## the F41 [Archive]

Abandoned challenges and other old information.

Moderator: Clan Directors

Forum rules

### Re: the F41

1. When KORT (ranked 1393) lost vs TOFU (ranked 1357) by only 2 games 29-31 then KORT have lost 44 points.

Conclusion: losing by so small margin of only 2 games from clan who is 36 points lower ranked costed 44 points.

Your conclusion is wrong. During the period 1-15 May 2013 for which IcePack did the F400 there were other considerations to be made.

1. KORT had results other than the 29-31 loss to TOFU, so you cannot say the TOFU result cost 44pts
2. KORT will have lost points due to ageing of the May 6th 2011 win over THOTA
3. TOFU during 1-15th May 2013 recorded wins of 31-29, 14-2, 9-3, 12-4, 7-5 & 10-2....yet our points increase was a lot less than the 44 that KORT lost, so it is quite clear the singular TOFU-KORT result did not cost your clan 44pts.

So get your facts straight Einstein before you go accusing people of being a liar.

Highest position #5 (18 Nov 2010) General 4,380pts (11 Dec 2010)

Chariot of Fire

Posts: 3231
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 8:13 am
Location: Macau
Medals: 95

### Re: the F41

I plan to respond just to replies regrading math and F400 algorithm, not to other comments.
Doc_Brown wrote:A more serious math issue is in terms of strength of opponents. Simply using the average rating of opponents is going to get you in trouble. As an example, assume you are a 2000 point player and play two games, one against a 1000 point player and one against a 3000 point player. If you beat the higher ranked and lose to the lower ranked player, you'll end up with you'll end up with a net loss of 10 points, or if you lose to the higher ranked and beat the lower ranked player, you'll have a net loss of 3 points. However, you went 50% against players with a mean ranking the same as yours, so your analysis would have suggested a net zero point change. In stock market terms, this is known as "draw down." Actual performance over an entire group will be less than expected based on the average of the group.

So from your example, you will get higher benefit (-3 points) if you lose to higher ranked than if you lose to lower ranked (-10 points). So, let's see in average who TOFU lost (and draw) vs, were them lower or higher ranked than TOFU? Lost sets were vs LOW (1099) and OSA (1139) while draw was vs TFFS (994) while average opponents' rank was 1006. So, following your logic, TOFU even got a profit in comparing with averaging opponent rank, because they lost points vs opponents who are the same like average (TFFS) or much stronger then average (OSA, LOW) which means they achieved wins vs clans lower ranked than average, which is with your logical explanation scenario which would give to TOFU more points than what they would get in comparing with average clans' rank. As conclusion, if my previous consideration lead to result that no points were gained nor lost in RL3, then with your new input conclusion is that TOFU even gained some points from RL3.

Chariot of Fire wrote:Just to answer Josko's Pt.1

1. When KORT (ranked 1393) lost vs TOFU (ranked 1357) by only 2 games 29-31 then KORT have lost 44 points.

Conclusion: losing by so small margin of only 2 games from clan who is 36 points lower ranked costed 44 points.

Your conclusion is wrong. During the period 1-15 May 2013 for which IcePack did the F400 there were other considerations to be made.

1. KORT had results other than the 29-31 loss to TOFU, so you cannot say the TOFU result cost 44pts
2. KORT will have lost points due to ageing of the May 6th 2011 win over THOTA
3. TOFU during 1-15th May 2013 recorded wins of 31-29, 14-2, 9-3, 12-4, 7-5 & 10-2....yet our points increase was a lot less than the 44 that KORT lost, so it is quite clear the singular TOFU-KORT result did not cost your clan 44pts.

So get your facts straight Einstein before you go accusing people of being a liar.

In the same ranking update, TOFU got 36 points and KORT lost 44, so point value gained/lost from that war is somewhere around that numbers, in my consideration it is irrelevant is it 36,37,40 or 44, those numbers are all in the same range anyway.

As for your "advice" about getting facts straight before accusing people to be liar, the KORT-THOTA war were included in ranking with date KORT z-THOTA 33 27 04/19/11, which means that on May 1st ranking that result was already aged and does not have influence on May15th ranking. I think I do not see the first time that you are pointing fingers at me for telling untrue facts, while actually you are the one who speaks untrue facts my friend

Looking at only KORT's results from May 1st to May 15th, there were the match vs TOFU, and 13v3 win vs DB, which is value around 1350 ranking, so that one result did not have big influence to our rankings. That said, KORT's net loss of points is more similar to real net gain/loss of points in that war than TOFU's net points won, because TOFU had 5 other mini wars in addition to the big war while KORT had only 1 mini war included together.

