Anonymous Large Social Game ELOs

For large social games such as Survivor where the primary mechanic is social interaction.
zoraster
Consigliere
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20  (isolation #0)  » Mon Mar 06, 2017 6:07 pm

i've got a game, but it's kinda weird and titled Aristocratic Ladies of the English Countryside.
.

zoraster
Consigliere
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #51  (isolation #1)  » Thu Mar 09, 2017 8:44 pm

I know it's both, but is the goal of the game to win or to finish the highest average position?

If we're talking about encouraging risk-taking behavior, the latter is not the way to achieve that.
.

zoraster
Consigliere
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #53  (isolation #2)  » Thu Mar 09, 2017 8:50 pm

In the context of "oh no the meta is wimpy. i quit!"?
.

zoraster
Consigliere
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #57  (isolation #3)  » Thu Mar 09, 2017 9:11 pm

I mean, I doubt anyone purely plays for ELO, but the method people are measured against each other tends to have subtle and often unconscious effects. I actually think ELO is a pretty good system overall. But if the concerns of some people is that there's not enough risk-taking, well, this system at the very least doesn't help with that.

I don't have enough knowledge to know whether or not that's actually a problem and not just people finding something new to complain about, but...
.

zoraster
Consigliere
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #59  (isolation #4)  » Thu Mar 09, 2017 10:14 pm

it tends to be a feature of elo ratings. Which is generally a good thing: the goal is to show current skill. https://elliotnoma.wordpress.com/2015/0 ... o-ratings/
.

zoraster
Consigliere
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #62  (isolation #5)  » Thu Mar 09, 2017 10:24 pm

One of the curious things about doing this is that I assume (maybe I'm wrong) that your elo is adjusted as a one v. one competition with each person in the game. So for example, xofelf beat kdowns and Annadog40, but because she had a 1557 rating vs. a 1085 and 1200 rating, respectively, she didn't get many points for that. But THEN she lost to everyone else, including 986 me and 952 Trollie, both of which on their own would decrease the Elo score considerably. And that's why her Elo went way, way down.

So, and CC can correct me, rather than think about each game as a single iteration of Elo, think of each game as X number of games scored all at once, where X is the number of players in the game minus one.

But, depending on whether CC readjusts the elos EVERY time, it could be worse than that. Because xofelf would face every single person as a 1557 elo, whereas if she did it as 27 single games, she'd readjust her elo and it'd suffer less each time she lost.
.

zoraster
Consigliere
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #64  (isolation #6)  » Fri Mar 10, 2017 9:57 am

In post 63, CuddlyCaucasian wrote:You're right zor, it's calculated as (in the case of ned's) 26 1v1 games against everyone else in the game. I think it does skew too heavily towards recent performance, although I could make it more stable by lowering the k-values used for everyone. It's nice to have a dynamic ranking system, but obviously none of them will be anywhere near perfect in something that's so subjective like Survivor and other large social games.



Is it calculated using static ratings or dynamic ones? In other words, was each of my games judges as if I had a 986 or for each victory did mine inch up a bit until I went out and then every loss incrementally reduced my elo?
.

zoraster
Consigliere
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #87  (isolation #7)  » Sat Mar 11, 2017 9:31 pm

In post 74, xRECKONERx wrote:i mean i think it's cumulative

and i think that gives people a reason to go for the "big win" to boost their rankings

perhaps we could curtail it to more recent games and exclude older ones in order to eliminate the games from before anon survivor became like a "legit" thing

or yeah average winnings could work too

no reason we couldn't keep both statistics handy.

i think both avg winnings and cumulative winnings gives people more reason to play for a win than elo which gives a minor difference between winning and coming in 3rd


You could do a weighted average too, which would make people feel like that awesome performance back in 2015 is still counted but doesn't keep a newer player from competing.

