airhockeyworld.com - The ultimate resource for competitive Air Hockey!

home

forums

rankings

profiles

air hockey chat forums

Forums Home | Log in for Private Messages | Search | View New Posts (Mark All Read) | User List

Forums Home / Tournaments and Challenges / Rating Vs Ranking ( View Older Thread | View Newer Thread)

First | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Last

Poll: Just curious as to which method the players truly do prefer for seeding a tournament?

(5%)

Current Ranking System - Mouseover to see Voters

(9%)

Current Rating System - Mouseover to see Voters

(18%)

Current Ranking System but with modifications - Mouseover to see Voters

(68%)

Current Rating System but with modifications - Mouseover to see Voters

(0%)

Doesn't Matter - Mouseover to see Voters

fractalzoom - 17 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 201

Chuck, while it helps that I have a mentor to get better, I don't think any amount of coaching will help me if I don't play a lot.

Q was well below your rating a little over a year ago, but by playing over 140 recorded sets since, he's now gotten so good that he nearly beat Davis.

And having Billy around doesn't help us with Mitic points - neither Q or I have beaten him... which doesn't help our point standing. What you can do to increase your points is to *win* a lot of sets against people in your area. If you just get one more person to compete against - it's an extra 1,200 points you can win from that person.

...then - if you and others from Dallas go to the major tourneys and take points home with you, there are more points in your pool that you guys can fight over. The key here is to make sure you Dallas guys bring home points from the major tourneys.

carolina phil - 18 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 1084

Since any statistical system, like Mitic, consists of opinions about what factors go into the formulae, it is controversial and leads to compromises and politics. To avoid arguments over what is fair or not, a much better way would be to let players PLAY for seeding on Friday night or Saturday. That takes the "opinion" out of the mix, and let's the playing of the game determine your seed for that event.

Who would want to argue that playing ah games for seeds would be bad compared to applying a math formula on the players?

Is there time in a three day period to allow for us to compete for our seeds?
That was our original method we used, breaking the field into several groups and letting each group play a round robbin of three games each. With so many tables now, could we break into groups based on ratings/rankings and play one game each, for example?

With all the smart brains on this list, I bet one of you can think of a way we could play games that weekend to determine our seeds.

jasonstevens - 18 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 176

carolina phil said:

I don't think this would work. So many things logistically exclude this.

goran - 18 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 428

Any numbers or rules we come up with for the rating system will not matter if lots of matches are recorded. If I can beat Danny 1 game should I get a better seed? The best way to seed a tournament is to use as much information as we can (the ratings counts many matches against many opponents). There is a reason challenge matches are best 4 of 7. Less room for upsets. Upsets happen all the time in tournaments, and they would happen more often in 1 game formats. Right now we base our seeding on prior tournament to determine world rank. Garbage in, garbage out. That system might have worked when there were less then 100 people playing airhockey, but now we have over 600, and I'm trying to get over 10,000

Q - 18 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 497

I think, as Goran points out that more than logistics should exclude that option.

The Mitic system is the best thing that we have, and darn near close, of a statistical system that aligns with what would be the proper seeding for a tournament should be. To play 1 game or even best of 3 games for seeding adds a lot of variance into the seeding process. Phil said in his post that any statistical system consists of opinions on what factors go in. To me this statement at first was a little misleading. Models are used for predictions and examining a lot of things and Goran didn't just settle on numbers for k-values, or ways to try and predict the probability of winning between two players. He made educated guesses by following a well derived and widely used mathematical formula for estimating skill in head to head sports/games/etc and he adjusted those factors based on observations to be a way to measure a person's skill or recent progress/decline relative to an entire player base. (I encourage any math fan out there to read papers on Elo system. It is quite fascinating) The system is going through another evolution/revision that improves upon it tremendously. To me, this system is what is the better way to seed tournaments and I believe that if it were used, the amount of play and the level of play would both see a tremendous upswing which I know is what we all want for the sport. To me, this change seems clear and necessary.

goran - 18 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 428

Well said Q. If the rating system was used for seeding and ranking, and tournament finishes stayed as nothing more then tournament finishes, Air hockey will grow to a level most can not imagine. 100% of the players should be on board with this. It trulely is a no brainier.

fractalzoom - 18 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 201

Phil,

It seems that you're picking at the factors in which the ratings are weighted.

