yay 2nd

You are not off the hook. If you want to incorporate the ASR and the game limits built into the ASR to support your "significantly superior" assertion, you still have the burden of proof. And be able to argue why Dottir's November TAZD title should be taken away from her.

Over to you.....

Nice job of ignoring the fact you made up my saying anything about TAZD* before.

That being said, if you can't recognize that a scoring system that accounts for positive & negative variation is superior than one that treats them equally, then this argument will go like all the others on this topic have gone before.

No one is saying TAZD is useless; just that it has flaws ("outliers") that another scoring system might have.

TAZD does exactly what you say it does, measure deviation. I (and others) simply think that deviation in both directions should not be treated the same. I really wonder why that is so hard for you to understand.

Like all the arguments that have gone before. You have not met the burden of proof. Then or now.

Nice job of ignoring the fact you made up my saying anything about TAZD* before.

ok, perhaps the most trivial of examples will help you out here. Here's your TAZD basline, according to your wall, rounded for simplicity here: 10 10 10 13 16 17 19

My argument is that if you have two players, with the same number of games, with these percentages:

8 10 10 13 16 17 21
12 10 10 13 16 17 17

...that the second player should clearly rank higher in any realistic skill ranking. I should haven't to "prove" that to you. It should be obvious.

Under the TAZD, they've both deviated from the norm an equal amount, and would effectively be tied. Again, it shouldn't require "proof" that there is an obvious shortcoming here.

Verms- yes. In the TAZD* having a greater number of expected first, second, and third places helps your score, while having more than expected fourth through seventh hurt it.

The ASR multiplier is the better measure of skill than the ASR itself, because the ASR is so heavily dependent on the number of table points scored. Here are this month's results sorted by multiplier:


ASR ASRm TAZD* Name
0113 1.83 06315 franklyghost
0905 1.76 09539 Shevar
0351 1.73 07932 Mazaman
0058 1.73 07294 Scabbard
0241 1.66 07603 bcmatteagles
0141 1.65 08279 [Ocean]Flushed
0287 1.60 10171 masticore
0217 1.59 08155 jfdis
0042 1.57 06427 Remiel
0883 1.53 07519 22-Apr
0440 1.53 06066 fish28
0340 1.49 07840 toms
1265 1.48 08842 jona_vicente
0053 1.46 05530 EddyB
0549 1.45 08419 savif
0215 1.45 06411 Mercantile
0195 1.44 04878 Lord Death
0107 1.43 04003 Rsquared
0691 1.43 08170 what_up23
0254 1.43 08064 Az_Balu
0570 1.42 08344 dottir
0220 1.42 06441 Simmo3k
0167 1.41 05775 FPP
0051 1.39 05381 Brighty
0139 1.39 05658 @engr2002
0112 1.39 05087 barmat
1315 1.37 07909 Invola
0215 1.37 05449 Vollhonk
0195 1.37 06171 Bu7Ch3r
0335 1.36 04600 nexon
0895 1.35 07455 Emre Oguz
0337 1.34 07878 OneShot7
0187 1.34 06503 _smile_
1200 1.33 06304 @Toomyfriends
0230 1.32 04732 Silesia
0320 1.30 07427 Lady Lite
0134 1.30 04595 mrb2097
0137 1.28 05035 fearlessflyer
0306 1.27 06840 @ata
0237 1.26 05907 peter luftig
0048 1.26 04978 hatty
0143 1.25 05928 kudoukun
0047 1.25 05044 joero14
0405 1.24 07158 kdiceplaya!
0210 1.24 05053 Jily
0248 1.24 06839 chaiNblade
0385 1.23 06043 hcdug
0189 1.21 05556 xjxaxnx
0003 1.21 04952 longpube
0304 1.20 05512 L3xy
0176 1.20 04411 KDancer
0088 1.20 04841 scarp8
0031 1.16 03741 haloducks
0284 1.16 04784 IFIGENIUS
0469 1.16 07666 kostur
0231 1.16 05921 ovbogaert
0009 1.16 02639 orestis85
0140 1.15 06129 Free Flags
0379 1.15 04862 Gurgi
0053 1.15 02208 GR3ENMAN
0082 1.14 04019 euphrates7
0058 1.13 04471 Fatman_x
0083 1.12 03640 bivo
0144 1.10 04289 Keeley
0003 1.10 02342 Johnboat
-0014 1.10 02770 greenman
0112 1.08 04085 Volvic
0093 1.07 04585 stackshotbilly
-0033 1.07 02450 absolutgimlet
0380 1.06 04746 @MikeTamburini
0137 1.06 04484 beatol
0028 1.05 02714 GreGGwar
0096 1.04 04745 OviloN
0226 1.04 03201 greekboi
0211 1.03 02759 These tards suck
0080 0.99 02817 Trkz
0023 0.98 02285 Kingofskillz
-0024 0.91 02016 CCSKAOT
0074 0.90 02886 cool g
0066 0.90 03209 Poker Style
0015 0.88 01253 Kdot
-0090 0.87 02203 DonnieScribbles
0063 0.85 02960 MNK10
0039 0.83 03535 xXxJozefxXx
-0034 0.68 03006 axlehammer
0044 0.53 03417 "MC"
0000 0.48 00873 ji-jo


