whens the next ratings update?



That's what i'm wondering. Anybody know?

It's in red letters, top right of page. (http://www.pdga.com/index.php)

It's in red letters, top right of page. (http://www.pdga.com/index.php)

how did you know to look there? :confused:

It's in red letters, top right of page. (http://www.pdga.com/index.php)

how did you know to look there? :confused:



After the last endless discussion about "late" ratings updates (even though it had been thoroughly explained why the date was what it was), someone (Chuck, maybe?) announced that the "Next Update Date" would be posted prominently. I'm not going to scroll back to find out who and when, but there it is.

Another service of YOUR PDGA!!! :D:D:D

That sux.

How can we consider these ratings current when the cut off date is almost a whole month before the sheduled new ratings, and it probally will be over a month until the new ratings go up. :(

will the ratings be available in the chat room earlier, like last time?

i just want to go up one point
mj

ill take +16

Ill take a plus 25 but that prolly not possible since my scores from the Great Lakes Open are not going to be included because the tourney was started before the deadline and ended after it :mad:

I'll be happy with 1 point or more.

but who what the heck they're gonna do what with the new formula and all. the tendency will be to go down due to fewer bad rounds being dropped. supposedly a special "fudge factor" will be introduced to mitigate this downward anomoly, but who knows how that will be figured out.

this one will be a crap shoot.

but i still wanna see a 3 point increase for me!

That sux.

How can we consider these ratings current when the cut off date is almost a whole month before the sheduled new ratings, and it probally will be over a month until the new ratings go up. :(



Waiting for non current ratings is great?!?!?!?!?!.......................

:confused:

is there a list or something that we can view of turnaments that will be included in rating updates!! Its kinda of crappy , a tournament which was played a couple months prior to updates wasn't turned in!! It kind of screws the rating criteria because perhaps it should have been double weighted and now it never will!! It just seems to make a mockry of the system!! what can be done to insure relevant tourney info is turned in , in a timely manner??

All i want is to get to atleast 950.I have a low goal set!

Efrain...which tournamet are you talking about that didn't get turned in? Chances are I played in the same one....

960 here I come... :D

Who knows how to compute ratings with the new formula? I know the ratings of the 2 rounds that will be added to my stats, I just don't know what to drop, if any, or how many rounds to double weight. Anybody know how?

well, dave the problem at the moment is that we havent heard if they are converting to the new new formula this time around.

last time they started doubling the last eight, but kept the practice of dropping the lowest 15%.

the new new formula is supposed to only drop rounds that are greater than 2.5 standard deviations lower than the average. to calc this, just calc the average and the SD. then multiply the SD x 2.5 and substract from the average. that gives you the low threshold - any rounds below that number are gone.

i do not know if the average and SD calcs will include the doubled rounds, or if they are just in there once.

either way this formula will result in lower ratings across the board. last time chuck mentioned that a fudge factor was gonna be added back into the ratings to account for this. (why, i dont know. seems to render the change in formula kinda moot.) but i havent heard how that fudge factor will be calc'd.

i also heard that the 2.5 x SD might change, or might change according to some additional formula.

clear, huh :D

Since the last update, I have played in 3 2 day tournies and 1 single day tourny.

Sanford = 3 good rounds and 1 bad round
Valley = 3 bad rounds and 1 decent round
Reedy Creek = 1 great round and 1 decent round
Alamance County = 3 good rounds and 1 eh round.

If Alamance county doesn't get turned in time, then that means all of my rounds at valley count and my last two rounds at sanford count and my two rounds at reedy count towards teh "doubly rated rounds"

The last round at sanford was bad because I was fighting what I found out later was almost strep throat.

The three bad rounds at valley will be rated way below what I can play.

The two rounds at reedy were good...the second could be better but I just got too tired too early and took 4 or 5 more throws than what i needed too if I had some energy

alamance county would help my rating.

I just wish i knew if they are dropping the 2.5 stand dev before they double the last 8.

Does anyone know exactly how the ratings will be calculated this time?

kind of.................

Norwegians are the best...............ask anyone!!

Does anyone know exactly how the ratings will be calculated this time?

Using the Force

Using TTeh Force



: ) :

using the craPPer

Quick question for anyone:

So does whatever shows up on my stats page mean that its going to be included in the next ratings update?

Any results that are posted online as "official" within a few days of the cutoff date (this time June 24th) have been processed by the PDGA office and will likely be included in the next ratings update.

Any results that are posted online as "official" within a few days of the cutoff date (this time June 24th) have been processed by the PDGA office and will likely be included in the next ratings update.



I hate to ask, but would you look at mine and tell me if all listed are going to be included:

~Click Here~ (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/playerstats.php?PDGANum=23490&year=2005)

Hey Chuck, you said that the Mid Nationals probably will be included, correct?

I think I will drop this time. I only played one tournament since the last update and lets just say we do not talk about that tournament anymore. :mad:

But, I could still play MA2! (Wait that is a bad thing.)

Is everything that will be included in the next update already posted as offcial? Or are there some events not posted as offical and just not updated on the PDGA site yet?

Eveything that is posted as official within a few days of the cutoff date (June 24th) will be included. Gentry is on top of processing reports pretty quickly when they come in now so there are probably events posted as official since the cutoff date that will not be in this update.

Mid-Nationals and both Worlds will be in the Sept. update.

Any results that are posted online as "official" within a few days of the cutoff date (this time June 24th) have been processed by the PDGA office and will likely be included in the next ratings update.



So does this mean that my DGLO rounds will be included???

No tournaments that started on or after the cutoff date will be included.

:mad:

Any idea why the Minnesota Majestic results are still unofficial?

Steve, isn't it sad to think that your DGLO rounds will not be double weighted?

So with the new ratings, will the only rounds that are dropped be ones that fall below the 2.5 standard deviation principle? If this is the case, it seems foolish as a consistant player may get no rounds dropped from his/her rating.

Results that are unofficial pretty much means the TD hasn't turned in the report. Gentry is turning them around making them official pretty quickly now.

The SD is calculated for each player. Even consistent players will have the estimated 1 in 50 rounds drop out that's 2.5 times below their SD. With the new system, almost every player's rounds will be used.

I would by no means say that I'm an extremely consistant player, however, When calculating my 2.5 SD, I found only one round out of apprx. 35 to be dropped once the ratings come out.

The SD is calculated for each player. Even consistent players will have the estimated 1 in 50 rounds drop out that's 2.5 times below their SD. With the new system, almost every player's rounds will be used.



How does that make any scence??? So your telling me Boobs 890 round this year and my 860 round will be used in our ratings??? Thats the most rediculous thing I have ever heard. Looks like if Im really shanking during a round I should just DNF so that it doesnt hurt my rating. That is what this new feature is going to create. More DNFs because people dont want the bad rounds to affect their rating.

I cant wait to see how this new system works out.

I was also thinking this would cause people to not finish, or even worse, purposefully play terrible to get the round dropped.
I'm not sure about you guys, but perhaps the worst people to play with are the ones that have given up on thier score vocalizing thier displeasure the whole round.

