The Top LOSERS in CC

[Robinette]

Sigh-- can't believe I dropped so low that I'm not The Top Loser....

You're back on top of the Loser Pile... Zsar of defeat... The King of losers...

And myseld, i've moved up a spot to 21st... I'm now the Secretary of Defeat...

[Greatwhite]

Okay, who really cares about who is ranked 'low'. As discussed ad nauseum, rank doesn't necessarily make you a 'good' player. Lots of guys just play for the fun of it and lose a lotta points experimenting with new maps and different settings.
There can not mathematicaly ever be just 'high ranking' players in this system. Metaphically speaking it is exactly the same as 'The poor will always be with us'. There can be no advantaged without that adavatage coming from somewhere.
'Losers' in my book are the guys that play with no class regardless of how many points they have.

[wacicha]

And if any of these players play terminator and take out all players but the last they win but it shows as a loss.

[cleveridea]

Here are 30 players on Page 1 that have a 33% or LOWER win ratio...

Win ratio is very misleading. It really should be a points per game value, like:

([score] -1000) / [games completed]

I've always wondered why ppg wasn't listed on the Scores page. After playing a 100 or so games it really is the definitive apples-to-apples comparison between two players.

[Fruitcake]

Sigh-- can't believe I dropped so low that I'm not The Top Loser....

Very droll

[nikola_milicki]

heehee

aaahh isnt she the sweeeeeeeetest thing u've ever seen

[Robinette]

Here are 30 players on Page 1 that have a 33% or LOWER win ratio...

Win ratio is very misleading. It really should be a points per game value, like:

([score] -1000) / [games completed]

I've always wondered why ppg wasn't listed on the Scores page. After playing a 100 or so games it really is the definitive apples-to-apples comparison between two players.

If you really want to understand why points per game doesn't work the way you think it does, then review this thread:

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=6389&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=15

[Zlorfik]

I will soon join yours ranks.. also you forgot a friend of mine, Insanity tm (30 win percentage)

[gdeangel]

I posted in the other thread that an increase in win rate in 1v1 is more difficult to achieve than an increase in win rate in multiplayer. After reading this thread, I thought I should explain in more detail....

So let's do a little back of napkin math... take the most skill intensive map/cards/fort settings (yeah, that's a debate from another thread, but just assume there is one for now, whatever it is). Lets say with those settings, the game's outcome is attributable 50% to player skill, 30% dice, 10% card draws, and 10% to drop/first move/etc.) You can disagree with these numbers... I'm just running an example to show where 8 player game average is.

Now let's take a hypothetical 60th percentile player.

In 1v1 games, there is a 60% chance they are better than their random opponent, and that accounts for 50% of outcomes, with the other 50% being determined by the "chance" factors of the game. This 60-th percentile player would win 6 out of 10 of those 50% of all games determined by skill, and also win 1/N (here 1/2) of of the remaining "chance" determinative" games by luck. So given these assumptions, our 60th percentile player should have a long run average win rate of a wopping (30% + 1/2 * 50%) = 55%. So even though this is a 60 percentile player, they'd have a 55% win rate. Obviously the gap increases as you tilt the assumptions on game outcome determination more in favor of chance over skill. So for example, the player who does only big maps, no cards, adjacent fort (to minimize the early benefit of a good drop) is going to have a win rate that is closer to their actual skill percentile than someone who plays more chance heavy settings).

Now take the hypothetical 60th percentile player in an 8 player match up. We'll use the same "50% skill determinative" assumption about 8-player games... you can argue about whether more or less skill determines the outcome in multiplayer, but the only point is that it's something less than 100%. The idealized win condition is that our hypothetical player has more skill than all 7 opponents. So if the draw of players were completely random, this would only happen 1/8, and so 1 out of 8 of the 50% skill determinitive games goes to this person by skill. That is basically going to be less than 2%. But the other 50% of non-skill determinative games get split equally, meaning that the based line is taking 1 of 8 from the 50% "chance" pool, or 12.5%, plus the percent or two of the time they actually win because they are the "best skill player". That means a win rate vastly lower than the actual players skill level (for our poor Mr. 60th percentile, using the assumptions above, it's 14.5% vs 60%!!).

