Ratings - Not Rewarding Good Play

[Professor Elm]

These past 2 years on the rating system have been overall horrible for the busy teenage student.
Honestly, I don't devote my life to Pokemon and this rating system is rewarding the players who have time and money to spend on traveling to tons of events that the normal teenager in high school doesn't have the freedom to do.

I'm not saying that some of the best players aren't in the top spots, but is it honestly morally right to rank someone by the amount of events they attend?
I guarantee you I am one of the better players in Texas, but I'm sitting on a 1670 rating. I still made top 8 at TX states and I won a Battle Road this year, and most of the other tournaments I did very well in. Yet because of the amount of major tournaments I've missed Im probably ranked not even in the top 50% of texas.

This rating system is ruining the game.
Honestly, don't force us to devote our entire social lives to this game to even stand a chance of going to worlds.

 

[Prof Clay]

would we be happier if the system were dropped in favor of.....

13 regionals...2 invites per regional.

That would only be a few more invites than are being given

That way every region is guaranteed a spot at worlds....oh right, then we have the sour grapes of "on any given day, someone can lucksack into a tournament win".

No ranking system is going to guarantee equal representation in the different areas.


And yes it is fair....players who manage to attend more events and win more games will always have higher rankings than those who play in fewer....such if the nature of point systems. The nice thing about the system we do have is that every player, given they put themselves in the right spot by winning, can lower the ranking of higher rated players by beating them and moving up the ladder. If there were no loss of points from losses, it would be very hard to pass anyone because of the generally small number of games any player can win in a season.

 

[Prime]

How is putting all the ratings invites on one tournament fair? It makes the entire season just train to donk at Regionals and Nationals and go to Worlds. It's not rewarding players for consistent play if anyone, on any giving lucky day, can win the thing.

 

[Scizor]

How is putting all the ratings invites on one tournament fair? It makes the entire season just train to donk at Regionals and Nationals and go to Worlds. It's not rewarding players for consistent play if anyone, on any giving lucky day, can win the thing.

I'm actually agreeing with Prime here, what's going on? He's right though. I've had a great season so far and I had one up until Nationals last year, too. Yet, because I don't get to as many events as others, my season comes down to Nationals. Sure, I have to do less than a lot of players do at Nationals, but that's because I have put myself in that position.

To SteveP: I want to highlight a certain part of your post here: "That's the difference. I think those above you won major events, possible going undefeated, which really boosted them to the top, like the CO Brander boys. If they performed average at the BRs and Cities, yet excelled at the States/Regionals, they SHOULD be ranked high.

Anyway, I don't doubt you feel strongly that CA is competitive. The current ranking system doesn't like highly competitive ( 4 or more top players ) in one region. In the current ranking system, there can really only be about 3 or less top players in each region; otherwise, the competitition prevents a few from rising to the top. That's the nature of the beast. "

First, Stephen Silvestro already volunteered himself and showed that my record is better than his and I have higher finishes than him in major events. Bobby Malec is another example, Andrew Mondak, another example. I could go on here. I don't think you're totally correct on that. I really don't THINK it's all about the States/Regionals finishes, or else I would be near the top, as I've shown you already that my record is better if not comparable to nearly every other player ahead of me. It's the City Championship's 16K Value that has me behind these players. FYI, I also went undefeated at the largest STP, so I think that sort of refutes your point.

On your next point, I have repeatedly stated that California is not the best area in the World, U.S., or anywhere. As a matter of fact, it is well documented that I have a tremendous amount of respect for the Midwest, Florida, Pacific Northwest, etc, whom I have all stated are better than California on more than one occassion.

You state that the system doesn't like highly competitive areas. Well, have you read the previous posts or taken a look at California's ratings lately? I have almost a 30 point lead on the next place here. There's a significant gap, unlike several other areas. The truth is, my record is much better than anyone here. You would think 30-4 in your own state would make you rise to the top. I've said on this thread that I've won 7 of the last 13 events I've gone to, and if you break that down to just California events, it's 7/11. I'm not sure there is ANYONE in North America that has won that many events with so few opportunities in the past two years in their own state. To say that anyone else is preventing me from rising to the top here would be false.

