#201  
Old 09-16-2020, 04:16 AM
Jugular Jugular is offline
Birdie Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Surrey, England
Posts: 327
Niced 189 Times in 110 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teemkey View Post
As I understand it abnormally bad rounds are dropped from ratings calculations, whereas abnormally good rounds are included. Do you think some ratings inflation is due to this practice?
One potential test for that would be to look at the number of excluded rounds over time for some tranche of players. If that increase over time it suggests that their rating is staying falsely inflated by not accounting for their bad rounds.
Sponsored Links
Reply With Quote
  #202  
Old 09-16-2020, 08:27 AM
Cgkdisc's Avatar
Cgkdisc Cgkdisc is offline
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Twin Cities
Years Playing: 31.6
Courses Played: 710
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 12,835
Niced 2,533 Times in 1,072 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teemkey View Post
As I understand it abnormally bad rounds are dropped from ratings calculations, whereas abnormally good rounds are included. Do you think some ratings inflation is due to this practice?
No such thing as an abnormally good round because it was actually thrown by the player attempting to throw well. However, players can deliberately throw abnormally poor rounds to abnormally lower their rating. The system is specifically designed to measure a player's normal skill as a means to prevent players from bagging into a lower division. We can't judge whether a player has deliberately thrown an abnormally thrown a bad round or given up trying to throw a good round or maybe running for aces. But we can statistically establish a cut-off point for each player where the odds are slim that a player was still trying to play well when posting a poor score.

So, "no" I don't see where the dropping abnormal rounds has a long-term inflationary effect. If anything, it prevents deflation by maintaining the integrity in that player's rating when used as a propagator. If propagators were underrated by including abnormally poor rounds in their rating that have no limit to their "badness", they would not be contributing their appropriate amount of rating points to future event SSA calculations. The cumulative result would be to gradually "steal" rating points from the total pool of rating points available in a round when they average scores better than their abnormally low rating.
Reply With Quote
  #203  
Old 09-16-2020, 09:06 AM
DiscFifty DiscFifty is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Years Playing: 9.6
Courses Played: 19
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 4,257
Niced 1,540 Times in 878 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teemkey View Post
As I understand it abnormally bad rounds are dropped from ratings calculations, whereas abnormally good rounds are included. Do you think some ratings inflation is due to this practice?
I don't see how anyone would disagree that "removing low numbers from a data pool causes the avg data in the pool to increase". Granted...like Chuck said the overall effect on ratings in this case would be small. However....if you look at the big picture from the items discussed in this thread... seems like there's a few things that could subtly impact ratings positively over a long period of time.
Reply With Quote
  #204  
Old 09-16-2020, 09:45 AM
Cgkdisc's Avatar
Cgkdisc Cgkdisc is offline
.:Hall of Fame Member:.
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Twin Cities
Years Playing: 31.6
Courses Played: 710
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 12,835
Niced 2,533 Times in 1,072 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DiscFifty View Post
I don't see how anyone would disagree that "removing low numbers from a data pool causes the avg data in the pool to increase". Granted...like Chuck said the overall effect on ratings in this case would be small. However....if you look at the big picture from the items discussed in this thread... seems like there's a few things that could subtly impact ratings positively over a long period of time.
There are a few factors in the calculations that have been incorporated to stabilize the overall rating pool over time. I'm not sure the overall ratings have inflated. It would be hard to measure even if you look at tournament course data over the years. Foliage growth and changes will undermine those efforts. However, longer holes/courses and artificially wider scoring spread from excessive OB will increase ratings at the top to either make it look like ratings have inflated or our best players are playing better than Climo depending on your point of view.

Niced: (2)
Reply With Quote
  #205  
Old 09-16-2020, 09:48 AM
Jugular Jugular is offline
Birdie Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: Surrey, England
Posts: 327
Niced 189 Times in 110 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DiscFifty View Post
I don't see how anyone would disagree that "removing low numbers from a data pool causes the avg data in the pool to increase". Granted...like Chuck said the overall effect on ratings in this case would be small. However....if you look at the big picture from the items discussed in this thread... seems like there's a few things that could subtly impact ratings positively over a long period of time.
I agree that there would be a step change caused by removing low rated rounds. Chuck assures us that shift is small, but to be inflationary suggests a constant increase. It's possible that the effect of dropping these rounds is small enough to always be washed away by the natural variation in player's rated rounds.

