The worst cherry pickers in the top 40

[gentleben]

This thread is at the request of Bob. I just decided to make it a new topic because of the length and age of the original thread that started it all, "The top 4 cherry pickers in the top 20".

I consider someone a cherry picker if they avoid the best players in order to make their rank look higher. The easiest way to spot this is by looking at the number of games a player plays against 1500+ players. It is also evident in their winning percentage. If a player avoids 1500+ players then it appears they are trying to make themselves look better than they are. Currently there are 32 out of 117 ranked players above 1500. That is 27%. If a player plays a significant amount of their games, like less than 20%, against 1500+ players then it is obvious they are avoiding the best players.

Stratego, though it is true that a player can no longer get to the top without playing good players, that does not mean it is impossible to cherry pick. For example, a 1600 player can stay higher than they deserve in the rankings by restricting their games to players just over 1400 and avoiding players ranked above 1500. Don't get me wrong, the new system is better than the old, but it does not eliminate cherry picking completely. It does prevent someone from making it into the top 5 (and certainly not to number 1) but as you will see it does not prevent someone from making into the top 20.

The worst in the top 40 are:
1. ElMariatxi 6.7% (only 9/134 against 1500+, currently ranked 38th)
2. dcAnnies and yoeke tied at 8.3% (2/24, ranked 14th and 30th)
3. Terminator 9% (3/32, he has cherry picked to 7th under the new system!)
4. Panther 12% (9/75, ranked 12th)
5. Platoon 14% (9/64, 24th)
6. Holunder 18% (7/39, 18th)
7. Samuel 18.3% (28/153, 34th)

Some surprising ones below 27% are: Andi 21.5% (21st), Geenstijl 24.4% (11th), and Noes 24.7% (8th). It is surprising to me then that 10 of the top 40 ranked players here seem to be avoiding 1500+ players to varying degrees.

Again, I am not saying any of these players are bad players, but compare their numbers to someone like NoChance at 35% or Zach at 75%+ and tell me the list above is not avoiding the best players. I actually hope this motivates some of these people to play more games against better players.

[unbiasbob]

Hi GB, thank you for going thru the effort to compile these numbers. Most certainly they are interesting. I think in certain cases the numbers get skewed due to small numbers of games but if we can get a system that highers the minimum number of games, this problem can be resolved easily. I think in the case of DC Annies, as Stratego mentioned, he is a world champion so there's no doubt that he is not working any system for a high ranking. However, DC likely does not have much time to play many games this year so he should not be in the list I think (24 games in 6 months).

ok now in some other cases such as Terminators, it seems like he is not a #7 player (he has played 32 games in 6 months). ElMariatxi in my opinion has not deliberatly avoided high rankers and in fact, bumped off Terminator in a game terminator perhaps thought was an easy win. EL has my respect. Panther has not played a lot of games this year (75) but I feel he is a player who would avoid no one. His time may be limited. Unbias bows to Panther after watching him for a number of years. Holunder I put in Terminators category.

A bit of Dozer may have rubbed off on Platoon. Samuel is a good guy and friend but I do feel that he cherry picks to a certain degree. Andi and Nose I have observed for years and feel that their percentages are an aberration and dont reflect any cherry picking on their parts. I have large respect for both players. Geensltijl I just dont know well enough and have not studied his numbers enough to comment on but he sure looks to be a force. I will learn more as time goes on

not that these numbers mean anything but I compiled a adequate to non adequate ratio to the top 50 players who played more than 100 games. Here are those figures below. I think for those over 1700, these figures mean little but for those below, they show cherry picking tendencies. In which case, GB may have a point about certain name I defended above. Oh well. I appreciate the time GB put into his lists