The most obvious jump is franklyghost, who goes from middle of the pack in TAZD* to first in ASR multiplier (which is calculated thusly: 4*1st % + 3*2nd % +2*3rd% +4th% - 5th% -2*6th% -3*7th%).

"That being said, if you can't recognize that a scoring system that accounts for positive & negative variation is superior than one that treats them equally, then this argument will go like all the others on this topic have gone before. " THIS.

The TAZD* does have the advantage over the ASR of being compared to some expected set of values. This is a better weighting (imo) of "value" for each place percentage than simple constants.

I like dottir just fine, but I don't believe that she should be rewarded with a fake title just because she had a good- not exceptional- percentage profile and a huge number of games. The same goes for the other number of games outliers.
Compare dottir's percentage profile to franklyghost (who would also win TAZD* were it not for the games multiplier):
fg: 25% 13% 27% 5% 13% 11% 2%
dot: 19% 18% 15% 12% 12% 14% 8%
I think we can all agree that fg's shows more positive skill.

A persistant deviation from a norm has to have a reason. If it's not an attempt to game the TAZD, it is an honest attempt to play the game. Attempts to play the game that don't pay off (the goal of skill) will be abandoned. I am not going to penalize honost attempts to develop a strategy for the game.

Incidentally, I didn't make up the fact that you talked about the TAZD*. The TAZD* is the only component of Chloe's system that incorporates the negative deviation penalty, so there is nothing else that you could have been talking about.

and skrum reminds us for the nth time why we should avoid this conversation.

basically he is arguing exactly what we are proposing: that the TAZD is by no means a measure of skill. glad we all agree. sigh.

many apologies to grandgnu, who just wasted an entire years worth of gaming to win an award for something that has nothing to do with skill.

to quote Vermont, "Chloe's alternative skill ranking..."
obviously refers directly to the ASR. Since, you know ASR stands for alternative skill ranking. In both the ASR and the TAZD* as your percentage of firsts decreases, so does your score. And may I clarify, verms? It's actually moon's. I didn't come up with it.

As for deviations from the zero datum and gaming the system: " Attempts to play the game that don't pay off (the goal of skill) will be abandoned." People play and lose all the time. It happens literally every single game. The most skilled player in the game, whoever you may believe it is, does in fact lose games. The same strategies do not always work. So, you lose some points. Why should the TAZD reward you for something you regularly lose points for in the regular scoring system? I'm not going to reward people for losing.


"So if Chloe's rating system and my rating system give the same distribution of scores for a group of 85 players, how is hers superior?"
We aren't even close to the same distribution of scores for these 87 players.

Chloe and Verms:

"The same strategies don't always work". That is because there are a number of different strategies that work. I have identified a number of profiles that top players can be classified by: the lion, hyena, horse, dromedary. Look at my older posts on the advisor blog.

There may be some symbiosis in a "healthy" population of players. That is, a particular mix of lions, hyenas, etc. And if the distribution of kinds gets out of kilter, it could harm the game just as it could harm a real ecosystem.

At any time the zero datum includes some lions, hyenas, dromedaries, and horses that happen to be out on their luck. If the game evolves, the composition of the zero datum can change. That is, the zero datum has two components: incompetence (lack of skill) and bad luck.

I don't see how changes in luck can happen, so I don't see how deviations from the zero datum can be anything other than skill, or gaming the system. If I detect gaming the system, I will try to clean that data out. But so far I haven't found it. Noamlang's TAZD stands. Dottir's TAZD stands. Too bad if they don't match your ideas of who is a better player if you can't meet the burden of proof of statistical significance.