Socal Brawl Power Rankings - (February 3, 2010 - May 1, 2010) UPDATED

[FadedImage]

t0mmy's system is pretty accurate for only being based on a few tournaments. you have to realize that a point system is based on the law of averages, taken to infinity the results will be perfectly accurate.

anywho, I think a point system could be used to accurately rank players, but you would need SOOOOO many checks it's too troublesome. ex: tourney attendance (both strength and numbers), origin of players (regional vs. local), strength of opponent, character match-up (like a falco main running into 2 pikas), etc etc

imo you could make a pretty legit point system that would track skill level despite the size or location of a tourney, but it'd definitely take a while to get off the ground, since everyone would start at even.

 

[Fly_Amanita]

It doesn't matter what the area size is as long as everyone is connected to some degree (ie as long as it stays in socal or one region), and as long as people have played enough games for the ratings to even themselves out.

That's what I meant.

The panel system is perfect in that regard, because a system could only rate someone based on their previous matches, so if M2K decided to come to a tournament out of nowhere, there would be no way to accurately rate him or his opponents and we'd have to ignore the results of anyone he played for that specific tournament.

I might be spacing out and missing something (I'm always mildly out of it), but it looks like you're acknowledging a significant flaw with this type of point system without providing a rebuttal.

It becomes accurate after about 30 matches. I think pools solves this problem most effectively, as most people could play 30 matches after a series of 3-4 tournaments. And if we were deciding to input the system now, every consistent smasher, from noob to ranked, would definitely have 30 matches recorded. That's 15 tournaments minimum if you went 0-2 every tournament.

As for the number of matches being inversely proportional to your performance, well that's the player's fault, not the system's.

Pools are nice since they use round robin, which works really well with Elo ratings. Rating changes for elimination brackets that aren't broken are kind of messy, though, and I don't like how they can inflate the importance of certain matches.

Also, does the 30 come from CLT? That isn't necessarily applicable here.

 

[Kira-]

I might be spacing out and missing something (I'm always mildly out of it), but it looks like you're acknowledging a significant flaw with this type of point system without providing a rebuttal.

I'm not suggesting we turn the PR into a rating system-based rankings. It would take much longer on top of the aforementioned flaw. This would work best in a league or ladder situation, like a series of tournaments (similar to SCSA). Which I am going to try to host but we will see based on time and funds. But anyway, in a case like that RichBrown's thing where Futile shows up out of nowhere and ***** everyone wouldn't work as well, aka the rating system should still hold.

Pools are nice since they use round robin, which works really well with Elo ratings. Rating changes for elimination brackets that aren't broken are kind of messy, though, and I don't like how they can inflate the importance of certain matches.

How does it get messy and what do you mean by "brackets that aren't broken." Not refuting your statement, just asking. I can see how some matches may be less or more important though.

Also, does the 30 come from CLT? That isn't necessarily applicable here.

got it from FIDE

 

[Fly_Amanita]

How does it get messy and what do you mean by "brackets that aren't broken." Not refuting your statement, just asking. I can see how some matches may be less or more important though.

You parsed my sentence wrong, although that's my fault; I was referring to rating changes that aren't broken, which is actually still a bad way to put what I meant. I have such a way with words!

Let me try again. Since somebody might get unlucky in a double elimination and not play as many rounds as s/he might have otherwise, sometimes the rating change the player would normally be given is multiplied by the number of possible matches the player could have had divided by the number of matches actually played. My issue with this is that if at one tournament the player goes far and at another s/he doesn't, then each match from the latter tourney might have more weight than each match from the prior tourney.

Actually, I don't know how common this practice is, so I was being dumb for assuming you would know what I was talking about.

got it from FIDE

Okay.

 

[Kira-]

Oh well yeah it would be bad for brackets alone, especially if you were to start now.

 

[NeighborhoodP]

**** this thread sucks balls

 

[choknater]

yeah, the panel/voting system is still too good

cuz u have to prove urself to change ppl's opinions

screw math

 

[EdreesesPieces]

All I see are people complaining without offering a solution. Present a good point system and model and the panel will consider it. Perhaps the fact that no one is able to present one means that it doesn't actually exist. Feel free to prove me wrong with one.

I saw some point out some point -based ranking systems in place, but care to provide insight why you think they are good? What specifics do they use to rank players? How do they discern between someone's mother getting ill and someone's legit loss? Show the point systems in place and show us how they deal with it.

Lots of claiming how good point based systems with no real proof shown at all. Actually, all the proof of a point based system presented in this thread came from Hugo. So far the proof shows that point based systems suck. If you feel it's faulty, show some real proof of a point based ranking systems of SMASH. If one does not exist, it's your obligation to come up with one, run the past 2-3 months of results and lets see if it comes out good.

