Anonymous Large Social Game ELOs
-
-
zoraster He/HimDisorganized CrimeHe/Him
- Disorganized Crime
- Disorganized Crime
- Posts: 21680
- Joined: June 10, 2008
- Pronoun: He/Him
- Location: Belmont, CA
-
-
zoraster He/HimDisorganized CrimeHe/Him
- Disorganized Crime
- Disorganized Crime
- Posts: 21680
- Joined: June 10, 2008
- Pronoun: He/Him
- Location: Belmont, CA
-
-
zoraster He/HimDisorganized CrimeHe/Him
- Disorganized Crime
- Disorganized Crime
- Posts: 21680
- Joined: June 10, 2008
- Pronoun: He/Him
- Location: Belmont, CA
-
-
zoraster He/HimDisorganized CrimeHe/Him
- Disorganized Crime
- Disorganized Crime
- Posts: 21680
- Joined: June 10, 2008
- Pronoun: He/Him
- Location: Belmont, CA
I mean, I doubt anyone purely plays for ELO, but the method people are measured against each other tends to have subtle and often unconscious effects. I actually think ELO is a pretty good system overall. But if the concerns of some people is that there's not enough risk-taking, well, this system at the very least doesn't help with that.
I don't have enough knowledge to know whether or not that's actually a problem and not just people finding something new to complain about, but....-
-
zoraster He/HimDisorganized CrimeHe/Him
- Disorganized Crime
- Disorganized Crime
- Posts: 21680
- Joined: June 10, 2008
- Pronoun: He/Him
- Location: Belmont, CA
it tends to be a feature of elo ratings. Which is generally a good thing: the goal is to show current skill. https://elliotnoma.wordpress.com/2015/0 ... o-ratings/.-
-
zoraster He/HimDisorganized CrimeHe/Him
- Disorganized Crime
- Disorganized Crime
- Posts: 21680
- Joined: June 10, 2008
- Pronoun: He/Him
- Location: Belmont, CA
One of the curious things about doing this is that I assume (maybe I'm wrong) that your elo is adjusted as a one v. one competition with each person in the game. So for example, xofelf beat kdowns and Annadog40, but because she had a 1557 rating vs. a 1085 and 1200 rating, respectively, she didn't get many points for that. But THEN she lost to everyone else, including 986 me and 952 Trollie, both of which on their own would decrease the Elo score considerably. And that's why her Elo went way, way down.
So, and CC can correct me, rather than think about each game as a single iteration of Elo, think of each game as X number of games scored all at once, where X is the number of players in the game minus one.
But, depending on whether CC readjusts the elos EVERY time, it could be worse than that. Because xofelf would face every single person as a 1557 elo, whereas if she did it as 27 single games, she'd readjust her elo and it'd suffer less each time she lost..-
-
zoraster He/HimDisorganized CrimeHe/Him
- Disorganized Crime
- Disorganized Crime
- Posts: 21680
- Joined: June 10, 2008
- Pronoun: He/Him
- Location: Belmont, CA
In post 63, CuddlyCaucasian wrote:You're right zor, it's calculated as (in the case of ned's) 26 1v1 games against everyone else in the game. I think it does skew too heavily towards recent performance, although I could make it more stable by lowering the k-values used for everyone. It's nice to have a dynamic ranking system, but obviously none of them will be anywhere near perfect in something that's so subjective like Survivor and other large social games.
Is it calculated using static ratings or dynamic ones? In other words, was each of my games judges as if I had a 986 or for each victory did mine inch up a bit until I went out and then every loss incrementally reduced my elo?.-
-
zoraster He/HimDisorganized CrimeHe/Him
- Disorganized Crime
- Disorganized Crime
- Posts: 21680
- Joined: June 10, 2008
- Pronoun: He/Him
- Location: Belmont, CA
You could do a weighted average too, which would make people feel like that awesome performance back in 2015 is still counted but doesn't keep a newer player from competing.In post 74, xRECKONERx wrote:i mean i think it's cumulative
and i think that gives people a reason to go for the "big win" to boost their rankings
perhaps we could curtail it to more recent games and exclude older ones in order to eliminate the games from before anon survivor became like a "legit" thing
or yeah average winnings could work too
no reason we couldn't keep both statistics handy.