I say bring it on. I hope more players learn the only way to make sure a round isn't included is to DNF. Wouldn't you rather have them DNF rather than have players who have given up tank a round in your group so it's in the bottom 15% in the old system? Players who DNF are there for fewer rounds and will always be playing in divisions at or higher than their skills so sandbagging isn't a problem. Players worried more about their rating than the joy of playing and competing have their priorities askew.

I hope i go up 16pts....Make it happen...

I hope I go up at least 13 points...would be no problem if everything was in, but now its just a matter of what made the cut off!

I was also thinking this would cause people to not finish, or even worse, purposefully play terrible to get the round dropped.
I'm not sure about you guys, but perhaps the worst people to play with are the ones that have given up on thier score vocalizing thier displeasure the whole round.


I totally agree because if you know that you are not in the cash and dont care about the PDGA Points then you will just stop trying if your round is not going good to prevent it from being included(speaking of the last round).

How is the 2.5 Standard Deviation figured or how many points is it +/- for a person with a rating of 874.

Since the 2.5 SD is calculated for each person, you don't really know what the number of points will be because it's based on all rounds in the next update including the one you're trying to manipulate to get dropped. Better to play better or DNF than try to figure it out.

ok thank you for atleast some information I have never DNFed or Tanked a round and will continue to finish each round.

Chuck,

Can you tell me why the High Plains Challenge (1st weekend in June) is not "Official" yet? Not that I really want my all my scores from that tourney but just wondering.

On another unrelated note. Ratings are really just another way to brag about our disc golf prowess. Yes, they are a way to measure one player against another but they are not perfect. I'm proud that my rating has gone up overall and that it shows improvement but people tanking rounds or quitting just to "protect their rating" is rediculous in my eyes. I play disc golf for fun and even when things aren't going as well as I wish they were during a trouney, I'm not going to walk out on my group or try to play worse. That's just crazy! :confused:

Play golf, have fun, hope the rating goes up and thank your TD for putting on the event!

-Max

I'm not the one to ask why an event isn't official. The TD should be contacted first, then Dave Gentry. We only process official results so that's all I see.

I dont't think my 890 round will be used it's too low based on my rating is it not?

[/QUOTE]
How does that make any scence??? So your telling me Boobs 890 round this year and my 860 round will be used in our ratings??? Thats the most rediculous thing I have ever heard. Looks like if Im really shanking during a round I should just DNF so that it doesnt hurt my rating. That is what this new feature is going to create. More DNFs because people dont want the bad rounds to affect their rating.


[/QUOTE]

So what! You shot it....that's what you get. We've been spoiled for years with the lowest 15% excluded method. What difference does it make if your buddy has a higher rating but never finishes a tournament.

It doesnt really matter anyway because I doubt that it will be included anyway and im positive it wont be doubled so whatever. I could care less. Im going to finish where I finish whether my rating is 880 or 990 so whatever I just think that the rating system is getting more and more confusing every day.

That's a better attitude....It's just a number.

advanced here i come... again

Since the 2.5 SD is calculated for each person, you don't really know what the number of points will be because it's based on all rounds in the next update including the one you're trying to manipulate to get dropped. Better to play better or DNF than try to figure it out.



Chuck, does this look right?

I found a website that calculates Standard Deviation.

Mean = 948

Standard Deviation = 27.7


So it looks like 890 and below would be dropped for me. Which means no rounds will be dropped.

2.5 times 27.7 = 69.25
948 - 69.25 = 878.75
Rounds under 879 or so would be dropped.
Remember that the numbers you see are rounded off for display. The actual numbers are retained in the data files and sometimes you'll see a round dropped or not dropped that's within a point of the cut line you calculate due to using rounded numbers.

I re-did it using excel...and it seems that no rounds will be dropped but my player rating will...7 points to 952.

can you do mine Dirty? :D:D

mine to please, I'll give you 3 smileys and a cool.

I did mine because I know the ratings for the 2 rounds being included in the new update...You have a lot of unofficial rounds to factor...I bet you are one of the few whose ratings go up though.

I won the Lakefront open in TN, but did chitty at DGLO (23rd of 78) so they will prolly equal out. I don't expect it to jump 6 pts to put me at 955 though, at least I hope not.

Not likely I averaged 972 at waco 956 at spring valley, 942 at KC, and 970 in DM. Now I was around 1000 in columbia and 980 at michiana but they won't be included so I doubt I will go up. :confused: :confused:

I take that back...your rating will drop.

mine or scooters?

Yes.

I dont see how mine should go down???

Most people's ratings will drop...Ask Chuck.

I don't understand this whole thing if my rating drops (sniffle sniffle) It would not make sense for my rating to drop when those 2 tournies get added on...then again, that's what 90% of the population is lacking, common sense.

Better see my post on the Amateur Points thread before saying that most people's ratings will drop. With the adjustment in the SSA factor (which hasn't been done yet in the online calculator), the net effect will overall be neutral with the new calcs.

I have a couple questions I need straightened out on my rating. First if you average out my rounds it comes out to 798.3 which should round to 798 but my rating displays as 800. (and I double weighted previous 8 rounds when I averaged) Additional fudge factor? What determines this?

I love math and of course I over-analyze my rating but I enjoy it so hey. Chuck I think you and team do a great job.

Looks like my new rating will take a nice 48 point jump to 848 give or take a few points and depending on what tournaments made it in. But hey I'm improving by leaps and bounds all the time!

Every one of your individual ratings is rounded for display. If you average these rounded numbers they will be within a few points either way of the the real numbers used in the database that are not rounded until after they are averaged to get your rating.

I just hope mine goes over 1000, should be close.

Ok, so this is a long thread and I don't have time to read it all. Exactly how is the new ratings going to be calculated? I knew how to do them before this next update. All rounds will be counted except the ones that don't fall within the 2.5std. But this will lower everyones player rating so is there going to be something else done to the rating to keep it close to where they are now?? I heard something awhile about about boosting the ssa of all the courses a little, if so by how much, and won't this make hoTT rounds even higher like a 1080 is now a 1100?? Also the last 8 rounds will be doubled. Just wondering so I know about where I will be sitting.

Will what is currently dropped stay dropped no matter what?

i looked in my crystal ball (sorry, i guess i should say disc) and see 1020's in your future. Not sure though if that's with the next update or the one after that :confused:

I really don't like the fact that ratings are based on what everyone else shoots that round.

The last PDGA I played, I shot a 52 during round 3 which was around a 930 rated round. It would have been higher, but 1 person that has an 870 rated round shot a 46 on the course.

Then that afternoon, the pros played the course during round 4. The conditions were actually easier for them if it was any different at all(we had some wind issues in the morning). A 52 in round 4 was rated a 950.

Just because someone has a hot round doesn't mean that the course is easier. I did not miss any birdie putt I was expecting to hit. When I was done with the round, I was figuring the round would have been around 950 or 960, but once I found out that 1 person with a 870 rating shot a 46, I knew that I would be lucky if the rating stayed above 925.


The only problem is....I don't have a solution for this.

The solution would be standardized par just like ball golf. But then your problem would be the fact that if it were really windy or there was snow on the ground it could greatly effect scores. Or the final solution just have ratings for pros and get rid of Am 2 making ams play either Am1 or Am3 with a bump rule in Am 3.