Ace 51%
NC 55%
GB 64%

below are under 1700

Zach 414%
Noes 65%
rapunzel 85%
fouche 132%
geenstijl 120%
edbomb 209%
gpet 202%
psychonaut 183%
andi 120%
fleiger 335%
edfx 376%
brass 254%
bigrob 519%
bom 574%
wulf 372%
jvg 1000%
samuel 173%
skilgannon 475%
fighter 1075%
guru 525%
el maritrixi 193%
citron 545%
unbiasbob 261%
Saracenen 378%
katama 775%

[samuel]

I think you guys are far too worried about all this. The game is called Stratego, is it not? Perhaps for some of these players they have employed a STRATEGY that places them as high as possible in the rankings. If its within the rules of the system, whats wrong with that? Others may find a better strategy is to play almost exclusively 1500 players and if they can win a fair share, they will gain more points that way. Is this not cherry picking to avoid upset defeats against low players that will cost points? If you lose to a top player you hardly drop any points, afterall.

I've had a disasterous run lately and plummeted down the rankings, but looking at it I've had defeats to low and high ranked players, as well as wins. But I've just lost more than usual across the board and therefore have moved down. I'll be hoping to have a better run in the next few weeks to mvoe back up but I won't do that by only playing the lowest players, will I? So my strategy will be to try and play decent players I fancy beating. And what is wrong with that please?

Also I am more interested in playing the best players at barrage, where I feel I am (A) better placed to have competitive games and (B) get a good challenge as all too often you have to play whoever you can at barrage as most players won't do it, and you beat people easily. I beat Gamble 10 times in a row yesterday and it was getting boring as it was so easy. I could have stayed longer as he wanted to keep going, and I could have gained more WSC points, but without the challenge a high ranked player would provide, I lost interest. And generally speaking it is the top players who are good at both games.

When I play a good barrage player, if time permits, I like to play 7-10 games and my goal is to win more than half (doesn't always happen mind!) with classic if you play well, with a 1500+ player this likely means a 20-30 minute game as a minimum, sometimes 45-50 minutes. Sometimes I know I don't have time for that so I go for someone I anticipate will take less time to beat or someone you don't have to slow down and think too much against (which has cost me a few I admit). I don't really enjoy long drawn out games where you're looking to literally get 1 piece ahead then trade down, it is quite laborious. But at the top level this is often how it goes and I would rather play several barrage games instead if I can.

[unbiasbob]

Hey Samuel, I never played Barrage much but Berre just recently got me into it. I'd be more than happy to play you if we're on at the same time. Berre said he just started himself. He is an awesome individual to play in any game. I give him full credit for getting me to enjoy a game of Barrage

[gentleben]

The list is not a list of bad players. All it shows is those players who have played fewer games against 1500+ players as a percentage of their total games. Your percentages Bob could be confusing. All it shows is the percentage of adequate/non-adq games. A better number is adequate/total games played, but even that does not show cherry picking. Like I said, cherry picking, to me, is to deliberately avoid higher ranked players to get a better ranking. Someone like noes who's numbers are close to the 27% may not be doing it but it does show he plays far less 1500+ than zach.

I should point out that the kleier system is working because it shows the ranking is not based on winning percentage alone. Terminator, dcAnnies and Holunder all have a winning percentage very similar to mine but I am ranked higher because I play tougher players more often. If the minimum game requirement was raised it would eliminate those three players and force them to play more games and the new challenge ranking would force them to at least play the right percentage of adequate players which would make their ranking more accurate.

Samuel, I am not worried about anything nor do I want some rule changed because of this list. I only want those people who avoid playing higher ranked players to stop doing it. I realize they are playing within the rules and they can do that if they want to but they should also not delude themselves into thinking their ranking is accurate.

Bob, as for your line that El "has not deliberatly avoided high rankers", how can you say that? He has played 138 games and only 9 against 1500+. If that is not avoiding I do not know what is.

[unbiasbob]

Yeah GB, the numbers certainly point in that direction. El went after Terminator in a game and kicked him but that's only a single game. Maybe that was a battle of the cherry pickers. LOL