Camp ranking question

MMAPlayground.com » Community » MMA Playground Game Talk » Camp ranking question
Next Page »
npayant
6/21/09 3:58:40AM
Ok... obviously, I'm ticked that we dropped out of first, but I can live with that.

But, can somebody PLEASE explain to me how this TEAM got first? (and it's not just this team... this was just an easy example of my confusion) I'm SO confused on this ranking system. Just looking at this page, I have a number of questions?

1. How are they welterweights (17 players)
2. Why doesn't having people on your team that don't make ANY picks throughout the entire season count against you??
3. By just looking at the team in general - none of their season ranks are good and none of the earnings are that good either. So how does this all average out to 1st place?
4. Almost every single player on our team - Ringers - have a higher season rank and higher earnings rank. So once again, how does the calculation work that they're on top??

I guess I'll never understand how this ranking system works...

Playground_Samurai
6/21/09 4:52:12AM
Those can't be the final rankings.
Shawn91111
6/21/09 5:43:59AM
#1..although it says they have 17 members look closer and see less than 10 have participated for even half this season. ...The #2 team in the LHW division has over 100 but less than 25 participate

#2..If you dont pick for an event it doesnt count against your teams rankings..its the people who cherry pick fights that hurt.

#3 and #4 are puzzling so bring down some holy hell on that
hippysmacker
6/21/09 10:11:38AM
I think it makes sense. Its about percentages. The picks percentages are very close . The total points avg is still close. The guys in first however still have about a 85% percentage better than your camps- wagerwise. Hope that helps. My camp suffers form wager problems as well, so i feel ya.

1 MMAFighting
7.1 - 52.7 $448.05 67.5% 10/10

2 Collinsville Clan
6.8 - 53.0 $329.16 65.8% 10/10

3 Junkie Fighting Championships
5.3 - 53.1 $285.05 67.4% 10/10

4 The MMA Army
10.5- 52.1 $292.5 65.3% 10/10

5 mycamp
4.3 - 51.1 $287.36 66.1% 10/10

6 The Ringers
6.0- 57.5 $241.9 67.7% 10/10
hippysmacker
6/21/09 10:16:23AM

Posted by Shawn91111

#1..although it says they have 17 members look closer and see less than 10 have participated for even half this season. ...The #2 team in the LHW division has over 100 but less than 25 participate

#2..If you dont pick for an event it doesnt count against your teams rankings..its the people who cherry pick fights that hurt.

#3 and #4 are puzzling so bring down some holy hell on that




and just in case I didn't mention it- he's right . The wager percentage explains camps #3 & # 4 ranking ahead of yours as well. Your ranking each individual event is how it is calculated toward you camps overall score . So if you finished in 2000th place in 5 events , and 1rst in 2 events , and 1000th in 3 events you average ranking per event would be 1300.2

if you finished in 1299th place for 10 events straight, you avg ranking would be 1299. It takes the highs and lows into account for overall average.
ncordless
6/21/09 12:12:47PM

Posted by hippysmacker

I think it makes sense. Its about percentages. The picks percentages are very close . The total points avg is still close. The guys in first however still have about a 85% percentage better than your camps- wagerwise. Hope that helps. My camp suffers form wager problems as well, so i feel ya.

1 MMAFighting
7.1 - 52.7 $448.05 67.5% 10/10

2 Collinsville Clan
6.8 - 53.0 $329.16 65.8% 10/10

3 Junkie Fighting Championships
5.3 - 53.1 $285.05 67.4% 10/10

4 The MMA Army
10.5- 52.1 $292.5 65.3% 10/10

5 mycamp
4.3 - 51.1 $287.36 66.1% 10/10

6 The Ringers
6.0- 57.5 $241.9 67.7% 10/10



That is too bad. Doing it on percentages like that does not follow the reality of the game and scoring system. Since wagers are the only thing that vary greatly (85% difference between 1st and 6th in wagers vs. less than 10% difference between 6th and 1st in scoring and percentage) they really are the only thing that matter. 4.8 difference in ppg is huge in the reality of how the game is played, but that is not really reflected in the ranking system. The pick percentage is especially meaningless because it will never have the wide variation which would be necessary for a large % lead. In the reality of how the game is played to have a 5% difference is huge but again that is not recognized by the ranking system.


