Re: [Bug-gnubg] Re: from money/dmp to match

[Sonic.net]

Hi Neil,

If you have to win 85% of your 9-pointers to break even,
then you have to win over 69% of your 1-pointers to break
even, not 61%. (This is about a 500-point rating edge.)

If you have to win 61% of your 1-pointers to break even,
then you have to about 72% of your 9-pointers to break even,
not 85%.  (This is about a 275-point rating edge.)

The odds are displayed in the invitation.

If you ever see anything like you described (61% in
1-pointers corresponding to 85% in 9-pointers), send
me an email, because that would  be a big bug. :-)

David

----- Original Message -----
From: "neilkaz" <address@hidden>
To: "Sonic.net" <address@hidden>; "Albert Silver" <address@hidden>;
<address@hidden>; "'gnubg'" <address@hidden>
Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2003 11:51 AM
Subject: Re: [Bug-gnubg] Re: from money/dmp to match


> I don't know about FIB's ELO formula but I assure you all that GamesGrid's
> is not accurate for longer matches between lopsided opps.
>
> To explain further on GG. I feel that if I play one pointers vs much
weaker
> players I need to win 3/5 or even 5/8 to break even and that actually
> doesn't seem to be too unreasonable.
>
> However, vs the same much weaker players I might need to win 85% of my 9
> point matches to break even which just isn't possible, IMO. This is also
the
> reason I rarely play rated matches vs anyone much more than 200 points
less
> than me. I felt the rating system used by KG's list was more accurate for
> matches, but GG changed it to have more points at stake per match.
>
> ..neilkaz..
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sonic.net" <address@hidden>
> To: "Albert Silver" <address@hidden>; "'neilkaz'"
> <address@hidden>; <address@hidden>; "'gnubg'" <address@hidden>
> Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2003 1:45 PM
> Subject: Re: [Bug-gnubg] Re: from money/dmp to match
>
>
> > For my guess I would just use the FIBS rating formula,
> > but estimate the rating edge as something between
> > that implied by 1- and 2-point matches.   Something
> > like 650 rating-points better for the first pairing,
> > and 170 rating-points better for the second.
> >
> > This is obviously not a very precise model.  For
> > example, I have another pairing where the stronger
> > player wins 68.13 (cpw, not dmp, so slightly more
> > than the 67.98) but only wins .52ppg, rather than
> > your .57.
> >
> > David
> >
>