Chuck, Will rounds that were not included in your rating prior to this update become included now that its done by standard deviation or is the standard deviation just from here on out???

All rounds for the 12 months prior to the date of your most recent round included in the update are involved in the standard deviation calc, including those that might have been dropped when we dropped 15%. However, round ratings will be higher than what you saw online in the unofficial ratings because the adjustment factor isn't in that software yet.

So the standard deviation will include all the rounds played and then you will drop the one that need to be dropped then double the ones that need to be doubled to figure out the rating???

All I want to know is if Im going up or down.

yep.

So then ill prolly be going down???

Yep. You suck! :D

Oh well. Atleast when I go pro my rating will go up about 20 points for no reason other then im playing with the pros :D

I would say that you would prolly be going down since you have about 4 or 5 rounds that are in the 800's that will count that werent in the last update. But i dont know that ratings of your latest rounds or which ones will be tournaments will be included making up your last 8 rounds.

I'm not sure I understand why having a higher rating is a benefit. Personally, I'd rather be underrated and exceed expectations rather than have the pressure to deliver all the time and be a top seed. I've always disliked being the top seed in a division since winning is expected and it's a disappointment if you don't. Much better to sneak up from behind kind of like being on the second card in the last round and blowing by the players under more pressure and maybe choking on the top card.

I'm not sure I understand why having a higher rating is a benefit. Personally, I'd rather be underrated and exceed expectations rather than have the pressure to deliver all the time and be a top seed. I've always disliked being the top seed in a division since winning is expected and it's a disappointment if you don't. Much better to sneak up from behind kind of like being on the second card in the last round and blowing by the players under more pressure and maybe choking on the top card.



Id rather be underated and have Wire 2 Wire Victories :D

Depending on the standar deviation Ill only have 3 or 4 ratings in the 890s or so and A TON of crappy ratings from over a year ago are dropping off and i have to 3 rounds in my latest 8 that are 975 or better that will be doubled and none under 930 in the last 8. I would say im going to crack 950 but who knows. Too bad my 1010 from DGLO wont be in there :mad:

I'm not sure I understand why having a higher rating is a benefit.

Because there is a well known direct correlation between the size of your rating and the size of your :o? It is a bragging rights / pecking order thing. Young males of most mammalian species are consumed with pecking order. That's why ratings are such an awesome member benefit.

I will have to wait for the September update for my rating to make a jump up since worlds alone drags down my mean 23 points. With last years worlds in my rating it also causes my standard deviation to be very high at 113 when multiplied by 2.5.

A study at the 2004 Olympics showed that the male player wearing red versus blue won 60 percent of the close matches which is much higher than chance would predict. Something about red suppressing the testosterone in opponents of similar skill level. Perhaps that's Tiger's Sunday secret? Maybe we should publish all ratings above 999 in Red as an extra member benefit/incentive.

<font color="red"> 1037 Schultz Barry
1032 Rico Steve
1031 Climo Ken
1030 Lundmark Jesper
1028 Musick Bobby
</font>

(This looks like the new top 5 for this ratings update if our first draft holds up.)

Will Brian Skinner's 1100 round be included in his rating?

I don't know since I can't see the included round file yet from Roger.

Did I go up or down???

I almost want to go into the 960s because I have never been there before. :D:D

I hope I can meet you there but since DGLO isnt included im not sure its possible :D

If columbia and michiana were included I would possibly hit 980 but instead I am going down all because of a cutoff date. This is the inconsistancy I don't like in the new system because now those rounds won't be double weighted. :confused: :confused:

Is mine going over a 1000 :confused:

Tell me about it. This standard deviation is kinda whack too. I mean everyone has BAD rounds why include those in the rating. With the standard deviation im going to have three rounds under 900 in my rating when all my other rounds are around 930 and above. I also averaged 995 at DGLO with the unofficial ratings which means Ill prolly be closer to averaging a 1000 with the new calculations but they wont be double weighted because they made the cutoff day the same day DGLO started. I wish they would just drop the low 10 percent of rounds and do real time updates so that every time a round is reported it goes into your rating. If they cant do that then drop the low 10 percent and double weight the most recent 8 rounds. That would be alot better then this standar deviation stuff they are doing right now. I would bet that more ratings then not are going to go down with this new system.

I guess we will just have to wait 5 days and find out.

I still want Chuck to tell me if I went up or down.

I think they should double weight every round on the new update so that for example; your DGLO scores will still be double weighted but not until the next update. :D

I think that makes alot of scence especially with this standard deviation stuff. Double weight everything new that goes into your rating. Sounds like a good plan to me. If you play 15 rounds then 15 are double weight if you play 5 then 5 are.

Makes scence to me. The thing is if it makes scence to me the PDGA isnt usually doing it :D

MANPOWER :D

Subject to change.......

Maybe posted tonight :D
;)

maybe...

thats just mean Theo!!


unless they do get posted, in that case,
WTG!!

Subject to change.......

Maybe posted tonight :D
;)



ratings will never get posted on a Friday before events happen before the weekend. This has been posted before. If ratings were posted tonight that could cause a lot of problems if people had their ratings go up and thus needed to play in a different division.

Good news is that if Theo is ready to go with the update already that they should come out on time or potentially early.

Thx Theo and the rest of the ratings crew for getting things ready. Thanks to all the TD's that have submitted the reports already as well.

You both know that the "Theo" who just posted is NOT Theo Pozzy, right?

You both know that the "Theo" who just posted is NOT Theo Pozzy, right?



Doh!!
/msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

?? :confused: ??

Ill be in the chat room tonight to give out ratings as requested
/msgboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif :D

are those PDR's?

PDR's won't be changing their format, they are still the best and most accurate way of rating people . . . . . :D

Tell me about it. This standard deviation is kinda whack too. I mean everyone has BAD rounds why include those in the rating. With the standard deviation im going to have three rounds under 900 in my rating when all my other rounds are around 930 and above. I also averaged 995 at DGLO with the unofficial ratings which means Ill prolly be closer to averaging a 1000 with the new calculations but they wont be double weighted because they made the cutoff day the same day DGLO started. I wish they would just drop the low 10 percent of rounds and do real time updates so that every time a round is reported it goes into your rating. If they cant do that then drop the low 10 percent and double weight the most recent 8 rounds. That would be alot better then this standar deviation stuff they are doing right now. I would bet that more ratings then not are going to go down with this new system.

I guess we will just have to wait 5 days and find out.

I still want Chuck to tell me if I went up or down.



I like how you always say you don't like them including all rounds because everyone has bad rounds . . . if you are so worried about it DON'T SHOOT BAD ROUNDS!! If you do shoot bad rounds then why should you be rated as high as someone who DOESN'T shoot bad rounds. I thought the whole purpose of the rating system was to rate players compared to others, NOT giving someone the highest rating possible by dropping all their "bad" rounds! :p

Thank you Chris, I agree completely. Barry Schultz has 8 rounds over 1000 that were EXCLUDED. Are those BAD rounds? I don't think so. When Major Leagers go into a slump they don't get to eliminate those games to keep their averages high. Getting to eliminate any low rounds at all is like a bonus, not a rule.

is the DGLO going to be included in this update? I know this has been asked before but I forgot the answer. One of my friends played her first tournament there and was hoping for a rating. However it doesn't even show her as a PDGA member ( Connie Fierke #27637 ) so even if they do include that tournament we're not sure if she will get a rating.

