Ratings - Not Rewarding Good Play

[PokeDaddy]

Jimmy Ballard's post was the best post I have seen on this subject - ever - hands down.

I don't know you Chad (Scizor) but if Jimmy respects you, I do too.

There is not one answer to solve all situations. PUI is doing what they have determined to be the best for the game, states went from 4 days to 2 day, Regs went from 2 days to 1, we've added the ratings, all in the interest of making the game fair for all folks.

It isn't fair for all, it may not even be fair for most. But I do know that the Powers To Be care about the game and the people (especially the young ones).

dimension mentions his son's loss of games and the impact it has on his ratings. It happens.

When all else fails, ask your selves why are you playing Pokemon? Fun needs to be there in some form or other.

Steve

 

[JandPDS]

Jimmy Ballard's post was the best post I have seen on this subject - ever - hands down.

I don't know you Chad (Scizor) but if Jimmy respects you, I do too.

There is not one answer to solve all situations. PUI is doing what they have determined to be the best for the game, states went from 4 days to 2 day, Regs went from 2 days to 1, we've added the ratings, all in the interest of making the game fair for all folks.

It isn't fair for all, it may not even be fair for most. But I do know that the Powers To Be care about the game and the people (especially the young ones).

dimension mentions his son's loss of games and the impact it has on his ratings. It happens.

When all else fails, ask your selves why are you playing Pokemon? Fun needs to be there in some form or other.

Steve

Yea but the problem is that in the interest of "fairness" we get less and less chances to actually play the game of Pokemon in Organized events. Yes, they have added Battle Roads, but with a Max top cut of 4 there is just not all that much excitement to them as the same players tend to top cut all the time in them. States and regionals used to be a great time to play here in the Pacific NW. You got to play in 3 states, Washington, Oregon and British Columbia (Provincials), Then for Regionals you could play in ours one week and then drive or fly to another one the following week. Now all those opportunity for games are gone as we only get one Regional and Two states that we are allowed to play in. I have Canadian Nationals just a 40 min drive from my home and I cannot participate in that either. I go to tournaments because I enjoy playing the game of Pokemon. I would like to go to more events each year not less as had been the case the past few years. The larger the event the better.

I just wish that things could go back to how they used to be when rating points were just for fun and there were no trips or invites to worlds attached to them. Then we could go back to having Top 8 cuts at Cities and Top 16 at states like there should be. Then all invites to Worlds should be handed out by doing well at Nationals, say in the US invites to whoever makes the T32. Then people wouldn't have any reason to complain that they went 6-2 and only gained 12 pts because the points would not mean anything other then bragging rights.

 

[TheDarkTwins]

Yea but the problem is that in the interest of "fairness" we get less and less chances to actually play the game of Pokemon in Organized events. Yes, they have added Battle Roads, but with a Max top cut of 4 there is just not all that much excitement to them as the same players tend to top cut all the time in them. States and regionals used to be a great time to play here in the Pacific NW. You got to play in 3 states, Washington, Oregon and British Columbia (Provincials), Then for Regionals you could play in ours one week and then drive or fly to another one the following week. Now all those opportunity for games are gone as we only get one Regional and Two states that we are allowed to play in. I have Canadian Nationals just a 40 min drive from my home and I cannot participate in that either. I go to tournaments because I enjoy playing the game of Pokemon. I would like to go to more events each year not less as had been the case the past few years. The larger the event the better.

I just wish that things could go back to how they used to be when rating points were just for fun and there were no trips or invites to worlds attached to them. Then we could go back to having Top 8 cuts at Cities and Top 16 at states like there should be. Then all invites to Worlds should be handed out by doing well at Nationals, say in the US invites to whoever makes the T32. Then people wouldn't have any reason to complain that they went 6-2 and only gained 12 pts because the points would not mean anything other then bragging rights.

Yeh, but if you give invites to the T32 of US Nationals, you then penalize everyone who cant make US Nationals, or going 7-2 and miss the cut. We had 5 players (I think) go 7-2 and miss the cut. So, how is that fair to them?

JMO,
Drew

 

[Scizor]

Scizor,

Assuming I've thought this through properly, then your average opponent at the tournament was some 108 rating points lower than you. The rating system would expect you to go roughly 4-2 against these opponents. Since you managed a better record of 6-2 it rewarded you with a 10 point gain. I can't comment if 10 points is an appropriate reward for a T16 finish. But at least it was positive.

