Calgary & Edmonton & Saskatoon
| Topic: Canadian Points System |
| ||
|
Because of recent discussion I decided to give this another try. As I have said on the message boards before I have put in a few hours trying to come up with something, and I feel at this point this would be a good solution to some of our problems. I created a netfoos.com account called "tester" password "foosball" anyone can log into right now. I created players named as an example EDM1 or VAN12 etc. representing players from each of the major cities in canada. I didn't cover every player or anything but I have the locations called sask, cgy, edm, van, tor, and que. I then created tournaments, just local ones at first. This would represent each city running one tournament, essentially instead of having your weekly DYP just change the event to count towards these points. I am not suggesting that this happens every week, but maybe 4 times a year in each city there is a canadian points week that every city runs an event. Players can attend other cities if they are close by or if they happen to be in a different town for the time it is run. I entered 1 per location into the netfoos account and just made each cities #1 player win, with the lowest ranking player losing... Then after having each city have one "canadian points" tournament each (again this could just be run on a weeknight if needed, simple double elim BYP) I made a tournament called "Major Tournament" that included some of the players from each location. I randomly selected winners and they don't represent individual people in any way, nobody get offended because cgy6 lost to edm 4 or something like that it is just purely speculative. At the end of this major I created a points list and this is what it came up with: Tor1, Tor1 1195 Van1, Van1 1120 Tor2, Tor2 1109 Van2, Van2 1101 Edm1, Edm1 1029 Cgy1, Cgy1 1020 Que2, Que2 989 Que1, Que1 987 Sas1, Sas1 980 Tor3, Tor3 977 Edm2, Edm2 974 Sas2, Sas2 969 Cgy2, Cgy2 968 Cgy3, Cgy3 959 Van5, Van5 956 Cgy4, Cgy4 956 Van4, Van4 947 Edm4, Edm4 944 Tor6, Tor6 933 Cgy5, Cgy5 930 Edm5, Edm5 926 Van3, Van3 919 Que3, Que3 918 Que6, Que6 917 Que5, Que5 917 Edm3, Edm3 916 Que11, Que11 913 Sas5, Sas5 913 Que12, Que12 913 Sas7, Sas7 913 Que9, Que9 913 Van6, Van6 912 Sas3, Sas3 905 Edm12, Edm12 904 Sas4, Sas4 903 Que8, Que8 902 Last2, First2 900 Last5, First5 900 Last1, First1 900 Que27, Que27 900 Last3, First3 900 Last6, First6 900 Que25, Que25 900 Last4, First4 900 Edm6, Edm6 899 Que13, Que13 899 Que14, Que14 899 Que16, Que16 899 Sas6, Sas6 899 Que15, Que15 899 Van7, Van7 898 Van8, Van8 898 Tor7, Tor7 892 Tor4, Tor4 890 Cgy8, Cgy8 890 Cgy6, Cgy6 889 Edm7, Edm7 886 Tor11, Tor11 884 Tor10, Tor10 884 Tor9, Tor9 884 Tor12, Tor12 884 Cgy12, Cgy12 884 Edm8, Edm8 884 Edm13, Edm13 882 Edm11, Edm11 879 Cgy7, Cgy7 875 Tor14, Tor14 869 Cgy10, Cgy10 869 Que24, Que24 869 Que18, Que18 869 Que22, Que22 869 Que19, Que19 869 Que20, Que20 869 Sas9, Sas9 869 Sas12, Sas12 869 Edm9, Edm9 868 Sas8, Sas8 868 Cgy14, Cgy14 868 Edm16, Edm16 866 Edm15, Edm15 866 Que26, Que26 863 Que4, Que4 860 Edm10, Edm10 860 Tor8, Tor8 859 Cgy11, Cgy11 857 Que10, Que10 856 Tor15, Tor15 856 Cgy9, Cgy9 855 Van12, Van12 855 Tor5, Tor5 855 Cgy13, Cgy13 855 Tor13, Tor13 854 Van9, Van9 851 Que17, Que17 851 Sas10, Sas10 846 Edm14, Edm14 845 Van11, Van11 845 Sas13, Sas13 845 Que7, Que7 842 Tor16, Tor16 841 Van10, Van10 841 Edm18, Edm18 839 Edm19, Edm19 839 Que21, Que21 838 Sas11, Sas11 814 Edm17, Edm17 812 Edm20, Edm20 800 Que23, Que23 800 |
Posted: Jun 3 2010 4:56PM
| ||
|
If I was to go through a full year of these type of events, we could count all of the "minor" events as a 16 Elo factor (changes your points mildly) and we could have any major tournaments count for a 32 Elo factor (changes your points significantly) and we could have a national tournament at the end of the year with a 64 elo factor (changes your points immensely). if each city would run 4 minor tournaments and then whichever majors happen to be run in canada count towards points as a major, and then someone runs nationals as the final tournament it would really give us as accurate a points system as possible. I encourage you to log into the system and check it out for yourself. post any questions and hopefully I have given enough information for you to all think this has some promise. Obviously I know nothing is perfect for points but this is better than what we have now. we could simply define ranks as from one set of points to another set of points. |