But I really like the payout method. Still, keep in mind that if you don't adjust it somehow for the number of players in the game then you're going to make it more beneficial to play smaller games.
.

zoraster
Consigliere
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #88  (isolation #8)  » Sat Mar 11, 2017 9:44 pm

FWIW proportionally the awards are:

1 67.29%
2 6.73%
3 5.72%
4 4.71%
5 3.70%
6 3.03%
7 2.36%
8 1.85%
9 1.35%
10 1.01%
11 0.67%
12 0.50%
13 0.37%
14 0.30%
15 0.24%
16 0.17%
.

zoraster
Consigliere
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #92  (isolation #9)  » Sat Mar 11, 2017 9:54 pm

One option would be to use a poker tournament payout, but adjusted a bit. So like this chart: http://www.pokerworld.com/poker-tournam ... payout.asp but adjust to where it pays out for the appropriate number of players. So for example, for 16 players it'd pay out like so:

1 27.5
2 17.5
3 11.5
4 8.5
5 7.25
6 5.75
7 4.5
8 3
9 2
10 1.5
11 1.2
12 1.2
13 1.2
14 1.2
15 1.2
16 1.00

Dump the rest of the payout into the winner's category (making the winner's payout 31.5%). So if each prize pool is $1,500,000 then the winners of a 16 person would receive:

1 $472,500
2 $262,500
3 $172,500
4 $127,500
5 $108,750
6 $86,250
7 $67,500
8 $45,000
9 $30,000
10 $22,500
11 $18,000
12 $18,000
13 $18,000
14 $18,000
15 $18,000
16 $15,000
.

zoraster
Consigliere
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #95  (isolation #10)  » Sat Mar 11, 2017 10:03 pm

yeah, that's why I brought up using an altered poker tournament payout. It adjusts by number of players and probably incentivizes winning/finishing highly to a similar degree that you'd want to in these situations.
.

zoraster
Consigliere
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #96  (isolation #11)  » Sat Mar 11, 2017 10:05 pm

Payout of a 27 player game using the chart, altered:

Spoiler: 27 players
1 $432,000
2 $247,500
3 $165,000
4 $120,000
5 $105,000
6 $82,500
7 $67,500
8 $45,000
9 $26,250
10 $18,750
11 $14,250
12 $14,250
13 $14,250
14 $14,250
15 $14,250
16 $11,250
17 $11,250
18 $11,250
19 $11,250
20 $11,250
21 $9,000
22 $9,000
23 $9,000
24 $9,000
25 $9,000
26 $9,000
27 $9,000
.

zoraster
Consigliere
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #98  (isolation #12)  » Sat Mar 11, 2017 10:07 pm

I'll leave that to you, but winner getting twice what second place gets and 5 times what sixth place gets seems appropriate and provides the right incentives to push for risky-but-solid strategies in order to win.
.

zoraster
Consigliere
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #100  (isolation #13)  » Sat Mar 11, 2017 10:10 pm

I think that a 10:1 ratio of first to second is totally inappropriate for a rolling determination of supposed skill. Like if you just want a fun "I wonder what our winnings would be if we used survivor" then sure. Keep it the same or very, very similar. But as a replacement or alternative measure to the elo system I think it'll be sorely lacking.
.

zoraster
Consigliere
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #105  (isolation #14)  » Sat Mar 11, 2017 10:22 pm

Look, either we say that second place is deserving of more recognition than third place or we scrap the entire thing of trying to track performances. Or have a "winner's circle" that lists number of wins by player.

""""""bad"""""" doesn't enter into it.
.

zoraster
Consigliere
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #110  (isolation #15)  » Sat Mar 11, 2017 10:35 pm

if for no other reason than i know it'll make your life way, way easier, it's worth it CC.
.

zoraster
Consigliere
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #111  (isolation #16)  » Sat Mar 11, 2017 10:37 pm

By the way, the correlation between % first places and average money won is -.954 among those who have actually won a game, so just know that all you're really doing at the top of the rankings is figuring out who has the highest win rate.
.

zoraster
Consigliere
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #113  (isolation #17)  » Sat Mar 11, 2017 10:43 pm

Of the players with at least one win, the first AND ONLY person with a lower win rate to go above a person with a higher win rate is BPC at 7th place and a 25% win rate over CC with a 28.5% win rate.