These aren't arbitrary, and I know Goran could demonstrate why he has settled on these factors. In the long run (if everyone played hundreds of sets a year), these factors matter very little, it's set to let people move relatively quickly. You call it an 'opinion' but it's far less arbitrary than penalizing someone 3 ranks for missing a major tournament.

I mean, think about what you've written - playing a round robin short format tournament to determine seeding. This is a *tiny* sample size, where the Mitic rating takes into account *every* match recorded and distills it down to a single value.

I find it odd that the current rankings are set up like in boxing - where there are no tournaments, just individual bouts. Why not tennis? - where they actually have tournaments and ratings are involved in seeding them.

carolina phil - 18 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 1084

goran said:

Actually, marketing and advertising experts don't appeal so much to the rational systematic orderly aspects of life in order to motivate people, but to the emotional needs rooted in the primal self. That's why the drama of the Duel, or the gunfight at High Noon, capture people's imagination. Same with boxing where a one on one fight makes millions watch! And especially in the UFC where there is no appeal to what the fighters "ratings" are based on their past take downs, strikes, or tap outs. Dana White makes millions and has captured millions of fans by promoting the primal concept of two fighters facing off one on one in a competition where the outcome is in the hands of the fighter.

To get players to train at gyms, pay airline fares to play a big match, and stroll around on earth like they are gods of a sport, you have to take their minds off winning points and focus them with laser like intensity of cracking people in matches where they are awarded with titles, seedings, rankings, and glory. Primates we are; and we want to stand on top of a bashed monkey and beat our chests like a gorilla:)

But, don't forget, your recent idea of making the Mitic system always move a challenger who wins a match above that losing player, may do just what I have described. Right?

Phil

goran - 18 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 428

In boxing, they do it for the money, and you need to recover after a fight. No tournament, just 1 on 1 best of 1. With that formula, anyone can be champion. Just look at world champion Buster Douglas. Let me go 10 rounds, or (games) with Danny to see if I can be a champion too. He'd probably still win, but I like my chances better then a 4 of 7 match, or beating the field ay a nationals. The rule that moves a challenge match Victor over his opponents if the ratings don't adjust that way wont be used much because 99% of the time this will already happen, but its still a good rule to have. Especially if it makes Phil happy. Keep the good ideas coming and we'll get 100% on board instead of just 76%.

carolina phil - 18 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 1084

fractalzoom said:

Phil,

It seems that you're .......................

I find it odd that the current rankings are set up like in boxing - where there are no tournaments, just individual bouts. Why not tennis? - where they actually have tournaments and ratings are involved in seeding them.

...............

To answer your two items: I have feedback from several who want a ratings system, but cannot agree with the ingredients in the system that you suggest. So, therefore it seems to others that the components are mental contructs that are subject to debate. Once debate starts, decisions are made through compromises, and what remains is a version that is not adequate.

People then throw up their hands and say that it is best to simply have players play matches to determine their seeds because that seems more direct and remains in the hands of the player. If they win, they know what they get. If they lose, they accept that failure. They do not have to go to the computer and see what the experts figure that they deserve based on a compromised formula. I am not saying I feel that way entirely, but I am sharing with you the perspective of some players.

But let me conclude this email as I did another: if it is accurate to say that if an ah challenge match would ALWAYS move the challenger over the loser so as to "take" the formerly higher ranked loser's "ranking, rating, seeding", then all parties in this discussion may have a way of moving forward. I know I would be impressed.

Phil

carolina phil - 18 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 1084

goran said:

Ha, ha; well, I like to be happy. And so would most of the current Champions and almost all of the former ones from Jesse Douty to Danny Hynes:)

Phil

Darth_Wafu - 19 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 117

carolina phil said:

I have feedback from several who want a ratings system, but cannot agree with the ingredients in the system that you suggest. So, therefore it seems to others that the components are mental contructs that are subject to debate.