It is most assuredly my fault for not knowing how the ranking system works. Now I do and you can bet that wagers will be the only thing that The Ringers will focus on, because that is the only catagory that really matters. I have to admit that it is dissappointing to learn that the ranking system doesn't really judge a team's overall performance.

Great season. Congrats to the WW champs, mmafighting.
MMAcca
6/21/09 5:28:22PM
So wagers count more than pick % & points ?
hippysmacker
6/21/09 5:48:52PM

Posted by MMAcca

So wagers count more than pick % & points ?



No, but the difference in wager % is greater in this case. All 3 catgories, avg score finish , avg pick percentage finish, avg wager finish , have equal value. Also, how many cards a camp plays facts in too. So if you only did 9 cards, it's unlikely you would beat a camp close in score to you who played all 10. My camp has had the same problems wager -wise. It just seems that the wager difference ends up greater sometimes . Here is how my camp finished, and you can see our wager difference knocked us from 2nd to 4th this year.


1 World Top Team

15.7 53.7 $495.1 65.6% 10/10

2 Haymaker

16.8 52.1 $364.22 64.8% 10/10

3 Red Devil Fantasy Club

16.8 51.0 $396.25 65% 10/10

4 Nutthuggers Suck

17.6 53.7 $304.4 64.6% 10/10
Svartorm
6/21/09 5:53:40PM
Honestly, I think wagers should be taken out next season, or at least winnings for parlays. With the million dollar parlays some people have hit in the past, they could completely change a team percentage, in the lower weight classes especially.

The fantasy dollars are a cool section of the game, but does that really show any teamwork whatsoever? If it did, everyone on a team would have huge numbers, rather than having maybe one million dollar player on a team.



mkiv9secsupra
6/21/09 6:01:25PM

Posted by Svartorm

Honestly, I think wagers should be taken out next season, or at least winnings for parlays. With the million dollar parlays some people have hit in the past, they could completely change a team percentage, in the lower weight classes especially.

The fantasy dollars are a cool section of the game, but does that really show any teamwork whatsoever? If it did, everyone on a team would have huge numbers, rather than having maybe one million dollar player on a team.



+1!!!!

I love the wagering system but i think it shows more about the balls someone has rather than their actual knowledge or predictions on a fight

plus for mid season new additions to the site, it really isnt fair






oh yeah and plus i suck at wagering!!
i still havent landed a parlay to date
The_Ho_Bag
6/21/09 6:01:27PM

Posted by Svartorm

Honestly, I think wagers should be taken out next season, or at least winnings for parlays. With the million dollar parlays some people have hit in the past, they could completely change a team percentage, in the lower weight classes especially.

The fantasy dollars are a cool section of the game, but does that really show any teamwork whatsoever? If it did, everyone on a team would have huge numbers, rather than having maybe one million dollar player on a team.




hippysmacker
6/21/09 6:17:06PM
The owner, who is a mathematician by the way, came up with this. It's staying. Basically it comes down to people putting their personal goals behind the camps at times. The decision is up to the individual in each camp. If everyone in your camp is going for broke on big parley in every event, chances are it will hurt you. Remember its the average wager score per event that is calculated. Not the total amount of cash you finish with. If one guy in a 10 men camp wins $10,000 in a event ,and the 9 others lose a combined $9500 in the same event , their avg score for that event would be $50. This has happened in my camp a lot , so I understand. I have even been one of the guys making stupid bets, so I am also guilty of it too. The rules are the same for all, so that makes it fair IMO.
ncordless
6/21/09 7:18:58PM

Posted by hippysmacker


Posted by MMAcca

So wagers count more than pick % & points ?