Or, if you intend to just complain and post without actually taking any action to help the situation, continue to do so.

 

[Charoo]

this thing wont be updated until i start playing again since I own the thread

see u at genesis

 

[ssbbFICTION]

In fact, here are the Power Rankings created by t0mmy using a strict "results only" approach. This was updated June 12, pretty much as current as it gets.

1) FICTION: 0.9688
2) DSF: 0.9417
3) DEHF: 0.9000
3) Leepuff: 0.9000

LOL too good

 

[HugS™]

Another example of how a point system such as ELO wouldn't work with smash. Just thought I'd link it here.

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=61239

Oh and here's another, except this was based on MLG tournaments from 2005-2006 playoffs in NYC.

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=89648&highlight=HugS

FYI, I'm going to speak to Claire as soon as I get a hold of her, and suggest the rankings be done no later than the middle of next week. If not, we'll notify everyone of a more precise date.

 

[Cheeri-Oats]

lol; I <3 HugS (and his new avatar)

 

[Atlus8]

Another example of how a point system such as ELO wouldn't work with smash. Just thought I'd link it here.

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=61239

Oh and here's another, except this was based on MLG tournaments from 2005-2006 playoffs in NYC.

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=89648&highlight=HugS

FYI, I'm going to speak to Claire as soon as I get a hold of her, and suggest the rankings be done no later than the middle of next week. If not, we'll notify everyone of a more precise date.

I would think the ELO system would work. The thing is that s#!+ loads of tournies need to happen and then calculated until you can get an accurate ranking. This will of course take a LONG while to happen.

 

[T0MMY]

Having worked with the point-based system for a while now I can tell you flat-out it's not 100% accurate, but nobody has found one that is yet, lol.

Just glancing over this, I like what HugS had to say, he made some good points.

When I made the point-based system for rankings I looked over all kinds of systems from ELO to X-Box Live and pro sports. I kept it rather simple, with the first incarnation being local tournaments using a 10-point system. Then modeled after the brackets and how players would fall in brackets from there.

I've always stated the importance of having a point-based system IN CONJUNCTION with a panelist.
The performance data is simply compiled nicely for those who are part of the tourney scene to look at and see how everyone is doing without having to track down all that information.

The panelists need to be there to keep everything in check and balance.

I understand Edrees's point on someone's mother being ill, therefor they performed badly. Having really bad luck in a number of events (mostly because I have to travel so far to get to a lot of them, which opens the possibilities of a lot of things going wrong) I've been in that situation myself, so I've felt sympathetic to allowing players to opt out... but I didn't let it sway my opinion on a fair system.
Ever hear of the phrase "No Johnz"? Yeh, that's our mantra, isn't it?

If a professional baseball player steps up to the plate and strikes out, he's not going to be like "Oh, well, my girlfriend broke up with me last week..."
If you can't play, don't enter or accept your placing. Give yourself time to recover and get back on track and get back into the game.

I probably won't be popping up here again, because I have limited time online and I'm on AiB most of that time and I don't live in SoCal, but I can always offer my assistance on anything, just PM me on AiB if so desired.
And remember, you can always have both a point-based and panelist-based system... it's not one or the other.

 

[Krooton]

RichBrown for top 10

 

[The calm tyrant...]

Hopefully rankings are done before genesis so it can be seeded correctly.

 

[RichBrown]

I'm sure Hugo and company will have em done before the end of the week..... riiiiight?

 

[FadedImage]

Oh and here's another, except this was based on MLG tournaments from 2005-2006 playoffs in NYC.

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=89648&highlight=HugS

lol, that thread is actually an example of how well a point system can perform... it's not even that complicated with a well ran database to chug the numbers for you.

everyone is criticizing the accuracy of point systems, but really, panel-only systems are just as bad, there's so much bias when a list of community members is maintained by that community. Plus the way we set up our tournaments can account for bad point results as well, bad seeding and bracket setups, etc.

meh, it wouldn't hurt to look into maintaining a point-system.

 

[typh]

aib already has a point system, i think you get "badges" or something and they give u points, why don't we just use that

 

[Eazyseph]

My new goal is to be on the power rankings before summah is over.

It should look like this:

1. Eazyseph Snake Los Angeles

 

[HugS™]

We're on the job, don't worry guys.

 

[TlocCPU]

I've been wanting to update I can just never catch Claire on AIM >_<

 

[DEHF]

make the rankings without her _O@_@IO)_I#_

we've waited long enough

 

[typh]

rankings will be posted along with scsa4 results

 

[Cheeri-Oats]

yeeeee.... do it.

 

[slikvik]

Could whoever did the format for the rankings contact me on aim(slikvik05)

 

[RichBrown]

It seems like this will never be updated since everyone is waiting on everyone else.

