[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums

Ken's proposal

Posted By: Rod
Date: Wednesday, 18 December 2013, at 6:29 a.m.

In Response To: Ken's proposal (Matt Cohn-Geier)

Performance and ELO, both, according to an analysis I did and posted here a while back, have a strong correlation (statistically speaking) to PR and to each other.

PR, ELO nor performance (points) are perfect. Each has strengths and each has weaknesses.

Personally, I'd take Ray in a Calcutta over the same priced purchase of the "average" player who plays 0.2 PR under him. Maybe even 0.3 or 0.4. 0.5 and I'm pretty sure I'd take the other player for the same price.

I think there's room to incorporate performance, too. Again, I'd like to know, mathematically, what the likelihood is that someone outperforms due to chance over 1, 5, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, ... 200 tournaments. Eventually, I'd hazzard a guess, it becomes less and less likely that performance is chance and therefore if there are perennial outperformers or underperformers, one needs to look at something other than PR.

But until I see the math, I just don't know how much weight to give performance versus PR versus ELO.

And what about $ play? There's one Giant (who I put on my list) who I'd dread drawing in a tournament but would play heads up against. $ play PR can differ from tournament PR - people steam, people get flustered. I've seen many great tournament players play less well in chous. At least 3 people mentioned in this series of posts are players I would love to play for high $ stakes. (Most I wouldn't, though!)

Messages In This Thread

 

Post Response
Your Name:
Your E-Mail Address:
Subject:
Message:

If necessary, enter your password below:

Password:
 

 

[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.