ASL Player Ratings

[Actionjick]

Yet no one has addressed the problem.
I can legit play 30 SK games and likely win most of them.
To boost me to new heights pitting me against the lower half of the pecking order

How many out of thirty would you win and what do you base this claim on?

If you are a pretty good ASL player does that automatically mean you are a superior SK player?

Or are you implying that those who primarily or exclusively play SK are just not as good gamers as pure ASL players?

Just curious.

You have lots of ideas and opinions. Host an event, ftf or online. Implement your ideas. Run them up the flagpole and if enough people salute then you are on the right track. Good luck!

 

[Stewart]

Dodgers or Giants?

Neither.
But I have seen a lot of BRAND NEW DODGER gear....
Sad....

 

[Stewart]

You liked Gamex 2021 on FB. Gamex 2021 is in LA.

OK?? Presumption is rampant in ASL.
Some of us have to travel to game.

 

[bendizoid]

I bumped up the Batter Up thread which has a lot of my thoughts on player ratings. I don't have the time or energy to restate all that.

I remember, you said it was too complicated and hurts peoples feelings. Then you proposed a new system where everybody is the same.

 

[Actionjick]

I remember, you said it was too complicated and hurts peoples feelings. Then you proposed a new system where everybody is the same.

Very Marxist of me I suppose. Groucho that is!

Well the day I come up with a serious proposition make sure that you play the lottery.

 

[witchbottles]

I would not play in such a tournament. Don't need Big Brother doing anything but the seeding and telling us when to stop.

I can understand that. From my perch, I like Big Brother telling me only when to start and stop each round. Take the seeding away from Big Brother (aka the TD), altogether, for every round played. Complete luck, no Big Brother telling you who you will play against. The card you drew will tell you who you are playing against. a die roll will tell you what scenario you are playing, no Big Brother there, and a die roll will tell you what side you are playing, no Big Brother there, either. (Unless your Big Brother is a d6 and not a Tournament Director.)

You don't get foreknowledge of the scenario possibilities. Neither does anyone else competing. IMO, giving that to entrants is simply Big brother (the TD) pre-sorting the wheat from the chaff in entrant skills of the game itself.

Is it that you would not play because complete random luck might actually result in a Gary Fortenberry level player getting knocked out by an unheard of newbie who just happens to draw a card to face Gary and then pull off a miracle win? In that case, Big Brother didn't create that possible (but unlikely) result. Good DR and dr created it as a possible (but unlikely) result.

Or is it the possibility of not being able to "perfect" a setup due to the time constraints for each round setups? Well, that is Big Brother, in this case, sorting the wheat from the chaff at the gaming table, and not via some artificial database construct that may or may not be susceptible to the type of manipulations that Stewart suggests. Let the game decide who is the better player and who is averaging the best sets of useful DRs/drs. Not some pre-arranged sorting routine based on a minimal amount of any given player's completed games.

I have played a few games in the last 5 years that were tournament-related. I have played many more that were not in any way tournament-related. Yet these artificial constructs like an AREA rating based only on a subset of tournament game results, and NOT any other game results, are skewed. AREA ratings worked because it incorporated ALL reported games, not just those reported from tournament play.

So why voluntarily choose to eliminate ALL the other games being reported?
Or, as in my example, remove the question altogether and let a cube of chance decide what you play and the game system itself decide who has a better grasp of the game and its rules complexities.

JMO.{shrug}

 

[bendizoid]

I can understand that. From my perch, I like Big Brother telling me only when to start and stop each round. Take the seeding away from Big Brother (aka the TD), altogether, for every round played. Complete luck, no Big Brother telling you who you will play against. The card you drew will tell you who you are playing against. a die roll will tell you what scenario you are playing, no Big Brother there, and a die roll will tell you what side you are playing, no Big Brother there, either. (Unless your Big Brother is a d6 and not a Tournament Director.)

You don't get foreknowledge of the scenario possibilities. Neither does anyone else competing. IMO, giving that to entrants is simply Big brother (the TD) pre-sorting the wheat from the chaff in entrant skills of the game itself.

Is it that you would not play because complete random luck might actually result in a Gary Fortenberry level player getting knocked out by an unheard of newbie who just happens to draw a card to face Gary and then pull off a miracle win? In that case, Big Brother didn't create that possible (but unlikely) result. Good DR and dr created it as a possible (but unlikely) result.

Or is it the possibility of not being able to "perfect" a setup due to the time constraints for each round setups? Well, that is Big Brother, in this case, sorting the wheat from the chaff at the gaming table, and not via some artificial database construct that may or may not be susceptible to the type of manipulations that Stewart suggests. Let the game decide who is the better player and who is averaging the best sets of useful DRs/drs. Not some pre-arranged sorting routine based on a minimal amount of any given player's completed games.

I have played a few games in the last 5 years that were tournament-related. I have played many more that were not in any way tournament-related. Yet these artificial constructs like an AREA rating based only on a subset of tournament game results, and NOT any other game results, are skewed. AREA ratings worked because it incorporated ALL reported games, not just those reported from tournament play.

So why voluntarily choose to eliminate ALL the other games being reported?
Or, as in my example, remove the question altogether and let a cube of chance decide what you play and the game system itself decide who has a better grasp of the game and its rules complexities.

JMO.{shrug}

All you have to do is declare yourself ‘tournament director’ and each of your games a micro two player tournament. That should allow you to submit the hundreds of wins you deserve.

 

[Sparafucil3]

OK?? Presumption is rampant in ASL.

