Ask Chuck Kennedy

[cgkdisc]

The PDGA office continues to try and contact the TDs to get their reports sent once they are late like this one.

[krupicka]

Either the TD report is not in, or the TD hasn't paid the PDGA. Both will hold up the results. Only the TD and the PDGA office know what the hold up is.

[JenniferB]

At a recent tournament, the men played the longs first round and shorts the second. Am women played the shorts both rounds, so we don't have ratings for the first round due to lack of propagators. Is there no way to generate round ratings for the first round based on the second round results?

[cgkdisc]

Official ratings should be generated using both rounds.

[ERicJ]

Chuck, can you double (triple?) check the round 2 & 3 ratings for MM1 at AM Worlds?

[cgkdisc]

Worlds ratings were not checked as thoroughly as we would have liked in order to get the ratings posted so let us know where we should take a look.

[ERicJ]

Originally Posted by cgkdisc

Worlds ratings were not checked as thoroughly as we would have liked in order to get the ratings posted so let us know where we should take a look.

Round 2 & 3 for MM1

[cgkdisc]

So far MM1 R2 & R3 are the only Worlds ratings issues we've heard from anyone.

MJ did get the 1113 rated round and Catrina Allen shot the highest rated woman's round ever at 1058 with both being thrown at Bradford.

[Kittykat7]

Hello Chuck,
I am trying to understand how the player ratings are calculated. Could you please try to help me understand how my player rating went down 6 points? When I do the math I get it should have went up 2 points.
Thanks a bunch.

My PDGA# is 51934.

[cgkdisc]

Your Wild Flower ratings in May got double weighted for the July update (most recent 25%) but your best three Daytona rounds were double weighted in today's update (and not Wild Flower). Wild Flower ratings were higher than Daytona so your July rating was a little higher due to better weighting.

[ERicJ]

For MA1 at Worlds were all the rounds at a given course across days combined for ratings, or were there exceptions?

[Jeff_LaG]

Originally Posted by cgkdisc

So far MM1 R2 & R3 are the only Worlds ratings issues we've heard from anyone.

All divisions with Pools were documented through their shuffles throughout the week with separate Pool 1 & Pool 2 columns to track their original pools. If MA1 and MG1 in that same spreadsheet are checking out okay, then MM1 should be as well too because the entire column of pool information was copied over.

[cgkdisc]

All rounds at Worlds were combined on the same layout even across multiple divisions. We looked at each round SSA individually. They were all within normal expected variances on each course, even the rain delayed rounds, so they were combined.

[cgkdisc]

Originally Posted by Jeff_LaG

All divisions with Pools were documented through their shuffles throughout the week with separate Pool 1 & Pool 2 columns to track their original pools. If MA1 and MG1 in that same spreadsheet are checking out okay, then MM1 should be as well too because the entire column of pool information was copied over.

It's clear the MM1 R2 & R3 numbers got flipped but that doesn't mean the pool report from Worlds scoring was necessarily incorrect.

[ERicJ]

Originally Posted by Jeff_LaG

All divisions with Pools were documented through their shuffles throughout the week with separate Pool 1 & Pool 2 columns to track their original pools. If MA1 and MG1 in that same spreadsheet are checking out okay, then MM1 should be as well too because the entire column of pool information was copied over.

Look at the posted results for MM1 Round 2 & 3. There seem to be waaaay too many 970+ rounds followed by 700ish rounds and visa-versa.

And talking to one of the guys who played MM1 he says there's no way he shot a 980 round or a 740 round.

[daomac1000]

Hello Chuck,

I'm confused about my rating at this update. I follow the ratings system pretty well and understand the dynamics of how it works...at this update I dropped rounds rated at 947 avg and added rounds rated at 957 avg, yet my rating dropped 4 pts. PDGA #33126...any feedback on this? Is there something I'm missing?

[cgkdisc]

It's likely the rounds that were double weighted changed compared with the last update.

[daomac1000]

Originally Posted by cgkdisc

It's likely the rounds that were double weighted changed compared with the last update.

I don't follow that as far as double weighted rds changing. I added my AM Nats rounds to my rating, avged at official 957 rated and dropped approx 6 other rounds from my rating, rated at 947 avg. So my double weighted rounds are the AM Nats rounds which would mathematically make my rating go up (was 948), not down (now 944). It is what it is, but obviously the math doesn't make sense and I'm always trying to get a better grasp on the ratings system.