i think both avg winnings and cumulative winnings gives people more reason to play for a win than elo which gives a minor difference between winning and coming in 3rd
But I really like the payout method. Still, keep in mind that if you don't adjust it somehow for the number of players in the game then you're going to make it more beneficial to play smaller games..-
-
zoraster He/HimDisorganized CrimeHe/Him
- Disorganized Crime
- Disorganized Crime
- Posts: 21680
- Joined: June 10, 2008
- Pronoun: He/Him
- Location: Belmont, CA
-
-
zoraster He/HimDisorganized CrimeHe/Him
- Disorganized Crime
- Disorganized Crime
- Posts: 21680
- Joined: June 10, 2008
- Pronoun: He/Him
- Location: Belmont, CA
One option would be to use a poker tournament payout, but adjusted a bit. So like this chart: http://www.pokerworld.com/poker-tournam ... payout.asp but adjust to where it pays out for the appropriate number of players. So for example, for 16 players it'd pay out like so:
1 27.5
2 17.5
3 11.5
4 8.5
5 7.25
6 5.75
7 4.5
8 3
9 2
10 1.5
11 1.2
12 1.2
13 1.2
14 1.2
15 1.2
16 1.00
Dump the rest of the payout into the winner's category (making the winner's payout 31.5%). So if each prize pool is $1,500,000 then the winners of a 16 person would receive:
1 $472,500
2 $262,500
3 $172,500
4 $127,500
5 $108,750
6 $86,250
7 $67,500
8 $45,000
9 $30,000
10 $22,500
11 $18,000
12 $18,000
13 $18,000
14 $18,000
15 $18,000
16 $15,000.-
-
zoraster He/HimDisorganized CrimeHe/Him
- Disorganized Crime
- Disorganized Crime
- Posts: 21680
- Joined: June 10, 2008
- Pronoun: He/Him
- Location: Belmont, CA
-
-
zoraster He/HimDisorganized CrimeHe/Him
- Disorganized Crime
- Disorganized Crime
- Posts: 21680
- Joined: June 10, 2008
- Pronoun: He/Him
- Location: Belmont, CA
-
-
zoraster He/HimDisorganized CrimeHe/Him
- Disorganized Crime
- Disorganized Crime
- Posts: 21680
- Joined: June 10, 2008
- Pronoun: He/Him
- Location: Belmont, CA
-
-
zoraster He/HimDisorganized CrimeHe/Him
- Disorganized Crime
- Disorganized Crime
- Posts: 21680
- Joined: June 10, 2008
- Pronoun: He/Him
- Location: Belmont, CA
I think that a 10:1 ratio of first to second is totally inappropriate for a rolling determination of supposed skill. Like if you just want a fun "I wonder what our winnings would be if we used survivor" then sure. Keep it the same or very, very similar. But as a replacement or alternative measure to the elo system I think it'll be sorely lacking..-
-
zoraster He/HimDisorganized CrimeHe/Him
- Disorganized Crime
- Disorganized Crime
- Posts: 21680
- Joined: June 10, 2008
- Pronoun: He/Him
- Location: Belmont, CA
-
-
zoraster He/HimDisorganized CrimeHe/Him
- Disorganized Crime
- Disorganized Crime
- Posts: 21680
- Joined: June 10, 2008
- Pronoun: He/Him
- Location: Belmont, CA
-
-
zoraster He/HimDisorganized CrimeHe/Him
- Disorganized Crime
- Disorganized Crime
- Posts: 21680
- Joined: June 10, 2008
- Pronoun: He/Him
- Location: Belmont, CA
-
-
zoraster He/HimDisorganized CrimeHe/Him
- Disorganized Crime
- Disorganized Crime
- Posts: 21680
- Joined: June 10, 2008
- Pronoun: He/Him
- Location: Belmont, CA
Of the players with at least one win, the first AND ONLY person with a lower win rate to go above a person with a higher win rate is BPC at 7th place and a 25% win rate over CC with a 28.5% win rate.
