The REAL top 15, 1st quarter 2008, based on the BS rating

[gentleben]

Here are my top 17 for 2008 so far and some interesting stats. I would have done 20 but I got tired of counting. I would love to hear what you think.

The name of the BS rating came from the intials of my first and last name and is somewhat subjective but I will be happy to justify my list if anyone has a specific question. Only players who have played 60+ games were counted.

Player - % games played vs 1500+ rating - % games won vs 1500+
1. Ricardo90 - 46.98 - 58.57
2. wellington - 46.97 - 58.06
3. AceRimmer - 25.82 - 57.45
4. mind - 79.37 - 58.00
5. NoChance - 41.74 - 56.04
6. zach21 - 49.10- 51.09
7. Dermeister - 47.27 - 57.69
8. Rapunzel - 33.10 - 50.86
9. OGETARTS - 35.44 - 50.00
10. gentleben - 47.19 - 47.71
11. AnDi - 16.83 - 52.94
12. Endever - 25.80 - 51.69
13. oli - 39.47 - 42.22
14. tableplay - 27.34 - 48.57
15. iceman - 51.61 - 37.50
16. gpet0 - 35.88 - 47.03
17. Dozer - 22.67 - 38.24

For the most part this list was arrived at by adding these two numbers above plus the overall winning % (Ricardo for example: 46.98 + 58.57 + 76.35 = 181.90). Then I moved the decimal place one space to make it 1819 and averaged that with the kleier and wsc ratings. I then took into account player vs player stats and came up with what you see above. It was a very geeky thing to do but I enjoyed it. Of course there are flaws in my system, hence the name BS rating.

I should point out that 1500+ rated players make up about 35% of the ranked players so anyone playing a % much higher than that is obviously seeking out the better players to play. Mind, for example, had an incredible 79% of his games against 1500+ players. Anyone with a % much lower than 33-35%, well......you know.

Congratulations Ricardo! Don't let it make your head too big.

Let me know what you think. See ya'll online soon.

[ricardo90]

well done ben,

i'm pleasured that i'm number one

nice list though
_________________
OWNAGE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[gentleben]

Thanks Ricardo, you are playing well.

I guess this post was not controversial enough for anyone else to respond. I at least thought someone would say something about the statistics against 1500+ rated players. Some of the numbers were surprising to me.

And the list is not exactly in the same order as the kleier rating so I thought someone might disagree with say, zach over Dermeister, or others. Or why some players weren't on the list.

But, oh well......

[ricardo90]

yeah it looks like the forum really died.

i guess i'm the only one who looks every day for new posts etc.
_________________
OWNAGE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[art]

its not just the forum that died

Please keep me from wasting 34.95 at a site I hate to play at with nincompoops running it. Recruit them back home

[unbiasbob]

Solid job working out that system gb. That is a mighty righteous method of ranking the top doggies. I think you need to rename it to the gb system though and a link to the perfected gb system needs to be added to the gravon home page.

[nochance]

a nice alternative ranking system - but nothing more

- not a very exciting list

- there is an easy reason, why zach21 is high-ranked in this list
(higher than kleier-ranking)
He is a good risky (others called it: "gambling", "lottoing") player.
Many of his games are ending in a 50:50 situation-> he loses or wins
the match with his one big attack.
-> That is good against high ranked opponents, but not so good against low ranked opponents.

- other players are more dominant against the lower-ranked players

- anyway: a ranking list "against players 1400- would be similar epressive
_________________
DontMissTheChance

[gentleben]

Thanks for the encouragement Bob. Renaming it to the gb system probably won't help its popularity much though. It wouldn't take much for someone to write a program that could calculate it for everyone though, if they had access to the data.

As for NoChance's comments, I am not sure I follow what you are trying to say. I am sorry the list isn't exciting enough. I was actually trying to be accurate. You were expecting the results to be radically different from the kleier rating? That was not likely. As for rating players on how well they play 1400- players. You can figure that out fairly close by what I did already. For example, if zach is winning 51% of his games against 1500+ and his overall winning % is about 66%, then he is winning most of his games against lower ranked players in the same way that NoChance is. Only NoChance is winning a little better, (56 vs 73) hence the better rating. I agree with you about his lotto play but he has gotten better at not doing it as much, at least against me.

One of my main problems with the current rankings is that I hate to see people at the top who have only played 20-30 games in 4 months. That is not enough games played to get a true reading of how good they are. A separate ranking for more frequent players might make things more interesting. And it might just get some people to play more.