I heard they are ready....Are we maybe seeing them at midnight this evening....Let us know.....

I just want to know if I went up or down. I hope I cracked the 950 barrier but from the sounds of things It looks like alot of people ratings will drop :mad:

We've reviewed them on the development server and it looks good. We knew the new calculations were correct when we saw that Mills had not gone over 950 (yet) :D

I suspect Theo will upload them by tonight if our other ratings group folks don't see any problems.

We've reviewed them on the development server and it looks good. We knew the new calculations were correct when we saw that Mills had not gone over 950 (yet)



Does that mean I will this time or that I am close??? What is that supposed to mean??? Did I go down??? The suspence is KILLING ME!!! Would you just tell me??? :mad::D

You went down to 912.

You went down to 912.



Even If I did Ill still be kicking your arse at every tournament for the rest of the year :D

Not if you play like you did in Ohio! :eek:

So ther is good chance they will be up by Midnight, that would be awesome :D

Everyone has bad rounds bro. On Top of playing bad I also made some bad decisions. What can you do. We shall see who is better this weekend at the Gale Vaughn Memorial :D

ORC AND MINDY....nice avatar...
HEYA NORGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!

I suspect Theo will upload them by tonight if our other ratings group folks don't see any problems.




Are you sure?

I will laugh if you are at 949 millz.

I bet you I am. Freakin tournament rolls and sub 900 rounds :mad: From now on I am playing smart on every shot and every rounds. My head mental game got me a couple of those sub 900 rounds :mad:

Ok, off topic but I can't help myself. HEYA NORGE!
My little Norsk jentas (http://www.imageuploads.net/ims/pic.php?u=4593YaPBo&i=42923)

Yes Steve. We shall see who comes to play at the GVM. I'll probably play better than you as the tournament may be named after some distant relative of mine.

My ratings guess 938


Representing my Norwegian heritage.

NORGE

great picture....Me and my brothers use to wear the traditionals every 17th may....Did you walk the parade in new york this year.

I will be playing SMART but aggressive on sunday and I will let my scores speak for themselves. It will be a tough one to win since Geoff Bennett will be there and he is rated 972 right now and will prolly rise to a 980 or better after this update. So Ill see you sunday :D

Frizz - No, I was not aware of any parade.

Bennett is good, but can be beaten. If he plays stoney like he did earlier this year, he'll be tough to beat. I'm not sure how Riverbends sets up for his game, or anyone elses game as I have not played it.

I think someone else will win this tournament.

Bennette is 3 for 3 at Flying Saucer Events this year. Im not drinking all week and I will be out there practicing Riverbends as much as possible this week. Im sure Bennette will be out there every day since he doesnt have a job so he will be tought to be but your right he can be beaten.

It should be a good tournament with good competition so whoever wins will have deserved to win because they played well.

Ill see you out there sunday.

every year in New york and surrounding cities there is a 17th of may parade....Lots of fun meeting people from all over the us that hold to Norsk heretige.

I missed the parade this year :(

Great Norwegian Website (http://www.sofn.com/home/index.jsp)

4 of my first 5 rounds that will no longer be including in my ratings are a 1041, 1051, 1061, and a 1010. I think I will be replacing them with a few 960's and 970's I hope I still stay over 1000 :mad:

Your rating, and PDR will both drop.

And the ratings will get posted @ _____________ O'clock this evening, Monday 18th 2005.....I hope....

Your rating, and PDR will both drop.



My PDR is a cool -04�

Ratings are up !

Sure KOZAK...Heeren what's my PDR?

There not up yet.

heh

i aint got all night ;)

8:45 Eastern???

And the ratings will get posted @ <font color="red"> 8 PM Pacific </font> this evening, Monday 18th 2005.....I hope....



-Theo

2 hours to go! :cool:

Im willing to bet my new rating is 949

You want to bet a Tsunami? :D I have no clue what my rating will be, I just hope I went up.

I'm going to take a wild guess and say my rating will jump to 1047

you guys could wait till 12 or you could just go to Chat.

Me and Heeren have them once again, thanks to being in the home state of world champs.

Ummm...We were already there and I can't believe how many points you lost under the new system.

I'm not a big fan of this new ratings system, I can't believe how many points I dropped now that they include all my 'poopy' rounds

It looks like they are up.
Ahead of schedule!
Great job - thanks!

Finally a Am2 rating I have been waiting 4 years for this and once worlds comes off I will make it up to 900.

Only dropped 4....better than expected.

819...... i went up 3 :D

984 :Dmy first rating ever!

Yes, new ratings updated to May 1st !?!?!?!?!?!?!?

I'm shocked that I went up!!!

and a new record for my highest round - 1030!

My new record is a 956.

Why no Kansas City Wide Open? or the Pickle Open? I know the pickle was a little late probably but KC?

I stayed the same even though I've played way better lately. :confused:

Yeah no KC or Des Moines, what in the world? these are the most innacurate ratings ever for me, I am really dissapointed, KC and DM should have been way under the cut line what happened guys? Explanation please. Well guess I'll have to wait till the next update for the 1000 mark. And it's July and I still have ratings from June from Last year. Oh well. Thanks for the well timed update, I just wish it was correct. Sorry if I sound mad. :confused:

Agreed.

"Any results that are posted online as "official" within a few days of the cutoff date (this time June 24th) have been processed by the PDGA office and will likely be included in the next ratings update. "

A quote from Chuck Kennedy, so why did this not happen?, a well explained answer please. Thank You.

You think that's bad? The MN Majestic from May of this year did not make the cut?? Explain that one!!

Oh also how come the 2004 Discraft Spring Open magically dissapeared from players ratings detail and actually boosted quite a few ratings?

Yeah, my first tournament, and the only one on a course I had played before, wasn't included either, and it was from may and posted before I had even played in my third tournament, which was included. That one tourney could get me up a little, although 850 is what I expected, due to the other tourneys I've played in prolly dragging me down a bit.

Chuck,
Step into my office
BECAUSE YOU'RE FIRED!!!

Chuck,
Step into my office
BECAUSE YOU'RE FIRED!!!



Hey, your rating went up. Did it not go up enough for ya?

Wow, I waited all that time to find out my rating stayed the same :(

Wow, I waited all that time to find out my rating stayed the same :(



Why weren't my rounds from over a year ago dropped? They are the reason I dropped instead of going up so I was just wondering WHY!!!!!!!!

Because you are a horrible golfer and should probably move down to Am2

Because you are a horrible golfer and should probably move down to Am2


Also Jack went down and we both have been doing well lately so I just can't see how we dropped. :confused: Maybe I will take your advice chris so that I can boost my rating. Open here I come,

i just moved up a week and a half ago matt...i won $185.trust me you are gonna regret moving up if you dont win worlds.

Check out the 2nd highest rated am player, he's played 1 round and then quit the tournament haha

:Dthats awesome!! but look at the highest!! i :Dm not am anymore, and i haven't even been playing golf for a year.

