Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="vikingerik" data-source="post: 139446" data-attributes="member: 3745">Nice work, yes I like the exponential decay approach (and not just because it makes me look good!)A refinement could be to consider only a certain amount of rankings for each player, rather than the entire population of available tables.  Like take each player's 20 highest rankings, or maybe keep it as half of however many tables have been released.  This would help boost players who are certainly very good but for whatever reason just haven't played many of the tables, like nuclearkevin who obviously knows his stuff by ranking #3 on TZ but hasn't played many others.  (Partially because he's a PS3 player which is far behind on table releases.)  This is going to rank Tarek O above me, of course, but he really is better.  I'm on top mostly because I've taken the time to grind out scores on less popular tables like Victory and 1812 that other players just skip.This is essentially how rankings for some individual pro sports work, like golf and tennis.  They rank based on a player's 14 best results from the previous calendar year, so they're not penalized by skipping some events or for occasional injuries.</blockquote>

No members online now.

Total: 331 (members: 0, guests: 331)