Forum
Kissygirl holds off Grimbum and Ssergio to take October kdice baseball-style pennant, XxDiceyGirlxX places fourth.
|
skrumgaer wrote
at 6:09 PM, Wednesday October 31, 2007 EDT
The baseball style standings are explained in chapter x of the comment on my profile page.
Shown are player rank, name, points, games played, percentages, and games behind. 12 kissygirl 9562â—† 492 19% 23% 16% 13% 12% 8% 6% ---- 27 Grimbum 6156â—† 648 18% 19% 14% 16% 12% 8% 10% 8 9 Ssergio 10450â—† 557 18% 20% 16% 13% 11% 9% 9% 9 11 XxDiceyGirlxX 9894â—† 371 20% 25% 16% 11% 9% 9% 7% 12 10 uukrul 10235â—† 486 21% 17% 14% 14% 12% 12% 7% 17 18 fish28 8094â—† 811 14% 19% 17% 12% 12% 11% 11% 19 14 AnMoNiDa 9034â—† 326 19% 25% 18% 10% 8% 9% 8% 20 21 nuflis 7309â—† 485 17% 19% 16% 10% 12% 12% 10% 29 8 SodaPop 10627â—† 381 25% 12% 16% 11% 12% 9% 12% 30 7 vicsf 10754â—† 401 18% 21% 13% 12% 11% 9% 12% 31 16 Linch 8218â—† 361 21% 16% 14% 12% 14% 10% 9% 32 22 ndthorn 7251â—† 429 20% 17% 13% 10% 14% 12% 10% 33 19 yokobelgium 7959â—† 347 21% 15% 14% 12% 14% 10% 10% 36 6 Uyduruk 11116â—† 428 17% 19% 15% 10% 12% 10% 14% 40 3 dasfury 13732â—† 336 22% 18% 10% 11% 12% 10% 14% 40 1 Zosod 27030â—† 400 21% 15% 15% 12% 10% 12% 14% 40 4 Vohaul 13298â—† 607 19% 14% 11% 15% 11% 13% 13% 41 23 retareded rock 6745â—† 243 20% 21% 13% 8% 12% 9% 12% 41 15 Vermont 8312â—† 175 22% 16% 18% 14% 10% 12% 5% 42 24 tajmtoedaj 6479â—† 153 21% 22% 13% 10% 13% 6% 12% 46 17 hasiktirlan PUST 8100â—† 256 20% 12% 14% 13% 12% 12% 13% 51 25 Phoenix37 6352â—† 344 22% 15% 11% 9% 8% 14% 18% 52 20 Aiden 7735â—† 371 16% 15% 12% 15% 12% 12% 14% 54 13 El Destructor 9036â—† 431 18% 13% 12% 14% 9% 16% 14% 55 5 lesplaydices 11436â—† 370 17% 16% 11% 12% 11% 14% 16% 57 2 MadHat_Sam 18751â—† 346 19% 15% 10% 11% 10% 16% 17% 59 |
Replies 1 - 9 of 9
|
§ilverfox wrote
at 6:29 PM, Wednesday October 31, 2007 EDT skrumgaer,
A question if I may: When you compute these standings do you use the actual number of games played (shown in the performance history) or the computed number of games played derived from the percentages in the performance history? I assume I'm not the first to notice that there is about a 3%-4% rounding error there (the added percentages should sum to 100, but consistently come in at 96%-97%). This leads to a discrepancy in the number of games played. Around 420 games the difference is about 16 games and this increases with the more games played. Since TAPL is affected by the number of games played, then this seems like it could be an issue. This type of error would not be evenly distributed to all players because those with more games are more heavily affected (positive or negative I’m not sure… I didn’t do that math). I would suggest that the better number to use would be the (incorrect) re-derived number, since it more accurately reflects the win percentages the TAPL is calculated from. This would be a lot easier if we simply had the exact number of games won in each place displayed for us in the performance history instead of rounded percentages. But what can ya do? :) |
|
lesplaydices wrote
at 7:27 PM, Wednesday October 31, 2007 EDT NOT LAST!
HUZZAH! |
|
|
skrumgaer wrote
at 8:16 PM, Wednesday October 31, 2007 EDT Silverfox:
I correct for the different percentage sums by normalizing the number of games from the percentages to the sum of the percentages. So most, but not all, of the discrepancy is corrected for. For example, in the baseball standings, Grimbum's percentages sum to 97% while Ssergio's percentages sum to 96%, and they are only one game apart in the standings. Ssergio would have 5.57 more games attributed to him if his percentage sum was 97%. It would take as few as one additional game or as many as 11 additional games for his percentage sum to be bumped to 97. If he gets an early bump, he could gain 5.57 x 1/2 games or 2.78 additional games on Grimbum. If he gets a late bump, he will have fallen as much as 2.78 games more behind Grimbum. These are the extreme cases; more often the error it less. I try to minimize the impact of this error by reporting games behind only to the nearest whole number. In case of the TAPL, I could get a better fit if I set the standard percentage at 13.75 or 13.8 percent instead of 14 percent. |
|
|
skrumgaer wrote
at 8:23 PM, Wednesday October 31, 2007 EDT Correction: I think I got the two cases reversed. If Ssergio gets an early bump, he is penalized with a bigger denominator while having played only a few more games. On the other hand, if he gets a late bump, he will have surged ahead a a little before the bigger denominator kicks in.
|
|
JKD wrote
at 10:16 PM, Wednesday October 31, 2007 EDT What's the highest rank anyone's ever made with excessive in-game alliance offers? I mean ask for whoever's in 1st to ally with you in the first round
|
|
|
JKD wrote
at 10:17 PM, Wednesday October 31, 2007 EDT One day I'll ally with all 6 people in a game and try to separate them all...
|
|
|
§ilverfox wrote
at 11:58 AM, Thursday November 1, 2007 EDT Thanks for the reply skrumgaer!
I wasn't sure how bad the discrepancy was... I just knew it was there (deep apologies for my laziness... :) ) Is the TAPL your own invented experiment? I could find no information about it via Google. I find it interesting. Thanks for your thoughts! |
|
|
skrumgaer wrote
at 12:28 PM, Thursday November 1, 2007 EDT TAPL means "Test Against Pure Luck", not "Tulsa Association of Petroluem Landsmen" or "Travis Area Poker League". It is a Pearson's chi-square goodness of fit test. See chapter i of the comment on my profile page.
|
|
kissygirl wrote
at 3:31 PM, Thursday November 1, 2007 EDT YIPPY!
|