Ahah, you say... we knew this intuitively. But let's go further now. Let's compare the 60th percentile guy with a 95 percentile "pro". Here's what you get:

In 1v1, Mr 95 will have an observed ideal win rate = 47.5% skill + 25% chance = around 72.5%. That's pretty darn close to the 75% limit. But look at how close the results are... Mr. 95 is winning only 18 games more in 100 than a person whose skill level is about 30% worse.

For the 95 percentile player, its: 66% of the "skill determinative" games + 1/8 of the non-skill, so the long run average win rate should be around 33% + 12.5% = 55.5%. So Mr. 95 has a win rate that is almost 4 times higher than Mr. 60s.

You could graph out these functions, and what you'd find basically is that 1v1 approaches the asymtotic limit much faster than multi-player. So for 1v1 players, the actual skill difference for people who may only have observed win rates that are a couple of percentage points apart could be quite sizable. One the other hand, a small difference in skills has a VERY SIGNIFICANT impact on win rate for 8-player games.

So what does this tell you? Nothing, of course, because we've just made up the numbers as to how much of the game is skill and how much is chance. In practice, we don't know those numbers, and even so, they vary across the sample because different people play different game attributes which - whether higher or lower - unequovacally do cause the outcome attribution percent of skill-chance.

And lastly there is another wrinkle to the analysis. That is opponent selection. Due to the scoring system, players will tend to select out their opponents from a pool of the highest score players that they think they can beat. That means that in fact, a 60th percentile player is not drawing on the whole population in the "skill" matches... for example they might be limiting themselves to just the upper half of the population. So to go back to Mr. 60, among his population, he is really going to produce a "skill" component that would reflect being in the 30th percentile of a population. Setting aside private games... in the public game context, a player is much more able to limit the popution in this way in 1v1 by joining only games with the players who have a reasonable score, meaning those who tend to be confined to the higher percentiles. In an 8 player context... only the last person to join the game truly has this ability to "select out the cooks", so that is another part of the model to consider when trying to generalize about 8-player game "ideal" statistics and 1v1 ideal statistics.

Makes perfect sense, right?

[cleveridea]

Here are 30 players on Page 1 that have a 33% or LOWER win ratio...

Win ratio is very misleading. It really should be a points per game value, like:

([score] -1000) / [games completed]

I've always wondered why ppg wasn't listed on the Scores page. After playing a 100 or so games it really is the definitive apples-to-apples comparison between two players.

If you really want to understand why points per game doesn't work the way you think it does, then review this thread:

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=6389&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=15

Well, between two players with the same point total, the ppg is a meaningful measuring stick - but between players of different point totals, it isn't all that meaningful. I thought that was obvious.

[Fruitcake]

I posted in the other thread that an increase in win rate in 1v1 is more difficult to achieve than an increase in win rate in multiplayer. After reading this thread, I thought I should explain in more detail....

No don't, please don't...

[Robinette]

Updated -

The Top LOSERS in CC... as of April 27, 2008

Here are the players on Page 1 that have a 33% or LOWER win ratio...
These players can't even win ONE out of THREE games...
Now THAT is a LOT of LOSING...