No, but the difference in wager % is greater in this case. All 3 catgories, avg score finish , avg pick percentage finish, avg wager finish , have equal value. Also, how many cards a camp plays facts in too. So if you only did 9 cards, it's unlikely you would beat a camp close in score to you who played all 10. My camp has had the same problems wager -wise. It just seems that the wager difference ends up greater sometimes . Here is how my camp finished, and you can see our wager difference knocked us from 2nd to 4th this year.


1 World Top Team

15.7 53.7 $495.1 65.6% 10/10

2 Haymaker

16.8 52.1 $364.22 64.8% 10/10

3 Red Devil Fantasy Club

16.8 51.0 $396.25 65% 10/10

4 Nutthuggers Suck

17.6 53.7 $304.4 64.6% 10/10



No the wagers do not "count for more" but, yes the wagers are the only only part where you can put more than 10% difference between you and your competition... and therefore the only catagory that is going to decide the camp rankings.

You could average 60pts 70% picks, and $300. If another team averaged 55 pts and 65% picks and $400 they rank ahead of you.

So... pts. and % will not win anything in the rankings because the spread from top to bottom is not anywhere close to the spread in the wagers. As long as you are anywhere close to the the competition the only thing that matters is $.

You say the creator of this system is a mathematician. That is all fine and well. But does he realize that the system doesn't work in reality because of the difference in ranges of scores between wagers and pts/%? Pts. and % are essentially meaningless. That doesn't seem to be the intention.

You are right, it is a fair system in that it is the same for everyone. But that doesn't mean that it is not a flawed system. I accept the results because these were the rules we all played by. But it is like that game in the Harry Potter stories. The game of Quiddich is stupid because the whole game in which people score a point at a time is meaningless because the last part of the game is worth 100 pts.

It is like if, in baseball, a homerun counted as 15 runs. Everything else would still count as one run. It would ruin the game because there would be no point in trying to do anything else except hit homeruns. In the camp rankings system, there is no reason to worry about anything except wagers.
hippysmacker
6/21/09 9:00:17PM
I understand your points, and I am not saying they having shown well so fa, or that I disagree . I also think that if camps took a more team oriented approach in the future it will even out some. I guess time will tell, but I will pass some of the thoughts expressed along anyway.
npayant
6/21/09 9:54:22PM

Posted by ncordless


Posted by hippysmacker


Posted by MMAcca

So wagers count more than pick % & points ?



No, but the difference in wager % is greater in this case. All 3 catgories, avg score finish , avg pick percentage finish, avg wager finish , have equal value. Also, how many cards a camp plays facts in too. So if you only did 9 cards, it's unlikely you would beat a camp close in score to you who played all 10. My camp has had the same problems wager -wise. It just seems that the wager difference ends up greater sometimes . Here is how my camp finished, and you can see our wager difference knocked us from 2nd to 4th this year.


1 World Top Team

15.7 53.7 $495.1 65.6% 10/10

2 Haymaker

16.8 52.1 $364.22 64.8% 10/10

3 Red Devil Fantasy Club

16.8 51.0 $396.25 65% 10/10

4 Nutthuggers Suck

17.6 53.7 $304.4 64.6% 10/10



No the wagers do not "count for more" but, yes the wagers are the only only part where you can put more than 10% difference between you and your competition... and therefore the only catagory that is going to decide the camp rankings.

You could average 60pts 70% picks, and $300. If another team averaged 55 pts and 65% picks and $400 they rank ahead of you.

So... pts. and % will not win anything in the rankings because the spread from top to bottom is not anywhere close to the spread in the wagers. As long as you are anywhere close to the the competition the only thing that matters is $.

You say the creator of this system is a mathematician. That is all fine and well. But does he realize that the system doesn't work in reality because of the difference in ranges of scores between wagers and pts/%? Pts. and % are essentially meaningless. That doesn't seem to be the intention.