If I'm way off on your average opponent please post the ratings changes for the 8 rounds.

[I'm not disagreeing with anything that you wrote. Just throwing in some numbers]

================

z-man, a pure reward system would be worse for those areas that have fewer opportunities to play. The non-linearity in the ELO equation that results in only a +10 gain is also keeping the areas with lots of games in check too.

Where the ratings system has a problem is with the strong player who enters the season late with a nominal rating of 1600. Such players grinch a lot of points off everyone they beat. I have no idea if the west coast is afflicted with a lot of grinches.

That's about right, NoPoke. I lost in T8, not T16, though.

Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

Chad...

I see where you are coming from, but would this be an issue had you won the event? (no sarcasm, serious question)

I personally think that PUI has made more than enough accomodation for you and others in your situation at other players expense. They have basically ruined the tournament structure (states and regs being limited) to try and make it more "FAIR" to all of you. How many more accomodations need to be made before we really mess things up?

Frankly, this was not "FAIR" to the majority of the player base. I personally would like to see ranking disappear altogether. It hasnt proven itself as an effective way of determining who is the best in the country. Allow those who can play multiple times to actually play. Isnt that what we are here for anyhow. Some people can only make those types of events. Nationals and Worlds are NEVER an option for them. Why would we limit those people to ensure that others can POSSIBLY benefit?

This year has been an utter disappointment for organized play as a whole. I completely understand that PUI is doing everything they can with the money they are given. Unfortunatly for them, they chose to spoil us first, then slowly dwindle away at a good thing.

As a store owner I have seen many games come and go. I felt Pokemon and Magic are different from the rest cause the actually listen to their player base. I would not be surprised if organized play was completely gone in 2-3 years due to bugetary shortfalls. If you think about it, we are avery small portion of total revenue for Nintendo as a whole. It probably wouldnt even be missed, cept by us players.

So if you and the other California players are still in the same boat as last year. Obviously the things they did to help (player rankings) did not work. Its been 2 years now. Experiment should be re-evaluated and dismissed. The old way of letting the top 2 at regionals and top 8 at nats go to worlds under an invite was perfect. Then I would agree to keep regionals to 1 day.

Please dont take this the wrong way Chad. I have a great deal of respect for you and what you are trying to do for the West coast. But it is burning me that it is being done at everyone elses expense,

Jimmy

No, I would have not made this post, but I certainly care a great deal about others besides myself. I think that's obvious with the amount of help I give out. I should not be expected to win every SINGLE tournament here to get anywhere close to an invite, and that's how it looks like it has to be.

I understand that people want more events and I do too. Cutting events is never a good thing. It was the route they took to try and make it more fair, or whatever their reasoning was, I don't know.

I agree that I don't like ratings in the first place. If they wanted to make it more fair, I think increasing the K-Value by attendance would have been a better idea. Considering we get some of the largest events over here.

No hard feelings Jimmy, can't say I disagree with any of that.

Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

The number of seniors I have mentored is 6 million.

To gain the points, you have to beat the best.

If you (a) beat a bunch of low rated people and then (b) lose to the higher rated people, guess what??

Your points will not raise as much.

California did NOT have a huge number at either Regional this year.

So you were now punished for playing in a small Regional that you did not beat competitive players at?

To gain massive points you need to (a) beat the people you are supposed to beat, and (b) beat most of the people you should have trouble beating.

Anyone rated 1780 or more that went x-2 without beating a highly rated player should feel LUCKY they did not lose points.

Anytime you go x-2....each of your wins is what, about 10 points a piece, and your losses 30 a piece in a 40K event if you are 150+ points ahead of your competition?

Seems to reflect the competition faced.

Not agreeing with the current system, but this outcome seems OK.

Vince

Um, wow. California has TWO Regionals and everyone was on the same day this year. I guess it's MY fault I tried to defend my title instead of going up to Oregon? Last I checked we had the largest State Championship where I went undefeated.....

I should feel LUCKY that I gained points? I'm not allowed to lose A GAME I guess. I should just win EVERY GAME since nobody here is rated high at all, yeah they're ALL bad. Maybe it's because there aren't as many events in an enclosed area? That couldn't POSSIBLY be it.

Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

I'm still kind of on the fence with this.

I would contend that my season has been one of the best in the world this year. I won a couple of BRs, I won 6 CCs, came in second at 5, I won a States, and I came in second at Regionals. If we were in a pro-points system, I’d probably be pretty near the top of the list.