There and now 36 --> MORE PAGE 1 LOSERS THAN EVER BEFORE

13 Naato 3357 679 222 (33%)
17 Scott-Land 3277 2518 837 (33%)
24 ZawBanjito 3132 587 179 (30%)
39 skillerman 2964 295 80 (27%)
46 JBoy 2842 572 151 (26%)
60 deguu 2755 1975 609 (31%)
64 Point Guard 2743 284 79 (28%)
70 pzaviski2003 2716 939 253 (27%)
72 steve monkey 2703 1278 365 (29%)
76 KIDPAT 2679 373 107 (29%)
79 Itrade 2671 820 259 (32%)
89 joecoolfrog 2646 249 78 (31%)
91 NUKE 2643 1038 323 (31%)
96 alexad99 2625 251 74 (29%)
99 BeakerWMA 2623 700 216 (31%)
120 Jade Empire 2575 1017 318 (31%)
129 RL_Orange 2548 3076 870 (28%)
134 Robinette 2535 386 122 (32%)
136 Beadle 2532 173 55 (32%)
155 steve066 2492 716 169 (24%)
158 yljester 2482 395 122 (31%)
160 Serpentor 2481 302 87 (29%)
165 DigitalRuin 2472 347 115 (33%)
169 maniacmath17 2460 1082 345 (32%)
172 CubColtPacer 2453 39 13 (33%)
174 Tennisie 2451 181 46 (25%)
180 Hesoos 2444 309 88 (28%)
184 igotaished 2438 1033 343 (33%)
196 austex 2422 622 204 (33%)
201 Blanor 2411 229 64 (28%)
222 6 King Man 2374 321 105 (33%)
228 ballenus 2364 368 104 (28%)
229 dkiller83 2363 322 76 (24%)
231 cyberdaniel 2359 736 200 (27%)
235 nesterdude 2352 2408 712 (30%)
245 fbonsignori 2332 275 65 (24%)

LOSERS... EVERY ONE OF THEM!!!!
and whadda ya know... i just won a game which puts me smack dab in the middle... #18 out of 36

[Kemmler]

stop bumping Robinette... you sarcasm has expired!

[jiminski]

Bump!

[realmss]

Jeeze, those guys really need to start playing stacked triples games.

[Robinette]

The Top LOSERS in CC... as of July 6, 2008

We now have 37 players on Page 1 that have a 33% or LOWER win ratio...
These players can't even win ONE out of THREE games...
Now THAT is a LOT of LOSING...

7 skillerman 3990 457 145 (32%) General General 4.5 United States
13 maniacmath17 3517 1334 433 (32%) General General 4.6 United States
14 krull16 3489 983 290 (30%) Brigadier Brigadier 5.0 Portugal Portugal
19 joecoolfrog 3197 395 111 (28%) Brigadier Brigadier 4.9 United Kingdom
28 steve066 3073 931 217 (23%) Brigadier Brigadier 5.0 United States United States
34 waynemgough 3002 1312 374 (29%) Brigadier Brigadier 4.5 United Kingdom
44 ZawBanjito 2940 600 180 (30%) Colonel Colonel 4.8 Japan Japan
57 csh1979 2853 2163 694 (32%) Colonel Colonel 4.9 United States
78 Soldier4Christ 2779 640 175 (27%) Colonel Colonel 4.6 United States
80 RedSoxFan 2774 346 97 (28%) Colonel Colonel 5.0 United States
82 ballenus 2766 519 155 (30%) Colonel Colonel 4.7 Belgium
88 Asclepio 2726 272 85 (31%) Colonel Colonel 4.9 Canada Canada
97 steve monkey 2697 1538 433 (28%) Colonel Colonel 5.0 United Kingdom
132 coffees 2597 2086 557 (27%) Colonel Colonel 4.8 United States
136 Choco 2590 956 317 (33%) Colonel Colonel 4.7 Sweden Sweden
142 Beadle 2574 180 57 (32%) Colonel Colonel 5.0 Russian Federation
143 Serpentor 2573 369 103 (28%) Colonel Colonel 4.9 United States United States
147 Hesoos 2567 547 137 (25%) Colonel Colonel 4.9 Spain Spain
149 Blanor 2566 239 67 (28%) Colonel Colonel n/a United States United States
150 Thomas.Paine 2561 1647 458 (28%) Colonel Colonel 4.8 United States
153 Silver- 2556 349 110 (32%) Colonel Colonel 4.7 Canada Canada
158 igotaished 2553 1076 360 (33%) Colonel Colonel 4.9 Israel Israel
162 OOGA BOOGA 2539 2035 576 (28%) Colonel Colonel 5.0 United States
175 the liquidator 2520 142 47 (33%) Colonel Colonel 5.0 United States
176 4red 2512 1368 399 (29%) Colonel Colonel 4.8 Australia Australia
178 JBoy 2511 683 171 (25%) Colonel Colonel 5.0 United States
186 Mc Lor 2499 2812 746 (27%) Major Major 4.8 Belgium Belgium
193 Jade Empire 2487 1106 347 (31%) Major Major 4.7 Canada Canada
200 BeakerWMA 2481 787 239 (30%) Major Major 5.0 Canada Canada
211 austex 2457 655 216 (33%) Major Major 5.0 Japan Japan
214 markhoule 2454 287 79 (28%) Major Major 5.0 United States United States
216 Stbtgal 2452 161 52 (32%) Major Major 5.0 United States United States
219 Robinette 2450 404 124 (31%) Major Major 5.0 United States United States
226 6 King Man 2436 375 115 (31%) Major Major 5.0 United States United States
228 Point Guard 2435 349 102 (29%) Major Major n/a United States United States
238 100023690 2418 1357 338 (25%) Major Major 4.9 Spain Spain
246 Battle On 2413 220 60 (27%) Major Major 5.0 United States United

