Cactus Game Design Message Boards
Redemption® Collectible Trading Card Game HQ => Playgroup and Tournament Central => Redemption® Official Tournaments => Topic started by: Captain Kirk on September 02, 2012, 03:49:59 AM
-
People sometimes talk about trying to determine the best overall players in Redemption. Some say RNRS is a great system, some say that it favors those who can attend more tournaments. Some say it is the best option we have. However, I firmly believe that National tournaments are the strongest indicator of the skill level of players.
As a result, I did a lot of number crunching (by creating some macros that saved me hours of work) and came up with the top 50 players in T1 2p over the past 10 years (including active and retired players) by analyzing their finishes at the national tournament only.
As far as my spreadsheet - yes I will share it but I am still going to do some further work with the spreadsheet so I don't plan to make it available for everyone quite yet (I will eventually email it to all interested).
I filtered out all of the players who only played T1 2p at one national tournament over the past 10 years as I believe consistency is a necessary requirement to show your true skill level. Most of the top average finishers were those that only played in one national tournament.
The macro I created in Excel was based off the following formula:
For every year a player played at nationals, divide player's finish by the total number of players in that given year. The player's finish is thereby represented in terms of percentile. Add all of the percentiles together from each of the years that a player participated in the main event at nationals and divide by the number of years the player has played at nationals. Then multiply by the average number of players at national tournaments over the past 10 years (82.8 players).
As a result - the "average finish" is represented as the place the player would have obtained each year if there were 82.8 players at nationals each year.
Top Average T1 2p Finishes at Nationals Past 10 Years ('03-'12), min 2 Nationals - Active and Retired Players
1 Gabe Isbell 3.951150754
2 John Nesfeder 4.131757093
3 Daniel Huisinga 4.737346556
4 Matt Stupienski 5.419636364
5 Chad Soderstrom 5.92843956
6 Burton Reed 6.163252033
7 Tim Mierzejewski 6.727672328
8 Jonathan Greeson 7.06957043
9 Jeremiah Bryant 7.348780488
10 Matt Townsend 8.259255031
11 Joel Hey 9.054146341
12 Jonathan Alstad 11.34420906
13 Jordan Alstad 11.43043902
14 Roy Cannaday 11.61593496
15 Justin Sangillo 11.7974644
16 Jesse Epperson 12.39725275
17 Martin Miller 12.77632767
18 Nic Marshall 13.35608392
19 Ben Arp 13.59351577
20 Ken Shartle 13.60926829
21 Christian Fong 13.87637562
22 Daniel Whitten 14.48241758
23 Nick Archick 15.43090909
24 Kirk Dennison 16.2097689
25 Sara Harris 16.27128455
26 James Bryant 17.35658537
27 Nathan Voigt 17.41884749
28 Connor Magras 17.75585557
29 Josh Knitt 17.88662766
30 James Roepke 17.96954189
31 Luke McCrae 18.01105691
32 Mark Underwood 18.59912873
33 Josh Pearson 18.73091396
34 Drew Pegram 18.89365854
35 Timothy Reed 20.58780488
36 Christian Rohrer 20.75032753
37 Sam Nurge 21.1979095
38 Chris McCravy 21.61455052
39 Christian Kamke 21.83736264
40 Josh Ernst 21.8641785
41 Tim Maly 21.87938444
42 Jonathan Steckmann 22.10243902
43 Brian Jones 22.44828885
44 David Purvis 23.65409756
45 Alex Olijar 23.67014129
46 Josh Brinkman 24.01243328
47 Michael Wolfe 24.49120879
48 Jordan Drott 24.58809524
49 Jonathan Pequignot 25.16355875
50 Britta Alstad 25.22755401
This list shrinks considerably once we look at active players. I have identified only 28 of the 50 above as being "active" - and even some of those only play once every year or two (I am looking at you Justin Sangillo.)
Top Average T1 2p Finishes at Nationals Past 10 Years ('03-'12), min 2 Nationals - Active Players
1 Gabe Isbell 3.951150754
2 John Nesfeder 4.131757093
3 Daniel Huisinga 4.737346556
4 Matt Stupienski 5.419636364
5 Tim Mierzejewski 6.727672328
6 Jonathan Greeson 7.06957043
7 Matt Townsend 8.259255031
8 Jordan Alstad 11.43043902
9 Justin Sangillo 11.7974644
10 Martin Miller 12.77632767
11 Nic Marshall 13.35608392
12 Christian Fong 13.87637562
13 Nick Archick 15.43090909
14 Kirk Dennison 16.2097689
15 Nathan Voigt 17.41884749
16 Connor Magras 17.75585557
17 Josh Knitt 17.88662766
18 James Roepke 17.96954189
19 Mark Underwood 18.59912873
20 Sam Nurge 21.1979095
21 Tim Maly 21.87938444
22 Jonathan Steckmann 22.10243902
23 Brian Jones 22.44828885
24 Alex Olijar 23.67014129
25 Josh Brinkman 24.01243328
26 Michael Wolfe 24.49120879
27 Jonathan Pequignot 25.16355875
28 Britta Alstad 25.22755401
I hope y'all enjoy perusing this as much as I do. Now that I have put in 4+ hours of work into getting this far it will be easier going forward to put together new data of interest.
God bless,
Kirk
-
Hey Kirk,
Thanks for investing your time for the benefits of others.
-
Interesting.
I knew I wouldn't be near the top as I've got a few bad years in there, including 2003 where I finished at the bottom in my first ever national tournament. But I would have thought my back to back 2nd's would have at least gotten me on the list.
-
Interesting.
I knew I wouldn't be near the top as I've got a few bad years in there, including 2003 where I finished at the bottom in my first ever national tournament. But I would have thought my back to back 2nd's would have at least gotten me on the list.
