PDA

View Full Version : New Ranking sistem?


Uroboros
05-15-2009, 03:13 PM
Ok, maybe this need its own thread...
Regarding the thread bout Nad rants over 52 weeks atp ranking, i asked in that post: what about a "ELO" type rating? (the one that chess uses, the most fair ever and the only one that allows acurate diferent eras players comparisions)

Maybe im biased, cuz the 3 individual sports that i've played a high level chess, poker and Magic TG (yeah i consider those sports AND games,it depends of how seriously u take it) all 3 have really fair ranking sistems, chess, elo rating, MagicTG, a very similar one(prolly the most apropiate to tennis) and poker... well in poker who win more money is tha best one, nothing is more fair than this

So what about a ranking that takes into account not only the victory in a tourney, but the players u faced and the "level" of the tourney itself? For example, get all pro players a 2000 points base, then give each kind of tourney a K value (for example 8 for 250, 16 for 500, 32 for masters 1000 and 50 for GS)then give points for each game, taking into account that K, i mean if u r playing a 8K event, u can win as much as 8 points for game, if u play a GS 50k one, u can win 50 points tops each game. and more important, take into account the ranking of your oponent, if two 2000 players play eachother, the winner takes 4 points and the loser takes 4 points, if a 2200 plays a 1800, if the 2200 wins takes 1 point, but if he loses, loses 8 points... (insert here a fair maths algorithm that im too lazy to make now)

that will reward the players who win more, will reward the hardest draws more than the lousy ones, wont punish so badly early round upsets while benefitting the upsetter and at the end of the year will have a REALLY fair ranking...

What do u guys think?

seffina
05-15-2009, 03:16 PM
I like the one we have. Draws are random. One shouldn't be punished for a worse draw.

Uroboros
05-15-2009, 03:43 PM
in fact, this sistem wont punsih worse draws... it rewards it... lets put an example...

Player A [1](2500pts) plays in a GS 50K : R1 qualy rank 150(2050pts) wins 5 points, R2 75th ranked player(2100pts) wins 8 points, R3 36th(2200pts) wins 13 points, R4 23th (2250pts) Wins 15 points, QF 12th(2310pts) wins 18 points, SF [3] (2450pts) wins 24 points, F [2] (2475pts) Loss 26 points : final result +57 points, 2557.

Player B [2](2475): R1 Qualy 150(2050) +5,R2 100th(2075) +6, R3 56th(2130) +11, R4 32th(2200) +14, QF 16th(2300) +19, SF [4](2400) +24, F [1] (2500) +27: Final result, winner, +107 points 2582

Player C 50th (2120) : R1 48th(2120) +25, R2 22th(2250) +33,R3 [8](2380) -12
Final result +46 points 2166

Player D [5] (2400) R1 vs 68th (2090) L -40 pts Final result, -40 2360, still hurts, but no way as much as not defending a semifinal for example.


i think it would make the rankings a lot more fair, really exciting to follow, and will make things interesting.

ignigena
05-15-2009, 04:39 PM
Ok, maybe this need its own thread...
Regarding the thread bout Nad rants over 52 weeks atp ranking, i asked in that post: what about a "ELO" type rating? (the one that chess uses, the most fair ever and the only one that allows acurate diferent eras players comparisions)

Maybe im biased, cuz the 3 individual sports that i've played a high level chess, poker and Magic TG (yeah i consider those sports AND games,it depends of how seriously u take it) all 3 have really fair ranking sistems, chess, elo rating, MagicTG, a very similar one(prolly the most apropiate to tennis) and poker... well in poker who win more money is tha best one, nothing is more fair than this

So what about a ranking that takes into account not only the victory in a tourney, but the players u faced and the "level" of the tourney itself? For example, get all pro players a 2000 points base, then give each kind of tourney a K value (for example 8 for 250, 16 for 500, 32 for masters 1000 and 50 for GS)then give points for each game, taking into account that K, i mean if u r playing a 8K event, u can win as much as 8 points for game, if u play a GS 50k one, u can win 50 points tops each game. and more important, take into account the ranking of your oponent, if two 2000 players play eachother, the winner takes 4 points and the loser takes 4 points, if a 2200 plays a 1800, if the 2200 wins takes 1 point, but if he loses, loses 8 points... (insert here a fair maths algorithm that im too lazy to make now)

that will reward the players who win more, will reward the hardest draws more than the lousy ones, wont punish so badly early round upsets while benefitting the upsetter and at the end of the year will have a REALLY fair ranking...

What do u guys think?

I agree with you. It seems we have similar interest and tastes, i like chess and poker, and played MTG but basically type 1 game. Where are you from?

ignigena
05-15-2009, 05:02 PM
Ok, maybe this need its own thread...
Regarding the thread bout Nad rants over 52 weeks atp ranking, i asked in that post: what about a "ELO" type rating? (the one that chess uses, the most fair ever and the only one that allows acurate diferent eras players comparisions)

Maybe im biased, cuz the 3 individual sports that i've played a high level chess, poker and Magic TG (yeah i consider those sports AND games,it depends of how seriously u take it) all 3 have really fair ranking sistems, chess, elo rating, MagicTG, a very similar one(prolly the most apropiate to tennis) and poker... well in poker who win more money is tha best one, nothing is more fair than this

So what about a ranking that takes into account not only the victory in a tourney, but the players u faced and the "level" of the tourney itself? For example, get all pro players a 2000 points base, then give each kind of tourney a K value (for example 8 for 250, 16 for 500, 32 for masters 1000 and 50 for GS)then give points for each game, taking into account that K, i mean if u r playing a 8K event, u can win as much as 8 points for game, if u play a GS 50k one, u can win 50 points tops each game. and more important, take into account the ranking of your oponent, if two 2000 players play eachother, the winner takes 4 points and the loser takes 4 points, if a 2200 plays a 1800, if the 2200 wins takes 1 point, but if he loses, loses 8 points... (insert here a fair maths algorithm that im too lazy to make now)

that will reward the players who win more, will reward the hardest draws more than the lousy ones, wont punish so badly early round upsets while benefitting the upsetter and at the end of the year will have a REALLY fair ranking...

What do u guys think?

You really amazed me with that post!, I actually thought about that kind of system but never had the bravery to propose it. And what about your interests?, high level chess, poker and MTG?, :o , I would really like to talk to you about anything of that, or any other thing. You really look like an interesting person. ignigena.quintus@gmail.com

iamgoat
05-15-2009, 05:21 PM
But you could end up with lower ranked players getting into the top by playing small tournaments.

MajinX
05-15-2009, 05:43 PM
But you could end up with lower ranked players getting into the top by playing small tournaments.

small tournaments dont give as much points, theres a multiplier constant stated in the post. 50 for grandslams and 32 for masters etc.

its an interesting suggestion but iuno, seems a tad complicated relatively and how would they convert the following points now to these type of points. also it seems the person who wins the most here gets the most points, lets say someone always reaches the semis alot, like djokovic, but someone like murray loses early sometimes but wins alot more tournaments, the way u set it up wins earn points, but winning the tournament in a final which is a big deal doesnt earn alot more points than a 3rd round win against another seed for example.

so maybe add bonus points for winning it all? and making the finals?

tacou
05-15-2009, 06:30 PM
this is way too complicated. tennis ranking system is unique to the sport and in my opinion very fair and simple: each round awards a great number of points than the last, and the bigger the tournament the more points you get. how would anything make more sense than that?

NandoMania
05-15-2009, 06:37 PM
Might want to try a new spell-check system first! :wink: :)