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
  #206  
Old 09-16-2020, 10:35 AM
txmxer txmxer is offline
Birdie Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Texas
Years Playing: 0.6
Courses Played: 2
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 340
Niced 279 Times in 132 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cgkdisc View Post
There are a few factors in the calculations that have been incorporated to stabilize the overall rating pool over time. I'm not sure the overall ratings have inflated. It would be hard to measure even if you look at tournament course data over the years. Foliage growth and changes will undermine those efforts. However, longer holes/courses and artificially wider scoring spread from excessive OB will increase ratings at the top to either make it look like ratings have inflated or our best players are playing better than Climo depending on your point of view.
As said before, I really appreciate you participating in this discussion.

I'm very new to this sport, but this round rating thing seems to be a mystery. Although I haven't attempted to calculate player ratings, it appears to me that the exact formula is published with the weighting. I know there are a few tweaks to establish a rating prior to having a full data set, but unless I'm unaware of something, if one has a full data set, it looks like the calculation is explained explicitly.

OTOH, the calculation for the round ratings and SSA appears to be a mystery. There are a lot of general descriptions of the process that seem to nail it down, but then you make a comment like "a few factors in the calculation" that are undefined publicly to the best of my knowledge.

I suppose I could understand if the thought is to prevent players from gaming the system, but I would not agree that that is an appropriate reason for concealing the exact formulation. As you've said, a player can deflate their score, they cannot artificially inflate their performance.

My question is why isn't the exact formulation for the round ratings published? I certainly understand the final calculation requires all data to be in, but once that's in, why isn't there transparency in the calculation?
Reply With Quote
  #207  
Old 09-16-2020, 10:52 AM
DavidSauls's Avatar
DavidSauls DavidSauls is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newberry, SC
Years Playing: 25.3
Courses Played: 127
Posts: 15,863
Niced 5,137 Times in 2,002 Posts
Default

I know I'm in over my head, but wouldn't including the abnormally bad rounds, inflate the best rounds?

It seems that including those rounds would increase the average score, and increase how much the best players are shooting below the average score.
Reply With Quote
  #208  
Old 09-16-2020, 01:07 PM
araytx araytx is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: DFW
Years Playing: 14.2
Courses Played: 213
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 2,618
Niced 611 Times in 363 Posts
Default

OK, I'll try my best below to help you understand two things: 1) how these statements came across to me; and 2) that I do understand the meaning of the words "impossible" and "not possible" vs. "highly unlikely," "improbable", etc., and have not been using them (contextually) incorrectly. I may very well be wrong in my statements, but I wasn't using them incorrectly. There's a difference. And maybe that's the part we disagree about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monocacy View Post
There was no intent whatsoever on my part to be patronizing. If anything I wrote came across that way, I apologize sincerely.

And please keep in mind that I have stated - TWICE - that I have no disagreement with the substance of what you have written about the ratings system.
I understand that you have no disagreement with my substantive statements about the ratings system. I did get that, yes originally. I accept the apology. I'll explain the rest below so as not to be repetitive.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Monocacy View Post
That is an interesting article, thank you for posting. I learned something, and I always appreciate that.

If I read the article correctly, it sounds like they are sequencing the whole genome, or close to it, to detect subtle genetic differences between identical twins. Standard paternity tests examine a much more limited number of markers and would be unlikely to distinguish between identical twins.
Perhaps & possibly. I can tell you that the biological sciences (genetics, genome sequencing, mapping, etc., among others) are not my specialty. Mine lies in the physical sciences and mathematics. On biological siences, perhaps you, and I am certain many others, are far more knowledgeable than I.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Monocacy View Post
The first definition of "impossible", per your link, is "incapable of being or of occurring". I will go back to the probability that the air in a room suddenly rushes to the corners, leaving most of the room in a vacuum. This has probably never happened. It will probably never happen while humans exist, and might never happen while our universe exists. But it could happen tomorrow, and the probability can be calculated.

Would you consider such an event "incapabable of being or occurring"? That could be the essence of our communication disconnect.
Yes sir. That is impossible. While anyone may theorize about things like that all the time, the laws of physics are finite. That occurrence is impossible. The expression "anything is possible" is only true in certain contexts. While we may be able to imagine anything, there are certain things that are not possible in the world as it is currently situated. Might there be another world out in the galaxies somewhere where that occurrence might be possible?? Sure, maybe, I don't know. But my answer in this context of this world we live in today is that the example you gave above is incapable of being or occurring, thus impossible. I am going to continue to reiterate that I do know what the word means.