1. Tyrant

2. Fiction

3. MikeHAZE

4. DSF

5. DEHF

6. Havok

7. Leepuff

8. TKD

9. Bardull

10. RichBrown

11. JonT

12. HugS

13. WarpStatus

14. Fly Amanita

15. Teba

imo. Maybe that'll get the ball rolling on discussion/updatsies =)

 

[**Havok**]

In my opinion I actually think a list of 10 is enough for this update since a lot of players either haven't been doing well or even showing up. This is a region that has a lot of talent but these last few months have been dry since a lot of the PR has been traveling (go to a 20 man tournament and win, what's the point if no one good was there?), no tournaments in SoCal, low attendance tournaments etc etc. I think the Panel was right on having a straight up 10 for last time.

My two cents.

As for the actual list:

1. Tyrant:
Has consistently proven that he has what it takes to take the 1st place mantle for our region as a player, in and out of state, consistency in doubles as well, has taken down big names and has traveled a lot.

2. Fiction:
Consistency, had a well placing out of state at Washington.

3/4 DEHF/DSF:
Both of these players have placed a little under what they usually do, it's a toss up from my perspective since I don't know their exact extensive results from this update.

5. MikeHAZE:
Has beaten good players on a regular basis, consistency in placing.

6/7. Havok/Leepuff:
Leepuff falling a bit since his placing and attendance hasn't been high. Toss up between these two. Havok up since he's been doing better.

8/9/10. Rich Brown, Bardul, HugS (mayyyybe TKD)
Maybe TKD but he's been to like 2 tournaments since last update.
Things to take into consideration:
-Rich Brown won UCLA.
-HugS travels
-Bardul places a bit better than both on a regular basis (i think, not sure).
-These placings are TIGHT.

These are all based on what I've seen as a player not exactly on results since I don't have all the information available.

The rest that Rich mentioned i don't think they should be on the list right now not because they aren't good players or anything but their attendance in combination with the low amount of tournaments in SoCal right now doesn't allow any wiggle room for them. Have 5 players that do OK? 5 Players that don't show up often enough? No thanks. We need a solid 10. Not an iffy 15.

JonT where you at? I haven't seen you in forever. Warp, travel moar! Does fly still play brawl? Teba BoA you guys should show up more!

 

[RichBrown]

From what I know, Mike has beaten DSF and DEHF far more times than he's lost to them this period, that's why I have him above both of them.

Havok, you don't really have any bad losses from what I know, I think you've outperformed Leepuff this round. Leepuff is still Leepuff, so he is a solid 7.

It's really hard to place TKD, because everyone knows he is pretty dammn good, but he hasn't been to anything. So the question is, does he get seeded based off his potential, or his performance? Picking one of the other affects where he goes quite a bit.

I have a handful of good wins, but Bardull has beat the living heck out of me this period, and from what I know his only "bad" losses are to some good players, but I don't think he has any "good" wins, run on sentence, etc. So that's a tossup. Then HugS or JonT. Hugo has been fairly consistent, and while Jon has some good wins, he also has some pretty bad losses. Meh the 4 of us are all probably interchangeable.

It should remain a top 15. I understand the argument for the list being a top 10, since it's 10 **** names, but will having an 11-15 really affect how good the top 10 are? Being in the top 10 is just as prestigious, even if there is an 11-20 below the top 10. This list is for seeding purposes as well, and I think the 11-15 I suggested are capable of/have beaten a number of the people in the top 10.

Warpstatus has beaten Teba twice, DEHF, and Mike. Fly Amanita beat DSF.

Also, if you look at the current 11-15 in the PR, you'll realize most of them have some good wins under their belts. From what I remember:

JonT beat Leepuff and Fiction

I beat DSF and Leepuff

HugS beat Mike (I think) and Havok

Sure, 11-15 may not be as good as the people in the top 10...that's why they are 11-15

 

[Charoo]

Could whoever did the format for the rankings contact me on aim(slikvik05)

wassup? It's a modify layout of Azn_Lep since he used to own the thread but not anymore. So it's easier for me to just do it myself.

I don't know when the update is. I'm not part of the panelist anymore cause I haven't done anything at all so I have no idea who's good or whatever. Either a new panelist is form or at the very least release a rough power ranking to be used for Genesis. A rough one is good enough for now so the ranking can be accurate.

 

[Fly_Amanita]

I also beat Leepuff, Teba, Mike, Bardull, and MogX, but I feel like most of my wins were either due to big match-up advantages (Leepuff & MogX) or otherwise sketchy conditions (Mike and DSF being tired, Bardull not having played against ICs in half a year, etc.), though, and I'm still inconsistent as hell overall.