The problem I have, is that one bad day can ruin a season. After the first weekend of states, I was ranked #1 in master NA. Then, at DE states, I went 2-3. It was a horrible day for me, I did very poorly, had tons of bad luck, and lost around 70-80 points. I went from 1st to around 25th. After that I came in 2nd at regionals, with an overall record of 8-3. I gained twenty something points and am currently in 27th place. Had I not had that one bad day, I would probably be in the top 5ish ranks.

The rating system makes every event critical to getting an invite.

This could be either a good or bad thing. It makes players take every event very seriously. One bad day can wreck a season.

With a pro-points system, you only gain points. Going 2-3 at an event is like not going to the event at all.

If I had just not gone to that one SC, I would have a much better rank.

This is just my situation, take from it what you want, I’m not sure what system is the best.

I completely agree that we should have a Pro Point system like Magic: The Gathering. We could still have rating invites, but adding something like this would solve a lot of problems

Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

I can definately see your side of things. This year my son Robert G. Jr. , in the junoirs has won 22 tournaments in a row and finished 2nd at Regionals. His second at regionals lost him 40 points in ratings. He went 4-2, made the top 8, won the next 2 matches and lost in finals. Imagine a second place finish and you LOSE 40 points for the day. In States he had 1 loss and I believe he only gained 9 points for his win for the day. He went from the #1 player in the world to 17th in all ages. Been a crazy season, hard to explain to a kid that sometimes no matter what you do, it will hurt your rating. I totally undertand that when you lose to a lower ranked player it crushes your ratings, but it still kinda stinks. He doesn't have sour grapes, he is happy as can be that he grabbed 2nd at regionals, as we are and it kinda takes some pressure off of him honestly. He is really looking forward to playing Nats and Worlds. :thumb:

On a side note: I emailed Pokemon asking if 22 wins in a row was a record, but they aren't able to get me that info. Anyone know anyone else that's ever won 22 consecutive tournaments?

Good story. This is a great example that shows there should be Pro Points or something. Here's a kid dominating everything and STILL gets 2nd in Regionals despite losing 3 games. He should gain SOMETHING for that placing.

On your 22 wins in a row, I think John Kettler either beat that or was very close? There could be some others.

 

[ToysRUsKid]

The number of seniors I have mentored is 6 million.

To gain the points, you have to beat the best.

If you (a) beat a bunch of low rated people and then (b) lose to the higher rated people, guess what??

Your points will not raise as much.

California did NOT have a huge number at either Regional this year.

So you were now punished for playing in a small Regional that you did not beat competitive players at?

To gain massive points you need to (a) beat the people you are supposed to beat, and (b) beat most of the people you should have trouble beating.

Anyone rated 1780 or more that went x-2 without beating a highly rated player should feel LUCKY they did not lose points.

Anytime you go x-2....each of your wins is what, about 10 points a piece, and your losses 30 a piece in a 40K event if you are 150+ points ahead of your competition?

Seems to reflect the competition faced.

Not agreeing with the current system, but this outcome seems OK.

Vince

Yeah, like Ho-Oh Surviving 3 times as the only thing on his board. Its my fault for not winning that game -_- One tails and it was lights out.

 

[Robbgobb]

I disagree with Pro Points because I don't like a system that has 10 and under kids competing for professional points. The child I got into this game enjoys the competition and wants to keep track of the points.

He wants to know where his friends are but he doesn't even like Worlds being brought up because he hates this system. He has not asked for the old system to be brought back. He just wants to compete and not have every time he plays in a tournament to be one where he has to watch the T1 loss to a rare candy, Infernape and 2 heads makes him lose 30 points because a system is used that was designed for a game that does not have luck involved.

I feel like this system is one that is used because the old way was one that the people we know that is in charge of the game was told by their bosses to change. They then picked something that would not take too much work and shoved it on us. They seem to still be feeling it out but this system really does make me dislike the game at times. When I see a junior that loves playing think of dropping from a BR or CC so there is not a chance of losing points because will only be 4 rounds total, then I think about what this game is becoming. I would be one that could live with ratings being taken away from BRs and even CCs. This would help solve part of the problem. Would mean that would need to bring your best to States, Regionals, and Nationals but I think would at least make the BR and CC less stressful for some and probably more fun to most overall.

