so why do the amount of games matter in an Elo system? i googled what Elo was and i didn't see anything that had to do with it

so why do the amount of games matter in an Elo system? i googled what Elo was and i didn't see anything that had to do with it
I will put an easy example with aproximate numbers, not using the real fórmula:

Player A has 1700 elo now, but with a "real strenght" of 1800. If he plays against a 1700 he wins or loses 16 points (K=32) but he should win more than losing because he "is" a 1800. Let's see what happens if he go 1 game at a time:
A vs 1700, wins --> +16 --> 1716 elo
A vs 1700, wins --> (now he get a bit less, let's say 15 points) --> 1731 elo
A vs 1700, wins --> +13 --> 1744

Now let's see what would have happened if he played 3 games at the same time at the start:
A vs 1700, 3 wins, each one 16 points --> 1748

The difference it's only 4 points, but with more games and elo diferences it's a bit more. As I said with "game to game" calculations it's not so big a deal, that's why I focused more in the initial elo calculation ;)

Edited 11/17/2016 20:16:57

From what I read, a solution to much of the discussion above could be achieved by not sorting/ranking on the calculated (mean) rating, but to correct for activity (and accuracy) by subtracting the standard deviation (see TrueSkill, that subtracts 3 times the standard deviation, which is a more harsh version of this).

This is a conservative ranking that gives advantage to players whose rating is more accurate, often by playing more.

I don't see why you would let games expire. Elo was originally made for non-expiring games, I believe and all non-expiring updating rating systems simple do work better than those that use expiring games.

Very much agree about expiration with MW.

I don't see why you would let games expire. Elo was originally made for non-expiring games, I believe and all non-expiring updating rating systems simple do work better than those that use expiring games.

For shortening time calculations. He explained it above and that's one of our discussions :)

Edited 11/17/2016 23:26:28

I don't see why you would let games expire. Elo was originally made for non-expiring games

ELO was originally used for chess, which is a single game with no parameters. This MD ladder is a grab-bag of 35+ templates which may change over time.

We can expect that some players will have a higher likelihood of winning on certain templates. So in that regard, ELO might be poor choice. Expiring games doesn't improve on that, but helps ensure ratings stay relevant as the template grab-bag changes.

Tracking an ELO for each template and then somehow combining those ratings might be interesting.

Tracking an ELO for each template and then somehow combining those ratings might be interesting.

Runs into the problem, that you can blocking templates and the number of games on each template may be very different and therefore the elo may not be that comparable.

Furthermore, how do you combine these ratings. Also I think it isnt that intuitiv. How do you match players then? Right now you match them by elo and then choose the template.

Edited 11/18/2016 06:31:21

Player A has 1700 elo now, but with a "real strenght" of 1800. If he plays against a 1700 he wins or loses 16 points (K=32) but he should win more than losing because he "is" a 1800. Let's see what happens if he go 1 game at a time:
A vs 1700, wins --> +16 --> 1716 elo
A vs 1700, wins --> (now he get a bit less, let's say 15 points) --> 1731 elo
A vs 1700, wins --> +13 --> 1744

Now let's see what would have happened if he played 3 games at the same time at the start:
A vs 1700, 3 wins, each one 16 points --> 1748

The difference it's only 4 points, but with more games and elo diferences it's a bit more. As I said with "game to game" calculations it's not so big a deal, that's why I focused more in the initial elo calculation ;)

wouldn't that be the reason for using Elo? i was asking about why the amount of games matter

Edited 11/18/2016 14:47:58

Runs into the problem, that you can blocking templates and the number of games on each template may be very different

Yes, choosing/blocking templates further distorts the meaning of a single ELO rating.

However, blocking is a nice feature that makes the competition more fun. It allows players to specialize and avoid templates they don't like or are not good at. Actually, template blocking seems to increase the need for multiple ELOs and a composite metric.

Furthermore, how do you combine these ratings. Also I think it isnt that intuitiv.

Here's an attempt:

Consider a system with 1 elo per template, and you get points based on your ranking from each elo system. Say you are ranked 3 for Guiroma. One way is for points to be given by f(k) = 1/k or 1/3 points. If more people join the ladder, your points won't change.

If one person had rank 1 in all 35 templates, they would have 35 points. If somebody was ranked last in all templates, they would have just above zero points.

How do you match players then? Right now you match them by elo and then choose the template.

You would match based on points, and randomly choose the template. Then the outcome of that game effects only the elo for that template.

Edited 11/19/2016 01:35:37

The above point system is almost certainly not practical as is, but maybe it could be tweaked.

@J_Dog: the amount of games matters because of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics.

Also, "real strength" of a player for a certain game would be based on knowledge of the number of neural connections, FLOPS, experience, current brain/body state, etc. In the absence of that knowledge, the best we can do is try to estimate real strength based on game outcome data.

because he "is" a 1800

You can't really say that for sure. If he has another account with a rating of 1800, he should be using that account:)

Edited 11/18/2016 21:51:12

because he "is" a 1800

You can't really say that for sure. If he has another account with a rating of 1800, he should be using that account:)

Ratings derived from the games played are just estimates of a player's true skill. When he says the player "is" a 1800 he means their "true" rating which Elo is attempting to estimate.

Edited 11/18/2016 22:00:20

How did he compute 1800? Can he estimate the "true" rating better than ELO? After 1000 games if the ELO is still 1700, is his estimate wrong or is ELO wrong?

It was just an example -.- The example was though for someone that doesn't have a elo that reflected his/her true strengh like a new player...
But new players it's not the only issue, maybe someone who left and returns to the ladder later being an overall better player :/

And yes, one elo per template would be nice but the idea it's to use something way more simple than that. And at the end, if you match with that system, you could be matched against players with a skill level much different to yours in that template only because the average of both players it's similar :/ The idea it's try to avoid that.

server seems to be down

Yeah sorry about that. Pushing out a new update right now...


EDIT: Fixed.

Edited 11/18/2016 22:59:36

We have added a new feature to track the rank and rating of players over time! Check it out on the player profile pages. You can also zoom in to a specific portion of the chart by dragging over a region. Click again to zoom back out. All hail Muli!




Edited 1/4/2017 18:46:01

Shouldn't Red Dead Redemption be Straight Rounded?

if you match with that system, you could be matched against players with a skill level much different to yours in that template only because the average of both players it's similar :/

No, by design the system can avoid this. Because it has an elo for each template, it can pick a template both players are decent at.

one elo per template would be nice but the idea it's to use something way more simple than that.

Players want to know how they compare to others on a particular system. One ELO per template is the simplest way to do this.

Only one person can be #1 on the overall ranking, but many can have a #1 template specific ELO.

The current summary ELO works reasonable well for matching players and could still be used. One ELO per template and composite score could be tracked and used for informational purposes only.

Does anyone else want to know how they rank on individual templates?

Having a ranking for different templates would probably be interesting, but with 35 different possible templates, the template specific rating would likely be pretty much meaningless cause nobody will have a good number of games played on a certain template.