You are right, it is a fair system in that it is the same for everyone. But that doesn't mean that it is not a flawed system. I accept the results because these were the rules we all played by. But it is like that game in the Harry Potter stories. The game of Quiddich is stupid because the whole game in which people score a point at a time is meaningless because the last part of the game is worth 100 pts.

It is like if, in baseball, a homerun counted as 15 runs. Everything else would still count as one run. It would ruin the game because there would be no point in trying to do anything else except hit homeruns. In the camp rankings system, there is no reason to worry about anything except wagers.




This is makes it clear to me now Ncordless. We were in first overall in points scored and first overall (minus the two teams with only a couple events under their belts) in pick percentage. But because we happen to have our bad event, wager-wise, on the last one of the season, we got knocked out of it. Even though most of our team members ENDED with around the same or more money than most of the players from the teams ahead of us, it didn't matter because total earnings don't factor into it (unless of course you hit one of those miraculous $200,000 parlays). It only avg. what you've earned. So a team that wasn't in it all season could beat out a team that was in first all season by hitting some big parlays (betting on huge underdogs that win) on the final event of the season.

So basically under the current system, the strategy should be not to bet any money throughout the entire season or just a few hundred dollars on big favorites (building up our accounts with just our picks money) and then bet on some "sure-wins" on the final event to gain maybe $1000 or more. Then our average would be higher than most every other team(assuming they did the typical win some money here, lose some money here, etc.) because we wouldn't have any of the events where we lost any money by figuring into our earnings average.

Hmmm... maybe we should try an experiment! JK!! Thanks for passing the possible issues along to the programmer Hippy.
ncordless
6/21/09 10:01:07PM

Posted by hippysmacker

I understand your points, and I am not saying they having shown well so fa, or that I disagree . I also think that if camps took a more team oriented approach in the future it will even out some. I guess time will tell, but I will pass some of the thoughts expressed along anyway.



Thank you for listening. If you need someone to help explain the inequities, let me know. I just want what is best for the game.

Again, congrats to the winners this season. I am not trying to undermine your accomplishments, just trying to point out some (in my opinion) problems with the system.

Kpro
6/22/09 4:00:42AM
If you beat someone in 2 of the 3 categories (points, pick %, wagers) your camp is better.

The scoring system on this site does not reflect that, it reflects almost strictly wagers.

If he was really a mathematician he would realize that.

Find a way to incorporate a "best 2 out of 3" to determine rankings is my opinion on the matter.
emfleek
6/22/09 9:28:21AM
Just be glad that the rules of the game were not changed prior to the last event of the season again...

hippysmacker
6/22/09 11:25:26AM

Posted by Kpro

If you beat someone in 2 of the 3 categories (points, pick %, wagers) your camp is better.

The scoring system on this site does not reflect that, it reflects almost strictly wagers.

If he was really a mathematician he would realize that.

Find a way to incorporate a "best 2 out of 3" to determine rankings is my opinion on the matter.



Look I agree that the wagers are currently more likely to skew something, but I think this statement is misleading. If someone narrowly edges someone in 2 categories , and someone dominates in another -it's telling. The same as fantasy baseball.

If we have 3 categories and 10 teams. and you finish 2nd in %, 1rst in score, and 7th in wagers. Your avg placement is 3.333.