 

[∫unk]

not to be anti-warp or anything (i want him to be ranked), he was beating people earlier in this period

then he had a bunch of bad losses at scsa 4 (regional) + sin (regional)

its harder to get 11-15 correct cause the spotlight isn't on them (so their bad losses are sometimes ignored) and the pool of players is bigger. i think it shouldbe 1-10 because it is easy to see, or 1-12 if a player deserves to be ranked.

specifically adding people just to fill out a clean number on the list is not logical, since (as seen in the past), its harder to decide those last spots in the 11-15 than the 1-10

and a problem with this panel system is there's no way to overrule it if it isn't doing its job... i guess this discussion is a good start

-random's opinion

don't ever do anything where you have to reconstruct your knee... it sucks

 

[HugS™]

not to be anti-warp or anything (i want him to be ranked), he was beating people earlier in this period

then he had a bunch of bad losses at scsa 4 (regional) + sin (regional)

its harder to get 11-15 correct cause the spotlight isn't on them (so their bad losses are sometimes ignored) and the pool of players is bigger. i think it shouldbe 1-10 because it is easy to see, or 1-12 if a player deserves to be ranked.

specifically adding people just to fill out a clean number on the list is not logical, since (as seen in the past), its harder to decide those last spots in the 11-15 than the 1-10

and a problem with this panel system is there's no way to overrule it if it isn't doing its job... i guess this discussion is a good start

-random's opinion

don't ever do anything where you have to reconstruct your knee... it sucks

No offense junk, but that's a terrible argument for not doing 11-15.

You're saying it's harder to get 11-15 correct because the spotlight isn't on them?
But It's our job to place the spotlight on everyone and consider everything involved.

You're saying it's easier to just pick a top 10 than a top 15? Well yeah, but I'm pretty sure having an easy job isn't the purpose of a panel. And I don't see what everyone's fascination is with picking a more "solid" list without actually defining how solid they want it.

In fact, the most solid list would consist of our #1. Like a list with just ONE player, maybe 2 players if we're feeling crazy. It'd be pretty **** easy to do too! So we got easy and solid! Why stop at a top 10? Let's make it smaller.

I see what you're all saying, and it'd be a pretty good idea to make it top 10 if there was a clear divide in the skill after #10. But there isn't. Warp is arguably in the 11-15 spot, with wins over people in the top 5. So even if he isn't good enough to be in the top 10, he's good enough to beat people in the top 10. Thus, the division in skill is not so clear cut, so you are all not warranted in your decision to decrease the size of the list based on skill.

Stop trying to decrease the size of the list because it's easier, smaller, looks better, or whatever other terrible reasons you're all coming up with.
If you want your list to become smaller, then tell your top 3 to stop losing to people that would be ranked below the top 10.

Now, as for the list itself, I either have Claire's wrong number, or her wrong screen name, but I can't seem to get a hold of her at all. So...we'll do this one without her. The problem is, I never wanted to be a leader of this, which is why I've insisted on getting a hold of her first.

I didn't want to gather everyone, select panelists, etc. But now I'm ok with it, because it's clear it needs to be done before genesis. I'll get my people...

Not that I'm the leader of this.

 

[TlocCPU]

We're getting pretty close to done with the list Stay tuned.

 

[HugS™]

OK so, the rankings have been finished with the panelists being: CPU, Havok, Bardull, and Myself.

We had havok and bardull help us out temporarily for this period.

Now what we do need is to get a hold of champ so he could put this up, or if someone could switch ownership of the thread to me.
I wouldn't wanna cheapen the idea by just posting them all plain on post # 2097, or something like that.

 

[∫unk]

alright hugo your argument is fine... i agree. using "no offense" and "terrible" in the same sentence is funny though

looking back i just wanted to see the updated list so i figured just doing 1-10 would be easier for you guys... i think :/

and thanks for temporarily taking over.

i have heavy medication johns.

edit: just to be clear... my argument was maybe just rank people that deserve to be ranked, however many people that is. i think a few other regions do it that way. it's just a different way of going about it i don't think it's better or worse.

 

[TlocCPU]

We have the whole thing done we just need topic ownership :|

 

[Charoo]

OK so, the rankings have been finished with the panelists being: CPU, Havok, Bardull, and Myself.

We had havok and bardull help us out temporarily for this period.

Now what we do need is to get a hold of champ so he could put this up, or if someone could switch ownership of the thread to me.
I wouldn't wanna cheapen the idea by just posting them all plain on post # 2097, or something like that.

We have the whole thing done we just need topic ownership :|

pm me the list along with the tournament u guys use.

If you do update it urself then it better look as sexy and professional as Pat and I did before

 

[choknater]

ENTATEINA better be ranked #1

 

[TlocCPU]

pm me the list along with the tournament u guys use.

If you do update it urself then it better look as sexy and professional as Pat and I did before

I sent you the list, but I don't remember every single tournament we used >_>