| |
BGonline.org Forums
The best way to measure?
Posted By: Jason Lee In Response To: The best way to measure? (Phil Simborg)
Date: Sunday, 30 November 2014, at 6:05 p.m.
Since you generally only go to major events, I believe the average PR is also lower for that reason, as the average skill of the open players at the bigger tournaments is, I believe, far better than it is at smaller events.
Do you have a guess as to by how much?
I believe the most meaningful measurement (to me) is the median PR for the first round only...
Absolutely, this is the way to measure the mean/median PR.
throw out the very high and very low
There is no mathematical basis for this -- in fact, you would be unfairly skewing the data by doing so.
This is the same idea as when somebody analyzes a match and commits some gargantuan whopper because they didn't see the right play, or they were distracted, or a ghost moved a checker. It's not right to omit that data. You committed that mistake, so you should be penalized for it. You've proven that there is a nonzero chance that you'll make some horrendous error, that's part of your profile. Omitting those gigantic mistakes is just rationalizing.
I believe that was not as true 20 years ago, and even 10, as then I believe the average PR for Open players was not only much worse,
Through no basis but my gut feel, I've been saying the same thing. I've only been playing in ABT tournaments since 2004, but I'm pretty sure that the level of play now is significantly better than when I started. I've gotten a little bit better, but the field has gotten much better.
There are a lot of reasons why I haven't played a lot of ABT events in the last couple of years, but one of the big ones is that I feel like I've slipped a lot relative to the field. I would say that the main reason is that backgammon is probably like the fourth or fifth priority in my life these days.
JLee
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.