Jump to content


Photo

Astros Tournament Ranking


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 astros

astros

    Stratego TM

  • WC Online Team
  • 787 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Colonel

Posted 13 July 2018 - 01:10 AM

What is the Astros Tournament Ranking?

 

 

 

The Astros Tournament Ranking (ATR) is a tournament adjustment to a player's ELO. My hope is that it will provide tournament organizers with a foundation to allocate players in their events and to develop a robust ranking of tournament performances for the Stratego community.

 

 

 

How does it work?

 

 

 

The ATR is like the ELO method for 40-piece matches on Stratego.com. ATR is comprised of two components: Unadjusted ELO and Net ELO.

 

 

 

A player's Undjusted ELO is their highest ELO at the start of any tournament, starting with the Pro Perfect in April 2018. If a player has never played in an ATR-ranked tournament, then their ELO at the start of their first ATR-tournament is their initial rating.

 

 

 

During the tournament, the results of every match are recorded, but a player's rating does not change until the end of the tournament. Net ELO is the summation of how much ELO would change after each match based on the relative ATR ratings of each player. The change from each match is calculated with the same ELO formula that Stratego.com uses and is described in detail here:

 

 

 

https://metinmediama...luding-example/

 

 

 

Calculating Net ELO at the end of the tournament allows all games to be consider simultaneously. This is preferable because the order of opponents does not matter.

 

 

 

The only difference between ELO calculations in the ATR and Stratego.com is that the ATR uses a K value of 40 instead of 25. The ATR assigns a higher weight to tournament matches versus regular ranked games because players tend to take tournament games more seriously and there are significantly fewer cheating players.

 

 

 

A player's post-tournament ATR rating is equal to their Unadjusted ELO plus their time-weighted Net ELO from each tournament that they have played.

 

 

 

How do ratings change over time?

 

 

 

Unadjusted ELO uses the highest ELO that each player had at the start of a tournament. ATR ratings will trend upwards over time because a player’s Unadjusted ELO can only increase. The system is designed this way because players are assumed to play at their peak ability during tournaments. While this does not hold true for every player, I again assume that players are more focused and compete at a higher level during events.

 

 

 

Additionally, a player's Net ELO from each tournaments trend towards zero using the exponential decay formula with a half-life of 365 days, decay starts from the date that a tournament ends. This ensures that outlier performances do not significantly affect a player's rating.

 

 

 

Why is the ATR better than other rating systems?

 

 

 

Other rating systems only consider a player's tournament performance. Even the most frequent tournament participants rarely play more than 30 such games a year and they frequently face opponents with significantly fewer games. The goal of a good rating system is to estimate the relative abilities of competitors. Therefore, it is not possible to generate good estimates of ability with such limited data.

 

 

 

On the other hand, the ATR considers hundreds, or thousands, of games for each player because it uses 40-piece ELO ratings. The ATR assumes that such ELO ratings are approximate and adjusts them based on meaningful, controlled tournament games.

 

 

 

The ATR also has the advantage of being intuitive because it uses a similar methodology to Stratego.com.

 

 

 

Example Calculation:

 

 

 

Tournament 1

 

 

 

Player A has never played in an ATR event and has an ELO of 800 at the start of Tournament 1.

 

 

 

Player A plays 5 matches in Tournament 1, winning 3. Her calculated ELO from each match are: +17, -8, +4, +13, -6 for a net ELO of 20.

 

 

 

After Tournament 1, Player A’s ATR rating is 800 + 20 = 820

 

 

 

Tournament 2 (Starts 243 days after Tournament 1 and ends 365 after Tournament 1)

 

 

 

Player A has a rating of 780. However, their ELO at the start of Tournament 1 was 800, so Player A's Unadjusted ELO is 800.

 

 

 

Since Tournament 2 is 243 days after Tournament 1, only 63.05 percent of her Net ELO from Tournament 1 is counted.

 

 

 

Player A's initial ATR is 800 + 20 * 0.6305 = 812.6

 

 

 

Player A plays 3 matches in Tournament 2 with results of: +5, +17, -12 and has a net ELO of +10.

 

 

 

Player A's ATR at the end of Tournament 2 is: 800 + 0.5 * 20 + 10 = 820


Edited by astros, 13 July 2018 - 01:55 AM.

I'm in love with Stacy's mom.

#2 astros

astros

    Stratego TM

  • WC Online Team
  • 787 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Colonel

Posted 14 July 2018 - 03:24 AM

Current ATR Standings 13 July 2018

 

 

2ivfd4o.png


Edited by astros, 14 July 2018 - 03:34 AM.

I'm in love with Stacy's mom.

#3 Wogomite

Wogomite

    Lieutenant

  • NASF Committee
  • 717 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 14 July 2018 - 12:55 PM

This is a nice idea. It seems to make since with how you get the results but I'm a little confused with somethimg. To clear things up for some of us, How for example did you get Wogomite with 800 atr?

#4 astros

astros

    Stratego TM

  • WC Online Team
  • 787 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Colonel

Posted 14 July 2018 - 01:36 PM

This is a nice idea. It seems to make since with how you get the results but I'm a little confused with somethimg. To clear things up for some of us, How for example did you get Wogomite with 800 atr?


I gave you a rating of 800 because you had your tournament account reset. If a player comes into the ranking significantly under-ranked then it will skew their rating when their ELO goes up later. This is what happened with Fks and Sniper after the Pro Perfect.

I was conservative in boosting your ranking. Similarly, I would place Losermaker at 900 to start.
I'm in love with Stacy's mom.