So literally a list of people with at least one win is just a list of how often they win with a tiebreaker of how well they did outside of their win rate. Which makes this a complicated way of giving a simple win percentage.

Technically xofelf has a lower win rate than TheBadOne and is higher ranked, but that's the difference between 6.25% and 6.67% so almost not worth mentioning
.

zoraster
Consigliere
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #114  (isolation #18)  » Sat Mar 11, 2017 10:44 pm

In post 112, Vijarada wrote:highest win rate is bella right? ugh, she's already at the top of weighted crazy rankings. revolt!


By my calculations Summer, Betch and Snakes all have the highest win rates with 50%. Summer is actually in the lead overall with an average payout of 542500 over two games. Bella has the fourth highest with 40%.
.

zoraster
Consigliere
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #116  (isolation #19)  » Sat Mar 11, 2017 10:50 pm

People like the feeling that their performances have some permanence and like if they do well it's not forgotten in ten seconds. That's particularly true of a game that's anonymous where even talking about it knowing that Reck is Hermione and SensFan is Juno we refer to them as Hermione and Juno.
.

zoraster
Consigliere
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #118  (isolation #20)  » Sat Mar 11, 2017 10:53 pm

fwiw here's my simple calculations of standings based on CC's formula. Sorted by Average first, then total, then games played:

