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

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?

Current Ranking System - Mouseover to see Voters

Current Rating System - Mouseover to see Voters

Current Ranking System but with modifications - Mouseover to see Voters

Current Rating System but with modifications - Mouseover to see Voters

Doesn't Matter - Mouseover to see Voters

ajflanagan - 23 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 509

Now you guys are getting into complicated territory... should it count? does it count? do you want it to count? do I want it to count? Wait, that match counted but this one didn't? Did you report that match before I played this match?

In order to be marketable to the masses, it needs to be easy to understand and easy to implement. The matches either count or they don't in a given competition. That should be determined by the promoter or host of the event.

I'm leaning toward Syed on this one. A regular weekly is traditionally not held in the same regard as a real tournament by the higher players. It's sort of a way to keep in practice... have some fun... hang out. It's a social event and a promotional opportunity to grow the local player base. I can tell you that I hardly ever give 110% at a weekly. A lot of players don't. There's not as much on the line. If ratings were on the line, would it make a difference? Probably.

When I was hosting events at Kicks, we did a "Super Weekly" every few months. A random draw, no handicap event with a little more money on the line. Perhaps something like this would work in Houston. But mixing handicapped and non-handicapped matches into the rating system is just messy.

Leaving it to the players to pick and choose which matchups will count and which won't sort of defeats the purpose of a pure and objective system. If it's a tournament style event, I feel the promoter / organizer should decide if the matches will be official.

Mike C - 23 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 459

Does that mean that people that practice on Thursday night at SRO are not allowed to play ratings sets? Should it count or shouldn't it count? It's not an official event on Thursday nights but people should have the ability to count it as a rating match or as a practice set. It's up to the 2 people involved. At the weeklies even though Andrew or Syed may not be playing hard should not have any impact on whether Doug Taylor wants to play me in a 2 out of 3 ratings set if both of us agree before hand. The idea is to capture sets for rating purposes whether in competition or not.

ajflanagan - 23 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 509

I was specifically referring to tournament style events. Individual challenge matches, challenge sets and games are up to the players' discretion whether they report them or not. A tournament should be left to the organizer to decide the format, seeding method, whether they are looking for sanctioning, ratings, etc. Furthermore, the organizer/host should be responsible for reporting the official match scores from those events. It shouldn't be left to the individual players within a tourament style event to choose which matches they want to report and which ones they don't.

In that regard, this would include local weeklies. If the guys in Dallas wanted to hold a weekly, then they need to see if their format is acceptable within whatever guidelines are created for the Rating System (ie non-handicapped). Our weeklies in Houston are more of a promotional and social event. Yes, they are competitive. Yes, some people play very hard. But the outcome of the matches weighs heavily on the handicap system... a system that isn't completely fair.

Remember, the handicap system was implemented to create as level a playing field as possible for NEWCOMERS. The system weighs heavily in their favor. It is not a system that caters to Pros and Masters. It's a promotional tool... and a tool that works very well. But it's not a fair and balanced way to judge the relative skill levels of players.

So... NO... I feel handicapped weeklies should NOT count toward the ratings.

Mike C - 23 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 459

Tournaments are used towards rating currently. I agree with the idea that no handicaps should be used in rating sets for weeklies if both players agree to play it as a 2 of 3 rating set.

ajflanagan - 23 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 509

I think you completely missed my point.

Q - 23 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 497

Tournaments are used towards rating currently. I agree with the idea that no handicaps should be used in rating sets for weeklies if both players agree to play it as a 2 of 3 rating set.

I may have missed both of you and Andrew's points but this is my opinion based upon your guys' messages:

A tournament doesn't necessarily have to have the scores reported for Mitic points (e.g. in the case of the Houston weeklies, it wouldn't since a lot of sets have a point spot) but if players A and B happen to meet through the bracket and both say "hey, we're not playing with a point spot so let's make this sets count for rating points" it is no different than if they chose to play that game/set on their own and those matches which both players agree can be for ratings if they so choose.

