2361 szizzler 52-17
2320 wazzz 50-14
2303 zibik 53-13
2255 twm 31-8
2213 nomercy 102-27
2163 ottoman 47-11
2135 tim 83-20

Before I risk my undefeated record, I want to know what Sze the Mathematical Manipulator is doing to be rated significantly better than half a dozen people who win more frequently.

vizzz-a-vizzz Wazzz: Szzze ownzzz Wazzz like a monkey eating a banana. I get that.

vis-a-vis Zibik: Zibik has 1 more win & 4 fewer losses!

vis-a-vis twm: double twm's wins and losses and it is 52:17 vs 62:16 (twm would have 10 more wins & 1 fewer loss!)

vis-a-vis nomercy: double sze's wins and losses and it is 104:34 vs 102-27 (nomercy would have 2 fewer wins but 7 fewer losses!)

vis-a-vis ottoman: the empire has 5 more wins & 6 more losses! so if ottoman plays 11 more and wins 5 and loses 6 against the right opponents his rating can jump 200?

vis-a-vis timi: timi has 31 more wins and only 3 more losses!

Sze, share your secret! I want to do what you are doing! Are you picking when to join and when not to? I notice you never played a FFA when they were around. That was planned, right? So do you do something similar with the 1v1s? If the queue has a player with a low rating, don't join? If the queue has a player with a higher rating, join? What is the mathematical basis of your rating vis-a-vis others?

Edited 6/3/2014 12:39:14

He is winning more against quality opponents. The biggest thing is not playing against significantly lower opponents as a win against someone that is 200 points less than your rating only nets you 2 or 3 points yet you can lose 20 or 30 points at a loss. Also Keep in mind that the rating doesn't adjust with your opponents increase in rating. So if you were to say lose to lets say gnuffone as he was getting his rating up from a base starting point that could negatively impact your score more so than his current standing even though he is basically the same quality opponent.

The main thing is be careful when you join. Even if you win against lesser opponents 90% of the time it is that 10% that can wreck your rating.

I am trying to play only good players if possible. If you look at my games and zibik's games, you'll see that my opposition is significantly higher rated. I never played ffa, because I was lucky not to draw it, however I also got an autodistribution template, so I did not get all the luck. So basically what I do is I play as high rated opposition as I can and win against them. Also with the exception of Trooper (who now kicks my ass 3-0!) I have a + or even score with literally everyone that I have played more than one game with.

Just to make it even easier, in a chess tournament, a 100% score against opposition rated 1200 will give you a much worse performance than scoring 50% against opposition rated 2000. That is the mathematical basis. The other basis is I just play better than others :)

p.s. With my current rating to maintain it I have to get ~97-98% win rate against people rated 1700+ and considering I can draw for example turkey ld, which is more luck based than others, I feel more comfortable trying to get 3-1 win rate against players rated 2100+.

Edited 6/3/2014 12:51:04

Ok. Then I only want to play you! 101 games. 1 vs rocky roccoon and 100 vs you. I will be god!

Edited 6/3/2014 12:51:07

Once your rating is 2200+ I'll gladly do that, it'll be very nice to get some more points of you.

"the real time ladder cannot be gamed" - Sze bending the truth, apparently all the way to being ironic.

How am I gaming it playing against best players on the ladder and winning more than I lose? ;)

I get it. When working to get a rating, if you (random third person, not Szzze) lose a game to anyone less than 1700, you (again, not Szzze) are forever screwed. But if you (not Szzze) get past that stage of the ladder with an impeccable rating, then pick your (Not Szzze) opponents as best you (not Szzze) can to maintain the shine.

Edited 6/3/2014 13:07:50

my conclusion is that the ladder should only state how many players are currently playing and not who they actually are.

I am not forever screwed Qi, it is standard ELO rating, not bayesian ELO, you can always work your rating up. Keep in mind I started from 6th place initially with a far worse rating than I have now. How about you take that shine away from me and then we'll revise the topic?

p.s. Again, I am sure if I took first place without playing good players, Qi would say that I wouldn't deserve it, because I did not play any of the other 1st place contenders :)

Edited 6/3/2014 13:07:52

Good idea PS

great idea PS because all I know is when there are quality opponents and non quality opponents it almost always pairs me with the lower rated players >.<

The ladder could theoretically be gamed by picking opponents who are at the peak of their rating, thus probably better rated than their actual skill is, and avoiding opponents that are in the valley of their rating, thus probably being better than their rating implies.

Qi, TheWarlightMaster actually has a very close rating to mine so if he plays more and has same results, he'll get a higher rating (his variation is higher than mine).