Need of a new ladder is pretty presumptive if you ask me. It implies we need even one, let alone a separate one for SK. But, hey, one man's anthill is another man's Everest. -- jim

 

[RandyT0001]

How would running a SK tournament solve the problem?
I've suggested that when SK players engage in an ASL tournament, the ASL players should play a SK scenario vs that opponent. That would be the first step.
But imagination and change aren't part of the 30+ yr ASL crowd.

Except for NashCon, every ASL tournament I have attended the TD selects four or five scenarios per round for a tournament. In St. Louis, Jim Burris matches players since his tournament is based on a point system and I think David Garvin used a point system for Human Wave in Washington, DC. but he did not match players. They do not select SK scenarios for ASL tournaments. I know that Human Wave and Spreading Blaze in Atlanta were ready to support a SK tournament. I think four showed up for Human Wave SK tournament and no SK players for Gary Bartlett's Spreading Blaze (I could be mistaken though). The ASL player is not interested in 'competing' with the SK players and will chose a scenario from the available choices as provided by the TD.

 

[Mister T]

The number of SK tournament playings is just too small, even tiny, to justify any specific treatment. If there was a vibrant SK tournament scene, that would justify a specific treatment, but right now it's just not the case.

 

[von Marwitz]

AREA ratings worked because it incorporated ALL reported games, not just those reported from tournament play.

Hm? The old AREA rating mostly referred to which has now been followed/is continued by the ASL Player Ratings of vasl.info were based only on those reported from tournament play.

At least in my experience, this rating has been the most meaningful and reliable which I have encountered.

von Marwitz

 

[Michael R]

Hm? The old AREA rating mostly referred to which has now been followed/is continued by the ASL Player Ratings of vasl.info were based only on those reported from tournament play.

von Marwitz

The original Avalon Hill AREA incorporated all reported games.

 

[Ganjulama]

The original Avalon Hill AREA incorporated all reported games.

Sadly, I knew people back in the day who would intentionally 'juice' their ratings by reporting games that did not happen. I know some people on this forum believe in rainbows, unicorns, and the inherent goodness of the masses, but I would never trust an open ratings system.

 

[Actionjick]

Sadly, I knew people back in the day who would intentionally 'juice' their ratings by reporting games that did not happen. I know some people on this forum believe in rainbows, unicorns, and the inherent goodness of the masses, but I would never trust an open ratings system.

It's a little known fact but dice made from a unicorn horn never roll boxcars!

 

[RandyT0001]

It's a little known fact but dice made from a unicorn horn never roll boxcars!

Hence their extinction since Ancient Greek times of Alexander, talk about lucky dice rolls.

 

[Sparafucil3]

Hence their extinction since Ancient Greek times of Alexander, talk about lucky dice rolls.

Clearly, the ancients never played roll high games. We could learn a lot from them. -- jim

 

[PabloGS]

Clearly, the ancients never played roll high games.

They kept arguing about the skew of the Delphi dieroller.

 

[Actionjick]

Sadly, I knew people back in the day who would intentionally 'juice' their ratings by reporting games that did not happen. I know some people on this forum believe in rainbows, unicorns, and the inherent goodness of the masses, but I would never trust an open ratings system.

By juice are you saying they inflated ratings? Or deflated?

Most people would assume inflate but someone who really wanted to beat the system would want a lower rating so as to perhaps be paired against inferior opponents at a tournament. This assumes the event is not structured where highest rating plays lowest rating in the initial rounds.

This is known as sandbagging and while thinking of this post and thread gave me the ASL Word of the Day! Thanks! I needed some inspiration.

Sandbagging was a common practice among chess teams back when I was playing. Going against a better team the players who were usually 1st board and 5th board would switch.

So rating systems are open to all forms of abuse. However if some people like them they are free to use them and I hope whatever system it is meets their goals and expectations.

 

[Actionjick]

Likely, a competitive Tournament should only have the top 12 of the 50 players compete for the top prize.
Others can still compete for their "level" of competition.

Essentially you'll end up with 5 "mini's" and you can structure the tournaments like the VASL LEAGUE with divisions.
IF you want to compete for the big prize, one should have to UP their game to get into the top tier.
Players go to tournaments "not to win", but to enjoy the comraderie...well then, change the structure to reflect the casual attitude.

Everyone knows seed 29 out of 50 isn't going to win...so create a situation where he can compete and win in his own division.

We all know there are different skill levels of ASL players....Why mix them?
Easy wins?

I was discussing the idea of only the top twelve players out of fifty compete for the top prize with some coworkers. One of them said that it sounded like an invitational to him. I thought that was a very astute observation. The more I thought about it the more I thought that he was absolutely correct.

Sounds like a great idea for your event! The top sixteen rated players sounds like a good place to start. Good luck!!

 

[bendizoid]

By juice are you saying they inflated ratings? Or deflated?

Most people would assume inflate but someone who really wanted to beat the system would want a lower rating so as to perhaps be paired against inferior opponents at a tournament. This assumes the event is not structured where highest rating plays lowest rating in the initial rounds.

This is known as sandbagging and while thinking of this post and thread gave me the ASL Word of the Day! Thanks! I needed some inspiration.

Sandbagging was a common practice among chess teams back when I was playing. Going against a better team the players who were usually 1st board and 5th board would switch.

So rating systems are open to all forms of abuse. However if some people like them they are free to use them and I hope whatever system it is meets their goals and expectations.

Nonsense, name one time a ASL player, at a tournament, has ‘sandbagged’ their rating to get some cockamamie advantage. Ridiculous.