ratings cheat - Page 3 - PDGA

Nate Sexton · #41 November 4th, 2009, 12:07 PM

Anybody with less than 70 rounds in their rating is at MINIMUM 20-30 points overrated. I used to be this way but now I am finally legit...

Chuck Kennedy · #42 November 4th, 2009, 04:45 PM

Here's a little stats fun. Waugh's rating has a standard deviation of 7.2 compared with Sexton of 2.5 SD due to having more rounds. So there's a 99%chance Chris' true rating falls between 981 and 1025. There's a 99% probability that Nate's rating falls between 1010 and 1026. So there's some chance that Waugh has a true rating higher than Sexton.

Nate Sexton · #43 November 4th, 2009, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuck Kennedy

Here's a little stats fun. Waugh's rating has a standard deviation of 7.2 compared with Sexton of 2.5 SD due to having more rounds. So there's a 99%chance Chris' true rating falls between 981 and 1025. There's a 99% probability that Nate's rating falls between 1010 and 1026. So there's some chance that Waugh has a true rating higher than Sexton.

NOOOOOOOO!

snap7times · #44 November 4th, 2009, 07:51 PM

OHHHH cool. do me do me, do mine... and include eugene celebration ratings too... *twiddling thumbs*

REDFIVE · #45 November 4th, 2009, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nate Sexton

NOOOOOOOO!

now accepting sponsor applications!

sillybizz · #46 November 4th, 2009, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by REDFIVE

now accepting sponsor applications!

Hook me up with some plastic buddy!

Flash · #47 November 5th, 2009, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuck Kennedy

Here's a little stats fun. Waugh's rating has a standard deviation of 7.2 compared with Sexton of 2.5 SD due to having more rounds. So there's a 99%chance Chris' true rating falls between 981 and 1025. There's a 99% probability that Nate's rating falls between 1010 and 1026. So there's some chance that Waugh has a true rating higher than Sexton.

Nice use of the words "small chance" but how about we make it more fun by sharing the actual probability that Waugh's true rating is higher than Sexton's true rating!!!

Given that Sexton's Median score is higher then his mean score and Waugh's median is less then his mean, I am betting Waugh's chances of actual rating being higher than Sexton's is really really really really small. Waugh however is a far far far far far far far far far better golfer then I am.

Here is a graphical review of what Chuck is telling you, I am however not using any PDGA Ratings math of the doubling of highest rated rounds!!!

sillybizz · #48 November 5th, 2009, 07:02 PM

I'm looking for a new accountant, want the job?! damn man.

Chuck Kennedy · #49 November 5th, 2009, 08:51 PM

The PDGA math does not double the highest rated rounds but the most recent 25% to give a somewhat better indication of how well someone is currently shooting.

REDFIVE · #50 November 5th, 2009, 09:37 PM

Silly that this nate and I nonsence gone this far. I am not ready for that comparison for sure. I think my rating is a bit high for how I feel I had played but quite low for what I am capable of. From the practice I've put in and the rounds with decent players in myarea I feel that therating is decently accurate. The more I play the more comfortable I would get in the tourney format and there would be more consistancy in my rounds. I shoot a 980 then a 1030 then a 990 or something like that. Bottom line I hope to get out abunch more next year and make my rating more accurate and closer to legit. Where did you get 70 rounds nate? Seems a little much to me but I am jealous you get to compete that much.

Flash · #51 November 6th, 2009, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuck Kennedy

The PDGA math does not double the highest rated rounds but the most recent 25% to give a somewhat better indication of how well someone is currently shooting.

My mistake Chuck, I mis-spoke.

So you double the most recent 25% of rounds for a players rating but only if the player has more than 8 rounds. So in Waugh's case he has the 2 most recent rounds doubled, 987 & 1039 and Sexton has 21 rounds, ranging from a 970 to a 1065. Do you round up a to an integer round # or down an integer round #? Why was 25% chosen as the ideal round percentage to determine current Rating adjustments?

Flash · #52 November 6th, 2009, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by REDFIVE

Silly that this nate and I nonsence gone this far. I am not ready for that comparison for sure. I think my rating is a bit high for how I feel I had played but quite low for what I am capable of. From the practice I've put in and the rounds with decent players in myarea I feel that therating is decently accurate. The more I play the more comfortable I would get in the tourney format and there would be more consistancy in my rounds. I shoot a 980 then a 1030 then a 990 or something like that. Bottom line I hope to get out abunch more next year and make my rating more accurate and closer to legit. Where did you get 70 rounds nate? Seems a little much to me but I am jealous you get to compete that much.