This is definitely weighted to those who don't go to as many nats. Daniel Huisanga has only be to two, but because of his excellent performance, he's way up in number 3. Meanwhile, Tim Maly has been to a ton, and his mediocre Ohio performance apparently killed him. That said, Tim Maly is more widely considered one of the most dominating players in the past 10 years, and while Daniel is a great player, he just hasn't done much on a tournament scale. Ohio and Knoxville.
10 years is a long time...
-
It'd probably be helpful to include the number of played Nats in T12p within that timeframe next to the names.
In regards to it being weighted...quality over quantity. ;)
-
Any chance you could make the same sort of list for T2 because I'd be interested in seeing that since I don't play T1 much at tournaments anymore.
-
Jonathan,
I am glad to help. :)
John,
I will later play with some numbers and share pieces of trivia and play what if games such as removing your poor finish and Tim's poor finish.
I will add the number of tournaments played for each player and repost later.
To clarify, Daniel Huisinga has played in three national tournaments. He has placed in the top 10 in each of them including third place at Minnesota in 2005.
Jayden,
I will create a similar ranking list for T2 2p soon.
Kirk
-
I knew I wouldn't be near the top as I've got a few bad years in there, including 2003 where I finished at the bottom in my first ever national tournament. But I would have thought my back to back 2nd's would have at least gotten me on the list.
This is why any ranking system will inherently fail, and why I would oppose using a ranking system to determine tournament seeds as Prof Underwood is proposing. Realize that this was not the intent of Kirk's list. He was just number-crunching for the fun of it (call it curiosity). ;D
-
Jonathan,
I am glad to help. :)
John,
I will later play with some numbers and share pieces of trivia and play what if games such as removing your poor finish and Tim's poor finish.
Well, if you are removing poor finishes...erase my Ohio finish. ;) :laugh:
-
I'm in a similar predicament with my Boston finish (about 33rd of 66 IIRC) holding me back a little. But I think that's just part of the ranking system used here.
-
This is why any ranking system will inherently fail, and why I would oppose using a ranking system to determine tournament seeds as Prof Underwood is proposing.
I agree that ranking systems are so hard to work - so many elements that cause the standings to change based on various criteria. RNRS ranking benefits those who can attend more tournaments and those who have weaker competition. 10 year nationals' rankings benefit those who consistently do well every time at nationals over those who did really well one year and poorly another year.
Realize that this was not the intent of Kirk's list. He was just number-crunching for the fun of it (call it curiosity). ;D
YMT,
Usually when it comes to numbers I have all sorts of ideas that pop in my head as to how I can use or think about the data. I like numbers and analysis. :)
My initial thought was actually to show a way you could determine the top 20 active players or so and them see how many of them were truly in the top 8 this past year at the point a top cut could have been used. I was curious how many of them would have missed the top cut and thus been able to provide a high level of competition for players such as those in your group who want to play against the best. Only 11 of the top 50 players on the active list even played T1 2p at nationals this year though. Interesting - I could make this more convoluted by weighting each national tournament based on this initial list - the more top players who attended the tournament, the more higher places matter at those tournaments.... (This is a difficult idea to work out and I don't know if I will get to that).
Another idea I had with this list - which will also take a lot of time - is to see what a top cut would have done to shake up the top 20 players at every nationals and then redo the calculations to show how many players have benefited from Swiss over the years and how many have been hurt.
John,
You are actually 56th with an average finish of 27.52547567. So close. ;)
But if it makes you feel any better - you are directly in front of Andrew Wester (27.67674005) and six spots in front of Chris Ericson (29.58232625). 8)
Kirk
-
As far as removing poor finishes - for players that had played in more than 2 nationals I removed their finish that dropped them the most based on this ranking system. If players were on the list they already had to play at 2+ nationals but if I dropped their worst result they wouldn't qualify for the list to begin with. I went down past the top 50 players and some of the initial top 50 dropped off and there were a number of changes - some bigger than others. This new ranking list benefits those that did really poorly at one nationals compared to their much stellar results at every other nationals they played at.
Top Average T1 2p Finishes at Nationals Past 10 Years ('03-'12), min 2 Nationals - Active and Retired Players - Minus Worst Finish
1 Chad Soderstrom 2.523428571
2 Gabe Isbell 3.249142524
3 Daniel Huisinga 3.284481372
4 Matt Townsend 3.607064364
5 Jonathan Greeson 3.663456543
6 John Nesfeder 4.131757093
7 Burton Reed 5.205853659
8 Matt Stupienski 5.419636364
9 Jordan Alstad 5.553658537
10 Tim Mierzejewski 6.727672328
11 Roy Cannaday 6.989756098
12 Jonathan Alstad 7.080313589
13 Luke McCrae 7.236585366
14 Jeremiah Bryant 7.348780488
15 Chris McCravy 8.764682927
16 Joel Hey 9.054146341
17 Justin Sangillo 9.389684553
18 Sara Harris 9.502926829
19 Josh Pearson 9.584175824
20 Ben Arp 9.647828679
21 Christian Fong 10.00952647
22 Martin Miller 10.05612388
23 Nathan Voigt 11.26512999
24 Reggie Flores 11.56318681
25 Kirk Dennison 11.90191409
26 Christian Rohrer 12.35749129
27 Jesse Epperson 12.39725275
28 Nic Marshall 13.35608392
29 Ken Shartle 13.60926829