As a conclusion, no matter how much you try to go around facts, the net point loss was around 44, because weight of that challenge was 61 while weight of other included war was only 16 and result in the other war was not out of average for given clan ranks of KORT and DB.

Anyway, of the whole my initial post the most analysis was written in point 3, which for sure is the most important point, so here I will quote the most important conclusion which considers RL3 results only:

josko.ri wrote:For comparison and concluding how many points this can cost TOFU or get to TOFU, I was searching for another match of similar ranking opponents and similar final result. I found IA (1263) vs LEG (922) [341 point difference] which ended 28-13[68,3%] from July 2013 ranking as a fair comparison to TOFU (1375) vs average RL opponents (1006) [369 point difference] which ended 93-51[64,6%]. Point difference between IA and LEG was little lower, but total score was little higher so ranking points awarded should be more or less equal. IA neither won neither lost points for winning that challenge because they had 1263 points both in July 15th and August 1st 2013, and the result was included in ranking at July 29th.

Conclusion: If IA which is very similar case did not lost nor get any points in war of 41 games, then also TOFU for similar winning and ranking difference conditions should stay more on less on the same number of points like they would have if they did not play RL. Weight of the challenge in this consideration can be neglected because IA had 1263 from their 380 games in last 2 years, and to that was added win of 28v13 which obviously had point value of around 1263 and weight of 44 games, so if weight was higher it would still be the same in averaging with their previous score.

josko.ri

Posts: 2998
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 5:18 pm
Medals: 261

### Re: the F41

Who cares where someone lost points?..To.FU is Number 1 in both rankings....But what matters really is to congrat Icepack fot putting an amazing work and effort that makes this rankings possible

Armandolas

Posts: 1761
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 6:32 am
Location: Lisbon
Medals: 111

### Re: the F41

josko.ri wrote:I plan to respond just to replies regrading math and F400 algorithm, not to other comments.
Doc_Brown wrote:A more serious math issue is in terms of strength of opponents. Simply using the average rating of opponents is going to get you in trouble. As an example, assume you are a 2000 point player and play two games, one against a 1000 point player and one against a 3000 point player. If you beat the higher ranked and lose to the lower ranked player, you'll end up with you'll end up with a net loss of 10 points, or if you lose to the higher ranked and beat the lower ranked player, you'll have a net loss of 3 points. However, you went 50% against players with a mean ranking the same as yours, so your analysis would have suggested a net zero point change. In stock market terms, this is known as "draw down." Actual performance over an entire group will be less than expected based on the average of the group.

So from your example, you will get higher benefit (-3 points) if you lose to higher ranked than if you lose to lower ranked (-10 points).

Actually, you missed the point. In the example I gave there are three scenarios:
1) Looking at the average, a player went 50% against teams with an average ranking identical to what he currently has. Theoretical result: net change of points is 0. (This scenario is the estimated results you're offering.)
2) Exact calculation assuming the player loses to the low rank and beats the higher rank: Actual loss is 10 points (worse than theoretical estimate).
3) Exact calculation assuming the player beats the low rank and loses to the higher rank: Actual loss is 3 points (worse than theoretical estimate).

Your estimates say that TOFU should have gone effectively net zero from RL games. What I'm showing with a comparable example is that because of draw down, the actual point gains will, of mathematical necessity, be lower than the theoretical estimate. Some scenarios are better than others, but all scenarios are worse than predictions based on the average.

Anyway, it's an interesting discussion, and I appreciate all the time you spent digging through TOFU's records. As I said, I think your estimates are at least partially valid, though I think one would have to look at it on a war-by-war basis to determine the true effect of the RL matches on TOFU's record. Although given the way the most recent batches have gone, if we didn't have a negative result before, we probably will soon.

And I'll chime in with Armandolas in thanking Icepack for all of his work. More than anything, I just find the results fascinating, particularly given the differences between F400 and F41. I think this discussions started with my surprise at how much higher TOFU's score was in the F41, and I stand by that. If the cause of it is CL4 batch 2 rather than RL3 batches, that's fine. It really doesn't matter a lick. In fact, I'm hoping Josko is right because it means our F400 score will gradually drift upwards towards the F41 score as the old CL4 batches drop off, rather than a drift in the other direction that would result if the RL games were the source of the difference.

Doc_Brown

Posts: 879
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2009 6:06 pm
Location: Alabama
Medals: 53

### Re: the F41

So...I stayed home with a migraine all day. To be honest, most of the comments from kort/tofu were just plain tl:dr.
I will look at them in more detail another day.
But, I was asked by someone to go back and discuss what really went on between the two clans on that fateful day in May.

So, I'll share a QUICK review on that war. (please dont make me regret it) I'm 99% sure I covered all my bases.

