CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
 Posted:
Jan 09, 2009 - 19:26 |
 
|
As shown here TS differences of 10+ have been reported quite some time ago. So it`s just common sense to assume, that there where there is large TS disadvantage there will teams with a similar advantage. They just won`t come forth, to say 'hey.. I`m THAT bad that I get huge advantage every time!'
And yes.. picking is worse in [B] than in [R]. Because in [R] you can just say 'no thx'. |
Last edited by CircularLogic on %b %09, %2009 - %19:%Jan; edited 1 time in total |
|
westerner
Joined: Jul 02, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jan 09, 2009 - 19:33 |
|
That's rare (yours is the only one I've seen, Circ). And you managed an excellent w/d/l record considering.
So I would argue that average TS differences over 10 are unusual and don't break the system. |
_________________
\x/es |
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 09, 2009 - 19:48 |
|
While I agree, that averages over 10 are unusual, they CAN break the system, if you can produce them at will. All you have to do is lose enough. |
|
|
SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jan 09, 2009 - 19:48 |
|
Teams which win alot and stack up TS disadvantages happen... but do not imply that there are teams which stack up large TS advantages. Once you have reached a certain TS advantage you will probably start winning more games, thus negating your TS advantage a little. I think its probably much less common for people to have massive losing records in [B] than it is for people to have massive winning records. Basicly I dont think theres any reason to assume that BR is normally distributed.
I can see where you're coming from but to get much advantage your method of gaming the system would have to be pretty blatent. |
_________________
Putting the "eh?" back into Sexeh.
"There are those to whom knowledge is a shield. There are those to whom it is a weapon. Neither view is balanced." |
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 09, 2009 - 19:50 |
|
I agree Silly.. that is because people try to win generally so they will stablize on a level and play other coaches at the same level more often than not. |
|
|
SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jan 09, 2009 - 20:00 |
|
It might be pretty challenging to lose convincingly though, especially while simultaneously building the worlds greatest orc team.
Edit: to make it clearer, playing to lose consistently enough while 10-15TS up and without making it obvious you're desperately trying to lose is probably pretty tricky. I think your best bet would be to create a team called "Santas bad little elves" and theme them on fouling every turn possible.... fouling every turn regardless of situation (with a team ill suited to it) is the only way I can think of ensuring a low enough win rate without making "obviously" bad moves. You might need two such teams as well which is bound to look suspicious in itself.
Also this brings up yet another good reason why coaches playing to kill at all costs rather than win should be punished. |
_________________
Putting the "eh?" back into Sexeh.
"There are those to whom knowledge is a shield. There are those to whom it is a weapon. Neither view is balanced."
Last edited by SillySod on %b %09, %2009 - %20:%Jan; edited 1 time in total |
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 09, 2009 - 20:06 |
|
Well.. if I remember correctly from the killing first topics playing to win isn`t enforced.. so you just have to play semi-convincing, if at all. |
|
|
treborius
Joined: Apr 05, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jan 09, 2009 - 20:58 |
|
| CircularLogic wrote: | As shown here TS differences of 10+ have been reported quite some time ago. So it`s just common sense to assume, that there where there is large TS disadvantage there will teams with a similar advantage. They just won`t come forth, to say 'hey.. I`m THAT bad that I get huge advantage every time!'
And yes.. picking is worse in [B] than in [R]. Because in [R] you can just say 'no thx'. |
while you're obviously right, that someone has to gain TS-advantage when others suffer from TS-disadvantage i don't agree that the advantage can be all that great w/o devoting an unrealistic amount of time to achieve that as SillySod has pointed out, already:
| SillySod wrote: | | (...) to get much advantage your method of gaming the system would have to be pretty blatant. |
i was still interested in the amount of advantage players are currently gaining due to poor performance, though...
...since i sadly don't have access to the fumbbl-DB in order to do some proper statistics and since i'm somewhat lazy i just went through all B-teams (ordered by # of games played, descending) until i would find the first team with less than 25% win-rate...
...luckily such a team exists w/o going down in the total # of games played, too much...
...sorry Kenneth for pulling this one into bright daylight, but it's just too good of an example to be left alone 
the team has a 21% win-rate over an impressive number of 38 games (5/6/27). Also, the coach has 2 other B-teams with a combined record of 7/8/17.
So, altogether this coach with a total B-record of 12/14/44 (27% win-ratio, 70 games) should have a pretty bad coach-ranking.
