As someone has kindly bought me a temporary membership I’ve taken the opportunity to update the percentage win table for regular Run Around The Ponds.
This table is compiled by ranking players on a percentage of games won basis. To be eligible players must now have won at least 3 ponds. The number of wins figures link to a list of the tournaments won and BKR ratings link to a graph of their history. Only completed ponds are included.
This list includes all players with 3 or more wins.
This table is compiled by ranking players on a percentage of games won basis. To be eligible players must have won at least 2 ponds.
The number of wins figures link to a list of the tournaments won and BKR ratings link to a graph of their history. Only completed ponds are included.
This list includes all 67 players with 2 or more wins. CAN ANYONE DELETE MY PREVIOUS POST PLEASE?
Относно: Percentage Wins(Regular Ponds) - This week's Top 25
This table is compiled by ranking players on a percentage of games won basis. To be eligible players must have won at least 2 ponds.
The number of wins figures link to a list of the tournaments won and BKR ratings link to a graph of their history. Only completed ponds are included.
I wouldn't use the word 'cheating' because the perpetrator doesn't gain anything from doing it. However I think it is bad sportmanship, ruining the game for everybody else.
As I see it, most games will come down to either 2 or 3 players left. If 3, there's a fair chance of a winner. If 2 there cannot be a winner. Is this right?
Nothingness: I think games like this are wide open. I can't see anybody going for a guaranteed bonus. Although they would ensure surviving, they would probably be in last place. One way of looking at the situation is to note that there are 4 rounds left and everyone would like to be leader after 3 of them. That gives some rough parameters, but the fact remains it's anybody's game.
It's becoming fairly obvious that, with half of the established players having ratings of over 2000 or so, a rating ceiling of 2700 and individual players' ratings often varying 500 or more in the course of a week, the current ratings are far too volatile to be of much real use in ranking players.
As we get more established players either the top players list will change dramatically on a more or less daily basis or one or more players will establish a rating of 2700 or thereabouts and stop playing. Neither situation is very satisfactory. The percentage win stats are not an ideal alternative but they are easily calculated and are a lot more stable than the ratings so I intend to post them here on a regular basis. Hopefully this may encourage some players to go for a win and not just a place. I'll do the same for dark ponds when we have a bit more data.
The top 25 is currently as follows. Remember you need 2 wins to be eligible for this list.
All 45 players with 2 or more wins on the winners list are included. There are only 7 unestablished players on the list. So their removal doesn't change the overall picture. My point is that many of the players with well below average win rates have high ratings, which I find odd.
Now that we have Pond ratings I thought it would be interesting to compare them to the BBW percentage win method. The following table is for regular ponds only and includes all players with at least 2 wins. Surprizingly I think, there doesn't seem to be any correlation with ratings at all.
How exactly do dark ponds work? Is it just the details of the players which are hidden or are bids, points left etc hidden too? That's what I would call a NIGHTmare.
BIG BAD WOLF: I think he must have had 671 left. His autobid was eleven hundred or so I think which would have been knocked down to 671, leaving him with the 500 bonus. Makes sense to me.
(скрий) Можете да ползвате обикновен HTML в съобщенията си или, ако сте платен член, можете също да ползвате текстовия редактор. (pauloaguia) (покажи всички подсказки)