30 Daniel Whitten 14.48241758
31 Ben Shadrick 15.02228571
32 John Earley 15.08684458
33 Mark Underwood 15.0933438
34 Nick Archick 15.43090909
35 Tim Maly 16.69623693
36 Josh Knitt 16.82115028
37 James Roepke 16.85029827
38 James Bryant 17.35658537
39 Connor Magras 17.75585557
40 Alex Olijar 17.76018838
41 Sam Nurge 18.46228233
42 Josh Ernst 18.71809166
43 Drew Pegram 18.89365854
44 David Purvis 19.88546341
45 Ben Campbell 20.0604878
46 Josh Brinkman 20.095573
47 John Michaliszyn 20.1630662
48 Britta Alstad 20.39771429
49 Jeremy Kemp 20.40184044
50 Timothy Reed 20.58780488
Top Average T1 2p Finishes at Nationals Past 10 Years ('03-'12), min 2 Nationals - Active Players - Minus Worst Finish
1 Gabe Isbell 3.249142524
2 Daniel Huisinga 3.284481372
3 Matt Townsend 3.607064364
4 Jonathan Greeson 3.663456543
5 John Nesfeder 4.131757093
6 Matt Stupienski 5.419636364
7 Jordan Alstad 5.553658537
8 Tim Mierzejewski 6.727672328
9 Justin Sangillo 9.389684553
10 Christian Fong 10.00952647
11 Martin Miller 10.05612388
12 Nathan Voigt 11.26512999
13 Reggie Flores 11.56318681
14 Kirk Dennison 11.90191409
15 Nic Marshall 13.35608392
16 Ben Shadrick 15.02228571
17 John Earley 15.08684458
18 Mark Underwood 15.0933438
19 Nick Archick 15.43090909
20 Tim Maly 16.69623693
21 Josh Knitt 16.82115028
22 James Roepke 16.85029827
23 Connor Magras 17.75585557
24 Alex Olijar 17.76018838
25 Sam Nurge 18.46228233
26 Josh Brinkman 20.095573
27 John Michaliszyn 20.1630662
28 Britta Alstad 20.39771429
Enjoy. I will post some interesting facts from this later. Takes too much time now.
Kirk
-
How do you take into account the fact that tournament size varies greatly? After all a first at 2005 should (naively) count more than a first at 2012, given that 2005 had twice the number of players.
It would probably be better doing a rating system similar to chess (ELO) or X-box Live (modified GLICKO). This would automatically include strength of schedule and tournament size and ... into the rankings. I can send anyone the code to calculate GLICKO, which I used previously for ROOT. In order to sue this code, you need all of the individual game results. Unfortunately, it takes a bit of time to strip these out of the spreadsheet, format them correctly, and make sure the names match from year to year.
-
Still not on the list, but oh well...
-
39 Christian Kamke 21.83736264
40 Josh Ernst 21.8641785
41 Tim Maly 21.87938444
Hey Kirk,
Thanks for spending time with these rankings. In your 1st post on the 1st list, I copied the above^.
I know Christian since he's my son (I better know him haha) and I love him but I know he's not better than Maly overall. I know he beat him that game at Nats in Ohio, but overall accomplishments included, he's no Tim Maly. :P
-
Perhaps not, but this system is slightly in favor of younger people. People like Malay, who were good back in the day, lose ranking in this system by continuing to play after they've gone to seed. The reason Gabe's at the top is that he's still at the top of his game, and the likely reason that Christian is above Malay is that he's yet to peak but still does well.
-
Perhaps not, but this system is slightly in favor of younger people. People like Malay, who were good back in the day, lose ranking in this system by continuing to play after they've gone to seed. The reason Gabe's at the top is that he's still at the top of his game, and the likely reason that Christian is above Malay is that he's yet to peak but still does well.
How do you get off the top of your game then?
-
Usually it's for two reasons: you have less time for it and the game gets harder.
Back in the day, all you needed to do to win was throw every FbtN card in your deck with all the Armor of God cards and Elijah's Mantle. The game has gotten more complex since then, and some people aren't able to maintain the same level of success when the game gets harder and more competition shows up.
Most often, top players lose their edges because they simply can't or no longer care to keep them sharp. They go to college, get married, start careers, have kids, etc. and just naturally drift away from the top of competition.
If someone continues to play at Nationals after either of these things happen, it's going to hurt their overall ranking by this schematic, which is a measure of consistency over a whole career, not necessarily comparing players at their best.
-
How do you take into account the fact that tournament size varies greatly? After all a first at 2005 should (naively) count more than a first at 2012, given that 2005 had twice the number of players.
Kirk already accounted for tournament sizes in his original calculation (see above). However another thing that I'd like to see thrown into the formula is a factor to compensate for success in the current meta. So basically a top finish 3 years ago would not be worth as much as a top finish this past year. This would give a more up-to-date view of who the current top players are.
-
Here are the Top 25 Current GLICKO Ratings of Players from Nationals Only (2002-2012)
1. Keith Bartram 2031
2. Jeff Lau 2018
3. Matt Stupienski 2002
4. Allen Clark 1988
5. Tyler Stevens 1988
6. Gabe Isbell 1975
7. Tim Mierzejewski 1969
8. Chad Soderstrom 1967
9. Josh Hey 1960
10. Nic Marshall 1954
11. Brian Garlow 1945
12. Daniel Huisinga 1935
13. Martin Miller 1935
14. Jonathan Greeson 1930
15. John Nesfeder 1924
16. Jonathan Brodhacker 1912
17. Ben Arp 1909
18. Josh Stanley 1889
19. Justin Sangillo 1881
20. Kyle Hostetler 1879
21. Justin Cannaday 1877
22. Cameron Etchart 1874
23. Christian Fong 1874
24. Jonathan Alstad 1867
25. Chris Bany 1842
Current means following the last Nationals the player played T1-2P in.
Initial Ranking 1500 +- 350
-
Clearly I'm not that good of a player :D I'm not on any of these lists - This takes so much pressure off ;)
-
Clearly I'm not that good of a player :D I'm not on any of these lists - This takes so much pressure off ;)
I've always told you that you are bad at this game.