Secondly, the tournament director may say that "any non-handicapped set in this tournament when 2 players of equal skill/classification are playing each other, will count for rating points". Then by playing in the tournament with those guidelines set by the tournament director you are agreeing to play for rating points where applicable by signing up under the tournament rules.

In either case it is up to the players....either they meet in a tournament, such as the Houston weekly, and decide that they want to play for rating points (as long as the game/set is not handicapped between them) or they enter a tournament
where it is established as a rule to report non-handicapped sets for rating points before entering.

ajflanagan - 24 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 509

I guess my primary point is that if we are going to build a new system, we should build a scalable system in a way that can be easily and fairly managed regardless of the number of active players.

Sure, the ratings are fairly easy to maintain currently with a relatively small active player base and only a couple of tournaments a year. On top of that, only a small handful of matches and sets are reported outside of major tournaments.

Goran mentioned a goal to have over 1000 players rated. That's a great goal... but a full time job for one man to try and keep straight. Especially when activity increases and scores are being thrown at your from every direction and you don't have a clue what is legit and what is not.

Don't build a system to support the current activity. Think big. Imagine what the sport could be and build a system to support that. We've got to build an infrastructure to make management of the ratings easier.

Yes, matches and sets outside of tournament play can be openly reported by players. I'm not disputing that at all. However, some thought needs to go into the verification process so the system is not abused.

*** On a side note, in my opinion, there was a questionable match entered just today.

I feel strongly, the easiest way to maintain some degree of legitimacy in a tournament setting is to have the tournament producer/promoter responsible for reporting match scores across the board. I imagine that should be the case regardless of the size and type of tournament so long as the tournament fits the criteria of for rated match play.

Picking a game or two out of a handicapped weekly tournament is silly and doesn't seem to add any value or legitimacy to the sport.

Mike C - 24 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 459

My 2 points
1) a goal for the rating system is to capture as many games as possible to develop as accurate a rating for each individual player. We have the technology to capture weekly matches (especially when no handicap is involved and agreed upon by both player)
2) as is the case with Golf and their handicap system, players need to pay an annual fee to have their handicap rated and captured through the recognized offices of the USGA. I don't know what the fee is today, but it used to be like $20 a year. In order to play in USGA sanctioned events a player must have a USGA handicap rate. To play in the US Open qualifier a player must have a specific handicap rate (I don't know today's rate, but it used to be under a 4.0)To become a registered USAA rated player I can imagine the USAA charging a $5 fee to have your rating captured and this could help to offset the cost a little and help legitimacy. I can also imagine tournaments with criteria someday that the only way to qualify for the World Championship you must have a rating better than X (say 1600 or 1700?)

ajflanagan - 24 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 509

My 2 points
1) a goal for the rating system is to capture as many games as possible to develop as accurate a rating for each individual player. We have the technology to capture weekly matches (especially when no handicap is involved and agreed upon by both player)

Yes, that is one goal of the system. The more data the better. However, the data needs to be somewhat pure. Individual games or short 2/3 sets taken completely out of the context of the event they are a part of hardly seems reasonable. In the grand scheme of things, a single 2/3 set has very little weight in the system anyway. If it's a tournament, I feel the entire tournament should count. I don't see how picking and choosing a set or two out of a weekly handicapped tournament is going to add to the accuracy of the system. I just can't wrap my head around how that is a good idea.

If the ratings become valuable to players, there will be more of a push to play matches and sets... and likely more local tournaments with a 4/7 non-handicapped format. There's no reason we can't run one in Houston once a month or once a quarter. We have the resources and seeding it would be a breeze with the ratings constantly updated online.

But please... let's leave the handicapped weeklies alone and let them serve their purpose.