 

[TheDarkTwins]

I'm actually agreeing with Prime here, what's going on? He's right though. I've had a great season so far and I had one up until Nationals last year, too. Yet, because I don't get to as many events as others, my season comes down to Nationals. Sure, I have to do less than a lot of players do at Nationals, but that's because I have put myself in that position.

To SteveP: I want to highlight a certain part of your post here: "That's the difference. I think those above you won major events, possible going undefeated, which really boosted them to the top, like the CO Brander boys. If they performed average at the BRs and Cities, yet excelled at the States/Regionals, they SHOULD be ranked high.

Anyway, I don't doubt you feel strongly that CA is competitive. The current ranking system doesn't like highly competitive ( 4 or more top players ) in one region. In the current ranking system, there can really only be about 3 or less top players in each region; otherwise, the competitition prevents a few from rising to the top. That's the nature of the beast. "

First, Stephen Silvestro already volunteered himself and showed that my record is better than his and I have higher finishes than him in major events. Bobby Malec is another example, Andrew Mondak, another example. I could go on here. I don't think you're totally correct on that. I really don't THINK it's all about the States/Regionals finishes, or else I would be near the top, as I've shown you already that my record is better if not comparable to nearly every other player ahead of me. It's the City Championship's 16K Value that has me behind these players. FYI, I also went undefeated at the largest STP, so I think that sort of refutes your point.

On your next point, I have repeatedly stated that California is not the best area in the World, U.S., or anywhere. As a matter of fact, it is well documented that I have a tremendous amount of respect for the Midwest, Florida, Pacific Northwest, etc, whom I have all stated are better than California on more than one occassion.

You state that the system doesn't like highly competitive areas. Well, have you read the previous posts or taken a look at California's ratings lately? I have almost a 30 point lead on the next place here. There's a significant gap, unlike several other areas. The truth is, my record is much better than anyone here. You would think 30-4 in your own state would make you rise to the top. I've said on this thread that I've won 7 of the last 13 events I've gone to, and if you break that down to just California events, it's 7/11. I'm not sure there is ANYONE in North America that has won that many events with so few opportunities in the past two years in their own state. To say that anyone else is preventing me from rising to the top here would be false.

Chad, that is a fair assement, but you also have to look at places you say have more events. Yes, I know you have a lot more pressure on each game and event.

I will use my state as an example.

Frankie Diaz is about 11 points ahead of me. (only 9 ahead of you Chad before BRs)
I (Drew Guritzky) am as I said 11 points behind Frankie and 2 points behind you.

Now, the next player isnt even close to us. I think there is a 150 point game from the two of us to the next 2 players. So I think 30 points while it is a lot, isnt anywhere close to what the player base in NJ is.

I will say that we in NJ have more chances so if we mess up we will have another shot, but I am just saying that 30 points is nowhere close to what is happening in my state.

Drew

 

[bullados]

Chad, there is that 30 point drop, but the ratings actually stay pretty consistent throughout the top 15 or so players in California. That's a pretty competitive environment. There are 10 players within 100 points of the top, and 26 within 150. Now, look at Illinois. 5 players within 100 points of the top, and 8 within 150. Or how about Texas? 4 players within 100 points, and 9 within 150. Those are areas that are dominated by a select few players, and the ratings of the top players benefit from them dominating the area (1895 in Texas, 1862 in Illinois). I don't have the time to look into this more, but California is one of the more competitive states in that there are more players clustered closer to the top than in any other state that I've looked at.

 

[meganium45]

Let's look at this another way...

How many players were 1 game away from T33? 28 (to the top 61)

28 players, had they won 1 more game at States or Regonals than they lost would be in the T33 in NA.