-
Here are the Top 25 Highest Value GLICKO Ratings from Nationals Only (2002-2012)
1. Jonathan Alstad 2067 2005
2. Keith Bartram 2031 2002
3. Christian Fong 2029 2008
4. Chad Soderstrom 2019 2007
5. Jeff Lau 2018 2009
6. Tim Mierzejewski 2017 2008
7. Matt Stupienski 2002 2010
8. Allen Clark 1988 2005
9. Tyler Stevens 1988 2010
10. Gabe Isbell 1986 2010
11. John Nesfeder 1981 2005
12. Ben Arp 1962 2007
13. Josh Hey 1960 2003
14. Nic Marshall 1954 2010
15. Daniel Huisinga 1953 2005
16. Brian Garlow 1945 2002
17. Justin Sangillo 1942 2005
18. Jonathan Greeson 1936 2007
19. Martin Miller 1935 2012
20. Chris McCravy 1934 2005
21. Tim Maly 1929 2004
22. Jonathan Brodhacker 1912 2002
23. Josh Stanley 1889 2007
24. Kyle Hostetler 1879 2003
25. Justin Cannaday 1877 2003
Highest defiend to be the highest value at the end of a Nationals. The third number is the year the ranking was achieved.
Starting values 1500 +- 350
All rankings carried over from year to year.
-
Clearly I'm not that good of a player :D I'm not on any of these lists - This takes so much pressure off ;)
You are in 91st place currently and 100th on the highest ever list. (Unfortunately, the way I did the Glicko--complete carry-over of all results with no time-decay--will really punish someone who wasn't a phenom from the start.)
BTW, you should listen to Olijar he is 30 spots or so above you on both lists. ;)
Just for you, RDT--here is the 2012 Only Top 25.
1. Martin Miller 2010
2. Jonathan Greeson 1918
3. John Earley 1901
4. Alex Olijar 1887
5. Josh Brinkman 1834
6. Chris Ericson 1824
7. Daniel Huisinga 1817
8. Matt Townsend 1806
9. Jay Chambers 1805
10. Jacob Arrowood 1749
11. Connor Magras 1747
12. James Roepke 1736
13. Brian Jones 1701
14. James Courtney 1685
15. Andy Stanley 1681
16. Chris Egley 1670
17. Christian Fong 1665
18. Mark Underwood 1654
19. Nick Marshell 1647
20. Andrew Wester 1644
21. Caleb Stanley 1637
22. Ben Michaliszyn 1623
23. Rob A/Roy C 1575
24. Logan Lowry 1572
25. Alex Lewis 1566
These results reflect the strength (weakness) of Greeson's (Magras's) schedule that have been discussed in the "Top Cut" thread.
-
Where do I rank on these lists, EJB?
-
Where do I rank on these lists, EJB?
108 Current/116 Highest/6 2012 Only.
-
Haha, I knew I'd be high on that list - Despite being 2-2 against the 'Top 20' I'm also 2-2 against the 'Top 6'
I beat 3rd and 5th, and lost to 1st and 6th, I didn't play 4th, and I'm player 2.
What does that list look like if you factor in the past two nationals? Am I top? or does somebody still pass me?
-
Thanks for putting that together MJB. Those calculations are a bit more complex than those which I implemented. :)
Did you use GLICKO or GLICKO2? If the former - I assume the following link explains the calculations you used?
http://www.glicko.net/glicko/glicko.pdf
Kirk
-
Chris played 9 of the top 20 people. If that's not a strong schedule, I don't know what is.
-
Haha, I knew I'd be high on that list - Despite being 2-2 against the 'Top 20' I'm also 2-2 against the 'Top 6'
I beat 3rd and 5th, and lost to 1st and 6th, I didn't play 4th, and I'm player 2.
What does that list look like if you factor in the past two nationals? Am I top? or does somebody still pass me?
Sorry, but no. Martin just edges you.
Did you use GLICKO or GLICKO2? If the former - I assume the following link explains the calculations you used?
http://www.glicko.net/glicko/glicko.pdf
GLICKO2, with the default values he suggests (1500, 350, 0.06). Probably not the best possible, but this is all for fun, right? Description can be found... http://www.glicko.net/glicko/glicko2.pdf
-
here is the 2012 Only Top 25.
1. Martin Miller 2010
6. Chris Ericson 1824
11. Connor Magras 1747
12. James Roepke 1736
14. James Courtney 1685
15. Andy Stanley 1681
18. Mark Underwood 1654
22. Ben Michaliszyn 1623
This is another interesting way of ranking things. I am curious though why I am ranked down at 18 in this system compared to finishing 12th at the actual tournament. My strength of schedule should have been pretty high too, considering that I played all of these people from the list, and considering that I won against Magras, Roepke, Stanley, and Michaliszyn, yet am ranked lower than 3 of those guys.
-
It depends when in the tournament you played them in relative to their position at the time. Glicko awards points based on the comparison at the time of the game, rather than based in the final finish of the player you beat or lost to.
-
It also matters who you lost to, and how they fared against the others.
If you can relate to college football: If Michigan State beats Michigan, it does not mean that they end up higher than Michigan in the National Rankings. All of the other games matter too. But timing is important, too, as Alex mentioned. Losing the first game of the year, even to a lowly opponent, is better than losing just before the bowl games. Virginia Tech proved this even after losing their opener to Richmond.
-
There's pros and cons to every method.
Personally, I think it would be fun to use the method employed by professional soccer: pool play at the beginning followed by knockout stages. The ranking of players could be used to spread out all the top players into the different pools/groups.
Because what wouldn't be more interesting than to argue about why a top player throws a game in pool play at Nats, than another argument about a specific problem card. ;)
-
Glicko awards points based on the comparison at the time of the game, rather than based in the final finish of the player you beat or lost to.