[bruce_brakel]

Originally Posted by daomac1000

Hello Chuck,

I'm confused about my rating at this update. I follow the ratings system pretty well and understand the dynamics of how it works...at this update I dropped rounds rated at 947 avg and added rounds rated at 957 avg, yet my rating dropped 4 pts. PDGA #33126...any feedback on this? Is there something I'm missing?

Rounds with more or less than 18 holes are weighted proportionately. So a 24 hole round that is bad is worth 1.333 rounds of badness. Maybe this changes the averages. Maybe not. Ratings are always like a box of chocolates for me.

Chuck, any progress on changing the website to show womens' rounds in Roman numerals?

http://www.pdga.com/discussion/showp...&postcount=101

http://www.pdga.com/player_stats/30778/2012

MCMXLI!

[cgkdisc]

Wow, I barely got ahead of her this update.

[cgkdisc]

Originally Posted by daomac1000

I don't follow that as far as double weighted rds changing. I added my AM Nats rounds to my rating, avged at official 957 rated and dropped approx 6 other rounds from my rating, rated at 947 avg. So my double weighted rounds are the AM Nats rounds which would mathematically make my rating go up (was 948), not down (now 944). It is what it is, but obviously the math doesn't make sense and I'm always trying to get a better grasp on the ratings system.

The three rounds you added from Am Nats averaged 10 points lower than three of the rounds you had double weighted in the last update with that 1031 which wasn't double weighted this time.

[Kittykat7]

Originally Posted by cgkdisc

Your Wild Flower ratings in May got double weighted for the July update (most recent 25%) but your best three Daytona rounds were double weighted in today's update (and not Wild Flower). Wild Flower ratings were higher than Daytona so your July rating was a little higher due to better weighting.

Thanks Chuck. Makes sense now.

[Patrick P]

Yes after five months, an event I played back in Feb is finally official. Now the process starts again to inform the TD/PDGA that this mulligan X-tier event has round ratings. Maybe I'll just let someone else figure it out this time and keep my round rating. It's getting old following up with TD/PDGA event after event with these common type errors.

[dobbins66]

Just noticed a ratings issue with an old tourney. It's from 2010 and no longer affects ratings so not really an issue. Does anyone want to know when old issues are spotted? Can't believe I did not notice this when it happened. In the 2010 (sept 4-5) Charlie Vettiner Open the Advanced Masters pool is grouped with the Rec/other pool, we actually played in the pool with Open/Advanced. No big deal now just an FYI. Noticed it a few minutes ago by accident while looking for something else.

[cgkdisc]

Thanks, I'll pass it along so Roger can correct it for historical purposes.

[16670]

we were told that playing in the womens global event as men we would get rated rounds for helping to provide propagators for them.we paid a small fee to enter with no prizes but did expect our "rated" rounds to count towards our rating.if the process was changed by the pdga after the event was over should i expect my $ to be returned?who should be returning it ?the td who only passed on what the pdga told him or the pdga?

[cgkdisc]

Don't know anything about it. Contact asweeton at pdga.com to get it resolved.

[16670]

it shows our results here in Oklahoma city for the WGE are unofficial.i looked through the contact info on the website and cant find asweeton just the commities are listed not who the people behind the commity but i did find a quote...

You get points based on the tier and finish position in your local event. No additional points for your standing in the global consolidation event.
__________________
^^^^ this is a quote from you chuck


id be happy to contact whoever i need to but i couldnt find it

[jconnell]

Originally Posted by 16670

it shows our results here in Oklahoma city for the WGE are unofficial.i looked through the contact info on the website and cant find asweeton just the commities are listed not who the people behind the commity but i did find a quote...

You get points based on the tier and finish position in your local event. No additional points for your standing in the global consolidation event.
__________________
^^^^ this is a quote from you chuck


id be happy to contact whoever i need to but i couldnt find it

If the results show as unofficial, it likely means the TD has not yet submitted the official tournament report to the PDGA. They uploaded the results online, obviously, but that's not enough. If the PDGA doesn't have the report, they can't process the event and calculate the ratings.

I'm facing the same thing with the WGE I attended...results still haven't been officially submitted and therefore no one has gotten ratings or points out of the event.

Oh, and asweeton is Andrew Sweeton, PDGA Tour Manager. Chuck was giving you his email address: asweeton @ pdga . com (without the spaces).

[Patrick P]

Who won the 2012 FPO NT title? The Vibram Open has both Cat and Val tied at 388 points. With Cat winning the Vibram Open, that should make her the winner. Yet Innova is announcing Val won.