Great Shooting Jared. You have really been tearin it up lately. Good luck in open.

:Dthats awesome!! but look at the highest!! i :Dm not am anymore, and i haven't even been playing golf for a year.


If they would've dropped those old rounds I would be up there with you. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

ya no doubt matt...actually you would probably be higher. i remember rusty tellin me how incredible you were haha

ya no doubt matt...actually you would probably be higher. i remember rusty tellin me how incredible you were haha



Yeah that's me MR incredible :p :p

Hmmm, mine didn't get updated at all. Does anybody know if they included the Spring Valley Open or Waco Charity Ams in the update? If no then it is all explainable.

How in the heck were the Minnesota Majestic rounds not counted???

How in the heck were the Minnesota Majestic rounds not counted???



That's embarrassing. Looks like they won't be an A Tier next year.

A Tier standard =
Complete TD Report received by the PDGA office within two weeks of event completion

bummer!! my highest round was not included and no rounds dropped!! why was the conroe bang-n-chains not included ? the scores were posted over 3 weeks ago!! that sucks!! what is the new criteria for which rounds are included!! And why does the ratings criteria change so often??

why was the conroe bang-n-chains not included ? the scores were posted 3 weeks ago!! that sucks!!



Efrain...the cut-off date for tournaments to be included was June 24th. The Bang 'n Chains was played on the 25th.

As for the Waco Am, which was played 2 weeks prior to the cut-off? Hmmm...

Looks like Ill have to wait untill the next update to crack 950 and hopefully by then Ill be making the just past 960 :D

Matt,

There are not any ratings/events in your current Ratings Detail that should not be there (i.e. over a year old).

If you look at your LAST (most recent) included round, it is from May 8th of 2005. Therefore, going back one year, all of the June 2004 tournaments would be within the 1 year time frame.

Do not fret, young grasshopper; you will get there soon enough.

How come there are no droped rounds on my rating detail.

That's bull ****!!!!!!!

Spring Valley should have been up on this rating detail as well.

WHOA! I went up 20 points!!!

I'm not that good!!

Great Job Nix :D

Now move up BAGGER :o:D

sweet.....New rating for JULY 18...updated thtrough MAY 28?....How about at leat the end of may being involved...and mayby the beginning of JUNE.
Should have just finished them late.....

Only seven points maybe next update when the july tournament for this year are added and the july tournaments from last year are dropped.

we all know that this RATING SYSTEM IS BULLSHIIT!! but the PDGA as to keep busy some how..

May 3rd is my last update, and i have played 4 tournaments since then.

These player ratings are a joke.

Why can't some one come up with a computer program that automaticaly updates these ratings when the numbers are turned in?

2 to 3 month delay is not showing what anybodies current rating is. :mad:

Dont blame the PDGA blame the TD if they didnt get the report in before the deadline of June 24.

Two of your tournaments haven't had the tournament report turned in yet because there are only two tournaments official.

WHOA! I went up 20 points!!!

I'm not that good!!



sure you are!! :D

Why can't some one come up with a computer program that automaticaly updates these ratings when the numbers are turned in?



Better question, why can't TD's turn in official results to the PDGA faster? The PDGA staff can only process what is turned into them.

maybe the pdga could come up with electronic tournament reports for the TDs to send them.

My only gripe- Inconsistencies in the ratings formulas over the past 2 yrs. If you look at your ratings history it shows ratings based on different formulas- The formula should have stayed the same, or they should go back and re-rate everyone's past ratings.

Aside from that, I appreciate all the hard work the volunteers do.

Better question, why can't TD's turn in official results to the PDGA faster? The PDGA staff can only process what is turned into them.



It doesnt matter if they get them in or not. A 2 month lag on ratings is rediculous. Not that I care what my rating is anyway because it has no affect on how I play or if I win or not but seriously If we are going to have ratings then why not update them atleast once a month if not twice a month. I mean it would be less numbers to crunch and I would think it would be easier to handle then a chit load of tournaments at one time.

Why we still go back 12 months is also beyond me. The PGA only uses your 20 most recent rounds. If that happens to be back to 12 months then whatever but most people who have a handicap (rating for disc golfers) and care what it is play more then 20 rounds in 12 months. They prolly play 20 rounds in one month so if they are getting better they can see their progress as it happens because as one round is added 1 round is dropped which also makes including all rounds a little bit easier to handle because they cycle out so fast. I know that in 2 months I prolly play anywhere from 16-32 tournament rounds so really im not going to see improvement at all because there are still rounds from 12 months ago in my ratings that have nothing to do with how I am playing at this point in time. All the rounds that are included from more then 2 months ago just mess up the ratings and could really either make you look better then you are or in my case make you look worse then you really are. Its really nice to have ratings and everything but when they dont reflect how good or bad a player really is then they are essentially useless. If they only used recent rounds and updated faster that would get rid of the SANDBAGGING that everyone is complaining about. This way all the good players would play in Advanced untill they decided to move up and the actually lesser players could safely play in their divisions untill they were bumped up.

Thanks for having the ratings posted early though. That was really nice for a change :D

Have all ratings been updated already? I see my latest tourney added, but my rating didn't seem to update.

I'm starting to wonder if the KC Wide Open is going to count towards our ratings...it looks as though it did not...(at least not yet).

.

Why can't some one come up with a computer program that automaticaly updates these ratings when the numbers are turned in?

:mad:



Did someone ring? If anyone would like to see a different system then get with me and we will see what is feasable. As I see it alot of golfers are binded to the PDGA because of ratings. I would like to make a different rating system that applies to all local and sanctioned events. It will not be associated with the PDGA but will involve all. PDGA member or not. Please pm me or send email to [email protected]

Already exists, check out the Innova site for the link. In addition, the PDGA provides calculators by which local organizers can calculate PDGA style ratings for non-members (I've been using it for 3 or more years now).

I think the idea is to talk about providing it for the PDGA. Why don't you help with that?

Not sure if that is the direction I want to take. No one can give me a good reason to promote this org other than, jump on the band wagon. Sooooooo I am targeting something completely different and in the end maybe the PDGA will buy my services or come asking for help. Either way my goal is to broaden the options available so that the monopoly is not the sole sorce for all DG needs. :D

I don't think I have ever seen ratings drop or rise so dramatic. I saw some people jump about 40 points and others drop about 40. These guys are people who don't play that many tournaments so this doubling of the last 8 rounds has a lot to do with it. These kinds of changes can't be accurate. I think that their needs to be a minimum number of rounds to have a rating. If a player plays two tournaments a year he shouldn't get a rating. I have seen golfers play in their first tournament and because they had one good round, they go from no rating to 930. Trust me when I tell you that these guys aren't ready for the advanced yet. These types of things need to be ironed out before we tell a golfer who has been playing for two months that he has to play advanced because he had one good round in his first tournament.

On another note, thank you PDGA for having the ratings out earlier then expected. You guys do a great job.

How would you like your ratings calculated as soon as YOU put your round in? Sound good to anyone? ;)

anything would have to be better than the LAME current ratings structure that is in place

Sounds good to me.

What can I do to help?

anything would have to be better than the LAME current ratings structure that is in place



Some lame ratings are due to lame putting...