[FabledIntegral]

Personally, I feel teh lower the win% you have typically shows the better player you are, when compared to people of similar rank. I feel if you take a General with a 80% win vs a General with a 30% win, the General with 30% will have a better idea in general on what to do given a random scenario.

[Scott-Land]

Personally, I feel teh lower the win% you have typically shows the better player you are, when compared to people of similar rank. I feel if you take a General with a 80% win vs a General with a 30% win, the General with 30% will have a better idea in general on what to do given a random scenario.

I'm not sure if I totally agree here. You can only deduct that the 80% win rate General plays mostly team games whereas the 30% is most likely a singles player (will be isolated scenarios where this doesn't apply). I don't see how you could generalize their particular skill level is higher or lower than the other. What about win percentages are you basing your opinion on ? Team players are not as good as singles players ?

[qeee1]

lower win rate and same points => more opponents per game + higher ranked opponents per game

[gloryordeath]

I play a lot of Term games and I don't think this means much....

[herndawg]

I play almost all public Term 6-8 player and have a 39 percent. Was forty till this month. I am getting killed all the more nowadays. And alot of the guys listed are much better than me in other game types also.
Percent in 8 player is way different that percent in 2 player or doubles.
I think it would be cool if you could see percentages on all game types per person on a search or something.

[hulmey]

I play almost all public Term 6-8 player and have a 39 percent. Was forty till this month. I am getting killed all the more nowadays. And alot of the guys listed are much better than me in other game types also.
Percent in 8 player is way different that percent in 2 player or doubles.
I think it would be cool if you could see percentages on all game types per person on a search or something.

Winston Churchill had a great saying for statistics but i forgot it now

[Timminz]

I think it would be cool if you could see percentages on all game types per person on a search or something.

You could find that out using the map rank plugin.

[owenshooter]

Personally, I feel teh lower the win% you have typically shows the better player you are, when compared to people of similar rank. I feel if you take a General with a 80% win vs a General with a 30% win, the General with 30% will have a better idea in general on what to do given a random scenario.

whew... thanks for the great laugh!!!-0

p.s.-and yet another bump of a thread... this one over 2 months old and dead... wow... robinette is making this a habit... no comment.

[herndawg]

I think it would be cool if you could see percentages on all game types per person on a search or something.

You could find that out using the map rank plugin.

I will have to check that out. cool
thanks