I then only looked at the team's last 10 matches (when his coach-ranking must have been pretty bad, already), yielding these TS-advantages (including HCs):
8
13
11
-10
14
10
14
-6
11
11
...that's an advantage of 7.6 TS on average - a clear trend, but really not 10 TS for the most extreme example (as far as bad coaching-skills are concerned - sorry again, Kenneth ) i could find with a reasonable amount of data available.
also, i don't think it's only about the TS-difference - it's also not being able to choose a soft opponent when your team is just hurting or is low on money, etc - all of that is just not possible in B, while it is in R. |
Last edited by treborius on %b %09, %2009 - %21:%Jan; edited 1 time in total |
|
westerner
Joined: Jul 02, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jan 09, 2009 - 21:02 |
|
In theory, it is possible to bring your BR as low as you like, but the empirical data so far suggest few people are interested in doing that. The closest example are the "kill first" teams but even they manage a reasonable w/d/l record. So I think all you need to make it vanishingly rare is a decent competitive goal.
Which brings us full circle back to the original topic. Assuming the TS scheduler continues to assign a 0-10TS average BR handicap, what would make a good competitive goal? |
_________________
\x/es |
|
westerner
Joined: Jul 02, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jan 09, 2009 - 21:43 |
|
| treborius wrote: | So, altogether this coach with a total B-record of 12/14/44 (27% win-ratio, 70 games) should have a pretty bad coach-ranking.
I then only looked at the team's last 10 matches
...that's an advantage of 7.6 TS on average - a clear trend, but really not 10 TS |
I think another point that your data highlights is that even large average TS handicaps (7.6TS is among the largest the Box consistently assigns) don't skew w/d/l that badly. Which parallels Circ's experience at the other end of the scale. |
_________________
\x/es |
|
SillySod
Joined: Oct 10, 2006
|
| Posted:
Jan 09, 2009 - 21:55 |
|
Hmmm, watching a few of Kenneths match reports gave me the another idea to help you lose BR Circ... have a team that re-rolls blocks which arent straight pows. The best bit about this concept is you dont even have to be overt about it - watching the replay people cant see your first set of block dice so will assume that you've skulled out. It took me alot of replays to figure out thats what Kenneth was doing. I kept on thinking "ouch, another doubleskull/skullpow" and actually started to think that maybe all those losses were purely a luck thing because the rest of Kenneths play isnt at all obviously bad or especially unusual.
If you are reading this Kenneth then take heart, if you stop RRing pushbacks then you will start doing alot better  |
_________________
Putting the "eh?" back into Sexeh.
"There are those to whom knowledge is a shield. There are those to whom it is a weapon. Neither view is balanced." |
|
CircularLogic
Joined: Aug 22, 2003
|
| Posted:
Jan 09, 2009 - 22:19 |
|
Well.. looking at the 2 games that are played at disadvantage, there were against equally weak or weaker coaches. So if you get 10+TS advantage or you play really weak coaches... I`d say it`s win/win  |
|
|
treborius
Joined: Apr 05, 2008
|
| Posted:
Jan 09, 2009 - 23:09 |
|
| CircularLogic wrote: | | Well.. looking at the 2 games that are played at disadvantage, there were against equally weak or weaker coaches. So if you get 10+TS advantage or you play really weak coaches... I`d say it`s win/win |
sadly, we don't know their BR, but when you look at their combined win-percentages in B as of today, it's 36% and 34% - seems at least quite a bit stronger than Kenneth' - certainly not weaker
EDIT: Kenneth' is 27%
EDIT2: I picked a coach that seemed to be at the very bottom for that reason: he was probably scheduled with a BR-bonus in every matchup the scheduler produced (as far as we can infer from the data) |
|
|
sk8bcn
Joined: Apr 13, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jan 10, 2009 - 15:26 |
|
| CircularLogic wrote: | | If you estimate, that I am currently BR175, then I have to face coaches that BR156 or higher and if such a coach is not available the strongest coach with the highest disadvantage possible. So you say that this is a 'minor loophole' and not a considerable factor? |
mmmm question, why do you assume that the match becomes impossible and it is not an Max(15,abs(BR1-BR2)) |
_________________
Join NL Raises from the Ashes |
|
sk8bcn
Joined: Apr 13, 2004
|
| Posted:
Jan 10, 2009 - 15:34 |
|
| CircularLogic wrote: | As shown here TS differences of 10+ have been reported quite some time ago. So it`s just common sense to assume, that there where there is large TS disadvantage there will teams with a similar advantage. They just won`t come forth, to say 'hey.. I`m THAT bad that I get huge advantage every time!'
And yes.. picking is worse in [B] than in [R]. Because in [R] you can just say 'no thx'. |
picking what?
ok. This is what I propose. [B] is in test mode. So as [B] could be filled with pickers using this strategy, who's willing to lose their 20-30 games to prove the point? Circ? Will you?
By the way you will play with a TS advantage making them easier to win. A game that you have to lose to keep your ranking low. But for teambuilding, I need to avoid bashing and harming team.
My point:
I think it's too much of an harassment (loosing 20-30 games at least) to get a minor advantage in tournament, hence I don't think anybody would do it
(Oh no, **** it, I've spended 40 hours of life in losing to get outlucked by this noob....nooo.....) |
_________________
Join NL Raises from the Ashes |
|
|
|
Gnomes are trash
Search
