Forums Home / Tournaments and Challenges / Changes to rating system (
View Older Thread |
View Newer Thread)
First |
1 | 2 |
Last
| goran
- 13 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 428
|
| Looping is taking a series of matches and rerunning them with rating adjustments. If someone plays 10 matches, you can loop them as if they repeated the same 10 matches with the same results. The larger the sample size, the less the varience. For example you don't want to loop only 2-3 matches because the chance of upsets and with all wins or all losses, the rating wont be accurate. With a very large sample size, you can loop the results as many times as you want and will end up with the same rating. Tournaments are good matches to loop, because you can't choose your opponents, and you lose at least twice. Good candidates for looping are establishing players, and those who played establishing players.
|
|
|
| jasonstevens
- 13 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 176
|
Goran:
Are there any other little-known things that most people don't know about?
Where are all the rules/guidelines of the Mitic system posted?
|
|
|
|
| goran
- 13 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 428
|
jasonstevens said: Goran:
Are there any other little-known things that most people don't know about?
Where are all the rules/guidelines of the Mitic system posted? |
The rating committee is working on them, we should have a full set of rules by the end of the year. Were working on ways to handle establishing players and retired players. Other rules are needed to capture accurate skill levels for the amount of air hockey that is played today. The rating system is very accurate in the long run, but we need some tweeks to make it more accurate in the short run.
|
|
|
| ajflanagan
- 13 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 509
|
brain said: 1) 2) Why again can we not take weekly tournament matches with a point spot as even? If I spot a beginner 5, the idea is that makes the match even. Why not treat that match as 2 masters playing? It raises the zero to my level. Point spots are designed to create balance. That should be easy to encapsulate.
|
A level 0 spotting you 5 points in a weekly IS IN NO WAY the same as you facing a Master with no point spot.
Remember, the handicap system is a marketing tool. At the moment, apparently, it is based entirely on what you, Brian Accrocco, feels is an appropriate skill level for a player. There is no committee. There is no analysis. There is no list of guidelines. You say someone is a level 4 and that's what they are. Fair? Not by a long shot. But the marketing function of the system has been very successful in building the largest player base in the World.
If anything at all, Handicapped weeklies should have a fraction of a fraction weighted value in the system. Or only matchups that are played straight up with point spots... but that makes reporting more complicated.
|
|
|
| Mike C
- 13 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 459
|
I agree with the idea of capturing the weekly matches if the point spots are withdrawn or there are no point spots. I am not a fan of putting in a formula to make a level 0 match vs a level 6 a rated match. When I just started, I had enough athletic ability to beat Syed, Danny, Brian on a regular basis. The only reason I was a 0 was because I was a beginner. It is and continues to be frustrating to the level 4s, 5s and 6s when someone with decent athletic ability comes in and pounds a champion. It would be even more frustrating and discouraging for these players if they knew their match against a 0 had an impact on their rating. As I learned, won and moved up to level 2, 3 etc. my skill level followed along with it and the top players breathed sighs of relief. The same with Colin, and now neither of us want points from anyone in weeklies and would enjoy playing 2 of 3 rating games against these individuals.
The handicap system is a good system because it levels the playing field for beginners against some of the greatest players in the game. Although Brian makes the ultimate decision to move players from 0 to 1, 2, 3 and 4 etc. he asks for and receives a lot of feedback and communication from other professionals to change their rating. A player can move to level 1 and 2 very easily by winning a weekly which is not an easy thing to accomplish. Moving to level 3 takes a lot of dedication and success and then the move to level 4 almost takes the ultimate sacrifice and success. Colin is a level 4 and he earned that level and Brian sought out others including myself, Anthony, Albert, Syed, Jason Sherman and others before his promotion. Colin has set a goal to get to level 5 and we all know what it will take for him to get there. It won't take a marketing scheme or Brian's decision, but a top 10 finish in a sanctioned event to be in the top 10. We all use the handicap as a measurement tool much like the rating system and the weekly point system we use to seed the weekly tournaments.
Another player that is real close to moving to level 4 is Justin Flores. He's won 3 times this year, but it is not as easy as saying, 'you are a 4 to be made a level 4.'
I'm not certain where it is, probably in the USAA section or other media, there is a list or guideline as to what constitutes a level 1 thru 5 and it is respected and followed pretty closely.
As I mentioned earlier, I am a fan of the rating system to be a useful tool to measure the skill level of players. In seeding a tournament it should be used in conjunction with other measurment tools that are available.
|
|
|
|
| Mike C
- 13 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 459
|
This is the basic skills level information on AHWorld pubished years ago.
How do skill levels work? (top)
We currently categorize our players into 7 groups. We use these groupings to set up handicaps for the weekly tournaments in order to make the matches more exciting (and to make the better players work harder!)
Beginner (Level 0) - Beginners usually can be spotted by the way they hold the mallet with their hand over the top. These players are brand new to the sport, or haven't had much experience with competitive play.
Novice (Level 1) - Novices have a better understanding of the general strategy of offense, but defense and puck-handling usually still needs a lot of work. Winning your first weekly tournament as a Beginner will almost always promote you to a Novice.
Amateur (Level 2) - Amateurs can control the puck and have decent offense, but they still have holes in their defense that most skilled players can exploit.
Expert (Level 3) - Experts start honing in their defense, and lose the puck a lot less than Amateurs. They learn the value of puck possession, and can execute a couple of offensive shots fairly well. The major lacking quality is consistancy - Experts will have good and bad streaks.
Professional (Level 4) - Professionals have fairly consistant defense, and have expanded their offense to include both side rails. Mental endurance is developing, and puck control is there. Pros (and sometimes Experts) will start to examine the other players for weaknesses, and learn how to adapt their offense to break through their opponent's defense.
