|
BGonline.org Forums
Proposed Ranking System -Update
Posted By: Rod In Response To: Proposed Ranking System -Update (Seth)
Date: Monday, 2 December 2013, at 5:39 a.m.
Seth,
It gauges performance. Nothing more, nothing less.
Performance is simply one factor upon which people judge players.
How long and over how many events does it take for live performance to become more important than pure PR? Longer than 5 years, given the sparse sprinkling of tournaments in the US. 10 years? 15? 20? Certainly there is some period of time after which I'd care more about results than who the theoretically better player is. 5 years, even with half the tournaments played, is too short a time frame. But it's just a number on the ranking system.
If Dana plays not a single additional tournament in the next 4 years he'll still be top 5 because he won Vegas recently.
Bob Koca can probably come up with the number of events after which actual performance become statistically significant beyond some X degree. That would be interesting.
Live play results do matter for several reasons. Some people fail to perform as well under pressure. Some people perform better.
In DC recently I was in the finals of the Masters Jackpot with Malcolm. I let the talking behind me, the raucous laughter to my right, the insanely loud dice cups to my left and the near party in front of me get to me. I was not in my normal uber cool and collected playing mode. My game was affected. I let it be affected. That's not how one wins tournaments. Does that happen to other players? Does it happen more frequently? Less frequently?
These are the things that *eventually* will show in a pure performance metric. The performance number has some value over enough events. How much a 5-year metric should be weighted... That's up to you.
|
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.