Chris, don't take the statistical gibberish as a mark against your playing ability. Obviously you have the ability to play at a high level but you just need to achieve more consistency at that level. You mentioned playing more in competitive situations and I believe that is where you will see the true reward of your ability. Chandler, Waugh and Crabtree would make a great playing trio and would probably help you push each other to achieve those higher gains on a more frequent basis. What keeps you from playing on a more regular basis now?

REDFIVE · #53 November 6th, 2009, 01:30 PM

Kids and this season being unemployed made it difficult. I usually get to play more in the off season but those events aren't usually sanctioned. I said it before last season but I plan to play as much as possible next year.

Chuck Kennedy · #54 November 6th, 2009, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Do you round up a to an integer round # or down an integer round #? Why was 25% chosen as the ideal round percentage to determine current Rating adjustments?

Round up. Since we use 12 months of data for ratings, the idea was that 25% was approximately a player's most recent 3 months of play (recognizing that there are seasonal fluctuations in the amount of play due to winter). Ball golf also weights a player's events with a factor that declines every three months over 2 years.

Nate Sexton · #55 November 6th, 2009, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by REDFIVE

Where did you get 70 rounds nate? Seems a little much to me but I am jealous you get to compete that much.

Oh I have 86 rounds, I am legit to an almost gratuitous level. I am just saying if you have less than 70 rounds the chances are you are about 20-30pts overrated. Conversely, once you get over 70 rounds you end up being 10-20 points underrated. It is pretty simple math really...right Flash?

smobro · #56 November 6th, 2009, 07:39 PM

Awesome new vocabulary words.

From now on I am calling Flash "His Royal Skewness"! When he has children they should be named Kurtosis and Standard Deviation!

I want to form a disc golf team next year called Mean Standard Deviated Variance and I want Flash to be our Captain. Oh please say yes to my request your Royal Skewness.

JK Flash. You know your the man!

Flash · #57 November 6th, 2009, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smobro

Awesome new vocabulary words.

From now on I am calling Flash "His Royal Skewness"! When he has children they should be named Kurtosis and Standard Deviation!

I want to form a disc golf team next year called Mean Standard Deviated Variance and I want Flash to be our Captain. Oh please say yes to my request your Royal Skewness.

JK Flash. You know your the man!

Hey now Chuck was the one who brought out the math fun, I just thought I would make it visual for those out there can relate better that way.

In any case I hope Chris can make it to more sanctioned events. It would be nice to see some additional NW talent hitting the National Radars!

REDFIVE · #58 November 6th, 2009, 08:57 PM

Flash, I have seen your PDGA # in your signature for a while and always find it cool that mine is 25269. Iwould love to play more and get some decent backing from some companies to make it easier. I have 2 more years until I get to play every event my son wants to play and more. Looking forward to that, he just turned 6 and I figure at 7 or 8 he should be able to make it around.

Flash · #59 November 6th, 2009, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuck Kennedy

Round up. Since we use 12 months of data for ratings, the idea was that 25% was approximately a player's most recent 3 months of play (recognizing that there are seasonal fluctuations in the amount of play due to winter). Ball golf also weights a player's events with a factor that declines every three months over 2 years.

Good point in relation to ball golf. My only gripe is that some rounds get dropped from peoples rounds if greater than some statistical variance. Sure it may not be a true indication of their performance but it is still significant. Perhaps instead of dropping those rounds, maybe just don't weight them if they are in the top 25%. I think the method of weighting is good to move someones rating faster towards their true rating but wonder if it is too slow too respond to poor play. Sure if there is enough data to rule the bad round out as an outlier it would make sense but the same data would probably show that smoking hot rounds was an outlier as well!

Chuck I don't know if enough people tell you this but thanks for being so involved in Disc Golf! Now quit screwing around and come out to the 2010 Beaver State Fling!!!

Flash · #60 November 6th, 2009, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by REDFIVE

Flash, I have seen your PDGA # in your signature for a while and always find it cool that mine is 25269. Iwould love to play more and get some decent backing from some companies to make it easier. I have 2 more years until I get to play every event my son wants to play and more. Looking forward to that, he just turned 6 and I figure at 7 or 8 he should be able to make it around.

Chris, I think it could happen for you with sponsorship but you might need to hit the road a bit at least in the Northwest and show some consistency as well as a steward of the game. Sponsorship is there, it is a matter of them getting what they want as well though!

When I was looking up your stats I noticed what appeared to be my PDGA number, but nope just real close. It looks like you got the lower number and better talent!!!!!