Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Power Pinochle Player Ratings
#11
In theory couldn't we just compare an individual's stats vs the overall stats to get some sort of idea?

Over time, we will all have crappy partners, so while it wouldn't be perfect, I think over 1000+ games we could definitely see that one player is better than the average player?

It would never be an exact science, but neither was sharkscope, because some people could run really well over a short period of time in huge tourneys with huge payouts and they would appear much better than they actually were.
Reply
#12
Essentially that's what I'm suggesting, rak...a bit more refined. I wouldn't go so far as to require 1000+ games because that's quite a few. 100 games probably means 800 hands or so. Hmmm...

Let's use declarer's make percentage as our statistic. OK, we compute the statistic for every declarer with at least 100 hands played. Let's say there are 293 such declarers. For these 293 values, we can compute the mean and standard deviation of the Make% stat. At that point, it's easy to convert any individual's Make% into a probability, based on the number of standard deviations away from the mean; this is just typical normal distribution stuff. Multiply that by 100 and that's your rating points for that stat. Tedious? You betcha. LONG? Oh yeah, but if you want to do rankings, you'll need to run through a whooooole buncha hands.


On the sharkscope...2 names to drop, where one good tourney skewed things, would be Chris Moneymaker and *particularly* Jamie Gold. Smile Moneymaker, I believe, has earned some respect because he's worked to improve since he won the main event. Gold...I don't think so.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)