Forum
Grandgnu takes 2012 yearly TAZD.
Posted By: skrumgaer at 3:30 PM, Tuesday January 1, 2013 EST
The TAZD is a Pearson's chisquare distribution against a zero datum, multiplied by the square root of the number of games played. The zero datum is the same as before:
07.2 07.9 10.2 14.0 17.5 20.3 22.9
as the distribution of percentages.
At least 60 regular games played per month is needed to qualify for the yearly TAZD, so, to win, you needed 720.
Final standings:
0977 24% 21% 18% 12% 08% 09% 08% 28170 grandgnu
1175 22% 16% 14% 12% 13% 11% 11% 18152 what_up23
0740 13% 15% 13% 08% 09% 14% 28% 05897 wrestlerchance
07.2 07.9 10.2 14.0 17.5 20.3 22.9
as the distribution of percentages.
At least 60 regular games played per month is needed to qualify for the yearly TAZD, so, to win, you needed 720.
Final standings:
0977 24% 21% 18% 12% 08% 09% 08% 28170 grandgnu
1175 22% 16% 14% 12% 13% 11% 11% 18152 what_up23
0740 13% 15% 13% 08% 09% 14% 28% 05897 wrestlerchance
superxchloe wrote
at 11:59 PM, Wednesday April 11, 2012 EDT This may be my 1amaftertwoexamsonedressrehearsalandaresearchpaper brain talking but I've no idea what that last sentence means.

skrumgaer wrote
at 7:32 AM, Thursday April 12, 2012 EDT This is how my profile would look (except that currently I don't have enough games):
141 12% 16% 22% 17% 18% 10% 04% 136 5580 skrumgaer The new quantity 136 is the adjusted number of games played given that my Jan stats added up to 95%, my Feb stats to 96%, and my March stats to 97%. 
skrumgaer wrote
at 7:52 AM, Thursday April 12, 2012 EDT I changed the post to say that sumofpercentages weighted number of games is used to normalize the mean yearly percentages.

skrumgaer wrote
at 8:00 AM, Thursday April 12, 2012 EDT My brain must have been addled a little last night too. Since I normalized the percentages, I would overnormalize if I also adjusted the multiplier, so I went back to the regular square root of games multiplier. So my profile would look like this:
141 12% 16% 22% 17% 18% 10% 04% 5691 skrumgaer 
superxchloe wrote
at 2:34 PM, Wednesday April 18, 2012 EDT so, you're normalising the percentage profiles per monte's suggestion? so everyone has "even footing" due to truncation.

skrumgaer wrote
at 5:12 PM, Wednesday April 18, 2012 EDT Not completely. I am dividing the gameweighted twelvemonth sum of percentages by the twelvemonth sum of "truncated games" instead of normalizing each month first. So, for the numbers I gave, my unnormalized percentages for Jan, Feb, and Mar were 97, 96, and 95. My number of games were

skrumgaer wrote
at 5:23 PM, Wednesday April 18, 2012 EDT Not completely. I am dividing the gameweighted twelvemonth sum of percentages by the twelvemonth sum of "truncated games" instead of normalizing each month first. So, for the numbers I gave, my unnormalized percentages for Jan, Feb, and Mar were 97, 96, and 95. My number of games were 48, 64, and 29. My "truncated games" were 46.56, 61.44, and 27.55, for a total of 135.55. I used the square root of 135.55 as the divisor in the final formula for the TAZD instead of my actual number of games of 141.
The results are likely a little bit different than normalizing each month's percentages first then taking the game weighted sum, but I have been too busy to do all the formula changes that would be required. On the other hand, there has not been a rush of entrants, so I might have time to do it before people start signing up. 
skrumgaer wrote
at 5:23 PM, Wednesday April 18, 2012 EDT Not completely. I am dividing the gameweighted twelvemonth sum of percentages by the twelvemonth sum of "truncated games" instead of normalizing each month first. So, for the numbers I gave, my unnormalized percentages for Jan, Feb, and Mar were 97, 96, and 95. My number of games were 48, 64, and 29. My "truncated games" were 46.56, 61.44, and 27.55, for a total of 135.55. I used the square root of 135.55 as the divisor in the final formula for the TAZD instead of my actual number of games of 141.
The results are likely a little bit different than normalizing each month's percentages first then taking the game weighted sum, but I have been too busy to do all the formula changes that would be required. On the other hand, there has not been a rush of entrants, so I might have time to do it before people start signing up. 
skrumgaer wrote
at 5:26 PM, Wednesday April 18, 2012 EDT Somehow the rest of my post got cut off. What I meant to say was I used the square root of "truncated" games (using Ryan's percentages) as the divisor instead of the actual number of games. In my case, 139.55 games instead of 141 games.

grandgnu wrote
at 3:41 PM, Friday July 13, 2012 EDT Add me cause I'm fucking awesome, ty