Master (Level 5) - Few people attain this level of play. Shots are crisp, accurate, and consistant. Defense is solid and consistant. Shot selection varies enough to prevent the opponent from predicting on defense. Masters are hard to beat, even with luck. Masters are usually the "dark horses" for winning a World Championship.
Grandmaster (Level 6) - There are only a couple players that have obtained this ranking, two of them have won multiple World Championships. They can beat the Masters more often than not, and are usually a threat to win a World Championship.
In Houston, we use the Levels to determine how many points someone has to spot in each game. So if you were to come into a Weekly as a Beginner and you had to play an Expert, he would have to spot you three points each game (the difference between your skill levels). Each game would start out 3-0 in your favor, and the first to get to 7 points wins the game.
|
|
|
| Darth_Wafu
- 14 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 117
|
I think the rating system, once it is used more regularly, could be an excellent tool for determining a player's handicap. For example, 1200 and below is novice, 1200-1300 is beginner, 1300-1500 is amateur, 1500-1700 is expert, 1700-2000 is pro, and 2000 and above is ultra pro/master.
As for Brian's idea about having handicapped matches count for rating, I think we could make that work. My concern would be possibly having less highly rated players attend weekly tournaments for fear of losing points to a low rated player. However, to the contrary, highly rated players would also be able to gain points by defeating low rated players. In the end I am confident it would turn out right, but I would imagine discouraging participation in the early stages of trying it would be the last thing anyone wants.
Nick Geoffroy
|
|
|
|
| jasonstevens
- 14 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 176
|
Darth_Wafu said: I think the rating system, once it is used more regularly, could be an excellent tool for determining a player's handicap. For example, 1200 and below is novice, 1200-1300 is beginner, 1300-1500 is amateur, 1500-1700 is expert, 1700-2000 is pro, and 2000 and above is ultra pro/master.
As for Brian's idea about having handicapped matches count for rating, I think we could make that work. My concern would be possibly having less highly rated players attend weekly tournaments for fear of losing points to a low rated player. However, to the contrary, highly rated players would also be able to gain points by defeating low rated players. In the end I am confident it would turn out right, but I would imagine discouraging participation in the early stages of trying it would be the last thing anyone wants. |
using the rating system to determine pro/expert/master etc. will not work unles everyone plays a whole bunch more than they do.
Would you really rate me a amateur?
|
|
|
|
| Mike C
- 14 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 459
|
It's harsh to label players as begin/amateur etc. In the list we would have a former world champion as an amateur. Using the Ratings Nick labeled as Levels 0 - 5: the seeding for a Houston weekly would look like this CURRENTLY:
0 Under 1200, 1's 1200 - 1300, 2's 1300-1500, 3's 1500-1700, 4's 1700-2000 and 5's 2000 and above
0's Connor Cummings, Justin Williams, Chris Gibson, Vic Green, AJ Ortiz, Frank Perez, Steven Accrocco, Tory Evans, Marc Sandlin, Frances Pollo, Johnny Rivera, Alva Coto
1's Niki Flanagan, Colin Cummings, Jacob Weissman, Justin Flores, Lorene Shoukry, Jason Rios, Peter Cheung, Anthony Munez
2's Robert Hernandez, Keith Garcia, Jason Stephans, Mike Cummings, Peter Lippincott, Avery Yebernesky, Lazaro Garcia, Jason Stevens, Tom Baldus
3's Jason Sherman, Fernando Guillen, Donovan Brown, Ramiro Castano, Andrew Flanagan, Tad Gibson, Phil Arnold, Evan Siegworth
4's Syed Rahman, Travis Luscombe, Albert Ortiz, August Parra, Vince Schappell
5's Anthony Marino, Brian Accrocco, Tim Weissman, Jose Mora, Ehab Shoukry, Danny Hynes
This list will change as more matches including weekly matches are captured. We have the data from all the old weeklies. If we are going to use weeklies as a part of the calculation could we go back a year or two and tighten up the actual ratings of the Houston players. Otherwise Niki, Justin and Colin are going to win a lot of money! Justin and Colin have already won a lot of money in weeklies as level 3's.
I am in favor of a rating system, but until we start capturing the matches into the rating system then the ratings are inaccurate. Much like when golf went from a simple handicap system to a slope and rating system to establish a handicap rate, there were a lot of headaches to overcome the calculation. Members of the USGA pay an annual fee to get their rating calculated and without their handicap rating players cannot enter USGA events.
|
|
|
|
| goran
- 14 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 428
|
1099 and below beginner
1100-1199 novice
1200-1299 amature
1300-1499 expert
1500-1799 pro
1800-1999 ultra pro
2000-2099 master
2100 and above master elite
If your not in the classification you feel you belong in, play more and record your sets.
I know I will.
|
|
|
|
| Mike C
- 14 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 459
|
We need to capture more games and sets. Colin is on the table more than anyone else in the game. It's good to be a kid! 
|
|
|
|
| Darth_Wafu
- 14 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 117
|
The numbers I threw out were just numbers I made up off the top of my head. I wasn't suggesting we use those numbers. It is your weekly tournament, you can use whatever numbers you like. I was merely pointing out it would be a good tool to determine what someone's handicap should be.
Furthermore, isn't it pretty sad that our "professional" level players don't even bother to play enough to have a decently accurate rating. One of the things the rating system is trying to accomplish is to encourage more play, something for which we clearly have a dire need.
Nick Geoffroy
|
First |
1 | 2 |
Last
Forums Home / Tournaments and Challenges / Changes to rating system
|
|
