|
|
|
Topic: Really messed up points.
|
|
|
I figured I'd chime in here since there have so many complaints about it. If you have lost a lot of points it could have been the following reasons:
1. The system is messed up
2. You lost a bunch of points because some older tournaments were missing and they are now being entered
As far as I can tell, the singles formula is artificially inflated anyways. It provides a maximum of 75 points when it should be 50 and the infusion is MUCH higher (1.6 compared to 0.96 or 1 for the other formulas). So realistically speaking everyone's points should much be lower. I really don't know why it is different but it is. I'm also not exactly sure what all the variables mean so I don't touch em. Also there would be mass whining for loss of points if it were possibly corrected.
After Richard stopped running it, the points system got messed up somewhere along the line (I'm not really sure when because I stopped playing for a while). I don't really care much about the rankings or what-not but I do care if that means I have to spot people more because the system is broken. Which makes me wonder if handicapping is really necessary if the system is broken?
There are alternatives of course such as netfoos; however, if the system could be corrected it would be easier to do that then transfer over to a new system. NetFoos uses ELO but I dunno how well it works and you only have one rating (doubles and singles isn't separated)
|
|
|
We're talking over 500 points of non-entered tournaments as an amateur. I would have had to lose to a lot of beginners and rookies to ever have lost that many points. It's up to whoever maintains the points, but if it isn't fixed I'm now paying 5 bucks and getting an added spot...
|
|
|
same for me, about 500 points. I am now a pro, when I was the hightest ranked doubles guy two weeks ago...I'll take that spot!
|
|
|
Rook and Pepper, if you let me know what your point should be either singles or doubles, I can try fix it.
|
|
|
well, mine were at 1607, then I played three singles matches against Jeff Allen. I won the first, then he double dipped me in a final
|
|
|
Lightning should get a percentage of the tables bring in for taking the time to help us out.
|
|
|
I think others are gaining huge points for victories too. I'm not 100% sure though.
|
|
|
I've recalculated singles from June 15, 2007 and doubles from June 17, 2007. That's as far back as I can go - the program protects against too large of a recalc so as not to use too many server resources. (However, the recalc is pretty efficient and a big recalc is rarely necessary, so it would be great if that restriction were removed).
Unfortunately, there is a bug in the program or (more likely) in the data. If you recalc from a recent singles tournament, Mike's points always start at 1082 for that tournament (see his post and note he spotted the 1082 -- someone likely did a recalc for that tournament). But going back a long way *appears* to fix the problem.
Jeff, you're back to being a Master in doubles again but you're in third spot.
I hope I didn't screw anything up. I shouldn't have been mucking about in there since I have no idea how to recover stuff...
In any case, please check your points to see if they're out of whack.
|
|
|
Nelson, the weight in Singles is higher because we used to only play every two weeks. The parameters need a little adjusting, but I would need to do a little research first.
|
|
|
Looks accurate to me. Dave Ahn went master with the recalc in doubles.
|
|
|
Oh wait, no he didn't, thats singles:)
|
|
|
its still messed, there should be no way you leaped over me in singles Jeff, its ok though, i'll just win it back
|
This thread does not accept replies because:
The last post to this thread is more than 30 days old.
|
Posted: Apr 27 2009 7:35PM