c4countdown

So in response to recent feedback on the ratings system, I've added a new and exciting Pro Ranks system which will run in parallel. Take a look, feedback welcome: Apterous Pro Ranks.

(Oh yeah, and I gave a bunch of people avatars because it makes the page prettier.)

Nice.

That kid at number 23 must be a right cock judging from his avatar.

Edit: I am very impressed by this. The top 4 or so are who I would nominate as the best players on apterous, so it seems very accurate(at least to what I think). Hopefully it will also serve as another way to monitor progress for players.
*

JackHurst wrote:Edit: I am very impressed by this. The top 4 or so are who I would nominate as the best players on apterous, so it seems very accurate(at least to what I think). Hopefully it will also serve as another way to monitor progress for players.
*

Cheers, I was quite pleased with it as well. Glicko-2 is a nice system. For those interested, here's a little historical graph of the current top 10 (click the pic if it's too narrow for you to see the legend).

This is well awesome. I also liked all the avatars, especially when I was scrolling down and confronted with unexpectedly large versions of DoD and Corby.

Looks like Craig (Beevers) needs to play some more humans if he wants to be considered top dog again.

Well done to Chris Maudsley on breaking the top ten.

Jon Corby wrote:Well done to Chris Maudsley on breaking the top ten.

Proving that 'they' do prosper.

JackHurst wrote:Nice.

That kid at number 23 must be a right cock judging from his avatar.

This post was made b4 the pro ratings changed, I am not calling Chric Kirby a cock.

Is Ben pugh there just for jokes, or is it a glitch?

Marc Meakin wrote:Looks like Craig (Beevers) needs to play some more humans if he wants to be considered top dog again.

Yes. I'll go and unlearn the 56,126 racks in my Zyzzyva cardbox right now.

Glad that such a ranking system is now in place anyways.

JackHurst wrote:

JackHurst wrote:Nice.

That kid at number 23 must be a right cock judging from his avatar.

This post was made b4 the pro ratings changed, I am not calling Chric Kirby a cock.

Is Ben pugh there just for jokes, or is it a glitch?

The ratings were updated last night, so things have changed around a bit. I'm also still tweaking the system because it occasionally blows up and strange things happen. For example the #1 player for one week in June 2009 was Jason Larsen with a rating of 23876476600

Does it take into account numbers/letters ratios? So if you beat someone in a numbers attack would that have as much effect (or possibly more for having five more rounds) as beating them in a normal 15-rounder?

Gavin Chipper wrote:Does it take into account numbers/letters ratios? So if you beat someone in a numbers attack would that have as much effect (or possibly more for having five more rounds) as beating them in a normal 15-rounder?

No, it doesn't consider winning margin or game format at all.

Who is ranked 26th?

Is there a way to view your Pro Rank and rating if you're not in the top 25?

Charlie Reams wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:Does it take into account numbers/letters ratios? So if you beat someone in a numbers attack would that have as much effect (or possibly more for having five more rounds) as beating them in a normal 15-rounder?

No, it doesn't consider winning margin or game format at all.

Would it be better if it did take into account game format? I mean it's really good and everything, but do I take it over the top 15-rounders page? And I can't see you on the list, whereas you're quite high on the other list.

Gavin Chipper wrote:Would it be better if it did take into account game format? I mean it's really good and everything, but do I take it over the top 15-rounders page? And I can't see you on the list, whereas you're quite high on the other list.

Depends what you're doing. The Top 15 rounders page gives you some cold hard stats on maxes and so on, but doesn't tell you anything about matchplay, performance under pressure and so on. The Pro Ranks gives you a more holistic view of who is beating who (and who you should back in the Masters ). I did consider restricting attention only to standard 15-round games, and maybe I'll do that from now on.

I'm having trouble wording this post, so apologies if its a bit backwards.

Imagine, if you like that you decided to take on the top X players from the pro players list in reverse order. Imagine that you won all of these games, finishing with beating the no. 1 player last. What I think would be cool is a thing which tells you at what number player you would have to start this streak in order to get into the top 25 pro players. It would use statistics based on the standings as they are displayed on the site at that point, so it would also only change on a weekly basis.

So for example, Imagine I am #50 on the list. The calculations might tell me that I need to start at #3 on the list with my theoretical streak to get into the top 25. Or if I was at #26 on the list, the calculations would probably tell me that I'd just need to beat #1 to get into the top 25.

This idea is probably ridiculous because of all the consecutive calculations it would required, but hey, computers can do that sort of crazy ass stuff!

JackHurst wrote:I'm having trouble wording this post, so apologies if its a bit backwards.

Imagine, if you like that you decided to take on the top X players from the pro players list in reverse order. Imagine that you won all of these games, finishing with beating the no. 1 player last. What I think would be cool is a thing which tells you at what number player you would have to start this streak in order to get into the top 25 pro players. It would use statistics based on the standings as they are displayed on the site at that point, so it would also only change on a weekly basis.