That would be a problem with this method then, because a first round game against Gabe or Martin is NOT the same as a first round game against a RLK. For this method to be helpful, people would have to have their Glicko points carry over from year to year.
Personally, I think it would be fun to use the method employed by professional soccer: pool play at the beginning followed by knockout stages. The ranking of players could be used to spread out all the top players into the different pools/groups.
I'm not sure if you're being serious or sarcastic, but this is the basic idea that I'm also throwing out as being a good way of ensuring final round match up top players, while at the same time giving everyone a chance to keep moving up all the way to the last match if they play well enough.
-
Glicko awards points based on the comparison at the time of the game, rather than based in the final finish of the player you beat or lost to.
That would be a problem with this method then, because a first round game against Gabe or Martin is NOT the same as a first round game against a RLK. For this method to be helpful, people would have to have their Glicko points carry over from year to year.
Personally, I think it would be fun to use the method employed by professional soccer: pool play at the beginning followed by knockout stages. The ranking of players could be used to spread out all the top players into the different pools/groups.
I'm not sure if you're being serious or sarcastic, but this is the basic idea that I'm also throwing out as being a good way of ensuring final round match up top players, while at the same time giving everyone a chance to keep moving up all the way to the last match if they play well enough.
1. It usually does carry over in chess, MJB was just calculating based solely on the performance that day at Nats without prior experience in that particular list.
2. I hope it's sarcastic, because I'd like to again reiterate that pooling players based on skill level is markedly unfair compared to a top cut. If you pool players, it makes it significantly harder to average to bad players who have a good tournament to get out of their pool, whereas in top cut they would be able to qualify for the top cut much easier than qualifying for a knockout stage.
-
Glicko awards points based on the comparison at the time of the game, rather than based in the final finish of the player you beat or lost to.
That would be a problem with this method then, because a first round game against Gabe or Martin is NOT the same as a first round game against a RLK. For this method to be helpful, people would have to have their Glicko points carry over from year to year.
Personally, I think it would be fun to use the method employed by professional soccer: pool play at the beginning followed by knockout stages. The ranking of players could be used to spread out all the top players into the different pools/groups.
I'm not sure if you're being serious or sarcastic, but this is the basic idea that I'm also throwing out as being a good way of ensuring final round match up top players, while at the same time giving everyone a chance to keep moving up all the way to the last match if they play well enough.
I'm serious about the idea. My sarcasm comes in the last statement which is to poke jabs at those that like to argue about specific cards. ;)
-
If you pool players, it makes it significantly harder to average to bad players who have a good tournament to get out of their pool, whereas in top cut they would be able to qualify for the top cut much easier than qualifying for a knockout stage.
I thought the whole idea of top-cut was to do a better job of ensuring that the best players end up having to play each other to win the tournament. If so, then this comment doesn't make sense, because you seem to be agreeing with me that a top-cut system REALLY doesn't do that, but in fact does the opposite by making it EASIER for players that are NOT as good to make it into the top places of a tournament. As long as they can be in the top 16 after a smaller number of rounds, then they ensure that they stay up there, and keep other better players below them from moving up in the rankings.
-
If you pool players, it makes it significantly harder to average to bad players who have a good tournament to get out of their pool, whereas in top cut they would be able to qualify for the top cut much easier than qualifying for a knockout stage.
I thought the whole idea of top-cut was to do a better job of ensuring that the best players end up having to play each other to win the tournament. If so, then this comment doesn't make sense, because you seem to be agreeing with me that a top-cut system REALLY doesn't do that, but in fact does the opposite by making it EASIER for players that are NOT as good to make it into the top places of a tournament. As long as they can be in the top 16 after a smaller number of rounds, then they ensure that they stay up there, and keep other better players below them from moving up in the rankings.
As mentioned in the other thread, the goal to is to isolate the best players in that tournament, not the best players at large. Sometimes Gabe isn't in the top cut because his performance in that tournament doesn't justify it, and that's ok.
Meanwhile, the proposed pool system would create even more inequality. There is no way you could ever create even pools. So what happens when Gabe gets an easy pool while RDT, yourself, and I have to gut it out for two spots in a separate pool? Is that fair?
There is no perfect fairness solution. However, top cut ensures that the best players on a given day as proven by results that day are forced to play each other, and avoids the issue we currently have with complex tie breakers.
-
There is no perfect fairness solution. However, top cut ...avoids the issue we currently have with complex tie breakers.
I think this is the conclusion that I'm coming to as well. Top-cut really doesn't help at all at making a more "fair" tournament (as far as strength of schedule is concerned). It would artificially inflate the rankings of some players in a particular tournament and artificially deflate the rankings of others. However the current Swiss system probably does the same.
So really all top-cut does is eliminate arguments about tie-breakers, and put a cap on how high all of the other players can finish if they don't make the cut.
-
You managed the skip the part of that sentence which explains exactly what top cut is good for.
-
This is another interesting way of ranking things. I am curious though why I am ranked down at 18 in this system compared to finishing 12th at the actual tournament.
It depends when in the tournament you played them in relative to their position at the time. Glicko awards points based on the comparison at the time of the game, rather than based in the final finish of the player you beat or lost to.
Quite so. It is not my fault that Prof U chose to play the players when they were at the low range of their rankings.
That would be a problem with this method then, because a first round game against Gabe or Martin is NOT the same as a first round game against a RLK. For this method to be helpful, people would have to have their Glicko points carry over from year to year.
In fairness I only published the 2012 Only Top-25 to help make RDT feel better about his performance. The Current and Highest lists given before did roll over ratings from previous years. On those you are #81 on the Current list and your 2007 performance earned you #71 on the Highest list.