Q - 24 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 497

I can see how picking a set or two out of a weekly tournament is going to add to the accuracy of the system. It's another data point in the system and the more data, the better. Yes it's only a best 3 of 5 set and yes that has a lower k-value than a 4 of 7 official ratings set or a set from a national/state level tournament but it's something. Focusing just on the weeklies from the input you and Mike have given about them, if one of the two players is just playing for fun, then they don't have to report the set for rating points/adjustments but if they both want to, then I can't see why not.

travis - 24 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 530

I think it should be okay to add the data from non-handicapped matchups, if it's something that can be easily switched on or off by the tournament manager without slowing down the weekly. That's something I think I can accomplish on the online tournament manager.

Right now, we need all the relevant data points we can get to make the ratings more accurate, but that wouldn't necessarily prevent us from making broader system changes later when the ratings are more stabilized. For example, we could have ratings-specific tournaments, where everone knows going in that all games will affect rating, or even have a league similar to the one Syed's setting up, but instead of saying "Pros and below", you can say "Under-2000" or "Establishing Players" round-robin.

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

travis - 24 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 530

ajflanagan said:

Yes, matches and sets outside of tournament play can be openly reported by players. I'm not disputing that at all. However, some thought needs to go into the verification process so the system is not abused.

*** On a side note, in my opinion, there was a questionable match entered just today.

I'd love to hear some ideas on how to build a verification process for entering matches. I've thought about that a lot in the past, but haven't really found any ideal solutions. The way it is right now, I have given a select few trusted people access to enter ratings. What I want to do in the future is allow ANYONE to enter a match, but it doesn't fully go into the system until it's approved by an "approver".

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

goran - 24 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 428

My idea is to let anyone enter the matches. WE can even create an ap like Chris mentioned. Any match where both players are under 1200 can automatically adjust. Any match where a player is over 1200 an email is sent to both players to confirm the match happened and the scores are correct. This is with new players starting at 1000.

carolina phil - 24 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 1084

Syed and Danny raise one point that we need to be certain about. Syed says that the Rating system might not allow a player to challenge another player for their ranking, and take it, if they win. I thought we had established beyond doubt that the winner would always remain above or go above the loser in a challenge match.

So I ask Syed, Do you and Danny understand the recent clarification that the challenger would always jump above the higher ranked player in a challenge match in the ratings system? True, that loser might drop down a few spots or points, but the challenger who wins leapfrogs over others and the loser to take a higher position on the ladder right above the player he just defeated.

Correct me if I am wrong in my understanding, guys.

Thanks,

Phil

travis - 24 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 530

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).

If, hypothetically, it was announced at the beginning of 2012 that ratings were going to be used to seed a nationals in May of 2012, then I think you would see a lot more ratings sets being played everywhere. It seems that for most of the Houston players (myself included), there is not enough incentive (little more than bragging rights at the moment) to report competitive sets. If the ratings were a more integral part of the tournament, then that would change.

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

travis - 24 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 530

carolina phil said:

I thought we had established beyond doubt that the winner would always remain above or go above the loser in a challenge match.

The idea of guaranteeing that a winner is at least one point ahead of a loser in the ratings after a challenge match is something that is on the table, yes.

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

carolina phil - 24 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 1084

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).

If, hypothetically, it was announced at the beginning of 2012 that ratings were going to be used to seed a nationals in May of 2012, then I think you would see a lot more ratings sets being played everywhere. It seems that for most of the Houston players (myself included), there is not enough incentive (little more than bragging rights at the moment) to report competitive sets. If the ratings were a more integral part of the tournament, then that would change.

I, too, would like to think it would change. However, my experience with marketing and promotions cautions against expecting a significant increase.

The reason is that people don't do things because rationally they expect to gain some benefits in the long run; otherwise there would be much fewer smokers and fat people.

They change their behavior and start playing something new because they are excited about it, lusting for big instant gains. Excitement that motivates comes from impulsive acts usually as a result of drama. It is hard to dramatize one set for X number of points. Challenge matches for huge gains and jumps are more dramatic and exciting, but even they are not played by all players.

So, a system that offers both can be marketted and promoted as having both dramatic leapfrogging and the "wagering" of a certain number of points, as in a gambling bet.