| ||
|
I will also point out that I started every player at 900 points in this ranking. I could start "pro masters" at 1200 and "pro" at 1000 and "Semi" at 900 and "rookie" at 800 if we wanted to, it would effect the points considerably. If a player has 800 points and beats a player with 1300 points the 800 point player would gain about 30 points, and the 1300 player would lose those points. If two players with equal points play eachother the winner would steal about 10-12 points from the opponent. That is a short summary of how Elo works. Google it if you need more information. |
| ||
|
Will, Saskatoon and Vancouver ran systems just like this for years and they are great for ranking in your region. We just don't play enough inter-region matches for them to be accuate nationally. |
| ||
|
I know that there is not often inter-region play. Even with that considered, we do have enough majors at least in western canada that we have 2-4 players from each region. If say region XXX has 2-4 players come to a major, and they do really well. Then they go back to the region and play against some other players and they do not do as well there, the other players will become accurately ranked as better players. I'll do an example of this... I ran one more major tournament, but only included western canadian players. I also added in XXX5 and XXX6 and had them place in 3rd place in the new major. Van 1 and 2 won this new major and there were no players from TOR or QUE. After this event I ran a local in the XXX region, but had XXX1 and XXX2 win, with XXX5 and XXX6 finishing in there spot. New Points: Van1, Van1 1216 Van2, Van2 1197 Tor1, Tor1 1195 Tor2, Tor2 1109 Cgy1, Cgy1 1075 Edm1, Edm1 1040 Cgy2, Cgy2 1023 XXX1, XXX1 1006 Que2, Que2 989 Que1, Que1 987 Edm2, Edm2 985 Sas1, Sas1 980 Van5, Van5 979 Tor3, Tor3 977 Cgy3, Cgy3 972 Sas2, Sas2 969 Cgy4, Cgy4 969 XXX2, XXX2 960 Van4, Van4 947 XXX5, XXX5 940 XXX6, XXX6 940 Edm5, Edm5 936 Van6, Van6 935 Tor6, Tor6 933 XXX3, XXX3 929 Van3, Van3 919 Que3, Que3 918 Que6, Que6 917 Que5, Que5 917 XXX4, XXX4 914 Que11, Que11 913 Sas5, Sas5 913 Que12, Que12 913 Sas7, Sas7 913 Que9, Que9 913 Edm6, Edm6 909 Sas3, Sas3 905 Cgy5, Cgy5 905 Sas4, Sas4 903 Que8, Que8 902 Cgy8, Cgy8 900 Last2, First2 900 Last5, First5 900 Last1, First1 900 Que27, Que27 900 Last3, First3 900 Last6, First6 900 Que25, Que25 900 Last4, First4 900 Que13, Que13 899 Que14, Que14 899 Que16, Que16 899 Sas6, Sas6 899 Que15, Que15 899 Van7, Van7 898 Van8, Van8 898 Tor7, Tor7 892 Tor4, Tor4 890 Edm7, Edm7 886 Cgy7, Cgy7 885 Tor11, Tor11 884 Tor10, Tor10 884 Tor9, Tor9 884 Tor12, Tor12 884 Edm8, Edm8 884 Edm4, Edm4 882 Edm12, Edm12 870 Tor14, Tor14 869 Que24, Que24 869 Que18, Que18 869 Que22, Que22 869 Que19, Que19 869 Que20, Que20 869 Sas9, Sas9 869 Sas12, Sas12 869 Edm9, Edm9 868 Sas8, Sas8 868 Cgy14, Cgy14 868 Cgy6, Cgy6 864 Que26, Que26 863 Edm13, Edm13 861 Que4, Que4 860 Edm10, Edm10 860 Tor8, Tor8 859 Que10, Que10 856 Tor15, Tor15 856 Van12, Van12 855 Tor5, Tor5 855 Cgy13, Cgy13 855 Edm3, Edm3 854 Tor13, Tor13 854 Van9, Van9 851 Que17, Que17 851 XXX7, XXX7 847 XXX8, XXX8 847 Sas10, Sas10 846 Cgy10, Cgy10 846 Van11, Van11 845 Edm11, Edm11 845 Sas13, Sas13 845 Que7, Que7 842 Tor16, Tor16 841 Van10, Van10 841 Edm18, Edm18 839 Que21, Que21 838 Cgy9, Cgy9 832 Cgy12, Cgy12 829 Edm14, Edm14 824 Sas11, Sas11 814 Edm16, Edm16 813 Edm15, Edm15 813 Edm17, Edm17 812 Cgy11, Cgy11 802 Edm19, Edm19 801 Edm20, Edm20 800 Que23, Que23 800 |
| ||
|
