People judge way too much by statistics

[OnlyAmbrose]

Ok, this is just something that's been bugging me.

Some people make way too big of a deal over certain statistics. I don't mean caring how good someone is at risk, I can understand that, but some of the stats that people use to determine if someone is good or not are just warped.

Most specifically, I'm talking about percentage of games won. You can't just judge someone's ability by how many games they've won. Maybe they only play 6-player games. I personally only play 3-5 player games, usually 4. As such, my percentage (31 or something last I checked) fits perfectly fine.

But by other's standards, that would suck, because maybe they usually just play one on one. Obviously anyone who plays only one on one better have 50% or better or they're not too good.

Everyone knows why score is flawed in that you can just ride to a high score on the coattails of someone else in doubles and triples so I won't go into that.

I'm just trying to make a point that someone's score and percent won don't necessarily determine how good that player is.

[chessplaya]

and ur points is ???


how about a 20% win with 2500 points , just dont tell me in this case that player isnt extraordinary at winning 6 players games....

[JOHNNYROCKET24]

I hate players that keep track of stats. I am just here to play and have fun.

[chessplaya]

I hate players that keep track of stats. I am just here to play and have fun.

thats exactly what ur signature shows

Woow ur mature

[kalishnikov]

I hate players that keep track of stats. I am just here to play and have fun.

lol. I thought it was funny...

[Robinette]

Ok, this is just something that's been bugging me.

Some people make way too big of a deal over certain statistics.

I think you have a valid point... in fact 27% of players with a 60% win ratio think the same thing,,, while 55% of players with under 38% win ratios have no idea what any of this means. Of course these stats are only valid for players with over 150 games. Now if we overlay these two groups with the stats from players with less that 150 games we find that only 17.2% of players understand the importance of stats, and we find that 62% of those players are on JR's ignore list.


Seriously though, you are correct.... the percentage of games won is primarily an indication of the types of games played. Although it does help when looking for opponents for a particular game style.

So your point that someone's score and percent won doesn't determine a player's skill is well taken; except when comparing against players who play the same game format.

As a footnote... I am proud to have a 36% win ratio... only 17 other players in the top 100 have under 40%

[JOHNNYROCKET24]

Ok, this is just something that's been bugging me.

Some people make way too big of a deal over certain statistics.

I think you have a valid point... in fact 27% of players with a 60% win ratio think the same thing,,, while 55% of players with under 38% win ratios have no idea what any of this means. Of course these stats are only valid for players with over 150 games. Now if we overlay these two groups with the stats from players with less that 150 games we find that only 17.2% of players understand the importance of stats, and we find that 62% of those players are on JR's ignore list.


Seriously though, you are correct.... the percentage of games won is primarily an indication of the types of games played. Although it does help when looking for opponents for a particular game style.

So your point that someone's score and percent won doesn't determine a player's skill is well taken; except when comparing against players who play the same game format.

As a footnote... I am proud to have a 36% win ratio... only 17 other players in the top 100 have under 40%

only 17.2% under 150 games understand the stats with 62% of them on my ignore list. I like those odds. Now figure out what singles only players with wining percentages over 40% are on my ignore list. Following up with the percentages of my games completed for singles,doubles,triples.

the answer for number 1 is probably 0 since no singles only player is over 40%. the answer for number 2 is 50% triples,30%singles,20% doubles, but I cant be 100% accurate so I thought I would get you to do my dirty work for me.

[RobinJ]

I will say but only this: statistics can prove anything, as Robinette so nicely pointed out for us. Present someone with a shit load of figures and percentages and they think you're a genius

[wcaclimbing]

I ONLY play terminator games. I usually will make a mad rush and kill 2 or 3 people but lose the game. I still win points and my score goes up, but it is still counted as a loss in the percent of wins.

[Robinette]

I will say but only this: statistics can prove anything, as Robinette so nicely pointed out for us. Present someone with a shit load of figures and percentages and they think you're a genius

so are you saying i'm NOT a genius....

[DiM]

no singles only player is over 40%.

i'd reconsider that statement. i know a few examples of singles only players with percentages over 40%. and i'm talking about players with lots of games.

also if you take into consideration people with few games you'll even find 100%

[sully800]

the answer for number 1 is probably 0 since no singles only player is over 40%.

*ahem*


I was pretty high when the win% feature first came out (36% or so I think....just over maniac who was just over robinette). But with 1v1's I'm at 44-45%.

And yeah Ambrose, win% is a fairly useless statistic. Robinetter pointed out some of its better sides (such as comparing players who play the same styles) but in general it means much less than a persons score, IMO.

