Well we are in the same boat! My 82nd in main and 92nd in classics (OUCH) at my first Chicago Expo really stings right now.
Quote pinwizj
This leaves 20% of the top 500 that play in more than the average number of events, and play them at an efficiency rate that is less than the top 500 average. At some point is it fair to say that those players are over-ranked based on their level of play with respect to their top 500 peers?
YES!
Where does Trent 3 fall?
2 Likes
I just copy and paste directly from matchplay! So easy. Only hiccup is that ifpa and matchplay disagree on finishing position for tied players, but at least the submission page does the math for me! thanks @Shep!
1 Like
Thatâs too awesome to not calculate at some point . . . that day is NOT today 
How would you implement it differently?
That would be awesome, but would be a TON of work. I mean, a ton of fucking work. Iâve had these conversations with some folks in the past (e.g, submit full Bracketloupe results), but not for rankings purposes, more for a clearinghouse data for tournaments.
3 Likes
Someday Iâll have it fix âVanity tiesâ into what they really are
1 Like
Vanity ties makes people feel better about their results. They will be more likely to return and play more tournaments. Vanity ties is the only true way forward for this hobby. 
1 Like
Confirmed that Eff% is based on your âactiveâ results . . . so a 3 year rolling period.
One more thing ⌠the Eff % rule would make it beneficial for many players to skip PAPA A. Itâs lots of points, but for those with a small chance of winning, theyâd hurt their rank. In general, players would be better off skipping top-heavy events of any kind where their results are likely to be below their average eff%. Not what we want to encourage.
1 Like
Thatâs only the case if the player is playing enough points worth of events to cross that âminimum thresholdâ of what we would expect from a top player. 1234 is an arbitrary number based on the top 250 average. We could move that number up to ensure that weâre only hitting the egregious âoverplayersâ . . . or use a fixed percentage instead of a playerâs Eff % as the âcost of living adjustmentâ percentage.
Although I would be amused to see people that are:
- Ranked so high by their overplaying that they canât play PAPA B division due to the WPPR restriction rules
while also
- So concerned about their Eff % that they then donât play PAPA A and sit it out
POWER OF THE WPPR
2 Likes
Iâm thinking of people near the IFPA cutoff.
Those that play in IFPA should want to play in PAPA A regardless of everything in life . . . including when your children are born
4 Likes
Ultimately though would even this change make a difference in the global acceptance of the system?
Iâm gonna say . . . not a chance.
You guys in the UK are already ânot playing enoughâ judging by the average of a top 250 ranked player. By restricting the advantage that players have by playing over this average, I canât imagine the UK player base going âNow THIS I can work withâ.
Martin Ayub - would go from 38th to 34th in the world
Craig Pullen - would go from 72nd to 58th in the world
Greg Mott - would go from 96th to 97th in the world
Peter Blakemore - would go from 99th to 186th in the world
David Mainwaring - would go from 103rd to 253rd in the world
Matt Vince - would go from 123rd to 103rd in the world
Wayne Johns - would go from 331st to 316th in the world
I chalk up most of that to âit doesnât matterâ.
Peter and David get slammed, and maybe that supports the argument that guys like Wayne and Matt are âbetter than themâ . . . but does it really change anything on a global scale with respect to the support of the system?
I find the analysis on this entertaining, and there are certainly people that I look at and go âYeah thatâs f*cking right! Get your sorry over-ranked ass down where you belong!â But a majority of the people move up or down some small amount with the foundation of the system not really being changed.
The thought process I often see from people like Wayne, or the group of guys in Australia with a similar argument is that their opinion is formed by not being able to play as much as the âtop guysâ who have played their way to the top through so many events. If only I lived in New York . . . then I would be King . . . and thatâs just not true (at least not true based on any actual resumes of players).
If anything itâs been educational to see that you guys are mostly not even playing to the level of an âaverage top 500 playerâ let along the âtop guysâ (I had NO IDEA before actually looking at those numbers).
At some point the response of PLAY MORE OFTEN is the only answer I have for you guys.
It is fun to play with math though
1 Like
Forgot to do the standard lookup . . .
Bob drops 17 spots in the âTrueRankâ listing 
Surprisingly Iâve heard from one person privately that DROPS in the listing and also thinks this would be a GOOD change . . . a rare breed indeed!
Oh yeah, and for the record I f*cking hate this change . . .because I drop 6 spots of course
So what is the actual formula for EFF %? Is it the average of % for every event or is it the total number of points earned at all events over the last 3 years / the possible points to earn?
There are a lot of tests I would like to run.
Your best 20 events * your EFF % at your last 20 events
Your best 20 events * your EFF % at your 20 most Efficient results
The highest WPPR total that would be your best 20 events * your EFF % in just those events (aka recursive hell nightmare mode)
Linear decay on weighting of EFF % on results over the last X years.
then seeing the results of these Iâd try to run more 
Itâs [TOTAL POINTS EARNED FOR PLAYER] / [TOTAL POINTS FOR 1ST PLACE IN THOSE EVENTS], set to a rolling period of 3 years from the current date.
Your tests are awesome . . . and include far too much work because it then becomes a dynamic script where you have to analyze only certain results for players within that time period based on additional criteria . . . so that wonât be happening
I can change the period easily because itâs just one number in the script setting the âintervalâ to whatever I want.
Other than that thereâs not much to play around with that wonât require a TON of Shepherdâs time . . . and heâs not high on this proposal at all with respect to it really making a significant difference to the rankings one way or the other.
I can tell you that your Eff % with a 1-year window goes up from 16.59% to 19.47%.
Mine goes down from 38.82% to 36.01%, so of course the 1-year window analysis is complete bullsh*t
I agree.
I donât think those changes would all of a sudden please everyone. If that is the aim, then itâs clearly not worth the time to implement this change. However, I donât think pleasing everyone is at the top of your agenda 
I just think the eff% and rating data (when correct 
has formed a useful tool and would like to see them implemented in the overall ranking in some way. I also like the idea that you are accountable every time you play, rather than thinking I can just throw that shit result away and it wonât have any impact on me.
Ultimately though, you are clearly right (the data makes it clear, and very interesting, I had no idea I played less than the average in the top 500 players!), in order to move up the rankings you need to play more. If you canât play more, donât moan about not moving up the rankings.
IMO the results are not shocking at all. If the UK canât get together 64 players to run full-point formats at least a few times a year, wellâŚare you surprised that you canât be ranked that highly? If you could be ranked that highly without doing that, the system would be broken beyond all hope of repair. Grow the scene, put on more events, or accept that you will need to travel more to have a higher ranking. Even if we say that every 64 player full point tournament is a flat 32 points (which it wouldnât be), you only need to win what, 5 of those a year to get into the top 50 or so? It sucks that thereâs not enough data to really accurately rank UK players on a global scale, but as long as the UK tournaments keep using bonkers formats or have low attendance thatâs a problem that tautologically cannot be fixed without either breaking the system for everyone else OR switching to full TGP formats / increasing the player pool.
Its a double elimination tournament!
âŚBut if you lose once, the best place you can get is thirdâŚ