As you can see, even though XXX1 and XXX2 didn't go to the other tournament, the points system presumes that if they win (doubles and singles) against the XXX5 and XXX6 players that they deserve to be somewhere near the top also. Remember the Elo factor here is lower than at the major, but because the XXX5 and XXX6 players did so well at the major, they brought a lot of points back to there region. Then the XXX region had more points to go around between there players, even though they didnt have any tournaments in the first round of locals and they did not attend the first major. because some of the "weaker" players from there region did really well in the new major it helped out to show how good that XXX region is. |
| ||
|
wtf does all this mean!!?? Vancouver is #1?! |
| ||
|
Sorry, it's lots of reading! Yes Dave it means Vancouver is #1 to save you the time.  |
| ||
|
Looks like it has got a lot of potential to me. This would aleviate alot of headaches caused by the 'who's ranked what' argument that goes along with every tournament. There seems to be two ways of going about this: 1. Every promoter/city gets a login and every promoter/city is responsible for entering their results. 2. Somebody volunteers, and inputs the information into the system based on results submitted to them from each city. I like the idea of someone being responsible for the sytem, so I tend to option 2. Before any of this actually matters though, we need buy in from all of the different areas. Are players/promoters in Saskatoon, Regina, Vancouver, Calgary and Edmonton interested in doing this? Who will be responsible in each area? |
| ||
|
I would run the Edmonton area, and if results are submitted to me I would maintain the point system in a transparent manner. If Paul(Regina) Brian(cgy) and Peter or anyone else from Vancouver is willing to run quarterly events instead of or in addition to the weekly dyp we could start this now. Even if we only have western Canada on board it would be worth starting. Maybe we can incorporate the east too but we oils jhave something started from this upcoming tournament in Calgary. |
| ||
|
umm..and what about the people who don't go to locals? Not that there are a lot of us, but... |
| ||
|
Obviously, there isn't a perfect system. However, just the fact that we're having the discussion is a good start. I say we try Wills way for a while and see how it goes. Who knows maybe we'll really like it, maybe we won't. Sooner or later, if it works, someone will find a way to expand on it and make it more accurate. Until then, it's better to have something in place now and get an idea of what works or doesn't work than to do nothing and have no idea. |
| ||
|
Moya, if you don't play locals or majors you won't have points, if you only play majors then the points system still works well. As long as some people play locals and then when you play in a major your points will come to reflect your level of play when playing against other people that have points. |
| ||
|
In addition to what Will said Moya, you would start with X number of points in based on current rank. If you don't play, you don't change. |
| ||
|
I would volunteer to put in Regina's points or format the matches into a usable method. We always have a round-robin followed by a single-elimination money round. All matches are spotted. We'd probably just use that as I'm not sure how many guys would actually want to play a double elimination tournament for the purpose of points, the group is more on the casual side... |
| ||
|
Like I said in another thread, you should talk to Eric Dunn as he had an Elo program that was on the old CTSA site that did what we are looking for. We just need to get that program, agree to enter tournaments, figure a starting point for players and the weights given to locals vs national vs international tournaments. I think that players should be slotted just above their current rank so that if the rank is artificial they will go down instead of remaining mis-ranked too long. I would start the system right after this Alberta tournament and then we will be set up for the future. With Elo it doesn't need to have a double elimination format it is match based. |
| ||
|