Spoiler: Standings
Place Name # Games Payout Total Average Payout Number of 1sts Win Percent
1 SummerInWonderland 2 1085000 542500 1 50%
2 Betch 6 3187500 531250 3 50%
3 Snakes 8 4170500 521313 4 50%
4 Bellaphant 5 2100000 420000 2 40%
5 Shiidaji 6 2182500 363750 2 33%
6 kloud1516 3 1023500 341167 1 33%
7 BipolarChemist 4 1180000 295000 1 25%
8 CuddlyCaucasian 7 2057000 293857 2 29%
9 Papa Zito 4 1082500 270625 1 25%
10 Save The Dragons 5 1205000 241000 1 20%
11 Jal 10 2372500 237250 2 20%
12 xRECKONERx 12 2206000 183833 2 17%
13 hiplop 7 1230500 175786 1 14%
14 Drench 14 2393000 170929 2 14%
15 orcinus_theoriginal 7 1137500 162500 1 14%
16 Flameaxe 7 1090000 155714 1 14%
17 Cephrir 9 1400000 155556 1 11%
18 Xalxe 10 1257000 125700 1 10%
19 Klick 23 2719500 118239 2 9%
20 xofelf 16 1797000 112313 1 6%
21 TheBadOne 15 1411500 94100 1 7%
22 Nyalite 3 255000 85000 0 0%
23 pablito 1 85000 85000 0 0%
24 Trevor 1 85000 85000 0 0%
25 Blackberry 9 520500 57833 0 0%
26 SensFan 2 104500 52250 0 0%
27 UpTooLate 2 102500 51250 0 0%
28 DeasVail 10 490000 49000 0 0%
29 Lowell 3 140000 46667 0 0%
30 Blastoide 3 140000 46667 0 0%
31 elusive 2 90000 45000 0 0%
32 Primate 1 45000 45000 0 0%
33 RedPanda 1 45000 45000 0 0%
34 ActionDan 2 87500 43750 0 0%
35 Rhinox 2 87500 43750 0 0%
36 ForWhomTheJellyRolls 10 435000 43500 0 0%
37 Malkon05 3 130000 43333 0 0%
38 Brian Skies 5 208500 41700 0 0%
39 Haschel Cedricson 7 272500 38929 0 0%
40 swyellowtail 2 75500 37750 0 0%
41 Lady Lambdadelta 2 75000 37500 0 0%
42 TheBreeze 6 222500 37083 0 0%
43 TS 6 222500 37083 0 0%
44 MattP 4 140000 35000 0 0%
45 Fluminator 2 70000 35000 0 0%
46 Malakittens 2 70000 35000 0 0%
47 ZazieR 1 35000 35000 0 0%
48 Max 1 35000 35000 0 0%
49 Antagon 1 35000 35000 0 0%
50 Equinox 1 35000 35000 0 0%
51 Shadoweh 8 278000 34750 0 0%
52 OhGodMyLife 6 204500 34083 0 0%
53 DeathNote 13 426500 32808 0 0%
54 Nicholas1024 7 228500 32643 0 0%
55 Chevre 11 338000 30727 0 0%
56 The Ultimator 2 57500 28750 0 0%
57 Scotmany12 1 27500 27500 0 0%
58 Cheery Dog 9 243000 27000 0 0%
59 PrivateI 15 387000 25800 0 0%
60 KageLord 2 50000 25000 0 0%
61 Mist7676 11 273500 24864 0 0%
62 kdowns 13 311500 23962 0 0%
63 GuyInFreezer 2 47500 23750 0 0%
64 pickemgenius 16 348000 21750 0 0%
65 D3f3nd3r 21 438500 20881 0 0%
66 Crazy 8 160000 20000 0 0%
67 mykonian 1 20000 20000 0 0%
68 chesskid3 1 20000 20000 0 0%
69 animorpherv1 11 215500 19591 0 0%
70 Espeonage 4 77500 19375 0 0%
71 PiggyGal15 8 142000 17750 0 0%
72 KingdomAces 9 159500 17722 0 0%
73 Cybele 13 227500 17500 0 0%
74 BROseidon 7 121500 17357 0 0%
75 mastermind 3 50000 16667 0 0%
76 JDGA 9 144500 16056 0 0%
77 UberNinja 2 30000 15000 0 0%
78 Hiraki 1 15000 15000 0 0%
79 DoctorPepper 1 15000 15000 0 0%
80 VisceraEyes 1 15000 15000 0 0%
81 Gale Wing Srock 1 15000 15000 0 0%
82 Felissan 1 15000 15000 0 0%
83 Salamence20 3 41000 13667 0 0%
84 Aronis 10 127000 12700 0 0%
85 pirate mollie 2 22500 11250 0 0%
86 JDodge 2 22500 11250 0 0%
87 Radja 8 89500 11188 0 0%
88 Pizzadudes7 7 72500 10357 0 0%
89 Ten_Heavens 1 10000 10000 0 0%
90 JasonWazza 1 10000 10000 0 0%
91 Lord Mhork 6 53000 8833 0 0%
92 beastcharizard 2 17500 8750 0 0%
93 T-Bone 6 44000 7333 0 0%
94 Skelda 4 28000 7000 0 0%
95 AcRv 2 13000 6500 0 0%
96 Tragedy 2 12500 6250 0 0%
97 MathBlade 3 18000 6000 0 0%
98 SleepyKrew 5 29000 5800 0 0%
99 dramonic 1 5500 5500 0 0%
100 CareyHammer 1 5500 5500 0 0%
101 Axxle 9 46500 5167 0 0%
102 McMenno 3 15000 5000 0 0%
103 TheTrollie 2 10000 5000 0 0%
104 Princess Toady 2 10000 5000 0 0%
105 Tatsuya Kaname 2 10000 5000 0 0%
106 mallowgeno 5 23000 4600 0 0%
107 Aeronaut 3 13500 4500 0 0%
108 Framm18 4 16000 4000 0 0%
109 Extrapolated Eagle 2 8000 4000 0 0%
110 Vijarada 4 14000 3500 0 0%
111 Keybladewielder 2 7000 3500 0 0%
112 RedCoyote 1 3500 3500 0 0%
113 Philammon 1 3500 3500 0 0%
114 Svenskt Stål 1 3500 3500 0 0%
115 randomidget 3 9500 3167 0 0%
116 Narninian 4 12000 3000 0 0%
117 notscience 2 6000 3000 0 0%
118 Nobody Special 3 8500 2833 0 0%
119 zoraster 2 5000 2500 0 0%
120 KuroiXHF 2 5000 2500 0 0%
121 ZZZX 2 5000 2500 0 0%
122 xtopherusD 2 5000 2500 0 0%
123 Elmo TeH AzN 2 5000 2500 0 0%
124 Feirei 2 5000 2500 0 0%
125 gandalf5166 2 5000 2500 0 0%
126 Dry-fit 1 2500 2500 0 0%
127 crywolf20084 1 2500 2500 0 0%
128 TheIrishPope 1 2500 2500 0 0%
129 EspeciallyTheLies 1 2500 2500 0 0%
130 Zang 1 2500 2500 0 0%
131 fuzzybutternut 1 2500 2500 0 0%
132 Marquis 1 2500 2500 0 0%
133 MechaGoomba 1 2500 2500 0 0%
134 danakillsu 1 2500 2500 0 0%
135 Haylen 1 2500 2500 0 0%
136 jasonT1981 1 2500 2500 0 0%
137 theamatuer 1 2500 2500 0 0%
138 horrordude0215 1 2500 2500 0 0%
139 BlackPawn14 1 2500 2500 0 0%
140 Pimhel 1 2500 2500 0 0%
141 Ciara24 1 2500 2500 0 0%
142 Sharkfinn 1 2500 2500 0 0%
143 Gamsimbre 1 2500 2500 0 0%
144 puzzledan 1 2500 2500 0 0%
145 Wraith 1 2500 2500 0 0%
146 jmj3000 1 2500 2500 0 0%
147 Firewristedninja 1 2500 2500 0 0%
148 Jackel98 1 2500 2500 0 0%
149 borkjerkfin 1 2500 2500 0 0%
150 vonflare 1 2500 2500 0 0%
.

