Navigation

Users Online

· Guests Online: 13

· Members Online: 0

· Total Members: 64
· Newest Member: weeboss

Events

<< April 2018 >>
Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30            

Follow us on Twitter!

Follow ladiespool on Twitter

Join us on facebook!

Login

Username

Password



Forgotten your password?
Request a new one here.

Search this site

Custom Search

Shoutbox

You must login to post a message.

17/03/2018 21:26
Ladies - we should make more use of this website

14/07/2014 10:28
Can someone please put a link up to the IM draw

21/10/2013 14:33
Not sure Jenny, Gill is the person to ask as she is the Rep. Hoping the ladies still enter so we can get a team in 11s and hopefully 15s for 2014.

18/10/2013 13:12
How many ladies are entering the 2014 IM?

16/05/2013 22:20
Selection email have been sent.

02/05/2013 10:08
About And i will reschedule

02/05/2013 10:07
Girls the fundraiser I had organised is cancelled, fe other things happening on that day and I need to work as both my staff have decided to take holidays at the same time grrrrr can you all pass word

01/03/2013 21:13
I hope the tour doesnt go on that late Yvonne lol x

01/03/2013 16:44
11:00pm, car park outside red triangle cumbernauld!!!

22/02/2013 21:44
Time dat and venue gem for group hug? love

Fundraising

View Thread

 Print Thread
New Player Ranking System
yvonne
#1 Print Post
Posted on 17-06-2010 22:52
Super Admin


Posts: 1063
Joined: 23.03.09

As you are all aware I have had a bit of time on my hands over the past week or so Grin

I have been thinking about our current ranking system and I think that it is unsuitable and does not reflect the relative ability of our current player base.

I have therefore asked our spreadsheet geek (Laura Colquhoun) to devise a new player rating system based on the following criteria:-

a. Players are ranked/rated based on their relative ability.
b. Players receive points based on their frame count and not only for winning matches.
c. Players do not receive points just for "byes"

For those of you that are familiar with ELO, you may see this as comparable and yes the concept is similar, however this new system has been specifically developed to better suit the needs of ladies pool.

Your relative rating is based on your performances since the inception of the tour (2006). If you wish a copy of your individual results, this will be available at the tour event next week. Alternatively email me and I will furnish you with a copy via email.

This new system will run alongside the current rankings for 2010 and will allow you to look at your updated rating at each event, helping you to understand this new process.

You will have received (via email) a spreadsheet which shows your rating (2009 & after event 1 2010) and the workings for your to look at. Feel free to send me your comments via email or alternatively post your comment in this forum.

Enjoy.
Edited by yvonne on 17-06-2010 22:53
Scotland Ladies Manager
SPA Tournament Director
 
www.scottishladiespool.com
Laura
#2 Print Post
Posted on 18-06-2010 10:24
Member


Posts: 136
Joined: 12.04.09

Geek!?! Angry How rude!!
 
yvonne
#3 Print Post
Posted on 18-06-2010 10:59
Super Admin


Posts: 1063
Joined: 23.03.09

I thought geeks liked being called geeks.

We have you as our spreadsheet geek and elaine as our website geek, simple really lol.
Scotland Ladies Manager
SPA Tournament Director
 
www.scottishladiespool.com
yvonne
#4 Print Post
Posted on 18-06-2010 15:36
Super Admin


Posts: 1063
Joined: 23.03.09

Here is an example of how the new ranking system would work.

Player A vs Player B

Player A has a rating of 2010 and Player B a rating of 1965. Clearly player A is the favourite to win this match as they are rated higher.

The formula calculates based on their respective ratings that the expected score will be 79% to player A and 21% to player B. Translating this into frames of a first to 6 match this would equate to player A winning by 6 frames to 1.6 frames. Obviously an impossible score but stats are precise Shock)

Thus if player A wins by 6 frames to 1 then they have done better than expected (as per the formula) and thus would gain points for this result.

Alternatively if Player A wins by 6 frames to 4, then player B has done better than expected and thus they gain points and player A would lose points even though they have still won the match and gone through to the next round. The more the deviation from the expected score the more points are won and lost.

In the above example, if Player B wins the match 6-1 then this would be totally against what was expected and player B would gain 20.5 points, whereas the 6-4 scoreline against player B would still gain them 5.9 points.