I don't see any advantage to switching from netfoos to that system though? Netfoos is very easy to use and Brian and I have experience using it. Netfoos tracks player stats, which is good for the players. Winning percentage, head to head results with everyone they have ever played. Total money winnings, and much more. Netfoos streams online for other people to use from home to track results. Netfoos is free and accessible right now. Netfoos calculates the points for you using Elo, and has many additional features in the points calculation. If there is an advantage to trying to get Eric dunn's program I would be interested in checking it out, but what does it provide that netfoos doesn't, and does it provide the advantages listed above? When I emailed Eric regarding this subject he didn't specify anything and encouraged me to use the system listed above. One thing that netfoos lacks is that it has a limit to the format's it will accept. We can't enter a round robin, which is a feature they may add in the future. |
| ||
|
Just to be clear, I'm not saying this is the only way to do it and I think it's great that you are presenting an option - I would like to hear more about it, that post is just some questions I have about the program. |
| ||
|
Will and I are going to use the tournements we have to enter into Netfoos. After the tournament next weekend we will have the results from 3 Calgary tournements and Will has 2 from Edmonton I believe. Should be a good start to more of an objective system. |
| ||
|
Do they discourage you from entering data from local tournaments at all? The only draw backs I see is that they may fold (not likely) or if they sell advertising it could be money our National Association could be making. |
| ||
|
if you win the "B" side, Netfoos doesn't give you any points if you win the first match in the finals. |
| ||
|
As I told Will. I think it's more important to have a point system that is used and backed / maintained by motivated people than using one points system over another We can talk for months about this and we might end up with nothing I'd say let's go ahead with and make adjustments as we find we need them Netfoos is more polished than the system I built but the one thing my old system has over netfoos is control. We'd have full control over how our point system is run and how it works cause we'd control the code. It was written in php with a mysql backend. Richard tench helped me figure out the elo part of the system. I have the code kicking around here somewhere it would just need a home. If I remember correctly it kept track of a number of different rankings: singles and doubles and on each official table. Then a combined or overall ranking. The reporting was good. But I think the match entry could use an upgrade So it's available if someone wants it. But netfoos works for now I would say |
| ||
|
Oops meant to say... I'd say let's go ahead with netfoos and make adjustments as we find we need them |
| ||
|
When you guys start entering the results of old tournaments, what kind of numbers are the players going to originally start with? Like are some people going to start with Pro Master numbers? For the up coming tourny, if the only diffrence between Pro and Pro Master is lower entry fees, that's great for some but the lack of Pro Singles or Dubs is a bit of a burn for many Semi's that have been pushed up into the Pro group. No mater, it should be a fabulous tourny, and good on you all for getting this rating system up, it's the best thing that's come along since snake shots. |
| ||
|
Hopefully, the idea is a whole lot better than rollovers were  |
| ||
|
"Hopefully, the idea is a whole lot better than rollovers were" Is this not equivalent to saying "hopefully my next bowl of ice cream will be better than having my eyes burned out with hot pokers"? Rollovers were a truly bad idea. |
| ||
|
Rollers are great. If not for them there would be like one euro and a thousand pullshots, way more people play the game because of rollers, and they take a bit to perfect, it's not just a cheap spinaroo, the rod and the ball are totally under control. Rating system is great ... make it happen. I bet the pros would like prize money for the top pro placeing in open. |
| ||
|
bump |
| ||
|
long live the rollover critics who also shoot the rollover. |
| ||
|
Bump for Mario |
The last post to this thread is more than 30 days old.