Could you share this feedback with us? What are the particular ingredients that are unsavory? The proponents of the rating system have frequently expounded on the details of what we do not like about the rankings and why the ratings are better. The counter arguments against us tend to be these vague statements that don't allow us an opportunity to improve the ratings. If they don't have specifics it may well be that they just don't think their rating is where it should be and they are too lazy to play or record or post their sets in order to improve their rating.

carolina phil said:

Once debate starts, decisions are made through compromises, and what remains is a version that is not adequate.

This seems like a defeatist attitude to me, basically saying if we talk about it we will make things worse, so we shouldn't bother. Not all debates end with a compromised, inadequate solution, sometimes creative solutions arise through debate that satisfy the requirements of all involved. Those that don't adapt to changing environments get left behind, whether it be people, businesses, entire species, or the sport of Air-Hockey.

Nick Geoffroy

goran - 19 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 428

Nick, good post as always. If you don't support the idea of developing the rating system, you are against growing air hockey. How can you bash some thing you don't understand? You should be asking questions and reading up on the Elo system if you care about growth. You don't have to agree with everything, but you should agree with the general idea. I enjoy a healthy debate. I have gotten ideas from Jason Stevens, Vince, and Phil who all brought up legitimate concerns. Together we can grow airhocky. Or we can keep doing what we're doing and we'll have the same thing we have now until air hockey goes away.

carolina phil - 19 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 1084

We may be on the verge of finding a system that works for players who have issues with this or that mathmatical component of former proposals. So, in that spirit, let's move forward in a positive direction as our VP Goran works creatively and flexibily with the various concerns.

Phil

ajflanagan - 19 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 509

Great post Nick! I couldn't have said it better myself.

Phil, for the record, nothing has fundamentally changed with the rating system. With the addition of the +1 "leap frog" clause, suddenly you are on board. That's great, but that clause would rarely, if ever, come into play since most of the time a lower rated player defeating a higher rated player will end up with the higher rating of the two players. Without a doubt, you have been the strongest supporter of the old fashioned ranking system. Does this mean the debate is over?

tableman - 19 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 690

I think what's being overlooked is that the Ranking system is designed to reflect the latest, most up-to-date measure of a player's skill and place in the pack. In other words: what have you done for me lately? Whereas the Rating system is designed to reflect a player's ability over a long period of time, not just how he's playing today.

So for that and other reasons, the Rating system can be inaccurate, as can the Ranking system in some circumstances. A few examples:

Pedro Otero is Rated above Goran, myself, Evan Siegworth, Phil, Mike Thomas, etc. Pedro hasn't played for - what - 5 years? He may well still be a great player, or, he may be fat, slow, and old now. His Rating is really a wild guess.

Michael O'Rourke, for some reason, is Rated above myself, Goran, and the other players I mentioned above. Not only is O'Rourke retired for many years, but I don't think he ever finished ahead of me in a National tournament, nor possibly Phil. Would you really bet on O'Rourke today to beat me, Goran, Evan, Phil, or Thomas?

Randall Leistikow and Donovan Brown both beat me in Houston and, rightfully, are Ranked above me. I consider that they have passed me by, despite an injury which hampered my practice time. On the Table, at the Worlds, they played better than me, and I have to catch up to them. And yet, I am still rated well above Randall and Donovan. Again, the Rating system incorporates the past, whereas the Rankings are all about Right Now.

Mark

ajflanagan - 19 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 509

I tend to think 5 years of inactivity is more than enough to consider removing someone from the ratings.

carolina phil - 20 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 1084

ajflanagan said:

Does this mean the debate is over?

It means there can be a meaningful conversation between these posters (you, Goran, Travis, Q, Nick, Billy, & Dan) who are actively lobbying for the Mitic ratings and those non posters who may be content with the traditional system and others who want some kind of improvements on both.

