Forum
Dottir takes November TAZD.
|
skrumgaer wrote
at 9:57 AM, Thursday December 1, 2011 EST
The TAZD and baseball-style standings are explained on my Wall. At least 35 regular games played in the month are require to qualify for the monthly TAZD. Shown are Games Behind, TAZD, and player name.
GB TAZD Player 06 12178 dottir 13 11141 Emre Oguz 03 10171 masticore 00 9719 Invola 39 9539 Shevar 03 8878 OneShot7 18 8842 jona_vicente 06 8419 savif 22 8352 [Ocean]Flushed 32 8336 Mazaman 02 8224 toms 10 8170 what_up23 47 8155 jfdis 08 8113 @ata 24 8064 Az_Balu 17 7666 kostur 20 7604 L3xy 48 7603 bcmatteagles 16 7600 22-Apr 11 7427 Lady Lite 07 7406 Vollhonk 66 7294 Scabbard 26 7159 kdiceplaya! 22 6840 chaiNblade 29 6829 IFIGENIUS 17 6518 FPP 24 6504 _smile_ 69 6474 Remiel 43 6441 Simmo3k 40 6411 Mercantile 12 6397 xjxaxnx 11 6328 @Toomyfriends 93 6315 franklyghost 14 6259 Bu7Ch3r 34 6214 fish28 18 6129 Free Flags 19 6043 hcdug 24 5928 kudoukun 18 5921 ovbogaert 14 5907 peter luftig 36 5658 @engr2002 49 5588 EddyB 22 5474 @MikeTamburini 31 5398 Brighty 30 5333 fearlessflyer 39 5281 Lord Death 92 5210 Loobee 35 5123 Gurgi 66 5087 barmat 21 5065 joero14 66 5054 Jily 40 5044 hatty 33 4952 longpube 32 4921 NikkeKnatterton 29 4841 scarp8 54 4794 stackshotbilly 34 4784 OviloN 66 4733 Silesia 100 4730 axlehammer 45 4623 mrb2097 47 4600 nexon 21 4582 Volvic 23 4484 beatol 33 4471 Fatman_x 25 4411 KDancer 41 4306 xXxJozefxXx 25 4289 Keeley 26 4019 euphrates7 87 4003 Rsquared 36 3917 Poker Style 48 3808 "MC" 34 3760 haloducks 41 3641 bivo 69 3261 orestis85 52 3201 greekboi 73 3179 cool g 33 2960 MNK10 57 2817 Trkz 58 2784 greenman 65 2759 These tards suck 76 2714 GreGGwar 70 2500 absolutgimlet 61 2463 Johnboat 44 2285 Kingofskillz 84 2218 DonnieScribbles 93 2208 GR3ENMAN 73 2028 CCSKAOT 94 1253 Kdot 92 1248 ji-jo |
|
superxchloe wrote
at 11:30 PM, Thursday December 1, 2011 EST You can't say that strategies will be discarded if you believe multiple strategies work.
What do you want tested? That the TAZD* yields a differnt distribution than the TAZD*? That's fairly obvious. That the TAZD* is better? There's no statistical test for that. The logic for the reason the TAZD* is a better measure of positive skill than the TAZD is simple: it accounts for negative deviation. Deviation from the zero datum can be pure luck, or can be lack of skill just as well as it can be skill. If you scored 14%s across the board (as you would with pure luck) and played 711 games (the most games played among this set of players), you would land yourself in 50th. How can you possibly say that pure luck with a large number of games is as deserving as a player with a good percentage profile and a somewhat smaller number of games for reward in a supposed measure of skill? We all can agree that the TAZD is a measure of deviation from the zero datum. It's a decent attempt at measuring positive skill. Playing lots of games requires no skill. Scoring lots of sevenths requires no skill. Both of those things help you in the TAZD and do not help in the TAZD*. |
|
Vermont wrote
at 11:51 PM, Thursday December 1, 2011 EST "...I don't see how deviations from the zero datum can be anything other than skill, or gaming the system."
Any deviation to you is skill? Basically a player doing poorly and getting lots of 5ths, 6ths, and 7ths is skill-based? lol. Some players are just plain bad and don't get high finishes. That's not necessarily "different skill" or a "different style." They could just plain be bad. By the way, thanks for completely ignoring the trivial example I presented. I assume based on your previous post that you really feel they are equally skilled players, which is pretty laughable. I believe the player with the better percentages should be ranked higher, and you feel they should be the same. One of those is obviously superior. Let me give you another example, a football one, as that may be easier for you to digest. If the chosen deviation for football is 8-8, I would say a team finishing the season at 12-4 is significantly better than a team finishing 4-12. You would say they should have the same TAZD since the deviation could only be skill or gaming the system. (Cheating Patriots aside, who obviously game the system.) So your 12-4 and 4-12 teams would both finish highly, and the 8-8 team would finish last because they didn't deviate, and therefore had no skill. And if someone managed to finish 0-16, they'd be pretty frickin awesome because of how much they deviated, eh? |
|
|
Vermont wrote
at 12:04 AM, Friday December 2, 2011 EST Colts fans should love the TAZD.
|
|
jurgen wrote
at 2:30 AM, Friday December 2, 2011 EST Nice discussion
Unless Skrum can counter the 12-4; 4-12; 8-8; 0-16 football example, I think it's end of discussion though. Any other discussion is besides the point, we need stats that measure skill. TAZD is both a measure for skill AND for noobness. |
|
Shevar wrote
at 3:52 AM, Friday December 2, 2011 EST i think skrum is just trolling tbh.
|
|
dottir wrote
at 4:41 AM, Friday December 2, 2011 EST "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." Now we can complete the stats: fg: 25% 13% 27% 5% 13% 11% 2% ------- 36 games -------luck 51,3% dot: 19% 18% 15% 12% 12% 14% 8% ------- 639 games ------- luck 48,8% Im not saying that i am more skilled than fg, but you cant base that afirmation on the stats ignoring the number of games and even the luck. Btw why the luck factor is totally avoided? Luck exists and affect directly to the skills. Obviously it is needed more skills to win a game in which you had 45% luck that a game with 55%. If you arent using any factor to correct that stuff about luck, i guess the best way to compensate it is just the number of games played, so you are sure that the luck will tend to 50%. Anyway, if you are going to change the rules of the TADZ, please, reporte it one month in advance, so we can change the way to play according to that (i should stop play right now since i have 50% of wins...in 4 games) |
|
|
jurgen wrote
at 4:49 AM, Friday December 2, 2011 EST good point about the luck part
it will be hard to factor in in any measure for skill and it will never be exact science (same for 35 games cutoff point and even for the weight you give to factor in number of games) if fg had played 100 games, I am sure that luck woudl have dropped a lot not making a call on who is the better player though :P, you need data of 500 games or more to dare say something about that |
|
jona_vicente wrote
at 5:46 AM, Friday December 2, 2011 EST 23% 18% 13% 10% 11% 8% 13% 193 games 440 ppg 49,2% luck
am i more skilled than you both? |
|
|
jona_vicente wrote
at 5:46 AM, Friday December 2, 2011 EST ugh fuck the 7ths
|
|
|
skrumgaer wrote
at 6:54 AM, Friday December 2, 2011 EST Chloe:
I can say that some strategies will be discarded because multiple strategies work if there are some strategies that won't work. The zero datum will be populated with players with bad luck or players with strategies that don't work. Out of time for now, will discuss the newer posts later. |