Some lame ratings are due to lame putting...

sad thing is this LAME putter still KICKS YOUR [I'm a potty-mouth!]

I am on it!!!!!!!!! I have recieved alot of input from alot of people and I think this is what will do the trick. I will be putting it together and hope to have it up by Christmas. I would like to incorporate different veiws as well as charts and graphs to your level of play. Oh, boy! I think this is going to make certain peoples hairs stand up! :D:D:D

I would just greatly appreciate if Chuck Kennendy would address the questions I asked earlier about the deadline of tournaments that should have been included in the ratings and the dropping of year old ratings that didn't happen because of the first problem. I asked last night and he hasn't said anything about it, I hope they are fixing the problem, I think they were too concerned about getting the ratings out early and just made a mistake :confused:
can we have some answers please, Chuck, Theo.....?

I would just greatly appreciate if Chuck Kennendy would address the questions I asked earlier about the deadline of tournaments that should have been included in the ratings and the dropping of year old ratings that didn't happen because of the first problem. I asked last night and he hasn't said anything about it, I hope they are fixing the problem, I think they were too concerned about getting the ratings out early and just made a mistake :confused:
can we have some answers please, Chuck, Theo.....?



x2 :)

When you get tired of the circle send me an email. [email protected]

:D

I'd like to know why only two of 4 rounds are rated from some tournaments. I talked to the TD personally and was assured the scores were well in advance of the deadline and correct. Not to meantion the two round that werent rated are the two highest rated rounds that I shot in the tournament. Not that it will matter with the current ratings formula because high rated rounds increase your SD which will in effect include more lower rated rounds causing your rating to drop which only increases the SD for net time as you improve in effect again increasing the SD and potentially including even more lower rated rounds. Little hard to believe I shot one round 15 points below my rating and 3 since 2 were not calculated that were 30+ points higher then my rating and I actually dropped 1 rating point! If your goal is to promote and perpetuate sandbagging then congrats you and succeeded!

editted typo's and the tournament in questio was the Rocket City Blast

Watch out advanced playas, I am back in purgatory!

Dropped d5 points... Would stayed somewhat the same or went up if the Points Bonanza were in the report... oh wells....

Dropped d5 points... Would stayed somewhat the same or went up if the Points Bonanza were in the report... oh wells....



Or if they did the ratings in a logical way :D

There is nothing you can do B. ;)

"Any results that are posted online as "official" within a few days of the cutoff date (this time June 24th) have been processed by the PDGA office and will likely be included in the next ratings update. "

A quote from Chuck Kennedy, so why did this not happen?, a well explained answer please. Thank You.



Chuck appears to be offline today (probably trying to avoid all the typical questions after a ratings update!), so I'll try to answer this and address some of the other concerns on this thread.

TD reports are processed by the PDGA office, where they use a program I wrote to scan in the Excel files and put them into the master PDGA database (we call it "PDB"). As the ratings deadline approaches, they typically try to get in a "batch" (often 40 to 50 events) right before the deadline, which was June 24th this update. That data is made available to Roger Smith, who prepares it for the second step of the process, which is course assignment. The course assignments are then done (this time by Chuck Kennedy and John K). That data then goes back to Roger who crunches the ratings. Then I get Roger's data and prepare it for pdga.com and upload it for review. Once the data looks ok, we publish it so you can see it.

By the way, one thing that can cause delays, or specific rounds or divisions not to be included, is missing or erroneous layout information. As much as we try to make it easy to provide the info, and as much as we emphasize how important it is to provide it, we still have problems with some of the reports. Sometimes the TD provides the office with the info when the contact them, other times they don't respond (or not in time for the pending ratings update).

So the ratings committee, including Chuck and Roger, have no control over what events are included. And the office processes all the TD reports they have. So any events that weren't received by June 24th weren't included. There has been an update since then, so the event may show as having "Official" results now, even thought they weren't available on the 24th of June. And yes, some large events, like KCWO and Des Moines, didn't make it. We had the same issue with the Beaver State Fling (an NT event). I think what happens (no, I know - as I've been part of the team for multiple A-tier and NT events) is that the burned-out TDs and their staff have a hard time getting motivated to spend time finishing the financial report and other details in the TD report, so it doesn't get sent in until a few weeks later. It would be nice if every TD had the report finished and sent in before they went to bed on Sunday night, but that's not the reality of the situation, and given how important the volunteer TDs are to the organization, we have to be very delicate in how much pressure we put on them.

As for those proposing an alternative system to the PDGA ratings system - have fun. This system took us a few years to prototype, test, develop, fine-tune and then launch. It tooks many hundreds of hours of time from dedicated software engineering and mathematics experts. It's a large undertaking, and a major data management challenge. And yes, we do listen to input from others, and we try to answer questions when we can.

-Theo Pozzy
PDGA Commissioner
PDGA Ratings Committee
Pdga.com Webmaster

If you spent so much time developing the "ratings system" why does it change so often? This time it is probably the furthest from being accurate. Not dropping CURRENT bad rounds is a good idea, but factoring only your most recent 30 or so would be the most "real time" as it could get.

However, I do appreciate the time the volunteers give.

If you spent so much time developing the "ratings system" why does it change so often? This time it is probably the furthest from being accurate. Not dropping CURRENT bad rounds is a good idea, but factoring only your most recent 30 or so would be the most "real time" as it could get.

However, I do appreciate the time the volunteers give.



You have no data or analysis to back up your statements. First of all, how many times has the ratings formula since it was launched?

The new formulas are mathematically more accurate than the previous ones. The previous formulas skewed the ratings - it favored less consistent players. The new formula gets rid of that imbalance.

-Theo

Theo,
I don't understand how I can win a B tier and get in the top 20 % at an A-Tier and my rating go down??? Those were the only 2 tournies added to my stuff this update.

I just looked, and they didnt even add the DGLO into the ratings and I still dropped. My only tourney added in was Lakefront open and my round ratings were:
Round 1 973
RD 2 967
RD 3 976
RD 4 1004
I was at 949 before the update. Tell me how 4 rounds well above my rating can drop me 8 pts? :confused:

Cam...How many of those sub-900 ratings didn't count before yesterday? I bet there is your answer.

I figured I would go up a couple of points even without Waco or Conroe, but the inclusion of all but 1 of my sub-900 rounds meant I stayed the same.

How do they determine what rounds count or not?

I think the rating system is deadly accurate. But why are all of my rounds counted now????? None of them have been dropped from my scores???

How do they determine what rounds count or not?



Some kind of standard deviation equation, so basically more of your crappy rounds count now. They have to be extra crappy for them to be excluded. I think this makes your rating overall more accurate.

Thank You Theo, well that makes a lot more sense. Keep up the good work guys, I guess after all it was the TDs fault that those tournamnets weren't included and the new system is definitely more accurate, but I think only players with only 20 rounds should have a rating or somesort of a minimum amount.

I'm on the road for one month now to play and help at both Worlds so don't look for many posts here. I just handled or forwarded over 50 emails in the past day. When I get the time, I'll try to post a summary of the new process and reasons for the tweaks. It may be easier to ask me at Worlds than get answers here for a while. As Theo points out, the core calculations haven't changed. Some of the procedures changed more as a customer service than due to mathematics.