Some of the non posters are probably under the wrong impression that the Mitic system does not demand that the challenger always takes the ranking, rating, and seeding of the loser. This misconception probably arose due to the Mitic's original rules which probably did not weight challenge matches as much as now. I can convey this corrected information to the body politic who are directly impacted by it, and it may generate questions, specific feedback, and perhaps a concensus from a broad player base, such as:

Hynes, Danny
Shoukry, Ehab
Parmley, Dave
Cain, Joe
Green, Chris
Stucky, John
Morris, Tony
Davis Huynh
Parra, August
Robbins, Mark
Rosen, Michael
Ortiz, Albert
Forest, Chuck,
Accrocco, Brian
Mark Butler
Lee, Chris
Schappell, Vince
Stevens, Jason
Thomas, Mike
Keith Garcia
Mitchell, John
Fletcher, Keith
Nizzi, Mark
Britton, James
Gibson, Tad
Brown, Donovan
Britton, James
Flannagan, Nikki
Garcia, Lazarro
Sherman, Jason
Mora, Jose
Upchurch, Wil
Baldus, Tom
Rahman, Syed
et.al.

fractalzoom - 20 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 201

Hey Mark,

I think you bring up a good point. One of the things that we've discussed in the ratings committee is how much you'd need to play to maintain your rating. Just like you can't hold on to your rank forever, Goran has tossed up some ideas for the Mitic rating as well. We can make it such that if you don't play, your points deteriorate and after time, your name will be dropped entirely.

Randal is currently rated very low because he has very few sets recorded. Donovan has *just* started to rise and had a great tournament. He's lost a bunch of sets to Mike C, and lost to Q 4-0 in a challenge set not long ago, and then I beat him 4-0. Don had his highest finish, and you had your lowest. Both are slight aberrations - and your ratings reflect this. Don could also be a case where he matches up well against you. You give me tons of trouble, but I don't think I've lost more than a single set to Donovan.

travis - 20 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 530

carolina phil said:

ajflanagan said:

Does this mean the debate is over?

I can convey this corrected information to the body politic who are directly impacted by it, and it may generate questions, specific feedback, and perhaps a concensus from a broad player base, such as:

Hynes, Danny
Shoukry, Ehab
...

Feel free... the more input, the better. So far, it seems like a vast majority of the dozen or so people discussing this topic on the forums prefer the rating system.

Travis Luscombe
AirHockeyWorld.com Webmaster
http://twitter.com/air_hockey

tableman - 21 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 690

fractalzoom said:

Hey Mark,

Don had his highest finish, and you had your lowest. Both are slight aberrations - and your ratings reflect this. Don could also be a case where he matches up well against you. You give me tons of trouble, but I don't think I've lost more than a single set to Donovan.

I wish that were the case - but I beat Donovan handily the previous two times we played. :( That's why he spent every night for the past year studying tapes of me, improving his defense, and dreaming of revenge. :)

Mark

carolina phil - 22 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 1084

Ahhhh, self revelation. So, that's what you did to ole Carolina to take that set in Houston.

sjrbat - 22 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 527

Ratings and Rankings (Danny and I discussed this the other day and here are some of our thoughts)

There will never be a system that will make everybody happy. Rankings at times can be too subjective resulting in players seeded above or below where they should be.
I think both systems have a similar flaw. A player out of nowhere who does not have access to a large player base will be ranked or rated lower than he is supposed to be.
Danny believes that Ratings should be used mainly at tournament play and there should be a consistent number of tournaments that all players can have access to. He also thinks that the Ratings sets and games are just practice and should not be counted towards any point differentials.
I think that tournament play should be prioritized tremendously over any other play. I know that it already has a bigger weight but maybe it should be more. I personally do not mind having Rating sets, but having rating single games should be deleted from the system.
I also have a concern over our traditional Challenge Match system if the Ratings are all we would use. Since it is and will be hard to have a consistent number of tournaments any time soon, challenge matches make the time in between exciting. Watching Danny vs. Nizzi is fun and keeps the blood boiling for more air-hockey. In the Ratings system, there will be no change in spots if a challenge match is played, only a number of points gained or lost.
There also has been talk of losing points if a player is inactive. How does that differ from the Rankings system? Isnt the 3 1/2 rule the same ? And wouldn't that lead to the same problems we have now?
See, both systems have some of the same flaws. I do not think one is overwhelming better than the other. Rankings give us a more current accurate picture and Ratings gives us an overall picture.
Another issue I see is that, all the Ratings sets being played are usually in Chicago, Denver, and a few players in Houston. The players on this forum who are backing this system need to play more sets and back it up (Phil, Andrew, Travis, etc). Top players have to also play (Danny, Ehab, Davis, etc).
Another topic I saw was rating the weekly handi-capped tournaments. I totally disagree with that idea. Weekly tournaments are for fun and practicing new shots and should not be given any serious consideration for Rating points.