zoraster
Consigliere
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #124  (isolation #21)  » Sat Mar 11, 2017 11:05 pm

what? it's in the OP
.

zoraster
Consigliere
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #127  (isolation #22)  » Sat Mar 11, 2017 11:10 pm

Oh wait a second, CC. You adjusted your total prize pool not by +2500 per person but by the percent increase over 16?

I'm getting different numbers than 92875 using your table for:
Seafoam Islands
Arkham Asylum
Conclave
NAH
EtU
Arkham 2
PSV
2016
LoL
Nexus
.

zoraster
Consigliere
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #132  (isolation #23)  » Sat Mar 11, 2017 11:20 pm

In post 128, xRECKONERx wrote:
In post 100, zoraster wrote:I think that a 10:1 ratio of first to second is totally inappropriate for a rolling determination of supposed skill. Like if you just want a fun "I wonder what our winnings would be if we used survivor" then sure. Keep it the same or very, very similar. But as a replacement or alternative measure to the elo system I think it'll be sorely lacking.

In post 101, hiplop wrote:in survivor often second place is a bad player

yeah this

second place (or third place) is often someone who was bad at the game and therefore got dragged there by someone else for the free win


I mean, either we operate under the assumption that places matter and thus are relevant for the sorting of results or we don't. If we don't, then a pure Win % is more appropriate than a misleading $ amount.

Because as it operates above, all you're doing is creating a system that shows Win % for those with at least one win and then something more meaningful for everyone else.
.

zoraster
Consigliere
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #134  (isolation #24)  » Sat Mar 11, 2017 11:22 pm

I'm not sure it is either! But then we should have a "Winner's Circle" or something that shows How many people have won and what percent of their games that comprises.

Pretending that money does anything other than show win percentage for those with a win seems dishonest to me.
.

zoraster
Consigliere
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #140  (isolation #25)  » Sat Mar 11, 2017 11:28 pm

In post 136, xRECKONERx wrote:meh money does something win % doesnt because like

ive won 3 times
ive played 12
3/12 aka 25% winrate doesnt look great

esp compared to bella winning 2/5
or jess winning 1/2

but when you consider that out of my 9 losses, 4/9 involved making merge it looks better?

i dunno i think $$$ amount is probably more indicative of someone's historical impact at least. like, even in the scenario where someone played 5 games, if they're placing in the bottom every time, that's gonna be overshadowed by one person making jury one time, right?


