368Re: League tables
- 27 Dec 14:01Yep, we have to avoid it favouring sheer frequency of playing. And
yet allow someone to "overtake" someone who plays once, disappears,
and sits at the top of the table, never to be overtaken by anyone who
has ever come second or worse.
I think the formula works in that regard:
Points, divided by [(2 X number of games played) +1 ]
Possibly with Andrew's change re first-timers, but that only affects
the "points", not the formula.
--- In lbgc@..., Keith Dowsett <keithdowsett@...> wrote:
> Hmm, I'm not sure about this mechanism. The problem is that it
favours those people who play frequently, even if they don't do well.
If one player finishes third three times they may end up with a
better rating than the player who finished first, but wasn't able to
attend for a few weeks.
> I'd suggest ranking players on their average position. Clearly
this doesn't adjust for first timers, but we could allow people to
ignore their first game when calculating the ranking. Quite a lot of
the regulars have already played once, so the chance of getting an
easy win against four first timers is pretty slim.
> The big advantage of this scheme is that it doesn't reward anyone
for playing every week - unless they play well.
> Just my Monday thoughts,
> Who's friends with who and co-starred in what?
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>