This group includes some real "Power Hitters"

Eric Craig
Chris Fulop
Drew
Chad

On and on.

1 game sometimes does a season make.

Vince

 

[Prof Clay]

How is putting all the ratings invites on one tournament fair? It makes the entire season just train to donk at Regionals and Nationals and go to Worlds. It's not rewarding players for consistent play if anyone, on any giving lucky day, can win the thing.

Thanks for making my point Prime...I wan't truly advocating it being done the way I stated. I was merely taking things to the other extreme to illustrate a point.

 

[TheDarkTwins]

Chad, there is that 30 point drop, but the ratings actually stay pretty consistent throughout the top 15 or so players in California. That's a pretty competitive environment. There are 10 players within 100 points of the top, and 26 within 150. Now, look at Illinois. 5 players within 100 points of the top, and 8 within 150. Or how about Texas? 4 players within 100 points, and 9 within 150. Those are areas that are dominated by a select few players, and the ratings of the top players benefit from them dominating the area (1895 in Texas, 1862 in Illinois). I don't have the time to look into this more, but California is one of the more competitive states in that there are more players clustered closer to the top than in any other state that I've looked at.

This is exactly what I was saying -

Here take this for example.

Here is the Top 10 NJ Masters -

1 Frank Diaz 1834.72 MA NJ US
2 Drew Guritzky 1823.46 MA NJ US
3 Greg Shoyket 1689.52 MA NJ US
4 Benny Richlin 1686.04 MA NJ US
5 Timmy Erven 1684.72 MA NJ US
6 Anthony Guevara 1678.03 MA NJ US
7 Charles Schmidt 1651.53 MA NJ US
8 Tony Wootson 1650.15 MA NJ US
9 miguel perez 1649.75 MA NJ US
10 Brian Conover 1644.00 MA NJ US

Here is the Top 10 CA Masters -

1 Chad Harris 1825.35 MA CA US
2 Jim Her 1797.03 MA CA US
3 Danny M 1786.92 MA CA US
4 justin catapang 1770.23 MA CA US
5 Aaron Baldwin 1760.71 MA CA US
6 Andrew Knaack 1759.33 MA CA US
7 Joel Casillas 1756.45 MA CA US
8 Alex Wooton 1748.47 MA CA US
9 Leo Orta 1741.52 MA CA US
10 Andrew Occiano 1738.78 MA CA US


Now you can clearly see the difference. We have more events in NJ and that would mean that players in Cali have less of a chance to get a good rating, but this fact that the T10 in your state would all be higher than 3rd place in my state. In fact, to get to 10th you would need to go to the 19th player who is last player about 1889.52. Your T49 in Cali would be in our T10 for our state. You have more players so yes it is harder but this clearly defies what has been said. You say that we have more events, which I would agree but it seems that your state has better ranked players by far with so many fewer events.

Now granted you have about 4x as many players as us, but still it is kinda interesting isnt it? That a state like NJ is just so outclass in "rating" aspects by a state that clearly has less events than the one that should supposely be winning all of the invites.

Now clearly when I am told that nobody from California made it via ratings last year. Well neither did anyone from NJ in Masters. The only reason we had an invite at all was because I completely Lucksac'd and Donk'd eek my way into Worlds with a 7-1 record in the Grinder.

I really dont have a decent solution to this problem. I won' t even pretend to. I just think that you have to remember that no everything is fair to everyone which is a problem in itself that I will not get into.

Drew

 

[Scizor]

Take the Top X from each region by rating would be a good solution, way better than anything right now. I'm not even proposing that every region gets the same amount of players an invite either. I'd just like to see something other than 3 players from Massachusetts and 0 from California in the T25 when their state is the size of like Kern County.