 

[NoPoke]

ProPoints bad... the situation will get worse with a pro points system.

I should feel LUCKY that I gained points? I'm not allowed to lose A GAME I guess. I should just win EVERY GAME since nobody here is rated high at all, yeah they're ALL bad. Maybe it's because there aren't as many events in an enclosed area? That couldn't POSSIBLY be it.

Actually that is not it. However this part of the quote is exactly it "I should just win EVERY GAME since nobody here is rated high at all" It isn't your fault or POPs that your rating is much higher than those around you. It goes hand in hand with winning! Congrats on that by the way . There is the minor detail that you did not win every match and your rating still went up. You don't have to win every game though I know it feels like you do. I believe that in Pokemon tcg ELO incorrectly predicts win expectancy when there is a wide difference in rating points. Actually I'm sure, because I have a mathematical proof of such behaviour. The error doesn't matter early season but has some very unfortunate consequences late season: players end up feeling that they have to win every game. Pokemon is not a game of pure skill, something which is assumed in the current ratings system.

The rating system isn't all bad even if it is flawed. Here's the thing of it: POP are doing their best to find ways of rewarding consistant performance over several tournaments. I don't see how any of us can fault POP in their desire to reward consistant performance. POP have to steer a path around obstacles that none of us outside the Seattle office can see.

In any system where there are prizes to be won, where you live and who you play against matters. This is true for the ratings sytem and true for which National tournament you can take part in.

 

[Prime]

IMHO, there has been too much focus on ratings. Probably because the increase of rating invites this year. This causes everyone to focus just on ratings (which is a flawed system, I agree), and only on ratings. I wish they would reduce the ratings invites back down to top 8 and funnel those invites into tournaments like Regionals and Nationals (trip-less invites even), so that it's not hopeless to get an invite if you don't have a high rating.

How many players did we see do well at Regionals that didn't have a high rating? Rating is in no way a calculation of how skilled a player is. Just to name a few off the top of my head from my area, Jake B and Tom W are perfect examples of this. Both have LIVES and don't have high ratings, but both are really good players and showed that this past weekend at Regionals by making the top 8 (Jake B) or the final game (Tom W). I am sure we could all throw in a handful of names of people we know that are outstanding players and could top cut a big tournament any day but just don't have a good rating.

Also, this leads to problems where one of these people can go undefeated at a tournament, giving all their opponent's the maximum point loss because they were at such a low rating before the tournament.

Hate to hear your rating took a hit from you doing well Scizor. Maybe you can win your trip to Worlds through Battle Roads...XP

 

[Ho Megas Alexandros]

Mr. Trabek, What is Fair?

 

[SLOW DECK]

As I have stated in the past, Rankings take fun out of the game. I think the 10 and under is probably where it is the worst. Rankings FORCE the SAME poke-coached 10 and under kids to play dominating decks, and WIN every tournament, or risk hurting there "worlds" rankings. I think of my son 2 years ago, where after winning on 2 cities, he would play really GOOFY / red face paint decks because he didn't care if he won. That meant it was easier for someone else to win.

Few years ago, i was involved in cub scouts, and was in charge of the pinewood derby. Our pack had a 6 lane track, and initially people thought it was COOL to us all 6 lanes. The reality I found out was that there was 5 kids that lost and 1 kid that won each heat. The computer program was based on a system to make sure it was fair for the fastest cars would be fairly and accurately identified for top cut. It ended up that software system, that only 5 of the 20 kids for a age group even won a heat, it was the same kids over and over again. Do you think that it was fun for the other 15 kids. Some yes, others they had a very bad day, especially when your car finished last.

The next year, I through out the computer program, and devised a better system that was more enjoyable to ALL. The system was much like the swiss system we enjoy. We used only 3 lanes of the track, and the faster kids would race faster kids, and the slower kids would race slower kids as the rounds progressed. In the end, you would have at least 17 of the 20 kids winning at least one heat, and it was a much more enjoyable experience for everyone.

In the same light, having a system that perpetuates "veteran" families to dominate every event, doesn't grow the game. If in a area, 5 different kids won battle roads, that area will be healthier to grow the game then an area where one kid wins all 5 events. A kid and their family who win's a city or a battle road is going to be more invested in the game, then some kid who finishes 3-3 and get's beaten badly by the Area's big sticks every time, because the kids always play there best decks, not one to have fun with.

How is the same kid winning every area CC and BR tournament help grow the game?

