Forum
Is fifth place "the new seventh"? No. It's the new second!!
|
skrumgaer wrote
at 8:24 PM, Saturday November 3, 2007 EDT
During the time of the poker-style scoring (on the August test server and in the first few days of September) it was said that “fifth is the new seventh†because it was often good strategy to flag quickly to avoid paying more points into the pot.
In October we had the first unbroken set of data since the Elo era and I thought to do a linear regression—using the free software at www.wessa.net—to see how point earned correlated with place of finish. I was expecting that first place would be the best point generator, second place second best, third place third best, and so on, but that turned out not to be the case. I did a regression of the top 25 players’ final scores that I reported for October and got the following results (not all the coefficients are statistically significant): Points = 22F1 + 21F2 -18F3 - 13F4 + 29F5 - 13F6 - 15F7 where F1 is number of first places, F2 is number of second places, etc. The standard errors for the seven coefficients are (11), (15), (27), (24), (20), (22), and (15). The plus sign for fifth place is not a typo. Fifth place has the largest coefficient of all, though since its standard error is higher than that for first place, it ranks second in being the best predictor of success in scoring points. What is suggested by these results is than in a typical kdice game there are two subgames: a battle among the top three (or four) and a battle among the bottom three. Two separate skills seem to be identified: the ability to play a winning game well, and the ability to play a losing game well. In light of these findings, I thought I would test out a modification of the baseball-style standings that I have been reporting for the last two months. In the standard style standings, players will advance or fall back according to the following schema: First: datum Second falls back 1/6 game. Third falls back 2/6 game. Fourth falls back 3/6 game. Fifth falls back 4/6 game. Sixth falls back 5/6 game. Seventh falls back 6/6 game. Game not played falls back 1/2 game. The final October standings under this system were: 12 kissygirl 9562◆ 492 19% 23% 16% 13% 12% 8% 6% ---- 27 Grimbum 6156◆ 648 18% 19% 14% 16% 12% 8% 10% 8 9 Ssergio 10450◆ 557 18% 20% 16% 13% 11% 9% 9% 9 11 XxDiceyGirlxX 9894◆ 371 20% 25% 16% 11% 9% 9% 7% 12 10 uukrul 10235◆ 486 21% 17% 14% 14% 12% 12% 7% 17 18 fish28 8094◆ 811 14% 19% 17% 12% 12% 11% 11% 19 14 AnMoNiDa 9034◆ 326 19% 25% 18% 10% 8% 9% 8% 20 21 nuflis 7309◆ 485 17% 19% 16% 10% 12% 12% 10% 29 8 SodaPop 10627◆ 381 25% 12% 16% 11% 12% 9% 12% 30 7 vicsf 10754◆ 401 18% 21% 13% 12% 11% 9% 12% 31 16 Linch 8218◆ 361 21% 16% 14% 12% 14% 10% 9% 32 22 ndthorn 7251◆ 429 20% 17% 13% 10% 14% 12% 10% 33 19 yokobelgium 7959◆ 347 21% 15% 14% 12% 14% 10% 10% 36 6 Uyduruk 11116◆ 428 17% 19% 15% 10% 12% 10% 14% 40 3 dasfury 13732◆ 336 22% 18% 10% 11% 12% 10% 14% 40 1 Zosod 27030◆ 400 21% 15% 15% 12% 10% 12% 14% 40 4 Vohaul 13298◆ 607 19% 14% 11% 15% 11% 13% 13% 41 23 retareded rock 6745◆ 243 20% 21% 13% 8% 12% 9% 12% 41 15 Vermont 8312◆ 175 22% 16% 18% 14% 10% 12% 5% 42 24 tajmtoedaj 6479◆ 153 21% 22% 13% 10% 13% 6% 12% 46 17 hasiktirlan PUST 8100◆ 256 20% 12% 14% 13% 12% 12% 13% 51 25 Phoenix37 6352◆ 344 22% 15% 11% 9% 8% 14% 18% 52 20 Aiden 7735◆ 371 16% 15% 12% 15% 12% 12% 14% 54 13 El Destructor 9036◆ 431 18% 13% 12% 14% 9% 16% 14% 55 5 lesplaydices 11436◆ 370 17% 16% 11% 12% 11% 14% 16% 57 2 MadHat_Sam 18751◆ 346 19% 15% 10% 11% 10% 16% 17% 59 I now introduce the split-game baseball style standings. Players advance or fall back according to this schema: First: datum Second falls back 2/6 game Third falls back 4/6 game Fourth falls back 3/6 game Fifth falls back 2/6 game Sixth falls back 4/6 game Seventh falls back 6/6 game Game not played falls back ½ game. Under this system the lower subgame has three players, the upper subgame has three players, and fourth is neutral. The lower subgame group falls 1/3 of a game behind the upper subgame group. Under the split-game system the standings for the same 25 players would be: 12 kissygirl 9562◆ 492 19% 23% 16% 13% 12% 8% 6% ---- 10 uukrul 10235◆ 486 21% 17% 14% 14% 12% 12% 7% 5 27 Grimbum 6156◆ 648 18% 19% 14% 16% 12% 8% 10% 6 9 Ssergio 10450◆ 557 18% 20% 16% 13% 11% 9% 9% 10 11 XxDiceyGirlxX 9894◆ 371 20% 25% 16% 11% 9% 9% 7% 12 22 ndthorn 7251◆ 429 20% 17% 13% 10% 14% 12% 10% 15 16 Linch 8218◆ 361 21% 16% 14% 12% 14% 10% 9% 16 8 SodaPop 10627◆ 381 25% 12% 16% 11% 12% 9% 12% 17 19 yokobelgium 7959◆ 347 21% 15% 14% 12% 14% 10% 10% 19 14 AnMoNiDa 9034◆ 326 19% 25% 18% 10% 8% 9% 8% 20 21 nuflis 7309◆ 485 17% 19% 16% 10% 12% 12% 10% 22 4 Vohaul 13298◆ 607 19% 14% 11% 15% 11% 13% 13% 22 3 dasfury 13732◆ 336 22% 18% 10% 11% 12% 10% 14% 23 7 vicsf 10754◆ 401 18% 21% 13% 12% 11% 9% 12% 23 18 fish28 8094◆ 811 14% 19% 17% 12% 12% 11% 11% 25 23 retareded rock 6745◆ 243 20% 21% 13% 8% 12% 9% 12% 27 15 Vermont 8312◆ 175 22% 16% 18% 14% 10% 12% 5% 28 1 Zosod 27030◆ 400 21% 15% 15% 12% 10% 12% 14% 29 24 tajmtoedaj 6479◆ 153 21% 22% 13% 10% 13% 6% 12% 31 6 Uyduruk 11116◆ 428 17% 19% 15% 10% 12% 10% 14% 31 17 hasiktirlan PUST 8100◆ 256 20% 12% 14% 13% 12% 12% 13% 34 25 Phoenix37 6352◆ 344 22% 15% 11% 9% 8% 14% 18% 36 20 Aiden 7735◆ 371 16% 15% 12% 15% 12% 12% 14% 36 13 El Destructor 9036◆ 431 18% 13% 12% 14% 9% 16% 14% 38 5 lesplaydices 11436◆ 370 17% 16% 11% 12% 11% 14% 16% 39 2 MadHat_Sam 18751◆ 346 19% 15% 10% 11% 10% 16% 17% 39 Look at the two sets of standings. I invite comments. Does one set have a better “feel†than the other? |
Replies 1 - 6 of 6
|
biteme wrote
at 8:39 PM, Saturday November 3, 2007 EDT I'm not on either list, so neither feels better!
|
|
MadHat_Sam wrote
at 9:17 PM, Saturday November 3, 2007 EDT Good stuff, until you can get stats for place finishes based on the level of tables played this is a decent stat. The main failing is that it is easier to finish well on a 10 table the 200 table then 1k table then 5k table based on the level of competition faced etc. So unless those stats are possible to track the baseball standings only are a measure of the players tendency to to place well at a game of kdice not a measure of the actual tendency of a player to place well when facing tough competition.
|
|
skrumgaer wrote
at 9:31 PM, Saturday November 3, 2007 EDT For this group of top 25 players, it is likely that there is some variation among the players in regard to how often they played at what level of table, but this variation would be less than if I had picked 25 players out of the 70,000-odd total population of kdice players.
I can try running this regression again in the next day or so before play at the higher level tables becomes more frequent. It will be interesting if I get the same kinds of results. |
|
MadHat_Sam wrote
at 10:56 PM, Saturday November 3, 2007 EDT I find these stats interesting, mostly because I will never score well in these standards with the heavy (-) emphasis on 7th place finishes. Just from my strategy and experiance it is not worth my time to fight for 6th or 5th as the point loss difference I found neglible. I may rexamine that based on your finding a good reason to get 5th. One reason 5th may often have such + coefficient is people that get 6th and 7th often stay around for far longer then they should have increasing the ammount of dom they lost and possibly keeping 5th above the dom line depending on the game.
|
|
blueballer wrote
at 11:06 PM, Saturday November 3, 2007 EDT Nice work as always skrum. Thanks
|
|
rnd wrote
at 12:00 PM, Sunday November 4, 2007 EST eventually skrum, you will find, and finally settle on a scoring system that mirrors the TOP 25. Good luck.
|