Remember when everyone says that Worlds is supposed to be a collection of the best players from all over, and that's why the U.S. doesn't get everyone, but rather it is spread out? Well, California is bigger than most countries and I'd consider it two regions by itself. I am again, by no means saying that California should get as many invites as the UK or Canada or Mexico or something, but a possible two years in a row with 0 in Masters is harsh. Especially given that the state has put out a National Champion just two years ago and high finishes at Worlds.

 

[Prime]

I feel ratings should work by region and I feel there should be invites to Worlds given out at Regionals. It just makes sense (to me) to do it that way because of the vastly different tournament environments around the nation. You can't calculate how skilled a player is by their success rate at tournaments when one player's region has more tournaments than another player's region and that player has more chances than another player to raise more points by going to more tournaments.

 

[billbilski]

Let's look at this another way...

How many players were 1 game away from T33? 28 (to the top 61)

28 players, had they won 1 more game at States or Regonals than they lost would be in the T33 in NA.

1 game sometimes does a season make.

Vince

How absolutely true is that!?? I'd be 23rd if not for that 1 game at a disaster of a Regionals........ Shows just how hard it is to make a claim that one person is more deserving than another. Ask Ness if he had any "easy" tournies during the course of the year... He deserves his rating... I don't care what his percentage was....He has to face Alex B at EVERY tourney he plays not to mention two top 4 finishers from 07 Nats - Rob D and Jay H. are right in his back yard. Silvestro/Malec likewise....... Scizor, I have no doubt that you are a great player and perhaps deserving of an invite, but I don't think you have any real leverage over the aforementioned players.....You have done all you can do within the system, but to say you should be ahead of those players who have done well in perhaps the toughest competition over many tournies is not fair to them -- they've also done extremely well......All that said, I love rooting for the underdog so I hope you go X-0 at Nats and perservere over the limitations you're under.... Just my two cents....

 

[TheDarkTwins]

I feel ratings should work by region and I feel there should be invites to Worlds given out at Regionals. It just makes sense (to me) to do it that way because of the vastly different tournament environments around the nation. You can't calculate how skilled a player is by their success rate at tournaments when one player's region has more tournaments than another player's region and that player has more chances than another player to raise more points by going to more tournaments.

I can't disagree more with this. I will give you an example. Let's say for sake of arguement you give out 4 invites (without) trips.

At my regional 3 out the top 4 (I am not sure if the 4th has or hasnt) have played and made top cut at worlds. So in theory it works right? Well let's look a bit deeper into this. I would of been furious. Going in I was 2nd in my state (still am) and went 6-1 thru swiss and was the #4 seed. I was playing Banette. The cut was 10 GG/Plox Variants, 2 Magmortar, 2 Ho-Oh/Togekiss, and 2 Banette.

Now, out of those 1 Magmortar, 1 Banette, and 2 of the GG's made T4. But the fact is that you dont take into account matchups that are completely insane. My bracket to top 4 would have had to go thru Ho-Oh/Togekiss and the winner of Ho-Oh/Togekiss vs. Magmortar. I was done because of horrible matchups. Now that means out of the other 12 decks there were 1 Magmortar and 1 Banette. Both who were lowers seeds. The Magmortar lost in T16 to GG. But the other Banette player end up playing 2 GG (there were 3 in his bracket to T4) to get there. So lets see here. If I had been on any other bracket I would of almost gaurenteed myself a tro[ to T4. I was also on the side of the Banette. So if you look at it this way, the other side of the bracket was 7 GG and a Magmortar and the side I was on was 3 GG, 2 Ho-Oh/Togekiss, 2 Banette, 1 Magmortar. Now I just think the fact that I got IMO Donk'd out of top cut due to bad luck isnt really a fair way to say, sorry you didnt qualify for worlds because I didnt get T4.

It also makes the whole rest of the season kinda pointless to go to unless you want to win prizes. I do, ubt I also enjoy playing in worlds. It does add a bit of stress to doing well, but in pays off if you try hard enough and actually practice.

I feel that invites by region is fine by me. However giving out invites via Regioanls is a no go in my head.