 

[Prof Clay]

In the same light, having a system that perpetuates "veteran" families to dominate every event, doesn't grow the game. If in a area, 5 different kids won battle roads, that area will be healthier to grow the game then an area where one kid wins all 5 events. A kid and their family who win's a city or a battle road is going to be more invested in the game, then some kid who finishes 3-3 and get's beaten badly by the Area's big sticks every time, because the kids always play there best decks, not one to have fun with.

How is the same kid winning every area CC and BR tournament help grow the game?

I see your point Rob, but how do you ask players to not compete in premier events?

I think we came up with a way to overcome the big stick effect here, but it has to be done on a local level with area leagues and stores holding their own tournaments that can restrict participation. During the slow season I like to hold a tournament for my kids who have never won an event of any type. It ends up about Battle Road size numbers and the store or I provide the prize support. It gives the new kids a chance to shine and feel successful. We are planning on more of these events coming up to help develop the kids feel for tournament play.

 

[SLOW DECK]

I think the real question is, How do you ask Players not to have FUN at premier events?

The Big Stick in the Area can't play to have fun with ELO, you have to play to WIN, and WIN every match, and EVER event. Never to take out that fun red face paint GRASS deck built by the 9 year old to see if it can win something. Nope, the BCS/ECO engineering parents will frown upon their child playing a deck that might go 1-4 aftern spending all season building a great ELO.

Not saying pokemon isn't a great family wide hobby, but just examining the dynamics that might not be healthy.

 

[meganium45]

I am looking at ways to make this work in St. Louis, such as holding Battle Roads on the SAME DAY.

It will hurt my numbers, but spread out the prizes.

We have a dominating Junior in our area (again)

Last year, battle Roads were a lot of fun because the dominating Junior took the entire series off, as his points were strong.

This year, with no reason to protect points, the Junior in our area is planning to play.

It will hurt our events.

I wish we could just throw him, Rob G, Thomas A, the power from CO, the power from OR, Matthew S, and other "power juniors" in their own special tourney, and the 'amateur" players in their own events...but it will not happen. Not until nats.

I expect my attendance to be good at the first few Battle Roads, and lessen when people figure out the reality of the competition.

If there were ratings "trips" (even for the Top 4), the kid would be sitting for BRs. The game determines the play.

Vince

 

[Scizor]

ProPoints bad... the situation will get worse with a pro points system.



Actually that is not it. However this part of the quote is exactly it "I should just win EVERY GAME since nobody here is rated high at all" It isn't your fault or POPs that your rating is much higher than those around you. It goes hand in hand with winning! Congrats on that by the way . There is the minor detail that you did not win every match and your rating still went up. You don't have to win every game though I know it feels like you do. I believe that in Pokemon tcg ELO incorrectly predicts win expectancy when there is a wide difference in rating points. Actually I'm sure, because I have a mathematical proof of such behaviour. The error doesn't matter early season but has some very unfortunate consequences late season: players end up feeling that they have to win every game. Pokemon is not a game of pure skill, something which is assumed in the current ratings system.

The rating system isn't all bad even if it is flawed. Here's the thing of it: POP are doing their best to find ways of rewarding consistant performance over several tournaments. I don't see how any of us can fault POP in their desire to reward consistant performance. POP have to steer a path around obstacles that none of us outside the Seattle office can see.

In any system where there are prizes to be won, where you live and who you play against matters. This is true for the ratings sytem and true for which National tournament you can take part in.

If the rating system isn't flawed, then why are there 0 players from California in the T25? I've shown that I'm consistent. And I DO have to win virtually every game if I want to get an invite. I'm not even in the T25 with a 27-5 record! I guess I should just "win more games", "go to more events" and "beat everyone I'm supposed to." This isn't a sport, I don't control every single aspect of how I do. There's luck in pokemon and anyone who has a great undefeated streak has a considerable amount of luck on their side. Unfortunately I'm not and never have been someone like Paul Johnston (#1 in NA) who gets a T2 Gallade and T2 Gardy in T4. I guess that's somehow my fault.

 

[pichu bros. rox]

As I have stated in the past, Rankings take fun out of the game. I think the 10 and under is probably where it is the worst. Rankings FORCE the SAME poke-coached 10 and under kids to play dominating decks, and WIN every tournament, or risk hurting there "worlds" rankings. I think of my son 2 years ago, where after winning on 2 cities, he would play really GOOFY / red face paint decks because he didn't care if he won. That meant it was easier for someone else to win.