So literally a list of people with at least one win is just a list of how often they win with a tiebreaker of how well they did outside of their win rate. Which makes this a complicated way of giving a simple win percentage.
Technically xofelf has a lower win rate than TheBadOne and is higher ranked, but that's the difference between 6.25% and 6.67% so almost not worth mentioning.-
-
zoraster He/HimDisorganized CrimeHe/Him
- Disorganized Crime
- Disorganized Crime
- Posts: 21680
- Joined: June 10, 2008
- Pronoun: He/Him
- Location: Belmont, CA
By my calculations Summer, Betch and Snakes all have the highest win rates with 50%. Summer is actually in the lead overall with an average payout of 542500 over two games. Bella has the fourth highest with 40%.In post 112, Vijarada wrote:highest win rate is bella right? ugh, she's already at the top of weighted crazy rankings. revolt!.-
-
zoraster He/HimDisorganized CrimeHe/Him
- Disorganized Crime
- Disorganized Crime
- Posts: 21680
- Joined: June 10, 2008
- Pronoun: He/Him
- Location: Belmont, CA
-
-
zoraster He/HimDisorganized CrimeHe/Him
- Disorganized Crime
- Disorganized Crime
- Posts: 21680
- Joined: June 10, 2008
- Pronoun: He/Him
- Location: Belmont, CA
-
-
zoraster He/HimDisorganized CrimeHe/Him
- Disorganized Crime
- Disorganized Crime
- Posts: 21680
- Joined: June 10, 2008
- Pronoun: He/Him
- Location: Belmont, CA
-
-
zoraster He/HimDisorganized CrimeHe/Him
- Disorganized Crime
- Disorganized Crime
- Posts: 21680
- Joined: June 10, 2008
- Pronoun: He/Him
- Location: Belmont, CA
-
-
zoraster He/HimDisorganized CrimeHe/Him
- Disorganized Crime
- Disorganized Crime
- Posts: 21680
- Joined: June 10, 2008
- Pronoun: He/Him
- Location: Belmont, CA
I mean, either we operate under the assumption that places matter and thus are relevant for the sorting of results or we don't. If we don't, then a pure Win % is more appropriate than a misleading $ amount.In post 128, xRECKONERx wrote:In post 100, zoraster wrote:I think that a 10:1 ratio of first to second is totally inappropriate for a rolling determination of supposed skill. Like if you just want a fun "I wonder what our winnings would be if we used survivor" then sure. Keep it the same or very, very similar. But as a replacement or alternative measure to the elo system I think it'll be sorely lacking.
yeah thisIn post 101, hiplop wrote:in survivor often second place is a bad player
second place (or third place) is often someone who was bad at the game and therefore got dragged there by someone else for the free win
Because as it operates above, all you're doing is creating a system that shows Win % for those with at least one win and then something more meaningful for everyone else..-
-
zoraster He/HimDisorganized CrimeHe/Him
- Disorganized Crime
- Disorganized Crime
- Posts: 21680
- Joined: June 10, 2008
- Pronoun: He/Him
- Location: Belmont, CA
-
-
zoraster He/HimDisorganized CrimeHe/Him
- Disorganized Crime
- Disorganized Crime
- Posts: 21680
- Joined: June 10, 2008
- Pronoun: He/Him
- Location: Belmont, CA
Then list by total number of wins. Your merges and other finishes OTHER than your wins are largely irrelevant to your total $ won.In post 136, xRECKONERx wrote:meh money does something win % doesnt because like
ive won 3 times
ive played 12
3/12 aka 25% winrate doesnt look great
esp compared to bella winning 2/5
or jess winning 1/2
but when you consider that out of my 9 losses, 4/9 involved making merge it looks better?