Then list by total number of wins. Your merges and other finishes OTHER than your wins are largely irrelevant to your total $ won.
.

zoraster
Consigliere
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #141  (isolation #26)  » Sat Mar 11, 2017 11:28 pm

In post 138, CuddlyCaucasian wrote:This also gives more weight to someone winning in a 24-person game than someone winning an 18-person game, for example


I have zero objection to that.
.

zoraster
Consigliere
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #147  (isolation #27)  » Sat Mar 11, 2017 11:32 pm

In post 142, xRECKONERx wrote:
Then list by total number of wins. Your merges and other finishes OTHER than your wins are largely irrelevant to your total $ won.

i sorta disagree

i dunno i think there's a system in which we say, okay

making FTC, there's x % of total value tied up in that
making jury, there's x % of total value tied up in that
then not making jury has a smaller value than either of the others


Your $ totals are made up 93.6% by your two first place finishes.
.

zoraster
Consigliere
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #149  (isolation #28)  » Sat Mar 11, 2017 11:38 pm

lol
.

zoraster
Consigliere
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #150  (isolation #29)  » Sat Mar 11, 2017 11:39 pm

Like I'm not suggesting not to give an outsized portion to the winner. But I am saying that 67% of the prize pool being the top prize makes sense for a game show but doesn't really make sense when we have people who are repeat players. Reduce it down to 45% and it's still SUPER important to win vs. come in second.
.

zoraster
Consigliere
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #163  (isolation #30)  » Sun Mar 12, 2017 9:46 am

In post 159, CuddlyCaucasian wrote:We need an infinite number of ways to jerk each other off

I added a new tab called "PokerMoney" with more even money distributions. I'm not the biggest fan since it puts xofelf considerably ahead of Snakes despite the fact that Snakes has far more wins, but if anyone wants to see what that ranking looks like, it's there!


Well it's only meangingful if you do it as an average (or at least a weighted trail off), not as a total. The total is still interesting, but not what you want to sort by otherwise it'll always tend toward those who play the most. You probably need to do a higher number of games to be considered "active" rather than provisional, though.

Looking at it, I might adjust the winner up a bit: somewhere between poker's current and the show's payout structure. Something like 40-50% to the winner rather than in the 27-30% range.
.

zoraster
Consigliere
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #164  (isolation #31)  » Sun Mar 12, 2017 10:06 am

This is what poker money used as an average does to the active contingent. I do think the winner needs to be adjusted up to near half the pot, but I'd resist working backwards too much (i.e. who you want to see ranked as the best and then figuring out what gives you that answer)

Image



Summer probably needs to play more than two games to be considered, but she's going to win any average contest in either system (there are others with only two games on that list that have done well, like SensFan).

The alternative if you really want to do a "lifetime winnings" thing is to act as if each player pays in $92875 to start and only gets back what's on the lists (although I'd probably make it 100k and adjust everything else to match that so people can more easily understand). So some people will go into debt and some people will come out on top. In the poker tables, the breakeven point is at 5 for 16 and 7 for 30 players (using the current unadjusted poker numbers).

The weakness with using average over total is that it might discourage someone like Summer from playing again, whereas a system that requires a pay-in and tracks totals would not.
.

zoraster
Consigliere
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #184  (isolation #32)  » Mon Mar 13, 2017 10:49 am

your avatar is screwed up, hiplop.

I think awarding based on FTC vote is problematic and doesn't really solve the issue of how much to reward winning vs. just doing well.
.

zoraster
Consigliere
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #194  (isolation #33)  » Mon Mar 13, 2017 9:42 pm

It looks great when you put in context of a list?
.


[ + ]

Return to Large Social Games