if the another team averages 2nd in % , 3rd in score, and 4th in wagers that's avg. score of 9. Now it is less categories than rotisserie, so any one category can skew things easier. However, that's why the individual rankings per card were put in. To prevent someone winning a couple big parleys , and then leading their team to victory based on total cash flow .Consistency in all categories is meant to be they key. Ideas have been past on, and I will discuss it with him on the phone thsi week. Just remember this though." IF" people payed more attention to safe wagering, as a team, like it was their real money, wagering patterns might look quite different on the site for many top camps. Very few people have a chance at the wager overall title after the 5th card in a season. So maybe patterns will change this year, after many top camps have lost due to wagers in back to back years now. To me the prize money here is nothing special, and was never meant to be a big deal. The original owner just wanted this place to pay back his initial investment, and not cost him money. He's just a big mma fan, computer programmer, fantasy sports guy, who had made up a fantasy game top play with his buddies, and felt cuckolded when the UFC made theirs public.They didn't steal it or anything, he just felt like it was his idea first,a and so he mace this sight. It's like playing in a free ESPN fantasy league with people who share your love of a sport. Bragging rights, chance to test yourself against others who are knowledgeable , I just like competition, a overall community to discuss mma, and a even smaller tight knit( camp setting) to do it as well . So yeah, I would like another camp virtual badge, so i am going to make that my focus this year. Team sport victory's have always been more rewarding for me anyway. Rest assured all, voices will be heard. That's all I can promise.
hippysmacker
6/22/09 12:55:52PM
I posted this before along time ago, but just a reminder of how things have been done this last season ,in regard to fight camp rankings.




Here's how it works.

Camp member count is determined by the average number of people in a camp who made at least 1 fight pick for an event. Your performance sticks! This means that if you were in Camp A for UFC 92, then leave for Camp B for UFC 93, your performance and presence for UFC 92 is still associated with Camp A. The camp member count is not skewed in any fashion if a camp is formed after the first event of the season. Camp member count is used to decide what "weight class" a camp is in. All further rankings discussed below will be relative to the camp's weight class.

Once an event takes place, all camps in a division are ranked on three criteria: average earnings rank, average point score rank, average pick percentage (AKA "win-loss record") rank. By factoring the point total you penalize "cherry-pickers" who try to earn higher camp rankings by only picking the results on easy fights. By factoring in the pick percentage you reward the camps who had the pick right, but just missed an ending detail, which is understandable.

At the season's end, your average rank for each of these three categories for the entire season is calculated and stored in an ordered table. These three numbers are then added together and multiplied by .7 plus.03 per event participated in. This last bit was added to prevent someone from forming a camp at the season's end, doing good for 1 event, then running away with the crown.

The camps are then ordered by the lowest total and given that number as their final rank.
Kpro
6/22/09 2:45:49PM
I understand now that they are weighted "equally" in terms of placement in the division added and divided by 3.

But there is no way to be 118-42 as a team and have your team bomb the event and then be 85-79 on picks.

That type of thing is possible with wagers, so I feel it shouldn't be an equally weighted category.

Since I'm not tossing out a better option, just saying I disagree with it, I digress. But if I come up with a better option, I'll be back.
hippysmacker
6/22/09 4:21:20PM
I hear you bro , but its avg rank per event. You could being averaging 1500th place for 9 events and then get first on the 10th. Your avg rank per event would then be 1350 . Same thing on wagers .You could just as easily bomb and event pick and % wise and affect your camp ranking. However, i do agree that long shot anomalies are more likely from wagers than the other 2 categories. I am thinking of limiting parley bets at certain times , especially the last event to limit the impact of this, but I won't know if that's approved till I talk to owner Thursday. I won't get into details with what I proposed, but I will get back to this thread Thursday or Friday, when our conference call with the programmer is over.
emfleek
6/22/09 4:25:06PM
Percentage and points seem to me like they'd be good enough alone to base rankings on. The money/earnings could be seperate and have nothing to do with camp rankings...just use it as an added incentive to play.

I don't see why it *has* to be used?

I'm interested to hear what you guys figure out/decide, though! Regardless, thanks for doing what you do!
ncordless
6/22/09 4:56:47PM

Posted by emfleek

Percentage and points seem to me like they'd be good enough alone to base rankings on. The money/earnings could be seperate and have nothing to do with camp rankings...just use it as an added incentive to play.

I don't see why it *has* to be used?

I'm interested to hear what you guys figure out/decide, though! Regardless, thanks for doing what you do!



