We could always use Pinball Map data to periodically send them a list of locations with, say, four or more machines (assuming 4+ represents a possible desire to hold tourneys).
I enjoy listening to Bruce state incorrect things as fact, and then double down that he knows what he’s talking about when Ron questions him with an “Are you sure?”
@pinwizj can you give a brief explanation of how ratings currently work? They seem all over the place.
The best explanation I can use is to copy/paste what PAPA did with their PARS system, since we pretty much copied what they did using tournament results as the data rather than head-to-head matches:
It uses the Glicko algorithm, a sophisticated method of interpreting competitive play and determining how accurate player ratings are at any given time. The same algorithm is widely used in the chess community, as well as for many online gaming systems. The essence of the system is this: When you win, you gain rating points. When you lose, you lose rating points. How many points each player gains or loses depends on the quality of each opponent. If you beat a great player, you stand to gain a lot of points. The more you play, the more accurate everyone’s rating becomes.
If your question is currently how we’re using the IFPA tournament data to calculate that Glicko Rating, it’s easiest for me to use an example:
For purposes of the IFPA Rating calculation, it looks at these results as a bunch of simulated head-to-head matches, so it sees you in first place and does the following:
Erik Wurtenberger d. Larry Smith (1-0)
Erik Wurtenberger d. Casey Rice (1-0)
Erik Wurtenberger d. Rob Uzzolino (1-0)
So you in essence “won” 30 matches that day. Your IFPA Rating increased by 58 points that day.
If I look at Larry Scott from the same event, he finished tied for 8th. The system looks at that as him losing to the 7 players above him, finishing with a draw to the two other players that finished in 8th, and defeating the 20 players below him. (20-7-2 record)
Larry’s IFPA Rating increase by 3 points that day from that activity. Even though he went 20-7 as a record, he only beat one player rated higher than him while losing to 3 players rated lower than him. The Glicko Algorithm values all of those matches individually so the credit Larry got for defeating a bunch of players rated in that 1000-1200 range didn’t do much to boost his own rating for those wins.
We actually limit the number of simulated matches that count for any one tournament result. It’s limited to the closest 32 players that you finish higher and lower than. So if your Cincy League had 100 players and you won, your record would be 32-0 with “wins” coming from the players that finished in 2nd through 32nd place. You wouldn’t get any credit for “beating” the players that finished in 33rd through 100th place. This was to limit the volatility of the Ratings calculation from any one result.
Great explanation. Thanks so much.
No way. Lying and making up names to jack up the points? It would take some type of sneaker to do that
Will Challenges have to be separate from any other IFPA-sanctioned event, or can they include games from a tournament or league?
They would have to be separate outside of any IFPA-sanctioned play.
So head to head matches are the only things that will affect rating? So it will either hit wpprs or rating from now on?
I think it’s more like: head to head matches in 2018 will affect rating, as will your placement relative to the 32 players closest to you in IFPA sanctioned events.
This is exactly right.
The IFPA Rating will still incorporate the data that it’s been using for the past 5 years. In addition, the Challenge Match data will be used in the calculation as well.
Follwing up on challenge matches: Trying to get an idea of the interest for running these through Match Play. Go vote if you are reasonably certain you’d like to do Challenge Matches through Match Play: https://matchplay.uservoice.com/forums/595996-general/suggestions/19325101-add-challenge-matches-quick-head-to-head-match-up
Maybe I’m missing something, I don’t see what value this would add, unless you want to use matchplay to randomly assign machines?
Fun way to keep track, for one
Yup. See historical records (with game scores and individual results) and a way to keep track of who your friends are playing.
Ditto for Des Moines.
Digging this back up from April…
It appears that if we keep the same NEPL structure, the new IFPA/SCS/WPPR plan is to have all NEPL SCS points go only to Connecticut, and to have all NEPL SCS fees [~$700 x .75] go to the CT SCS finals.
Regardless of the reasons for this change, I think that dropping this news today doesn’t allow the NEPL admins time to restructure things or at least have a non-rushed discussion to figure out what we want to do moving forward.
@pinwizj, absent a reasonable timeframe, I’d ask that we be able to hold you to what you wrote above for the 2018 season.
I can take this offline with the NEPL organizers but there are issues presenting themselves that I can’t ignore.
I’m already hearing about the potential for the other leagues to intentionally hold a session across state lines for the sole purpose of getting players SCS points in Multiple states, especially states where that league result alone can qualify more players from that specific league.
There’s no doubt the counting in multiple states gives players a better chance to make ANY SCS. Anyone that doesn’t play in the NEPL has a lesser chance at qualifying than a player that does for any of those given states.
At this point it was unclear to me if NEPL was proceeding with IFPA sanctioning at all for 2018 with dollargate.
I’ve emailed with James about some potential solutions and would be more than happy to work this out with you guys.
Probably the way to go. I dug up this info because I was trying to figure out where we had left things (and why I was proceeding with the understanding that fees would be split among the states).
Attention leagues that are planning on doing this: You are corny.
If non-Josh told this to Josh, I think Josh would tell non-Josh that an analysis would show that the actual, practical effects of this situation on the 16-player SCS fields in the New England states has been minimal. I haven’t done the analysis, but I know we’ve seen an average of 1.5 out-of-state players in VT’s championship each year. And any of this “migration” is always from players toward the bottom of the field, where simply playing a few more monthly or other non-NEPL events here would mean the local player would have been able to participate.
James emailed the admins to relay this info. I think an email discussion that includes you is probably our best bet. Personally, I’d like to hear the details of these potential solutions – other than the “CT players take all of my players’ money” one.