Hope this example helps you all to understand the new system.
Scotland Ladies Manager
SPA Tournament Director
 
www.scottishladiespool.com
Bapsley
#5 Print Post
Posted on 20-06-2010 14:10
Member


Posts: 157
Joined: 30.03.09

Yvo seriously do you expect me to understand anything in that post??? you lost me after "here is an example" lol
Big up The Falkirk Mental! Scotlaaaaaaaaand!
 
Elaine
#6 Print Post
Posted on 21-06-2010 18:35
Super Admin


Posts: 176
Joined: 18.02.09

Did this come about as a result of the questionnaire feedback?

I'd really need to know more about it to be honest. I'm very much from the old school of you get points for beating players and everyone gets the same. Seemples!

This is the top 10 after all the events in 2009 - is that right?

Players Points Rank Events Attended
Leanne Evans 2030.5 1 5
Sarah Trudgett 2024.9 2 4
Linda Gillies 2021.9 3 5
Yvonne Ewing 2020.8 4 5
Shona Lucas 2015.5 5 1
Kirsty Davies 2006.2 6 1
Denise Laing 2003.8 7 5
Claire Dempster 2003.4 8 0
Elaine Campbell 2002.2 9 4
Kathy Paton 1997.6 10 2


Claire attended no events in 2009, Kirsty and Shona one each yet can be ranked in the top 10? Message to spreadsheet geek - explain to the web geek - how man, how?? GrinGrinGrin And in words of one syllable or less mind - us web geeks are bit slower than you mathematical boffins Wink
Edited by Elaine on 21-06-2010 18:37
 
Elaine
#7 Print Post
Posted on 21-06-2010 18:41
Super Admin


Posts: 176
Joined: 18.02.09

oh and who "decides" what the result should be? Isn't that a bit subjective or it it more maths stuff I'll no understand?
 
Jenny
#8 Print Post
Posted on 21-06-2010 20:03
B Team


Posts: 257
Joined: 12.04.09

im with bapsley and Elaine Eh??
Jenny
 
www.jennysholidayhomes.co.uk
jackiemac
#9 Print Post
Posted on 21-06-2010 22:12
Novice


Posts: 46
Joined: 14.05.09

I have lost the will to live...............FrownFrown
Just call me NOBODY , cause NOBODY is Perfect......
 
yvonne
#10 Print Post
Posted on 21-06-2010 22:20
Super Admin


Posts: 1063
Joined: 23.03.09

For those of you that are struggling to get to grips with the proposal, fear not - it will be discussed at the tour on Saturday and I will have all paperwork (performances etc) with me for you to look at.
Scotland Ladies Manager
SPA Tournament Director
 
www.scottishladiespool.com
Elaine
#11 Print Post
Posted on 21-06-2010 22:56
Super Admin


Posts: 176
Joined: 18.02.09

Sorry for nipping your nut - I'm a wee bit wiser now - not convinced tho. If you win the event by playing players lower ranked than you you could go down the rankings?

PS - ehhhh when are you back at yer work??? ;-)
Edited by yvonne on 21-06-2010 22:57
 
yvonne
#12 Print Post
Posted on 21-06-2010 22:58
Super Admin


Posts: 1063
Joined: 23.03.09

Elaine wrote:
Sorry for nipping your nut - I'm a wee bit wiser now - not convinced tho. If you win the event by playing players lower ranked than you you could go down the rankings?

PS - ehhhh when are you back at yer work??? ;-)



PMSL nip away. You are saving me from being bored. As for work, im not too sure yet and scarily there are plenty more thoughts/ideas in my shell like. x
Scotland Ladies Manager
SPA Tournament Director
 
www.scottishladiespool.com
Laura
#13 Print Post
Posted on 21-06-2010 23:14
Member


Posts: 136
Joined: 12.04.09

Hi Elaine, yes you are right with the top 10 as stated. The purpose of this system is to allow a comparison of players based on their playing ability. I think most people would agree that Claire, Shona and Kirsty are all top quality players but due to location cannot easily attend all events. Does this make them any less of a player? no. I agree that a player should not be able to turn up to 1 event and top the rankings, however I was asked to model this system based on 2009 entries, which is what I have done. Yvonne has said that this year everyone needs to attend a min of 2 events and as such this means that this situation would not occur this year. Also, players are deducted points for non-attendance of events, this is currently set at 2 points per event, but this can be reviewed if necessary. However, given that the principle is to have a system that reflects ability I'd be reluctant to penalise an individual too severely.