The original system only used propagators with ratings of 900 plus ratings. Customer service "forced" us to use ratings down to 800 or many players would get few rounds rated and we may go lower. Stats experts would prefer 30 propagators but we were forced to go down to just 5 so players in low PDGA member areas could get ratings. We can't use static SSAs because the PDGA and TDs couldn't keep track of all the different course configs reliably for reporting properly so we've used the dynamic SSA. We've now double weighted the 8 current rounds so players feel like their performance is more current.

The only reason the original 15% of rounds was dropped was the reporting was mostly manual in the beginning with few TDs using Excel. We created incentives to use the Excel report and now event reporting is much better, more automated and more accurate. There's much more confidence in the numbers so we can use almost all of them. The high SSA factor was eventually tweaked because the initial value was off a little bit because we had little event data on courses in 1998. Winthrop at par 66+ plus other courses came along after that so we could eventually get enough data to adjust it properly.

The core system has been solid from the beginning with virtually all of the changes due to player demand not due to better math.

Seems this is the MOST FAIR of ALL Ratings since the inception of the whole thing. :D

It never made sense to me to drop the bad rounds that were below a certain percentage. These give more of a true average of ACTUAL play.

Its obvious that ALOT of peoples ratings went down because of this fact /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif Mine included :o

I wonder if SoCal Ams is a SuperTour this year ;) :p

My rating went down also (from 918 to 914 - I can play Intermediate again!), but I'm not complaining. Excluding the bottom 15% was a nice but unjustified bonus. I knew I played badly in those rounds, and now I'm going to be more determined that even to try to be more consistent.

If there's anyone out there that can show us mathematically that the new formula is less accurate or statistically valid than the old one, we will be happy to consider your case. But be ready to back it up with data, analysis, analytical arguments, etc., not just an emotional reaction or your perception of what's "right". We've done our homework...

-Theo

You are going to get some players that only complain about the rating system when their rating doesn't go up. When it does go up, then everything is fair and accurate.

I believe it was Henry Kissenger that said, "There are lies, there are D a m n lies and then there are statistics" ....take your rating at that; a statistic and use it, like Theo says, to fuel the 1115 round within you!

You are going to get some players that only complain about the rating system when their rating doesn't go up. When it does go up, then everything is fair and accurate.



I've been playing the best golf I've ever played and my rating went down... I'd say its not very accurate for me.

If you spent so much time developing the "ratings system" why does it change so often? This time it is probably the furthest from being accurate. Not dropping CURRENT bad rounds is a good idea, but factoring only your most recent 30 or so would be the most "real time" as it could get.

However, I do appreciate the time the volunteers give.



You have no data or analysis to back up your statements. First of all, how many times has the ratings formula since it was launched?

The new formulas are mathematically more accurate than the previous ones. The previous formulas skewed the ratings - it favored less consistent players. The new formula gets rid of that imbalance.

-Theo



Theo,
I have been in contact with Chuck since way before the ratings were launched.
I felt there were several key factors that would prohibit it from being accurate, mostly having to do with slope rating of the course played.

He has often explained that over time things would work themsleves out. Obviuosly this hasnt happened yet.
I have often stated a ranking would much better serve the disc golf cummnunity in terms of competition than the rating.
The BCS spends a whole lot of money to figure out college football rankings but they cant seem to get it right either, So I hardly expect ours to be precise given no one is even paid to do it!

Chuck,
I want to let you know I was just joking about the step into my office thing.
I know the ratings need to have all TD's report in a timely matter for this thing to work, unfortunatley this will never happen.

Spearheading the ratings will always be a thankless job where someone is always upset.
My rating actually went back up some, even though I havent played that well since earlier this year.

It seems so simple to add all players scores and get and average.Then add all but the bottom 20% percent of the players ratings and get an average. I gues you could actually drop the top 10% and bottom 10 % which could help.
The average rating and average score should be the starting point with a minus or plus 10 for each stroke.
I could see a SMALL deviation for the per stroke points in regards to the average score, but I dont think it is really necessary.

This is so simple and quite accurate, We have used this formula on sevarl events and it seems more consistant across the board.

Can you explain to me why you would need any other numbers?

You are going to get some players that only complain about the rating system when their rating doesn't go up. When it does go up, then everything is fair and accurate.



I've been playing the best golf I've ever played and my rating went down... I'd say its not very accurate for me.



Slight correction... It went down 1 point. IE, 0.1 throws per round. And probably due to the bad rounds being counted (except those 2 really bad 850 rounds).


Cam -- rounds lower than 2.5SD (2.5 times the standard deviation) are dropped. Check with a math guy on how to calculate SD.

For players who think they may have an event where their ratings seemed off please try this formula.
Add all players scores and get an average.Then add all but the bottom 20% percent of the players ratings and get an average. I guess you could actually drop the top 10% and bottom 10 % of the ratings which could help but feel all scores should be kept in the euquation.

The average rating and average score should be the starting point with a minus or plus 10 for each stroke.
I could see a SMALL deviation for an average of 54 or an average of 72, but I'm not sure whaich way it should be altered. Players scores seem to be closer to each other as the par goes up, as long as the holes are true par 4's and not a bunch of 3.5's.

Have you ever tried to explain something really simple to an engineer?
I believe this is whats happening with the ratings.

It doesnt mean the new system is wrong...It means that the old one was flawed. Everyone boosted before because it was player friendly. Now it is closer to statisticly accurate. I am upset i didnt go up either. what r u gonna do.
Besides, i never thought anyone was a good golfer until i saw them play.

Slight correction... It went down 1 point. IE, 0.1 throws per round. And probably due to the bad rounds being counted (except those 2 really bad 850 rounds).



Yeah thats what I said. " IT WENT DOWN ". I'm a better player than I was when the last ratings came out. I had a 2nd place in an A tier and a B tier added that I played at a 967 average thru the 8 rounds including a 1013 rated round. The 2 bad rounds dont really matter because I also had some really bad rounds that were over a year old that got dropped. Its inaccurate... at least for me.

You are going to get some players that only complain about the rating system when their rating doesn't go up. When it does go up, then everything is fair and accurate.



I've been playing the best golf I've ever played and my rating went down... I'd say its not very accurate for me.



On a statistical basis, dropping 2.5SD below the average is still helping you(players) a great deal. Especially considering that anything beyond 3 SD are considered outliers, and true statistical research drops figures out side 3SD both above and below the mean.

So technically Chuck and the ratings committee are generous to not throw out 3SD below and kept it at 2.5SD, and they are not throwing out anything above your average. But this is because, while it is possible to shoot well below your ability, it is impossible to shoot better then you can play. Sure my rating went down, but that does not make me a worse player. When I start my next mini tour my rating will go back up again, hopefully significantly. I liked my prior 30 and 48 point jumps in past updates. :D

Saying the rating is "Inaccurate" because "It Went Down" is leading to the idea you dropped 10's of points, not one.

Plus those low 900 and 800 rounds that now count do have some weight. Capturing those in the ratings does lead to better accuracy in determining a players past performance (which is, all ratings are really designed to do -- if they were to determine future performance, we'd never have actual tournaments, they'd take place on paper).

