
Register  Members List  Social Groups 
 View All Groups  
 Your Group Messages  
Search  Today's Posts  Mark Forums Read 

Thread Tools 
#121




Quote:
Basically there is a LOT of lag in that system for a player that is as dominant as he was. I think tennis has similar rankings lag. Less than ideal IMO. But, I can see the point that the ratings imply skill level and possibly overlook some intangibles. Nothing is perfect. Sponsored Links

#122




Quote:
Just to clarify the system: the ranking points are based off of the quality of the field. So if you win a tournament with most of the top players in the world present, you get a lot of ranking points. If you win a junior tour event you'll get much much less. 
#123




Quote:
I mean, Paul McBeth could have stroke and lose the use of his throwing arm, he'd probably remain the top rated player until such time as his scores rolled out of the PDGA system (however long that takes?). 
#124




Quote:
No expert, but the round ratings reflect the competition played against—thus the system seems that it does consider that only not as explicitly. Just my understanding—I could be completely wrong. 
#125




Quote:
Quote:
Don't let money change ya!!!

#126




Quote:

#127




Quote:

#128




That's what I said. It does that based on a secret formula applied to the propagators' scores and prior ratings.

#129




Quote:
Right. In other words, statistics never converge to individual truths, but statistics always converge to general truths. Since I sit around and write code all day anyway, I took 5 minutes to run a statistics simulation. Take an ideal coin giving 50% heads and 50% tails. Flip it 10 times. How many heads do you get? There is no right answer. Now do the same experiment, and flip the coin 1 million times. How many heads do you get? 500k +/ some tiny amount. I ran the experiment and did 100 simulations of 10 coin flips and 100 simulations of 1 million coin flips. What was the max percent variance from the expected result of 5 heads and 500k heads on the 100 simulations? For the 10 flips, I saw 80% variation. Meaning 9 heads. (95)/5*100. For 1 million flips, I saw a max of 0.33% variation. Basically meaning it was exactly 500k each time. What is the point of the simulation? If a single 1000 rated player and a single 800 rated player play the same course, same conditions but get rated differently: sure, they could get the same score and have completely different ratings if rated separately. What if ten 1000 rated players and ten 800 rated players now play? Mathematically sure you can break the system by pretending they can get the same scores, but it is not statistically possible. Then think of how many players are getting rated every weekend in tournaments. Each one building a better statistical foundation. The rating system is fine.


#130




Well, duh. Isn't that the same thing in a statistical analysis? (dependent variable, that is)
Quote:
"...but there is no..." Last edited by araytx; 09112020 at 12:17 PM. 
Thread Tools  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Hey all!  Joxiam  Newbie Intros and Q&A  1  06042017 03:46 PM 
HEY HEY >>> JK Aviar: pre #'s, orange/yellow/color  pablo.diablo  The Marketplace  13  04302013 10:06 AM 
Hey! Help me help you  QuinnAA199  The Marketplace  1  03092013 08:39 AM 
HEY, HEY,HEY!!!!  JustSayin'  The Marketplace  0  11102010 12:01 AM 
HEY HEY HEY HEY HEY HEY HEY HEY HEY HEY  cool your jets.  JTacoma03  The Marketplace  20  08262010 10:35 PM 