which was early on during the year. Among the changes are handing out many more bonus points in women's events and also trying to lower the impact of open mixed so the person who wins open mixed does not end up gaining more points than those who win open singles or open doubles. "I do not think there are any significant changes in how men singles and doubles events have been rated since Colorado states." |
| ||
|
Simon is right though... Pro and open events have a TON more points contributed, because A. there are more players and B. the players involved have a lot more points. If you think about 1% of an amatuers points (9 points if the player has 900) and 1% of a Pro Master (50 if the master had 5000), the amount of good players in an event make up for the Expert Mixed bonus points. In Expert mixed there might be 20 teams, contributing an average of 30 points, so that would be 600 points to go around, plus bonus points. In Open Doubles there could be say 60 teams, contributing an average of 50 points, or a total of 3000. I would say that Open Doubles should be worth MORE than 5x the amount of expert mixed, but either way at least this makes some sense. |
| ||
|
yea I agree the pool for expert mixed is weak, was just using it for an extreme example. If you wanted to make the most points in one event, would it be Open Doubles? the 5%? |
| ||
|
Here is how much each person won for winning each event, and there seeding going into the event. Beginner Singles: 57 points (13th seed) Am Singles: 82 points (6 seed) Expert Singles: 165 (14 seed) Pro Singles: 147 (12 seed) Open Singles: 54 (3 seed) Note: If the expert that won Expert Singles also had won Open Singles he would have won about 100 points. Beginner Doubles: 90 (13 seed) Am Doubles: 114 (4 seed) Expert Doubles: 252 (16 seed) Pro Doubles: 227 (7 seed) Open Doubles: 88 (3 seed) So.. no you can't really earn as many points in Open as in Pro or Expert events. Something is clearly wrong with that. |
| ||
|
you need to add a column to your list that say the number of entries. The bigger the field the more points |
| ||
|
maybe not, open singles had a lot of entries |
| ||
|
Open Singles: 54 (3 seed) what if 12th seed won? Open Doubles: 88 (3 seed) what if 7th seed won? Pro Singles: 147 (12 seed) Pro Doubles: 227 (7 seed) |
| ||
|
Everything is fine in all the lower tiered events, enough points are going into the system that players quitting with 3000 or 4000 points gets evened out quite well. You can't have the top Pro Masters gaining hundreds of points every open event, or the system would spiral out of control and top players would have 10,000 points where as the good pro masters that dont' finish top 3 or 4 would still have 5000 points. It would make it impossible for Rico or other top masters to compete wtih Ryan and Tony who travel all the time. Still, there MUST be a better way to reward players like Tuan and Jeff or Kevin Walker and Shawn Burke. Both of those teams gained 64 points for finishing 9th in Open Doubles, where as they gained 170 and 211 for Pro 4th and 2nd. I think a 9th in Open should be equivilant to a Pro 1st, essentially. But it should ONLY be worth that many points to a pro or expert team, not to a pro master team. If say Tony Spredeman and Billy Pappas team up, and they are the #1 seed, and they finish 9th, they shouldn't gain points, but go down instead. When they used the 2% points(original update) instead of 1% (revised update) the results were REALLY messed up for Expert and Pro events, but the points for Open look really good. They could take out the bonus points from Open events, and increase the amount of entry points charged to 2%. Then for instance, Rico and Todd for winning OD as the #3 seed would have got 150 points for winning insead of 88. Tony and Rob Mares as the #1 seed finished 3rd, and they would have lost 45 points. That is good, because then they woulnd't be the #1 seed next time, and if they win they could reclaim that seeding. If they finished 3rd as the #3 seed they would neither gain nor drop in points. This also fixes the reward system for the experts and pro's placing high in Open. Tuan and Jeff as well as Sean and Kevin would have gained 150 poitns for 9th in Open Doubles. |
| ||
|
Open Singles: 54 (3 seed) what if 12th seed won? About 80 points. Open Doubles: 88 (3 seed) what if 7th seed won? About 110 points. |
| ||
|
Simon: you need to add a column to your list that say the number of entries. The bigger the field the more points maybe not, open singles had a lot of entries Will: The more total entry points in an event the higher the points earned, except for the bonus points calculation. The bonus points are making it so that in experts and pros can win more ponits by doing well in there own events than by doing well (EVEN WINNING) open events. If Christian and Simon for instance won Expert Doubles, Pro Doubles and Open Doubles, they would have gained the most points in pro, then expert, then Open. Under the system I just suggested with 2% only for Open, and removing the bonus points, Christian and Simon would have won the most points for winning Open Doubles, then Pro, then Expert. Just seems to make more sense... Nice observation Jeff. |
| ||
|
yea, that makes more sense, and probably how it should be. Thanks for doing all the calculations, it's a crazy set up. I've been playing for so long, my interest really only lies in Open, it's just so hard to move up by only placing well in those events. |
| ||
|
No problem, I have a weird obsession with points systems. Jeff, just think of it this way. You could win Open Doubles at every tour stop without losing a match for three years and not move up to pro master... great system. |
| ||
|
That is an alarming way to put it (the open dubs part, not the obsession..) |
| ||
|
The key to Pro Master ranking is the points reset. In other words, some arbitrary human factor. |
The last post to this thread is more than 30 days old.