-
That would be a problem with this method then, because a first round game against Gabe or Martin is NOT the same as a first round game against a RLK. For this method to be helpful, people would have to have their Glicko points carry over from year to year.
In fairness I only published the 2012 Only Top-25 to help make RDT feel better about his performance. The Current and Highest lists given before did roll over ratings from previous years. On those you are #81 on the Current list and your 2007 performance earned you #71 on the Highest list.
I wasn't worried about feeling better ;) I know how good/not good of a player I am. I don't need a list to tell me differently ;)
-
MJB, where I am sitting in all time glicko? I'd imagine low, but I'm curious.
-
You managed the skip the part of that sentence which explains exactly what top cut is good for.
I didn't skip that by accident. I left it out because I'm not convinced that it is true that top cut matches up the best players on a particular day. It really just matches up the players who win the most in a few early rounds against unequal competition. That's why I'm not seeing it as improving the overall fairness of a tournament compared to swiss. However, I do concede that it would be helpful for eliminating confusing ties.
-
You managed the skip the part of that sentence which explains exactly what top cut is good for.
I didn't skip that by accident. I left it out because I'm not convinced that it is true that top cut matches up the best players on a particular day. It really just matches up the players who win the most in a few early rounds against unequal competition. That's why I'm not seeing it as improving the overall fairness of a tournament compared to swiss. However, I do concede that it would be helpful for eliminating confusing ties.
The top players will make top cut. Then they will play.
-
MJB, where I am sitting in all time glicko? I'd imagine low, but I'm curious.
30 points or so above RDT. ;)
Clearly I'm not that good of a player :D I'm not on any of these lists - This takes so much pressure off ;)
You are in 91st place currently and 100th on the highest ever list. (Unfortunately, the way I did the Glicko--complete carry-over of all results with no time-decay--will really punish someone who wasn't a phenom from the start.)
BTW, you should listen to Olijar he is 30 spots or so above you on both lists. ;)
Your current and highest rating is 1760 which places you 60 on the Current/63 on the Highest.
Actually you are 1760 +- 79 and RDT is 1707 +- 71 (current). You are tied within the deviation.
-
Hey guys, let's keep this topic strictly about looking at the rankings, not their implications for/against top cut. We already have a topic for that (where the same basic things are being rehashed), so if you want to discuss those implications, move it over there please. Kirk made this topic separate for a reason, I'll ask that we respect that. :)
-
Hey guys, let's keep this topic strictly about looking at the rankings, not their implications for/against top cut. We already have a topic for that (where the same basic things are being rehashed), so if you want to discuss those implications, move it over there please. Kirk made this topic separate for a reason, I'll ask that we respect that. :)
Thanks Chris. I keep forgetting which thread I am reading...
Kirk
-
Hey guys, let's keep this topic strictly about looking at the rankings, not their implications for/against top cut. We already have a topic for that (where the same basic things are being rehashed), so if you want to discuss those implications, move it over there please. Kirk made this topic separate for a reason, I'll ask that we respect that. :)
Excellent idea! We now have two computer rankings: Kirk's and MJB's. While I wish we had at least a third I think we can move forward. Here's my proposal:
A. Rank as determined by poll of Elders
B. Rank as determined by poll of Tournament hosts
C. Kirk's rankings
D. MJB's rankings
Final rank = ((A+B)/2) + C + 100/D0.5
-
Excellent idea! We now have two computer rankings: Kirk's and MJB's. While I wish we had at least a third I think we can move forward. Here's my proposal:
A. Rank as determined by poll of Elders
B. Rank as determined by poll of Tournament hosts
C. Kirk's rankings
D. MJB's rankings
Final rank = ((A+B)/2) + C + 100/D0.5
[/quote]
How did you come up with the last part of the calculation to bring MJB's rankings onto the level of a 1st to 25th type ranking?
Kirk
-
We actually do have a third set of rankings from a poll of forum members from many months ago that Alex_Olijar did. Personally, I think it would be better to go with a poll of all forum members rather than just tournament hosts. As long as we're going to be subjective and biased we might as well let everyone get in on the fun :)
Going with Kirk's ratings and MJB's ratings and the elder's poll in addition to the general forum poll should probably give a pretty solid indication of top players.
However, I do think that it might be best if the final list was NOT publicized. It would only need to be known to whoever was making the initial pools at Nats (if that system ever even happens), and that way people would be less likely to feel hurt that they weren't on the list.
-
Excellent idea! We now have two computer rankings: Kirk's and MJB's. While I wish we had at least a third I think we can move forward. Here's my proposal:
A. Rank as determined by poll of Elders
B. Rank as determined by poll of Tournament hosts
C. Kirk's rankings
D. MJB's rankings
Final rank = ((A+B)/2) + C + 100/D0.5
How did you come up with the last part of the calculation to bring MJB's rankings onto the level of a 1st to 25th type ranking?
Kirk
I borrowed it from the BCS. ;) But seriously, I just tried a couple of equations to provide an inverse relationship.
(Psst...and I'm not even a math teacher. ;D )
-
I'm assuming, then, that all hosts will have to either televise their tournaments, or at least make video recordings, so that hosts get equal view of all players from across the country. Or perhaps the plan was to fly the voting Elders and hosts to each tournament for a first-hand look?
-
I was taking a trip down memory lane and I looked into this thread, #9! Pretty sweet!
Thanks for posting this!