So for example, Imagine I am #50 on the list. The calculations might tell me that I need to start at #3 on the list with my theoretical streak to get into the top 25. Or if I was at #26 on the list, the calculations would probably tell me that I'd just need to beat #1 to get into the top 25.

This idea is probably ridiculous because of all the consecutive calculations it would required, but hey, computers can do that sort of crazy ass stuff!

That seems like a strangely specialist thing to want :/ But yeah, I think it would be impossible to predict because it depends what those other players are doing in the current week, what other games you might play and so on.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Gavin Chipper wrote:Would it be better if it did take into account game format? I mean it's really good and everything, but do I take it over the top 15-rounders page? And I can't see you on the list, whereas you're quite high on the other list.

Depends what you're doing. The Top 15 rounders page gives you some cold hard stats on maxes and so on, but doesn't tell you anything about matchplay, performance under pressure and so on. The Pro Ranks gives you a more holistic view of who is beating who (and who you should back in the Masters ). I did consider restricting attention only to standard 15-round games, and maybe I'll do that from now on.

Yeah, I think just 15-rounders would work. I think most games are that anyway so you wouldn't lose too much data, and people that heavily play numbers won't slip through the net - although they might not anyway if it's only player v player I suppose.

Another questions. Is it called Pro ranks because its a rating system aimed at judging just the top level players more accurately, perhaps without judging the lower end players so well, or is it because it is an improvement on the old rating system and therefore you think its worthy of being called "pro"

JackHurst wrote:Another questions. Is it called Pro ranks because its a rating system aimed at judging just the top level players more accurately, perhaps without judging the lower end players so well, or is it because it is an improvement on the old rating system and therefore you think its worthy of being called "pro"

It's called that mainly because I liked the name, and the subliminal suggestion that the top 25 could turn pro. But yeah, the lower reaches aren't really indicative of anything; the rating decays over time, so it's just full of people who don't play any more, which isn't particularly interesting.

This feature is great, although would be better if in Superstats it told you what your current rating is - being outside the top 25 means I don't know!

Also, is my highest-ever ranking (26th) simply a generic value from before I had an actual rating?

Updated with slightly revised (and hopefully final) rating system:

Ian Volante wrote:This feature is great, although would be better if in Superstats it told you what your current rating is - being outside the top 25 means I don't know!

Done (but not in Superstats).

Ian Volante wrote:Also, is my highest-ever ranking (26th) simply a generic value from before I had an actual rating?

Nope, that's real.

+208 this week

It would be cool if you could compare pro ranks with normal ranks, to see which player is most overrated by the normal ranking system, and similarly which player is most underrate by the normal ranking system.

JackHurst wrote:It would be cool if you could compare pro ranks with normal ranks, to see which player is most overrated by the normal ranking system, and similarly which player is most underrate by the normal ranking system.

I don't really want to encourage people to compare the two systems since they measure different things in different ways for different ways. The normal ranking system includes 1) games with bots 2) all formats (not just 30-second 15 Rounders) 3) each game as it happens. So discrepancies probably tell you just as much about the significance of all that stuff as about the weaknesses of the rolling ratings (which are doubtless many).

A couple of minor bugs - the page linked to on the apterous front page as being the new pro ranks is period 104885 dated March 8th, but that appears to be the pro ranks page that has been around the last few days at least. I think the correct page is period 104886 dated March 15th.

Another minor bug is that everyone is listed as a nonmover every week, which clearly isn't the case.

Simon Myers wrote:A couple of minor bugs - the page linked to on the apterous front page as being the new pro ranks is period 104885 dated March 8th, but that appears to be the pro ranks page that has been around the last few days at least. I think the correct page is period 104886 dated March 15th.

Another minor bug is that everyone is listed as a nonmover every week, which clearly isn't the case.

Cheers, I think that's fixed now.

Ned Pendleton at number one? Many congratulations to you, Ned, but can someone explain how he managed this feat? Ned seems like a very competent player, but how is he above such established names who are ranked much higher on the standard rating system?

Edwin Mead wrote:Ned Pendleton at number one? Many congratulations to you, Ned, but can someone explain how he managed this feat? Ned seems like a very competent player, but how is he above such established names who are ranked much higher on the standard rating system?

He gets 2000 bonus points for being Victoria's Secret brother.

Is there somewhere on the site that describes how rolling ratings work? Some discussion after they were a bit rorted earlier, and I can't remember how they differ from Pro Ranks. Been a long time...

I think rolling ratings changes every game, whereas pro ranks does one change at the end of the week based on all your games together. Probably other stuff too.

Edit - I also think rolling ratings takes into account margin of victory, which pro ranks apparently doesn't, or didn't at least.

Pro Ranks also only uses 15 rounders (which may not have been true back in 2010) so that monster game has completely no effect on them.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Sun Oct 30, 2022 11:05 pm I think rolling ratings changes every game, whereas pro ranks does one change at the end of the week based on all your games together. Probably other stuff too.

I know that much, but can't remember if it also uses Glicko like Pro Ranks.