The "expected" score is based on a mathematical formula. It translates the difference in people's ratings into an expected frame score. This is an established, trusted and widely used formula for ratings, albeit it has been adjusted to better suit our needs.

I believe the benefits of this system are:
- More equitable system where points are based on performances not just on getting a "good draw" in particular byes through rounds.
- Motivation for lower ranked players......as when you're drawn against a top 6 player in the first round you know that you can still achieve ranking points even though it's unlikely that you will win the match.
- Motivation for top players to play to 100% of their ability as they know that they can't afford to give frames away cheaply.

I appreciate the detail of spreadsheet may be difficult to understand, and for those of you who wish it, I am happy to go through this. However, the most important thing is to understand the principles that the system is designed for. It will be run alongside the current rankings for this year, and after each event a summary can be produced to show the movement in points and hopefully people will then start to see a correlation between their performances and their movement in the ratings system.

Sorry for the mammoth post, feel free to fire back any other questions, and I'll attempt a concise answer Shock
 
Elaine
#14 Print Post
Posted on 21-06-2010 23:38
Super Admin


Posts: 176
Joined: 18.02.09

Thanks Laura - I'd never actually realised I was this thick til I started to try and rationalise this lol

Laura wrote:
Hi Elaine, yes you are right with the top 10 as stated. The purpose of this system is to allow a comparison of players based on their playing ability. I think most people would agree that Claire, Shona and Kirsty are all top quality players but due to location cannot easily attend all events. Does this make them any less of a player? no.


ok - First of all - I'd like to make it quite clear that I have not stated this to be the case, nor do i think it, in case anyone is taking this from my post. That has been clearly proved time and again. That is something I would never ever say. I chose those three names ONLY because they had attended so few tourneys but yet are very highly ranked. Nothing personal - I think they'll know that Grin



I agree that a player should not be able to turn up to 1 event and top the rankings, however I was asked to model this system based on 2009 entries, which is what I have done. Yvonne has said that this year everyone needs to attend a min of 2 events and as such this means that this situation would not occur this year. Also, players are deducted points for non-attendance of events, this is currently set at 2 points per event, but this can be reviewed if necessary. However, given that the principle is to have a system that reflects ability I'd be reluctant to penalise an individual too severely.


What kind of points are we talking about per event? Just a rough gestimation? Two points off 2000 odd points is much less of a penalty than 2 points off what 40/50 odd as we have at the moment? Do you mean 2 points off the current rankings, which then gets translated into the new system?


The "expected" score is based on a mathematical formula. It translates the difference in people's ratings into an expected frame score. This is an established, trusted and widely used formula for ratings, albeit it has been adjusted to better suit our needs.


I'll take your word on that one Grin I'll not even begin to pretend to understand the maths behind it. I understand that we use these types of ranking in snooker, football tennis etc and that the player at the top of the rankings is penalised by having to beat someone by a scoreline determined by a computer, and I understand the need to change the current rankings.


I believe the benefits of this system are:
- More equitable system where points are based on performances not just on getting a "good draw" in particular byes through rounds.


So - theoretically speaking at least - could you win the event and go down the rankings if all your opponents the computer says you should beat 6-1 and you beat them all 6-2 or 6-3? Or will you always gain points for rounds that you progress through?




- Motivation for lower ranked players......as when you're drawn against a top 6 player in the first round you know that you can still achieve ranking points even though it's unlikely that you will win the match.



I understand the benefits of this. If I am drawn against Leanne and the computer says the gap in the rankings is such that she should beat me 6-2 and I win the match I get more points. Fine by me Wink Wink


- Motivation for top players to play to 100% of their ability as they know that they can't afford to give frames away cheaply.


Or be unlucky? Wink


I appreciate the detail of spreadsheet may be difficult to understand, and for those of you who wish it, I am happy to go through this. However, the most important thing is to understand the principles that the system is designed for. It will be run alongside the current rankings for this year, and after each event a summary can be produced to show the movement in points and hopefully people will then start to see a correlation between their performances and their movement in the ratings system.