i dunno i think $$$ amount is probably more indicative of someone's historical impact at least. like, even in the scenario where someone played 5 games, if they're placing in the bottom every time, that's gonna be overshadowed by one person making jury one time, right?.-
-
zoraster He/HimDisorganized CrimeHe/Him
- Disorganized Crime
- Disorganized Crime
- Posts: 21680
- Joined: June 10, 2008
- Pronoun: He/Him
- Location: Belmont, CA
I have zero objection to that.In post 138, CuddlyCaucasian wrote:This also gives more weight to someone winning in a 24-person game than someone winning an 18-person game, for example.-
-
zoraster He/HimDisorganized CrimeHe/Him
- Disorganized Crime
- Disorganized Crime
- Posts: 21680
- Joined: June 10, 2008
- Pronoun: He/Him
- Location: Belmont, CA
Your $ totals are made up 93.6% by your two first place finishes.In post 142, xRECKONERx wrote:
i sorta disagreeThen list by total number of wins. Your merges and other finishes OTHER than your wins are largely irrelevant to your total $ won.
i dunno i think there's a system in which we say, okay
making FTC, there's x % of total value tied up in that
making jury, there's x % of total value tied up in that
then not making jury has a smaller value than either of the others.-
-
zoraster He/HimDisorganized CrimeHe/Him
- Disorganized Crime
- Disorganized Crime
- Posts: 21680
- Joined: June 10, 2008
- Pronoun: He/Him
- Location: Belmont, CA
-
-
zoraster He/HimDisorganized CrimeHe/Him
- Disorganized Crime
- Disorganized Crime
- Posts: 21680
- Joined: June 10, 2008
- Pronoun: He/Him
- Location: Belmont, CA
Like I'm not suggesting not to give an outsized portion to the winner. But I am saying that 67% of the prize pool being the top prize makes sense for a game show but doesn't really make sense when we have people who are repeat players. Reduce it down to 45% and it's still SUPER important to win vs. come in second..-
-
zoraster He/HimDisorganized CrimeHe/Him
- Disorganized Crime
- Disorganized Crime
- Posts: 21680
- Joined: June 10, 2008
- Pronoun: He/Him
- Location: Belmont, CA
Well it's only meangingful if you do it as an average (or at least a weighted trail off), not as a total. The total is still interesting, but not what you want to sort by otherwise it'll always tend toward those who play the most. You probably need to do a higher number of games to be considered "active" rather than provisional, though.In post 159, CuddlyCaucasian wrote:We need an infinite number of ways to jerk each other off
I added a new tab called "PokerMoney" with more even money distributions. I'm not the biggest fan since it puts xofelf considerably ahead of Snakes despite the fact that Snakes has far more wins, but if anyone wants to see what that ranking looks like, it's there!
Looking at it, I might adjust the winner up a bit: somewhere between poker's current and the show's payout structure. Something like 40-50% to the winner rather than in the 27-30% range..-
-
zoraster He/HimDisorganized CrimeHe/Him
- Disorganized Crime
- Disorganized Crime
- Posts: 21680
- Joined: June 10, 2008
- Pronoun: He/Him
- Location: Belmont, CA
This is what poker money used as an average does to the active contingent. I do think the winner needs to be adjusted up to near half the pot, but I'd resist working backwards too much (i.e. who you want to see ranked as the best and then figuring out what gives you that answer)
Summer probably needs to play more than two games to be considered, but she's going to win any average contest in either system (there are others with only two games on that list that have done well, like SensFan).
The alternative if you really want to do a "lifetime winnings" thing is to act as if each player pays in $92875 to start and only gets back what's on the lists (although I'd probably make it 100k and adjust everything else to match that so people can more easily understand). So some people will go into debt and some people will come out on top. In the poker tables, the breakeven point is at 5 for 16 and 7 for 30 players (using the current unadjusted poker numbers).
The weakness with using average over total is that it might discourage someone like Summer from playing again, whereas a system that requires a pay-in and tracks totals would not..-
-
zoraster He/HimDisorganized CrimeHe/Him
- Disorganized Crime
- Disorganized Crime
- Posts: 21680
- Joined: June 10, 2008
- Pronoun: He/Him
- Location: Belmont, CA
-
-
zoraster He/HimDisorganized CrimeHe/Him
- Disorganized Crime
- Disorganized Crime
- Posts: 21680
- Joined: June 10, 2008
- Pronoun: He/Him
- Location: Belmont, CA
Copyright © MafiaScum. All rights reserved.