Or, if earnings are to be used they need to be scaled to roughly the same percentage range.
hippysmacker
6/22/09 9:13:56PM
Avg Earnings rank , avg score rank , and avg pick % rank all count the same currently
lohmann
6/24/09 6:35:57AM

Posted by ncordless


Posted by emfleek

Percentage and points seem to me like they'd be good enough alone to base rankings on. The money/earnings could be seperate and have nothing to do with camp rankings...just use it as an added incentive to play.

I don't see why it *has* to be used?

I'm interested to hear what you guys figure out/decide, though! Regardless, thanks for doing what you do!



Or, if earnings are to be used they need to be scaled to roughly the same percentage range.



I know I'm not following this correctly, but I like the idea I think I'm reading. If someone with $10000 gains $1000 during an event and someone with $1000 gains $2000, why can't the percentage gains - %10 and %200 - be averaged together for 105%. It would be a lot more forgiving on players that don't have money to contribute after they lose everything during an early event instead of skewing that categorical ranking towards users who have more than the rest of their camp combined, although it would suffer from the problem that people have $100 and gain $250 off pick bonuses alone.
hippysmacker
6/24/09 8:40:52AM
I don't see why failure should be rewarded, and success punished personally, but to each their own.
hippysmacker
6/25/09 11:01:28PM
Some ideas have been talked over with the owner ,and are being mulled presently , for any possible changes. Thia doesn't mean their will or won't, and I will report more on Monday. Either way , I will report back on this subject then. Sorry I don't have more immediate news just yet.

Brain_Smasher
6/29/09 9:01:13AM
I though the catogorys were equal? Like you are ranked from 1st to last in each one. with each given a point value.

In the case of the topic starter. 2 catogorys were very close so more than likey they finished next to each other in the ranking of that stat alone. So one only got a point or 2 more than the other in each statistic. But in money one camp is way ahead. The amount of the lead is meaningless. But what does matter is how many people are between the camps. If MMA fighting camp is ranked 1 in money and Ringers are ranked 6th. There there is a 5 point difference that more than covers the couple points they lost on pick percentage and points scored.

Basically a 2-2-1 is better than a 1-1-6.


Just like basketball. You cant win by 2 points each quarter then lose the 4th quarter by 10 points. You will lose the game.


After looking at the standings. here are the results.

Score
Ringers 1st
MMAfighting 12th

Picks
Ringers 3rd
MMAfighting 4th

Wagers
Ringers 45th
MMAfighting 10th


So MMA Fighting was the better camp because they finished 12, 4th, and 10th. This is better than Ringers who was 1st, 3rd, and 45th. MMA was much more consitant. Ringers needed to finish in the top 20 in money and they would have won.
Shawn91111
6/29/09 9:17:13AM

Posted by Brain_Smasher

I though the catogorys were equal? Like you are ranked from 1st to last in each one. with each given a point value.

In the case of the topic starter. 2 catogorys were very close so more than likey they finished next to each other in the ranking of that stat alone. So one only got a point or 2 more than the other in each statistic. But in money one camp is way ahead. The amount of the lead is meaningless. But what does matter is how many people are between the camps. If MMA fighting camp is ranked 1 in money and Ringers are ranked 6th. There there is a 5 point difference that more than covers the couple points they lost on pick percentage and points scored.

Basically a 2-2-1 is better than a 1-1-6.


Just like basketball. You cant win by 2 points each quarter then lose the 4th quarter by 10 points. You will lose the game.


After looking at the standings. here are the results.

Score
Ringers 1st
MMAfighting 12th

Picks
Ringers 3rd
MMAfighting 4th

Wagers
Ringers 45th
MMAfighting 10th


So MMA Fighting was the better camp because they finished 12, 4th, and 10th. This is better than Ringers who was 1st, 3rd, and 45th. MMA was much more consitant. Ringers needed to finish in the top 20 in money and they would have won.



How dare you use numbers and logic
Pages: [1] 2
Related Topics