-
Here are the Top 25 Highest Value GLICKO Ratings from Nationals Only (2002-2012)
1. Jonathan Alstad 2067 2005
2. Keith Bartram 2031 2002
3. Christian Fong 2029 2008
4. Chad Soderstrom 2019 2007
5. Jeff Lau 2018 2009
6. Tim Mierzejewski 2017 2008
7. Matt Stupienski 2002 2010
8. Allen Clark 1988 2005
9. Tyler Stevens 1988 2010
10. Gabe Isbell 1986 2010
11. John Nesfeder 1981 2005
12. Ben Arp 1962 2007
13. Josh Hey 1960 2003
14. Nic Marshall 1954 2010
15. Daniel Huisinga 1953 2005
16. Brian Garlow 1945 2002
17. Justin Sangillo 1942 2005
18. Jonathan Greeson 1936 2007
19. Martin Miller 1935 2012
20. Chris McCravy 1934 2005
21. Tim Maly 1929 2004
22. Jonathan Brodhacker 1912 2002
23. Josh Stanley 1889 2007
24. Kyle Hostetler 1879 2003
25. Justin Cannaday 1877 2003
Highest defiend to be the highest value at the end of a Nationals. The third number is the year the ranking was achieved.
Starting values 1500 +- 350
All rankings carried over from year to year.
Kinda funny I ran across this...earlier tonight, Jonathan and I were reminiscing about how back in the day he was a fairly competitive player. 2nd place at the largest Nats ever, and he beat the first place finisher. (Would have gotten first under the current tie-breaker rules). He still owns a T1 deck, but I think it's still without defense... :P
-
I was thinking about this and I didn't reread this, but was there any adjustment for size of tournament? Could we adjust the formula to calculate in percentiles instead of places?
-
#20, I need to start playing more, haven't done any tournies since 2003 lol.
-
I haven't played a game of redemption in a good long while, I browse around here checking up on you'll every once in a while, wanted to see how Nats went and came across this.
I don’t think it is possible to “correctly” value a player through rankings like this. I’ve played some very great players when I was playing, and I think everyone has their opinions, but here are some of the people I think are phenomenal, in no such order. P.s. I’ve been out of the game a while, but like to check up on you guys lol
Tim Maly-been great for a long long time. Always VERY knowledgable about what is the current metagame. A redemption legend.
Roy Cannaday-was 1 game away from a perfect season in Type 1-2player, 5 locals, 2 districts, 1 state, 1 regionals, and then “if I have my facts straight” he lost to Tim Maly at nationals, so he placed 2nd. 1 game away from a perfect season in type 1. (never got to play him)
Sam Nurge is Great, he could win with any deck you game him, his decks were always interesting in my opinion, super nice guy.
Justin Sangillo-I’ve played many great Redemption players…Justin made less mistakes than all of them. He usually won because he played perfect games, if you made a single mistake against him, he won.
Daniel Huisinga-The deck he played with in ’05, reshaped what I believed about redemption. This deck was the ultimate “anti-meta” deck, and shut down decks like the one’s Roy Cannaday helped make famous. (only played him online, just LOVED his '05 deck)
Tim Mierzejewski-The Genesis/Rome deck he used, was in my opinion an invention. He always made something everyone else looked past, and made it work.
Christian Fong-This guy was my boy! I remember playing him when he was just getting into the game. He took what was working at the time and put his own spin on it, he was unique.
Justin Alstad- Not on this list because he was a Type 2 player, but he was good ay whatever he played. I won the iron man the first year they had it in ’06, if memory serves me correctly, he was my only loss, in Iron man.
I’m very sure I’ve played a lot more of these guys but my memory is a little foggy.
Kirk, thanks for putting this together, really cool to look over! Brought back SO many good memories.
-
Justin Alstad- Not on this list because he was a Type 2 player, but he was good ay whatever he played. I won the iron man the first year they had it in ’06, if memory serves me correctly, he was my only loss, in Iron man.
I vaguely remember that game...glad to see you are still around, thanks for the shout-out! :)
-
My pleasure, I remember back then I was always glad you were mostly a Type 2 player. Hopefully I'll be around more often, I really want to start a playgroup out here in Western, NY. I am an associate pastor, out in Western NY now, and I work a lot with the youth.
-
My pleasure, I remember back then I was always glad you were mostly a Type 2 player. Hopefully I'll be around more often, I really want to start a playgroup out here in Western, NY. I am an associate pastor, out in Western NY now, and I work a lot with the youth.
Where at in Western NY?
-
pm sent soul seeker
-
Clearly I'm not that good of a player :D I'm not on any of these lists - This takes so much pressure off ;)
You are in 91st place currently and 100th on the highest ever list. (Unfortunately, the way I did the Glicko--complete carry-over of all results with no time-decay--will really punish someone who wasn't a phenom from the start.)
BTW, you should listen to Olijar he is 30 spots or so above you on both lists. ;)
Just for you, RDT--here is the 2012 Only Top 25.
15. Andy Stanley 1681
16. Chris Egley 1670
17. Christian Fong 1665
18. Mark Underwood 1654
These results reflect the strength (weakness) of Greeson's (Magras's) schedule that have been discussed in the "Top Cut" thread.
how in the world did I miss this?! lol well I must say that this really encourages me that im not TOO TERRIBLE lol all joking aside im seriously encouraged by this fact. it let's me know im doing good, im getting better and that ray of hope is still shining for me in my dream to become national champion someday, but im not gonna get my hopes up just yet about it right now. im just focusing on improving and getting better
-
...and that ray of hope is still shining for me in my dream to become national champion someday, ...
My dream is still to be a Nationals attendee some day... ;)
-
...and that ray of hope is still shining for me in my dream to become national champion someday, ...
My dream is still to be a Nationals attendee some day... ;)
as was mine til last year. dream fulfilled! :D
-
...and that ray of hope is still shining for me in my dream to become national champion someday, ...