Thats it for now.....
Take care....
Syed

goran - 22 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 428

The current rankings is not an accurate snap shot of anything. Its a tournament finish. Same thing for state tournaments. Remember when Danny was #4 in Texas, but #1 in the world. What planet are those other 3 guys from. Dropping inactive players 10% is an incentive to keep playing throughout the year. They become inactive and have to reestablish so it wont effect anyone. Its also a 1 time penalty where the 3 plus. 5 goes for every nationals missed. So Andy would be seeded 35.5 oh wait we move him up because he's an ultra pro. Challenge sets are not practice. Practice sets are practice. Challenge games are for beginners, not for you Syed.

ajflanagan - 22 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 509

I would encourage you and Danny (and others) to engage in a conversation with someone who knows more about the purpose and intent of the rating system. You can't form a clear opinion with misunderstood "facts".

The purpose of these online discussions in not only to educate, but also to find holes in both systems so that adjustments can be made.

One thing you are correct about... the rating system needs to remove as much subjectivity as possible. The diminished points for inactivity makes no sense. That is not an objective measure of skill. If someone has been away long enough that we feel we need to take away points, then they should simply be removed from the list.

One thing your are wrong about... the current ranking system is NOT an accurate snapshot of the relative skill levels of players around the world. It is an accurate snapshot of the results of one double elimination tournament. Nothing more and nothing less. If it were a 4 day round robin, I might agree that it is a relatively accurate snapshot... it's not. In a double elim tournament, the results weigh HEAVILY on seeding. If the seeding isn't fair and consistant, then the results are not either.

If the current system were completely accurate, then wouldn't the results from Vegas '11 and Houston '11 be identical? No... because you are not measuring relative skill level. You are displaying the results of a double elim tournament with an entirely different selection of players.

goran - 22 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 428

I encourage anyone in favor of the current ranking system to put together a committee to improve the seeding done by rankings, how to handle inactive players and new or unknown players. We are working on the rating system and the full set of rules will be posted soon and submitted to the USAA to replace the current ranking system. The rating system can handle and will encourage growth, the ranking system can not. There is no comparison.

goran - 22 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 428

14 out of 19 perfer to move forward with the ratings, would like to hear from everyone else. Rosen, Davis, Nizzi, Fletcher, Danny, Ehab, Tim?

goran - 22 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 428

sjrbat said:

I also have a concern over our traditional Challenge Match system if the Ratings are all we would use. Since it is and will be hard to have a consistent number of tournaments any time soon, challenge matches make the time in between exciting. Watching Danny vs. Nizzi is fun and keeps the blood boiling for more air-hockey. In the Ratings system, there will be no change in spots if a challenge match is played, only a number of points gained or lost.
Syed

Danny is so far ahead of the field, the only way to pass him is to beat him a challenge match. If someone can beat Danny a challenge match they would move to #1 and Danny would drop to #2 in the ratings. Challenge matches are still very important for the rating system.

Mike C - 23 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 459

As far as weeklies are concerned, I believe someone should have the option to make the weekly 2 of 3 match a ratings set. If for instance I am playing you, Brian, Fernando, August in a weekly, I'm not working on 'new' shots or trying new things, I'm going for the win and so is my opponent. If my opponent and I agree to make it into a rating match, then that should be encouraged and the person scoring the weekly should be able to capture the rating set. (this is on Travis list somewhere with 1000 other things)

If I'm playing 8 year old Bilal Shoukry (as an example), I'm not going to play him for ratings points and try to pound him into submission. I may try different shots with him or other lesser players, but we want to encourage him to learn new techniques etc. also and not make it all about gaining points.

goran - 23 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 428

I agree with Mike, if both players agree, the match should count for ratings.

First | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Last

Forums Home / Tournaments and Challenges / Rating Vs Ranking

HOME | SPONSORS | PRIVACY POLICY | TERMS OF USE