[OnlyAmbrose]

no singles only player is over 40%.

i'd reconsider that statement. i know a few examples of singles only players with percentages over 40%. and i'm talking about players with lots of games.

also if you take into consideration people with few games you'll even find 100%

A lot of those singles players over 40% are probably 1 on 1 singles players. I'd be very impressed if anyone whose average game is 4 players standard has a win percent at 40%.

[Ham]

no singles only player is over 40%.

i'd reconsider that statement. i know a few examples of singles only players with percentages over 40%. and i'm talking about players with lots of games.

also if you take into consideration people with few games you'll even find 100%

A lot of those singles players over 40% are probably 1 on 1 singles players. I'd be very impressed if anyone whose average game is 4 players standard has a win percent at 40%.

Ahem.....lol

A lot of mine is from doubles or triples though. Probably a third

[Optimus Prime]

I ONLY play terminator games. I usually will make a mad rush and kill 2 or 3 people but lose the game. I still win points and my score goes up, but it is still counted as a loss in the percent of wins.

I think I might take this strategy and run with it now.

[Genghis Khan CA]

no singles only player is over 40%.

i'd reconsider that statement. i know a few examples of singles only players with percentages over 40%. and i'm talking about players with lots of games.

also if you take into consideration people with few games you'll even find 100%

A lot of those singles players over 40% are probably 1 on 1 singles players. I'd be very impressed if anyone whose average game is 4 players standard has a win percent at 40%.

I think there are players like that out there...

I've been keeping stats on the different sorts of games I play:

Overall singles winning % - 47%
2 player games - 71%
3 player games - 56%
4 player games - 39%
5 player games - 40%
6 player games - 31%

I'd be pretty sure LazarusLong would have the best singles winning percentage though - he has a 45% win rate and plays almost exclusively 5 and 6 player singles games.

And yes I appreciate the irony of posting this in a thread about focusing too much on statistics!

[Fircoal]

[quote="Robinette"]and we find that 62% of those players are on JR's ignore list.
quote]


And for percents. IT really can't tell much, because in a way, either high or low is good. (DEpending, what you play. )

[Robinette]

and we find that 62% of those players are on JR's ignore list.

And for percents. IT really can't tell much, because in a way, either high or low is good. (DEpending, what you play. )

YES...yes....YES.... that is spot on....

I was waiting for somebody else to mention it.... well done Fircoal!

[OnlyAmbrose]

and we find that 62% of those players are on JR's ignore list.

And for percents. IT really can't tell much, because in a way, either high or low is good. (DEpending, what you play. )

YES...yes....YES.... that is spot on....

I was waiting for somebody else to mention it.... well done Fircoal!

You could have read the original post... that was kinda the thesis of this thread

[Robinette]

and we find that 62% of those players are on JR's ignore list.

And for percents. IT really can't tell much, because in a way, either high or low is good. (DEpending, what you play. )

YES...yes....YES.... that is spot on....

I was waiting for somebody else to mention it.... well done Fircoal!

You could have read the original post... that was kinda the thesis of this thread

bUT Fircoal SAid it suCCinctly....

[MOBAJOBG]

...whereas Robinette posts would usually take us on a merry-go-round.

[MeDeFe]

A lot of those singles players over 40% are probably 1 on 1 singles players. I'd be very impressed if anyone whose average game is 4 players standard has a win percent at 40%.

I thought I was at 40%, but I've recently dropped to 39% again. Still, maybe you could be a little impressed?

[Robinette]

...whereas Robinette posts would usually take us on a merry-go-round.

I have no idea what you mean by that....

A lot of those singles players over 40% are probably 1 on 1 singles players. I'd be very impressed if anyone whose average game is 4 players standard has a win percent at 40%.

I thought I was at 40%, but I've recently dropped to 39% again. Still, maybe you could be a little impressed?

Absolutely! Any score OVER 2000 with 39% win ratio or lower deserves a salute in my book!

(insert the yet to be designed saluting emoticon here)

mnnn... the name of this thread is "People judge way too much by statistics" and here I am saluting you because of a positive judgement of your stats... ahhh... but I am saluting a LOW win %, so i think this is okay......

[mathgeni]

i used to play almost all doubles games with kewlboy4399 cause i liked the dynamic of having to cooperate with another person- it really added another dimension to the strategy that you don't have to think about with singles games

now that there are 2 player games i do a good number of those and have been able to gain a fair amount of points from it

overall my win % is 65%- doesn't matter cause most of the games i win i only get between 18 and 23 points so it is slow moving up but overall i am still moving up which is what matters more

[Night Strike]

no singles only player is over 40%.

If you take out my doubles games that have been completed (i don't play triples), my win percentage is 48% (in fact, it's higher without my doubles games than with). And I've played a decent amount of games.