TOFU vs KORT completed 5.2.13; the day before (5.1.13):
KORT @ 1388
TOFU @ 1348

The day results entered:
TOFU @ 1383
KORT @ 1354

No other entries were entered from 5.2.13 that would have affected either clan. Decay looks like it was 1 pt on kort (without the war).

Sorry its so brief. Good luck with the rest of the argument.

IcePack
Clan Director

Posts: 13295
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 6:42 pm
Location: California
Medals: 150

### Re: the F41

lol :^)

hotfire

Posts: 426
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2007 7:50 pm
Medals: 79

### Re: the F41

I was thinking josko's estimate of the lost points sounded a bit high ... but yeah tl;dr past that point

agentcom

Posts: 3965
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 8:50 pm
Medals: 121

### Re: the F41 [Sept 1]

Updated

IcePack
Clan Director

Posts: 13295
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 6:42 pm
Location: California
Medals: 150

### Re: the F41 [Sept 1]

Christ almighty, number 6

Gilligan

Posts: 12477
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 4:59 pm
Location: Providence, RI
Medals: 204

### Re: the F41 [Sept 1]

Go go rocket-bots!

Timminz

Posts: 5577
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 1:05 pm
Location: At the store
Medals: 57

### Re: the F41 [Sept 1]

Gilligan wrote:Christ almighty, number 6

Almost done with F400....

IcePack
Clan Director

Posts: 13295
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 6:42 pm
Location: California
Medals: 150

### Re: the F41 [Sept 1]

No LoW yet, eh?

maasman

Posts: 538
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 6:45 pm
Location: Goose Creek, USA
Medals: 82

### Re: the F41 [Sept 1]

maasman wrote:No LoW yet, eh?

Nope, LOW has 90 weight in the F41 and needs 125. Though, they definitely are not as strong on F41 as other areas of rankings...

IcePack
Clan Director

Posts: 13295
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 6:42 pm
Location: California
Medals: 150

### Re: the F41 [Sept 1]

IcePack wrote:
maasman wrote:No LoW yet, eh?

Nope, LOW has 90 weight in the F41 and needs 125. Though, they definitely are not as strong on F41 as other areas of rankings...

Completely understandable seeing as we haven't played many full challenges lately and have been doing well in other areas. I imagine after the ID challenge we'll be included.

maasman

Posts: 538
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 6:45 pm
Location: Goose Creek, USA
Medals: 82

### Re: the F41 [Sept 1]

Gilligan wrote:Christ almighty, number 6

Wow. We might just break the top 20 in the coaches poll now.

Bones2484

Posts: 2307
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2007 11:24 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA (G1)
Medals: 65

### Re: the F41 [Sept 1]

Edit: (error)
MB listed twice. Bottom #39 is VVV.

IcePack
Clan Director

Posts: 13295
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 6:42 pm
Location: California
Medals: 150

### Re: the F41 [Sept 1]

Update here planned for Oct 1st.

IcePack
Clan Director

Posts: 13295
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 6:42 pm
Location: California
Medals: 150

### Re: the F41 [Oct 1]

Updated, very few wars completed so kinda truncated the info.

IcePack
Clan Director

Posts: 13295
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 6:42 pm
Location: California
Medals: 150

### Re: the F41 [Nov 1 Updated]

Updated. WAR, DB, AKA, several others have been removed or dropped off the list, while 3 new ones have been added. Enjoy!

IcePack
Clan Director

Posts: 13295
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 6:42 pm
Location: California
Medals: 150

### Re: the F41 [Nov 1 Updated]

I've given up trying to figure out how this and the F400 are calculated. With a recent 46-15 demolition of Dynasty we still manage to lose a shedload of points.

Highest position #5 (18 Nov 2010) General 4,380pts (11 Dec 2010)

Chariot of Fire

Posts: 3231
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2007 8:13 am
Location: Macau
Medals: 95

### Re: the F41 [Dec 1 Updated]

IcePack
Clan Director

Posts: 13295
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 6:42 pm
Location: California
Medals: 150

### Re: the F41 [Jan 1 Updated]

IcePack
Clan Director

Posts: 13295
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 6:42 pm
Location: California
Medals: 150

### Re: the F41 [Jan 1 Updated]

I call cheats on FALL. Someone has an in.

Gilligan

Posts: 12477
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 4:59 pm
Location: Providence, RI
Medals: 204

### Re: the F41 [Jan 1 Updated]

Gilligan wrote:I call cheats on FALL. Someone has an in.

Ha typo. Tied @ 1194

IcePack
Clan Director

Posts: 13295
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 6:42 pm
Location: California
Medals: 150

PreviousNext