To be honest, I don't even know if this would help me. I might be one of the people who benefits from a system where a big part of your rating is playing far inferior opponents.

But still, I think it's not pure. It's not as accurate as it could be - and surely some players are getting screwed and others are getting a big boost, relative to what they should have.

Frankly the only shame of this very ladder is that hhh is not in the first 3 positions.
The fact that zibik21 is 2 is totally fair for how good he is.

If he's so good, why does he lose 2/3rds of his games to people in the top 20?

HHH looks similar. He does very well against people ranked 30th and below, but he loses well over 50% to people in the top 10.

You are completely correct Billy. By looking at 3-5% of zibiks and hhhs ladder games you can most certainly conclude the other 95-97% have the same results.

I know. Thanks.

You should play people ranked less than you, because they will test whether your playstyle is adaptable and can be used against more than certain standard styles.

As for winning 80% of your games if you are only playing top players, not going to happen. Zibik being 3-6 in recent games against good players is a testament to that. He manages a good rating for two reasons. One, he's doing better than most other players at playing consistent against top players (especially once you include all of his games, not just what fits in one screenshot). Two, he doesn't take losses against low ranked players which tanks his rating. A player who can actually maintain a 1900+ rating will rarely, if ever, lose to someone with less than a 1500 rating, and only rarely lose to someone with less than 1700 rating.

Unless you are top rated or looking at a limited selection of games (small sample size) most people win about half of their games. Top rated players win about half of their games against other top rated players, and up their overall percentage by winning a clear majority of their other games.

And the ladder doesn't match you with players outside of a certain range from your rating, so if you have a very high rating you will not be matched against someone with a low rating. The range used to be much smaller, but Fizzer increased the range at the request of ladder players who didn't want to wait so long for games. Only being able to play within a limited range caused dry spells for players who finished games.

You dont play anybody +- 30 or your ranking

Zibik being 3-6 in recent games is an anomaly... Normally he is one of the most successful players against other top players (win-loss ratio against #1's is a testament to that). In any case Billy you will learn in time when you know the community a bit more how to recognize top players: when you get invited to a good elimination tournament, when you look at first or 2nd round you don't want to be drawn with that person, believe me, that'll always be zibik. In rr it is even more self-explanatory.

billy isnt even smart enough to understand that there might be arguments that go beyond what fits his goals, probably its uselees to even try to argue with someone like him because he will never understand he is not the best player

You dont play anybody +- 30 or your ranking

Not true. I just posted a screenshot where zibik plays people below 32nd. But if that were the case, that would be good. But I think it should be tighter. Like 15 above and below, which gives you 29 people you could play regularly, plus any new people who move into that group.

i believe u tend to play the players closer to your score available at the moment the server creates the games...

anyway, u can only rise or decline if u play with players far away from u

smart

;)

For a good time, read chat from Billy's Ladder Losses.

Highlights:
-Accusing people of cheating,
-Claiming Lucky Opponent when Luck was clearly on Billy's Side,
-Waiting for opponents to die of a Heart Attack and win by boot (Personal Aside: I love that strategy, but it only works 0.001% of the time).
-Telling people they lost at turn 15 (when down 10 income and 40+ armies), only to drag out the next 10 turns before surrendering.

Sorry for getting on you so much lately Billy. But you did name this thread, and I think its fair to be open for debate.

Affectionally,
-The Mid-Level Player that Beat You in a Ladder Game With a Triple Only Pick Moments After You Posted in The Forums that Triple Picks Only Work Against Poor Players.

AKA: John

After You Posted in The Forums that Triple Picks Only Work Against Poor Players.

They only reliably work against poor players. Of course they can work against anybody depending upon what the other persons picks were and how the game plays out.

If you triple picked against me every time and we played 100 games, you would win about 3 times, instead of the 7 or 8 you would win if you chose a better picking strategy.

And Billy, in your 92 wins over me in our hypothetical 100 game matchup, how many would:
-You win because I died of a heart-attack and was auto-booted.
-You lose because I cheated?

Not true. I just posted a screenshot where zibik plays people below 32nd.

When the game was created, they were within 30 places. Since then, either he moved up, or his opponent moved down.

Hadn't thought of that lol