Sell the Sizzle, not the steak.

Phil

sjrbat - 24 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 527

One thing Danny and I do agree on is that the Ratings System needs to be adopted if and when the sport grows. The Ranking System can be too SUBJECTIVE at times.

Handi-capped tournaments:
The "option" of declaring your straight up match a rated set or not should be left up to the players. Only because this is IN a tournament. If those players want to play a rated set, play before or afterwards. I would not favor combining Ratings with these type of tournaments. If a promoter wants to make all those matches within a tournament Rated, that would be ok. But no "option".

Challenge Matches:
The goal of the Ratings system is to have a system with OBJECTIVITY. If this new rule is put into effect (challenger must be at least one point above the challengee if challenger wins),manipulation of the system can occur. And isn't this just copying part of the Rankings System. I would hate to see Challenge Matches go, but if the Ratings System is employed, then there shouldn't be challenge matches, only challenge sets.

Inactive Players:
I agree there should be something needs to be done about inactive players. Docking them points is a copy of the 3 1/2 rule. Let's try to think of something else.

Rated Single-Games:
Goran said that these are just for beginners. I believe this was initiated to gather more data along with getting new players to play more. I understand the thought process, but I think new players should play more sets than single games. Sets is what is used to determine the Champion of a tournament, not a single game. Single games can be won on luck or not adjusting quickly enough. In a set the luck usually evens out and the adjustments are what the new players need to learn. If these are just for beginners, than maybe there should be a cut-off of on the Rating who can play these or not.

Verification:
With the current player base we TRUST everybody that they are giving us the correct results for the Rated Sets/Games/Matches. When the sport grows, this will have to change. The more people there are the more chances of incorrect or false results. I suggest (in the future) there should be an assigned representative present for all matches/games/sets. Many games/sets/matches can be played at the same time as long as their is a representative there. (Hmmmm....sounds like a tournament). But this is waaaaaaaaaay in the future.

Side note:
Serena Williams is seeded 29th in the upcoming US OPEN. Because she was injured all year and dropped. There has been some uproar that she should be seeded higher because she is the favorite to win and already has won the event numerous times. So we are not the only sport with Rating/Ranking issues. :)

Take care.......

sjrbat - 25 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 527

Another note:

New players tend to follow what the top players are doing. Danny, Billy, Brian, Syed, August, Goran, Phil, and others have played many challenge matches the last couple of years. As you all know new players have followed that trend, Donovan, Dan, Q, Justin F., Mike C., and others. If we want the Ratings System to thrive, we all need to be proactive and play more sets to set an example. Not reactive.

Take care......

ajflanagan - 25 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 509

Another note:

New players tend to follow what the top players are doing. Danny, Billy, Brian, Syed, August, Goran, Phil, and others have played many challenge matches the last couple of years. As you all know new players have followed that trend, Donovan, Dan, Q, Justin F., Mike C., and others. If we want the Ratings System to thrive, we all need to be proactive and play more sets to set an example. Not reactive.

Take care......

Very good point. The fact is, a lot of sets and matches have been played in recent years in Houston. The matches are definitely getting reported... but the sets are definitely not.

Sy, it kinda sounds like your opinion on the ratings is coming around. It sounds as if you are leaning more toward the "ratings with some changes" option in this poll. Of all the players, I believed you would be one of the strong supporters of a rating system. I think your logic would be a good asset to the group building the system.

sjrbat - 27 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 527

Phil explained to me Goran's plan for having Challenge Matches incorporated within the Rating System. I like it. It keeps our traditional Challenge Matches into the sport and also alleviates manipulation.
So it looks like i need to change my vote.

Darth_Wafu - 27 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 117

Phil explained to me Goran's plan for having Challenge Matches incorporated within the Rating System. I like it. It keeps our traditional Challenge Matches into the sport and also alleviates manipulation.
So it looks like i need to change my vote.