Sorry for the mammoth post, feel free to fire back any other questions, and I'll attempt a concise answer Shock



I'm guessing this is overall to "equalise" people getting what might be considered a "lucky" draw, and would even itself out over a longer period of time??
Edited by Elaine on 21-06-2010 23:40
 
Elaine
#15 Print Post
Posted on 21-06-2010 23:42
Super Admin


Posts: 176
Joined: 18.02.09

Sorry for all the questions - I'm just trying to get my head round it Grin
 
Laura
#16 Print Post
Posted on 21-06-2010 23:44
Member


Posts: 136
Joined: 12.04.09

I wish I knew how to do that quote thing!
 
Elaine
#17 Print Post
Posted on 21-06-2010 23:50
Super Admin


Posts: 176
Joined: 18.02.09

lol - aha !!! now you're speaking my language Grin

at the start of the text you want to quite type in

[ quote]
the text you wish to quote goes in here - and to close the quote box - do the same again except put a / before the q

[/ quote] Ive put a space in both of them in here to show you what I mean - but if it had no spaces it'd look like this


the text you wish to quote goes in here - and to close the quote box - do the same again except put a / before the q


Edited by Elaine on 21-06-2010 23:52
 
Laura
#18 Print Post
Posted on 22-06-2010 00:21
Member


Posts: 136
Joined: 12.04.09

ok - First of all - I'd like to make it quite clear that I have not stated this to be the case, nor do i think it, in case anyone is taking this from my post. That has been clearly proved time and again. That is something I would never ever say. I chose those three names ONLY because they had attended so few tourneys but yet are very highly ranked. Nothing personal - I think they'll know that Grin

Did not mean my post to be interpreted as questioning this at all.

What kind of points are we talking about per event? Just a rough gestimation? Two points off 2000 odd points is much less of a penalty than 2 points off what 40/50 odd as we have at the moment? Do you mean 2 points off the current rankings, which then gets translated into the new system?


Although the ratings are up at around 2000 in total, the actual deviation is much smaller. I don't have the spreadsheet in front of me but the difference from top to bottom of ratings I believe is about 100 or so points......so it should be looked at on this scale.

So - theoretically speaking at least - could you win the event and go down the rankings if all your opponents the computer says you should beat 6-1 and you beat them all 6-2 or 6-3? Or will you always gain points for rounds that you progress through?


In theory, yes. However, it's very unlikely that it would ever be the case. The points difference would have to be quite large for an expected score of 6-1, and if there is such a gap then isn't it right that you should be comfortably beating this player. Yes, you may slip up in one round but to do this in every round on the way to winning a tournament suggests that your rating is too high and thus needs adjusted down, so that the expected score is more even.

- Motivation for top players to play to 100% of their ability as they know that they can't afford to give frames away cheaply.

Or be unlucky? Wink


Only if you were consistently unlucky! Frown
Luck at the end of the day generally (altho it doesn't always feel like it) evens itself out, so yes you may lose points in one round but equally could gain them back in the next by 'stealing' a frame from someone else.

I'm guessing this is overall to "equalise" people getting what might be considered a "lucky" draw, and would even itself out over a longer period of time??


Yes, one of the guiding principles is to remove the random luck element from the draw. Imagine losing 6-5 in the first round of each tour event to Linda, probably not a bad result for a lot of people, but you walk away from the tour ranking system with no points. Sad
Not quite sure what you mean by "even itself out", but certainly the more data you have, i.e. more match results, then the more accurate these ratings are, so the impact of one bad event is reduced.
 
Elaine
#19 Print Post
Posted on 22-06-2010 00:43
Super Admin


Posts: 176
Joined: 18.02.09

Thank you for answering my questions, but I'm sure I'll have more by the weekend Wink Wink Cheers for making the time to help the hard of thinking Grin

I'll let somebody else stick their heid above the parapet now, an no totally give away my complete mathematical incompetence Grin

I'm still not convinced, (as I wasn't by Bash's ELO) but I'm guessing it could all end up looking completely different dependent on the questionnaire findings.


 
Elaine
#20 Print Post
Posted on 22-06-2010 00:45
Super Admin


Posts: 176
Joined: 18.02.09

yvonne wrote:
I thought geeks liked being called geeks.

We have you as our spreadsheet geek and elaine as our website geek, simple really lol.


I tend to agree Yvo. I've always seen it as a term of endearment. Or pity. I've never really been very good at differentiating Wink
 
Jump to Forum:

Forum Threads Cloud

Render time: 0.15 seconds
16,871,221 unique visits