Drew

 

[Prime]

How is that any different than at Nationals drew? You get "donk'd" out of the top cut due to bad luck and "sorry, you don't qualify for worlds".

 

[PokeDad]

Take the Top X from each region by rating would be a good solution, way better than anything right now. I'm not even proposing that every region gets the same amount of players an invite either. I'd just like to see something other than 3 players from Massachusetts and 0 from California in the T25 when their state is the size of like Kern County.

Remember when everyone says that Worlds is supposed to be a collection of the best players from all over, and that's why the U.S. doesn't get everyone, but rather it is spread out? Well, California is bigger than most countries and I'd consider it two regions by itself. I am again, by no means saying that California should get as many invites as the UK or Canada or Mexico or something, but a possible two years in a row with 0 in Masters is harsh. Especially given that the state has put out a National Champion just two years ago and high finishes at Worlds.

This is a great solution to the California problem. Big states mean fewer opportunities means fewer points means fewer invites. Tiny states mean more opportunities mean higher points mean more invites. It is nice to see all of the support for this idea.

 

[BJJ763]

Big states mean fewer opportunities means fewer points means fewer invites. Tiny states mean more opportunities mean higher points mean more invites.

Disagree. Big states should mean more events, more players, more opportunities.

 

[Prime]

You'd think it'd be the opposite. Smaller states have less events, but I guess the smaller the state, the easier to get to the bordering states and their events.

 

[SlimeyGrimey]

Disagree. Big states should mean more events, more players, more opportunities.

How so? They're just political boundaries. For Br's and CC's it depends mainly on how many TO's you have and how many events those TO's are going to run. The political boundaries really mean nothing, other than if the number of tournaments ran was like the same per sqaure mile or something there would be more tournaments in California, but they're still just as far away as events two or more states over in the east.

When it comes to SPTs, a bigger state is at a disadvantage because the bordering states are further away to get to their SPTs.

 

[SteveP]

You state that the system doesn't like highly competitive areas. Well, have you read the previous posts or taken a look at California's ratings lately? I have almost a 30 point lead on the next place here. There's a significant gap, unlike several other areas. The truth is, my record is much better than anyone here. You would think 30-4 in your own state would make you rise to the top. I've said on this thread that I've won 7 of the last 13 events I've gone to, and if you break that down to just California events, it's 7/11. I'm not sure there is ANYONE in North America that has won that many events with so few opportunities in the past two years in their own state. To say that anyone else is preventing me from rising to the top here would be false.

If your opponents don't have decent rating points (because everyone is beating everyone else in a competitive region), your wins will not gain you as many points. So, in that context, others ARE indirectly preventing you from rising to the top.

ELO is a mathmatical algorithm based NOT on your W/L record, but rather is based on WHO you are beating. Mathmatically speaking, those above you in the rankings are beating opponents with better ratings than your opponents' ratings.

Anyway, the math doesn't lie. ELO says your wins are less meaningful than those above you. Is that right? Absolutely so, in the context of ELO.

It would be nice if the ranking system included other variables, much like the BCS bowl rating system. Until then, your good play will be weighted heavily by WHO you are beating (their ELO ratings), not just by how much you are winning.

 

[TheDarkTwins]

How is that any different than at Nationals drew? You get "donk'd" out of the top cut due to bad luck and "sorry, you don't qualify for worlds".

Well, there is a huge difference. If you gave invites for regioanls, then you would have no rating invites because you cant give out 60+ Invites to NA. You could but then Worlds becomes too "non-exclusive". The different with Nationals, is if you dont get T8 and only get T16 you still have won some scholarship money and you have a decent shot still of getting a rating invite. I was doing the research with Chad the other day, and out of the T16 for nats, more than 75% of them (if not close to all of them) in Masters were in T25 or would have it trickled down to them. That means that this year if you T16 and dont get an invite that you would still have a legit shot at getting an invite.

Drew