#5 Wogomite

Wogomite

    Lieutenant

  • NASF Committee
  • 717 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 14 July 2018 - 04:09 PM

Ok, so you don't take into account a max elo that a player has achieved on any account? I assume you are trying to appropriate a players rank, not a tournament ACCOUNTS rank correct? 

 

 

 

What is the Astros Tournament Ranking?

 

 

 

How does it work?

 

 

A player's Undjusted ELO is their highest ELO at the start of any tournament, starting with the Pro Perfect in April 2018. If a player has never played in an ATR-ranked tournament, then their ELO at the start of their first ATR-tournament is their initial rating.

 

 

 

Why would losermakers max elo not be recognized then? and 800 seems a bit random for me. My max elo is almost 200 points more than that. The starting point that you choose your ratings for people seems a bit arbitrary and could use some work but other than that, nice job. I like where this is going. 



#6 Unladen Swallow

Unladen Swallow

    Captain

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 826 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 14 July 2018 - 04:13 PM

yeah ur right ryan you should be ranked 1200  by the ATR


I used to play against a few drunken idiots in College and University. I just recently discovered this game online, playing my first matches against real-world opponents. After 100 games, I'm now one of the top 10 players in the world. 


#7 Wogomite

Wogomite

    Lieutenant

  • NASF Committee
  • 717 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 14 July 2018 - 04:25 PM

Josh, where do you get 1200? I have never been close to 1200. I don't see why the two extreme opposites have to be your conclusion. I am 200 points more than what astros said and 200 points less than what you say. What's up with that logic? Unless you want to leave me at 550...I am ok with that also ;)...I just think placing an arbitrary elo on someone does not show stability to a ranking system. Especially when that arbitrary elo cannot even be properly justified. Unless you can justify your 1200 elo prediction on me Josh, let's keep the sarcasm out of this and act like mature adults.  



#8 Fks

Fks

    Major

  • NASF Committee
  • 1,119 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 14 July 2018 - 04:58 PM

yeah ur right ryan you should be ranked 1200 by the ATR

Josh not even rated 1k what a noob :)

Proud Member of the North American Stratego Federation (NASF)

http://forum.strateg...18/#entry461226


#9 astros

astros

    Stratego TM

  • WC Online Team
  • 787 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Colonel

Posted 14 July 2018 - 05:00 PM

Ok, so you don't take into account a max elo that a player has achieved on any account? I assume you are trying to appropriate a players rank, not a tournament ACCOUNTS rank correct? 
 
Why would losermakers max elo not be recognized then? and 800 seems a bit random for me. My max elo is almost 200 points more than that. The starting point that you choose your ratings for people seems a bit arbitrary and could use some work but other than that, nice job. I like where this is going.


The ATR is a tournament adjustment to a player's ELO. The ATR uses the highest ELO that a player has had at the start of a tournament, not at any point in time. I initially planned to use Max ELO, but the Clean Ranking has been down since March. Furthermore, only half of all tournament players are listed there. As a result, Max ELO is not a metric I want to be reliant on.

However, over time, a player's Unadjusted ELO, their highest rating at the start of any tournament, will approach or become their Max ELO. Right now, I have only measured ELO at two points in time, so a player's Unadjusted ELO may well be below their all-time peak.

As far as you and Losermaker go, like many other players you chose to reset your accounts. You have a low rating because you emailed customer care. The adjustment I applied to you and theoretically others is to account for the discrepancy between your current ELO and perceived ability. I purposely underestimated it because I am measuring current and not peak ELO. Several other players are well below their peak and because you chose to have your account reset, I picked a more conservative rating in the interest of fairness to them.

Assuming you push your ELO back up, being underrated now will help you in the long run.
I'm in love with Stacy's mom.

#10 Wogomite

Wogomite

    Lieutenant

  • NASF Committee
  • 717 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 14 July 2018 - 05:23 PM

That all makes since and I know you can only use what you have to work with.

Assuming you push your ELO back up, being underrated now will help you in the long run.

How?

Also, how does next tournaments unadjusted Elo play into your current ATR?

#11 astros

astros

    Stratego TM

  • WC Online Team
  • 787 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Colonel

Posted 14 July 2018 - 10:37 PM

That all makes since and I know you can only use what you have to work with.How?
Also, how does next tournaments unadjusted Elo play into your current ATR?


ELO changes after the match are determined by the rating difference between the players. You will net more points if you are rated lower.

A practical example is a platinum level player with a 300 point account.
I'm in love with Stacy's mom.

#12 Wogomite

Wogomite

    Lieutenant

  • NASF Committee
  • 717 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 14 July 2018 - 11:04 PM

As far as you and Losermaker go, like many other players you chose to reset your accounts.The adjustment I applied to you and theoretically others is to account for the discrepancy between your current ELO and perceived ability.


Wouldn't a current Elo from an Alias of one of these players suffice?

#13 astros

astros

    Stratego TM

  • WC Online Team
  • 787 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Colonel

Posted 14 July 2018 - 11:17 PM

No, I am not counting aliases


I'm in love with Stacy's mom.

#14 Wogomite

Wogomite

    Lieutenant

  • NASF Committee
  • 717 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 15 July 2018 - 12:31 AM

So an arbitrary number is more accurate than a factual one? I think I'm still confused. Thanks for your time. I look forward to seeing how this works out. 



#15 astros

astros

    Stratego TM

  • WC Online Team
  • 787 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Colonel

Posted 3 weeks ago

Current ATR Standings 23 September 2018

 

ATR.png


I'm in love with Stacy's mom.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users