Mike C - 27 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 459

I am moving towards switching my vote over AS MORE rating matches are captured and the players ratings shake out to be in line with their ability. My personal goal is to play 20 more rating sets before the end of the year along with 1 or 2 challenge matches and a local tournament.

Looking at last nights weekly there were a number of 2 of 3 matches that the players could have agreed to play (if they wanted to) as rating matches including Peter Lippincott and Justin Flores, Colin and Justin, Peter and I, Donovan and I etc. It will be good to have an option to capture those someday.

goran - 27 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 428

Once voted in, the rating system rules can be adjusted by the USAA. The rating committee is working on getting the best set of rules together to get the ratings passed. We appriciate all the feed back that has been given, even by those who oppose the system. I don't want anyone to oppose the system, but I realize you can't please everyone.

jsbritton - 27 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 421

thank you goran ... your steps are more like huge strides.

goran - 27 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 428

jsbritton said:

thank you goran ... your steps are more like huge strides.

Thank You James, Please voice your opinion on the poll above, and encourage others to do the same.

carolina phil - 27 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 1084

Some feedback I have received gets into what it means to "measure." Is the goal of a system to accurately "measure?" If we answer Yes, then we have to ask "What are we trying to measure? And why should we care?"

Should we care that someone scores more points on offense than others? Or, has allows fewer points? Or, loses fewer games when they lose a match than another player who wins more matches, but wins them 4 to 3? We could measure every game and every shot and do a calculation to determine who wins with less effort than others.

What should we care about enough to decide to measure it?

Some players make the statement: ALL THAT MATTERS IS WHO WINS THE MATCH OR THE TOURNAMENT NOW IN THE PRESENT.

If so, then we seem to be saying that power, prestige, and position in our sport comes from winning, not so much from measuring how we have won or how much we have won in the long run.

Some players want to be sure their position in seeding and ranking truly comes from what they do now when they "gear up" and take their stand at the Table. Not what they did while they were learning to become the power they are today.

They want the freedom to play and practice, but when "measured" they want it to be only those very special times when they put their "game face" on and play to win at all costs.

I think these needs must and can be major parts of a good system.

Phil

goran - 27 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 428

We crown a world champ using best 4 of 7 sets. That is our measurement. Ratings capture that. Recent history is what determines your rating and should determine your seed, not your last national finish how ever long ago that was. It looks like most agree to move forward with the ratings. The arguement can not be broken, the people have spoken Mr. President.

travis - 28 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 530

Phil explained to me Goran's plan for having Challenge Matches incorporated within the Rating System. I like it. It keeps our traditional Challenge Matches into the sport and also alleviates manipulation.
So it looks like i need to change my vote.

Sounds like I have something else to put on my to-do list... "allow vote changing". Doh!

If someone has already voted and wants to change their vote, let me know in this thread and I'll adjust it manually.

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

carolina phil - 29 Aug 2011
Total Posts: 1084

We crown a world champ using best 4 of 7 sets. That is our measurement. Ratings capture that. Recent history is what determines your rating and should determine your seed, not your last national finish how ever long ago that was. It looks like most agree to move forward with the ratings. The arguement can not be broken, the people have spoken Mr. President.

You misunderstood. I am summarizing, not arguing, saying that as we "move forward" to improve our system a number of players want to include in it a way of emphasizing current air hockey success. As Mark and others have argued the seedings don't need to be measured inaccurately by being anchored to old irrelevant data. Heavily weighting of recent events and especially match play helps. I am summarizing what I think you already agreed on. Correct me if you are not taking this imput into account.

Please don't underestimate the concerns of other players that may not post often. There are many players who are impacted and are very much concerned whether your final proposal contains the correct elements.

Many players are simply waiting to see what kind of final package you and the few others working on it with you decide to offer for consideration.

For example:

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.

First | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Last

Forums Home / Tournaments and Challenges / Rating Vs Ranking

HOME | SPONSORS | PRIVACY POLICY | TERMS OF USE