In post 84, MagnaofIllusion wrote:Feel free to disagree but throwing stats that aren't meaningful isn't very helpful.
Your 25 players listed may not even be in the real Top 100 of all players. Or Top 200. or Top 500. There is no way to know given the small sample size you are using. As I said until you get at least half the player-base included in your pool of eligible players then your Top is just listing of the best ranked players in a small strata of the site's games.
I mean I understand the fun in doing it for you.
The biggest problem is the fact that a striking proportion of the 2000 players is just a one-timer or two-timer players.
I mean, people called Andy Murray the top tennis player because he has a consistent track record. Nobody said "Hey! I think this Person X is the best tennis player in the world because of this, despite he only play 1 game."
You are correct. My Top 25 players may not even be in the real Top 100 players. Very True.
There is no way to know the actual accuracy, but there is a way to increase the accuracy.
The track record is a very valuable proof to increase the accuracy of the list. One thing we have to consider is the possibility of
hot streak
or fluke. By having 5 games limit, it is expected that that lucky player would run out of luck and would finally lose. It is expected that over time, people's track record would converge to a certain point to show your actual skill.
Because of that, I apply (the seemingly) arbitrary 5 games limit to wait for the ELO to converge. If the ELO doesn't converge then it's a fallacy to imply A is better than B from non-converged ELO, which is why I don't include it.
Are 5 games enough for the ELO to converge? This is debatable and researchable. But the limit is important.
Click it!