Hugely flawed to the point of being irrelevant
Posted By: Rod In Response To: Giants - need computerized real-time ranking (Ken Larsen)
Date: Friday, 15 November 2013, at 10:11 p.m.
In Response To: Giants - need computerized real-time ranking (Ken Larsen)
Number of events includes jackpots.
Some people play every jackpot event (and EVERY other event), while others play few jackpot events.
To get an average point/event to mean anything you'd have to have the inputs correct.
For example, Neil has been playing few jackpots. I've played jackpots at every tournament (I think I got locked out of one).
But besides that.... This overweights 1 particular event and gives no weight to other events and $ play.
Someone mentioned being able to play tennis on all surfaces (and actually doing so). Do my 3 of 8 jackpot cashes mean nothing? How about Malcolm's 3 jackpot wins for the year (I think it's 3)? What about the fact that I typically cash in 1 or 2 side events at tournaments? Of course, I play in EVERYTHING... Is that good? Is it bad? Does it take energy and focus away from the main event play? Does it take some added endurance? Does that matter?
I applaud your attempt at making some sense of the numbers. But what you've done means little. And how do you incorporate the European and Japanese tournament results? Are results weighted by # of players at a tournament? How about by strength of the field at a tournament? It can be done since their is an elo system in place.
Messages In This Thread
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.