Mathematically, a lot of things can be calculated. I can calculate the probability that chromosomes might spontaneously realign themselves overnight and my wife will wake tomorrow morning and be my husband. But that's not possible. There exist an entire field of mathematical study and application based upon imaginary numbers. Just because something can be calculated, doesn't merit therein proof that it is possible in the real world. This one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monocacy View Post
I am genuinely baffled why you interpret what I have written as disrespectful. That was not my purpose or intent. I respect your knowledge of disc golf and statistics, as I specifically stated previously. But we clearly differ on what "impossible" means. Which is pretty far from the substance of this thread.
I do not think we disagree on what the word means -- but perhaps I am wrong about that. The thing I feel is disrespectful was to keep telling me that "I didn't understand what I was actually saying" over and over. It came across as "you're not smart enough to really understand what the words mean." I hope you aren't baffled as to how I might interpret it that way. It's like telling me, "you didn't really mean orange when you said 'orange'; you meant 'blue'."


Quote:
Originally Posted by Monocacy View Post
I completely agree that no "sure thing investment" exists. Given your interest in finance and statistics, you might find the Long-Term Capital Management saga rather interesting. Or perhaps not. In any case, I have not read this book but it is supposed to be quite good.
At Long-Term, Meriwether & Co. truly believed that their finely tuned computer models had tamed the genie of risk, and would allow them to bet on the future with near mathematical certainty. And thanks to their cast--which included a pair of future Nobel Prize winners--investors believed them.
When Genius Failed: The Rise and Fall of Long-Term Capital Management

The Nobel Prize winners were Merton and Scholes, who received Nobel Prize in Economics for developing the Black-Scholes-Merton model for valuing derivatives.
See here. We both do know what the words mean. Common ground has been established. You clearly state above that they had "bet" on the future with "near" mathematical certainty. Therein lies the difference. I take you at your word when you said these guys were betting on a near certainty.

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
  #209  
Old 09-16-2020, 01:51 PM
txmxer txmxer is offline
Birdie Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Texas
Years Playing: 0.6
Courses Played: 2
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 340
Niced 279 Times in 132 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by araytx View Post
Yes sir. That is impossible. While anyone may theorize about things like that all the time, the laws of physics are finite. That occurrence is impossible. The expression "anything is possible" is only true in certain contexts. While we may be able to imagine anything, there are certain things that are not possible in the world as it is currently situated. Might there be another world out in the galaxies somewhere where that occurrence might be possible?? Sure, maybe, I don't know. But my answer in this context of this world we live in today is that the example you gave above is incapable of being or occurring, thus impossible. I am going to continue to reiterate that I do know what the word means.

Mathematically, a lot of things can be calculated. I can calculate the probability that chromosomes might spontaneously realign themselves overnight and my wife will wake tomorrow morning and be my husband. But that's not possible. There exist an entire field of mathematical study and application based upon imaginary numbers. Just because something can be calculated, doesn't merit therein proof that it is possible in the real world. This one.
I'm just going to throw my head on the chopping block, but this is not what I interpret Monocacy to be saying in regards to his air sucked out of the room example.

I interpret his statement to be that it is within the bounds of the known laws of physics for this to occur and thus the only way such a probability exists.

Now, I don't know what he knows--my knowledge of physics would say there is no probability of that happening (it is impossible), but there are people much more knowledgeable on the subject than I am. Typically before we get in to calculating probabilities of particle behavior we start with macro analysis such as the gas law which says pretty conclusively that all the air cannot choose to coalesce in the corner of the room leaving a vacuum.
Reply With Quote
 

  #210  
Old 09-16-2020, 02:19 PM
Monocacy's Avatar
Monocacy Monocacy is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Maryland
Years Playing: 20.4
Courses Played: 180
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 2,143
Niced 1,466 Times in 577 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by txmxer View Post
I'm just going to throw my head on the chopping block, but this is not what I interpret Monocacy to be saying in regards to his air sucked out of the room example.
Oh, let's just let this sleeping dog lie. Please?

That will allow everyone else can get back to arguing about ratings.

If you are interested in entropy and probability, this Wikipedia page nicely summarizes the issue:

Second Law of Thermodynamics: Extreme probability and statistics

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Hey all! Joxiam Newbie Intros and Q&A 1 06-04-2017 03:46 PM
HEY HEY >>> JK Aviar: pre #'s, orange/yellow/color pablo.diablo The Marketplace 13 04-30-2013 10:06 AM
Hey! Help me help you QuinnAA199 The Marketplace 1 03-09-2013 08:39 AM
HEY, HEY,HEY!!!! JustSayin' The Marketplace 0 11-10-2010 12:01 AM
HEY HEY HEY HEY HEY HEY HEY HEY HEY HEY - cool your jets. JTacoma03 The Marketplace 20 08-26-2010 10:35 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.