My dream is still to be a Nationals attendee some day... ;)
But, can it be a dream if you don't ever plan to attend*? :scratch: :dunno:
*Unless I'm remembering wrong, I thought you said on multiple occasions that you would never go to Nats.**
** Don't get me wrong, you are one Redemption player that I really hope to meet one day.***
*** Not in a creepy way, but I appreciate the different perspectives you offer on the boards so much that I wanted to meet in person.*****
***** Well, I must admit...I wanted to see if the online pictures are true and that you look like Riker & you're not catfishing us.******
******I don't think you are catfishing us, but that it is neat that you look that much like a major sci-fi icon.*******
*******I did this just because no one ever uses 7 Post Scripts, and 7 is my favorite number...have a great day. 8)
-
...and that ray of hope is still shining for me in my dream to become national champion someday, ...
My dream is still to be a Nationals attendee some day... ;)
But, can it be a dream if you don't ever plan to attend*? :scratch: :dunno:
*Unless I'm remembering wrong, I thought you said on multiple occasions that you would never go to Nats.**
** Don't get me wrong, you are one Redemption player that I really hope to meet one day.***
*** Not in a creepy way, but I appreciate the different perspectives you offer on the boards so much that I wanted to meet in person.*****
***** Well, I must admit...I wanted to see if the online pictures are true and that you look like Riker & you're not catfishing us.******
******I don't think you are catfishing us, but that it is neat that you look that much like a major sci-fi icon.*******
*******I did this just because no one ever uses 7 Post Scripts, and 7 is my favorite number...have a great day. 8)
im just wondering why there weren't any pics of me taken at nats 12. I wanted to have those for my fb :(
-
im just wondering why there weren't any pics of me taken at nats 12. I wanted to have those for my fb :(
Seek (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/redemption-tournaments/nats-2012-photo-album!/?action=post;quote=493354;last_msg=515348) and ye shall find :)
-
But, can it be a dream if you don't ever plan to attend*? :scratch: :dunno:
My dream is to go on a cruise.... that will never happen either.... ;)
*Unless I'm remembering wrong, I thought you said on multiple occasions that you would never go to Nats.**
I will never go to Nats, but I will not boycott Nats if it comes to me. 8)
** Don't get me wrong, you are one Redemption player that I really hope to meet one day.***
I just met Gabe for the first time this week while he was vacationing in Orlando. We did a Booster Draft. You should come visit too. ;D
*** Not in a creepy way, but I appreciate the different perspectives you offer on the boards so much that I wanted to meet in person.*****
I'm antisocial. You will regret ever meeting me. :maul:
***** Well, I must admit...I wanted to see if the online pictures are true and that you look like Riker & you're not catfishing us.******
I'm not sure what catfish have to do with Riker, but yes I do look like him (when I use Just for Men on my beard).
******I don't think you are catfishing us, but that it is neat that you look that much like a major sci-fi icon.*******
My wife is hot. That's not really relevant to what I just quoted, but I really wanted to say it.
*******I did this just because no one ever uses 7 Post Scripts, and 7 is my favorite number...have a great day. 8)
The Red Sox won the World Series last night, so I'm having a very great day! ;D
-
He skipped post script #4.
-
He skipped post script #4.
Nice catch! ;) You, sir, are truly a top player (<--bringing topic full circle). 8)
As to YMT, within a year or two, I hope to afford taking my family of 6 to Orlando. The youngest is now starting to get old enough to remember the trip (which was my condition for heading there: oldest child not too old/cool for it....youngest child to remember it.) I will let you know if the trip materializes. As an aside, I thought your post was awesome as well. :thumbup:
-
I would like to see this for T2…
Just wondering.
Thanx
Eric "I'm just a figment of your imagination and wasn't really here" Largent
-
im just wondering why there weren't any pics of me taken at nats 12. I wanted to have those for my fb :(
Seek (http://www.cactusgamedesign.com/message_boards/redemption-tournaments/nats-2012-photo-album!/?action=post;quote=493354;last_msg=515348) and ye shall find :)
at the time of when the pics were up I was looking but funny I didn't see them. I guess I didn't look hard enough when I was looking for them last year. though at nats 2012 I was not only happy I was able to make it, but I was pleasantly surprised by how well I did even after I had picked up some needed cards and built my own TGT deck which I used to beat some of my competition, though I do regret playing my genegyptains against ya, mark lol in my nationals run switching back and forth between decks with my TGT and genegyptains I received a record of 5-4 and playing 24 out of idk how many participates that played in t1 2 player. but even so I was very satisfied with how well I did :) though I was pumped when I faced you mark cause I did have a 3 game win streak going on at the time which was broken after our game but even if it was broken. I proved to myself im a much better player then I give myself credit for to be perfectly honest and not to boast or to be or sound prideful, not but a long shot, cause a couple of our brothers within the community did tell me "you've come along way since I've known you" and I really do think that is true. I know I still have some personal things to work on to help me improve my game and I will do whatever it takes to make those necessary changes
-
Eric "I'm just a figment of your imagination and wasn't really here" Largent
WOW! Great to hear from you again Eric. I'll always miss your "middle names".
I was pumped when I faced you mark cause I did have a 3 game win streak going on at the time which was broken after our game but even if it was broken. I proved to myself im a much better player then I give myself credit for
Yep, I think we were both around 15th place the round we played at Nats. It was fun to get to play in person, and as I recall, you played a solid game. I agree with others who have seen great progress in your game and in your maturity here on the boards over the years. Keep it up :)
-
Eric "I'm just a figment of your imagination and wasn't really here" Largent
WOW! Great to hear from you again Eric. I'll always miss your "middle names".
I was pumped when I faced you mark cause I did have a 3 game win streak going on at the time which was broken after our game but even if it was broken. I proved to myself im a much better player then I give myself credit for
Yep, I think we were both around 15th place the round we played at Nats. It was fun to get to play in person, and as I recall, you played a solid game. I agree with others who have seen great progress in your game and in your maturity here on the boards over the years. Keep it up :)
I intend to :)