When I was in Juniors, I wasn't Poke-coached, which was probably a good thing. I always played, instead of my parents telling me to sit out and that was good. I did play 4 different decks at 4 of the last Spring BR and won 3/4 with going 3rd at one. Another thing good about not being Poke-coached, is you dont go to every event and ruin it for everyone else (I only went to 10 events in all, besides Worlds). I probably went to half the tournaments with only a few high K-Value oned (Regs and Nats). People that were competition were able to win half the time, and now that im in seniors, the kid that always lost to me is winning alot.

 

[NoPoke]

Scizor: geography, geography sucks sometimes.

whenever any player pulls a long way ahead of the rest of the field you get the phenomena you describe. Win more games etc would work. Howeve I fully appreciate that geography and a whole host of other real life stuff can prevent anyone from going to more events etc...

Trust me I'm very sympathetic to the position you are in. Provisional ratings and adjusting the elo stake to take account of luck would go a long way towards addressing the grinch factor and the belief that players have to go undefeated all the time. It is very likely that three very good UK players will enter our nationals having not played in any premiere events this season. Their 1600 ratings are going to play havoc with anyone they meet

I'm on record as stating that the rating system is flawed. But the position you find yourself in is as much due to geography and the nature of the local competitions as it is any flaws in the rating system.

SlowDeck, you make a powerfull argument though I suspect there is an underlying flaw: players are either playing for the ratings invite or they aren't. If not then it doesn't matter what deck they chose. If they are then they don't get to pick and chose which tournaments are going to count and which ones not. Still at least with the very low K battle roads even loosing 4 rounds is less damaging than a single loss at a STP or Regional. Have fun at Battle Roads where the points aren't so big ?? Choose to play for fun at a STP or Regional by all means but just remember that it is your choice to join in with the chase for ratings points or not.

One-and-done was worse?

 

[Robbgobb]

That is one reason I would be fine with BRs and CCs not counting for rankings. I hate this system because I consider it to be too problematic for a game that I keep hearing is suppose to be mainly for the kids. I would be happy to see another system at least tried. I don't think there is a way to fix a system that has Worlds impact working with BR and CC counting. Still means that small States and/or Regionals might mean not worth enough to some. I suggested a few times about something that would work as 1st is worth so many points and it trickles down based on cut. If only cut to top 2 then only they get points but if cut to top 8 then they all get at least a point. Different events decide if different points. At least that would award consistency over a run of bad luck meaning taking a plunge in points. I know there is pros and cons to every system but just is not fun for ones who do well and have a little bad luck being punished by a system that is not suppose to have luck.

 

[SuperWooper]

Yeah, I don't know. I've gone 57-17 in premiere events this year and I'm scraping in at #24 in North America. But when you look at the percentage of games I've won (77%, not too shabby) against Chad's 27-5 (84%, significantly better in what's probably a tougher environment), Chad should be above me. I wonder if it would be possible to throw a few invites at anybody with a win percentage of 80 or more who aren't in the top whatever (on the condition that they play X number of games in the season - maybe 50 games?). I don't know if it would put too big a kink into the system we have going now, since 80% is a pretty difficult number to achieve (not a lot of people outside of the top 25 have it to begin with).

I ordinarily wouldn't make a post like this, but Chad's record being so much better than mine kinda makes me feel guilty. ;/

 

[Scizor]

Yeah, I don't know. I've gone 57-17 in premiere events this year and I'm scraping in at #24 in North America. But when you look at the percentage of games I've won (77%, not too shabby) against Chad's 27-5 (84%, significantly better in what's probably a tougher environment), Chad should be above me. I wonder if it would be possible to throw a few invites at anybody with a win percentage of 80 or more who aren't in the top whatever (on the condition that they play X number of games in the season - maybe 50 games?). I don't know if it would put too big a kink into the system we have going now, since 80% is a pretty difficult number to achieve (not a lot of people outside of the top 25 have it to begin with).

I ordinarily wouldn't make a post like this, but Chad's record being so much better than mine kinda makes me feel guilty. ;/

I've been saying win % is more legitimate from the beginning. I completely agree. I'd like to see the win %s of all the T25 right now. I wonder how many are higher than me?

 

[Prime]

So if I go to a tournament and win 1 game then drop, I can get an invite with a win % of 100%?