If we were striving for total accuracy, Kris' idea of dropping rounds 2.5SD ABOVE would also need to be used. Then, whining would really kick in.

I like the idea of having world rankings for each division.

I think that this would be the best way to rate players.

Just for the reason if you don't play in these NT tournaments where there are 20 players with 1000+ rating it is extremely hard to get a 1000 rated round, but when I do play in NT events an average round in up close to or over the 1000 mark.

When there is only one player from texas with a 1000 rating it is much harder for us Texans to have a good rating than it is for touring pros. :(

maybe it would be useful to have 2 ratings. regular and last 6 months only. this might give an idea of who is playing above their average. my current rating is 923, but if you average just the first 6 months of 2005 it is 938 or so i think.

maybe it would be useful to have 2 ratings. regular and last 6 months only. this might give an idea of who is playing above their average. my current rating is 923, but if you average just the first 6 months of 2005 it is 938 or so i think.



This is the type of ratings change I agree with. A dynamic rating based on recent play and a static rating based on a year or so. Theo- ya heard? :cool:

I agree with what you are saying and disagree about all the whining about ratings being inaccurate. They have gotten more accurate when comparing to actual player performance

BUT...this set of ratings is inaccurate when compared to old ratings. An old rating of say 958 is worse than new rating of 957 for the obvious reasons that you stated.

I consider the perceived inaccuracies of this last round of ratings a correction hiccup. Going forward, when comparing ratings to this round of ratings, things will be much more accurate than before.

What maybe should be done is that all old ratings should be recomputed using the new ratings method. That way the little bar graph shown players' "Ratings History" will be more relevant. BUT....that would probably spawn another rash of complaints since lots of people would see their old ratings having gone down without them ever doing anything to deserve it! :confused:

Bottom line, people do not like change - even change for the better. I'm confused as to why people can't see past the immediate effects of change to see the long term benefits.

Kris I am sure some science uses 3SD but in the case of this formula the value of the SD used is probably wrong. I know your supporting the method and thats good, I just think it still yet needs teaks and will explain why. I just know its not accurate for me. I personally have steadily improved and have never ever shot a round past 1.96SD personally and yet my rating went down even though I averaged shooting 30+ points better then my rating in all of my recent rounds. That in and of itself says the ratings system is incorrect. Its obviously not dynamic enough to accuartely show a players rating. The point of ratings systems are to baseline and track players against each other. The comments of "Give it time to work" dont hold because you want a system that shows a players improvement fast but prevents low rated rounds from dragging you back down at the same speed to prevent sandbagging. By weighting recent rounds and maybe only those higher then your rating and hold a tigher SD factor you can do that without screwing the system. The other fcator is round ratings are fluid. You have gators who may be shooting 80 rating points above their lagging average who will bring round ratings down. Which slows the whole process even more. The point is even if you are improving your rating isnt showing it and because of that you as a gator may be passing that on to the ratings for a round as well further delaying your climb to what you are actually shooting.

The method being used is fine as long as the SD is correctly used. What should have happened is a comparison of what every players SD is. Then use that data to determine what the average player across the spectrum deviates on a maximum and then set the SD based on that figure. Thats how its correctly used. I know in the case of science or more particular the studies I do know at work our SD factor is typically 1.5-2.0 Put simply if you try and use a cookie cutter formula that isnt derived from the actual data then its going to be wrong because its not going to correctly throw out the outliers. In my case my worst round also from the first two tournaments I played are 30+ points higher then 2.5SD and with the present method I will be shooting 1000 rated rounds before my rating will ever start to climb appreciatively and my current rating is 848. What that tells me is I can play as a rec player but shoot pro scores, now tell me does that sound like the system is working as intended?

I suspect that the SD should probably be somewhere around 1.5-2.0 just based off of my own scores. For me and the few people I used as test cases in my minianalysis I came up with around a 1.8SD factor which would drop my two lowest scores from my first two tourneys and would only raise my rating 15 or so points but it would be much closer to what I have been playing lately as I improve. Well I should closer much closer to the mean average of the rounds I have recently played. Its far better to have all players overrated then underrated. Underrated means people and easily bag, overrated means they got to play well.

If they did analyze and come up with this 2.5 factor from the real data then I guess I should be happy that there are people out there that are half again more inconsistant then I am but I still view the formula as weighted in the wrong direction if thats the case. Hell look at ball golf or bowling or many other sports that have handicaps. When comparing you to a pro in their handicap systems they only give you roughly 80% of the difference and its up to you to shoot the difference. Thats to even par in ball golf and 200 in bowling and the pro shoot much better then that often.

My biggest gripe isnt that I have been playing better then my rating and it went down its that the system supports and perpetuates easier bagging. The larger that SD factor is the easier it is to tank one round ever not and again and remain lower rated then you play. I have no desire to do that but you can bet your favorite disc there are those people out there.

Anyway tighten the SD factor so that some percentage of all players have their worst rounds dropped, I would lean towards the point in the averages that have more rounds being dropped then not and stick with it and I think everything will be fine. The formulas work the same for everyone and sure some people will climb some points but as I stated above, being overrated is better then under and keep in mind that its all relative so your not really being overrated so much as bring you faster to the group that you should be playing with in the first place.

Anyway I have said my peace on what I think needs to be done, feel free to cut it to pieces :) Like anything on these boards its opinion and really doesnt mean anything. Me personally I am going to continue to work my game and improve. I just wont be using the current PDGA rating to track my game as it doesnt actually show that I am improving when I am. And in truth as long as play within the division that my rating is in or a divsion above if I feel I am there then I guess it all amounts to jack anyway :) Take care all, peace love and aces!

maybe it would be useful to have 2 ratings. regular and last 6 months only. this might give an idea of who is playing above their average. my current rating is 923, but if you average just the first 6 months of 2005 it is 938 or so i think.



This is the type of ratings change I agree with. A dynamic rating based on recent play and a static rating based on a year or so. Theo- ya heard? :cool:



Chuck has talked about doing something like this - a list of hot shot players who are playing well above their ratings. I think all of these ideas are recognised by the PDGA as good ideas, but it is a matter of man power to do all the things they would like to do.

The bottom line is that you cant accurately display someones skill level using the last 12 months of their scores. I think they need to update the ratings at the very least once a month and they should only include the most recent 30 rounds because that is an accurate (or as close to accurate as you can be) display of a persons ability at that point in time. If you use my last 30 rounds I averaged around and thats will ALL my rounds used but since the system goes back to 12 months I am rated a 946 which is WAY off what my actual level of skill is at this point in time.

I dont really have a problem with the ratings system persay or how they are calculated I just think they need to concentrate on the most recent rounds and update the ratings in real time if possible and if not then atleast once a month so that the SANDBAGGING doesnt go on for as long as it does now. Sandbagging is only a real problem in Rec and Intermediate. Who cares about advanced. There are only about 10 really good advanced players in the country and they dont even win every single event. Plus they are as high as they can possibly go without going pro which we all know you cant force someone to do.

So if the PDGA is really listening. Hear this. Standard deviation is hurting the quickly improving players because they have a higher standard deviation because of all the higher rated rounds that they are shooting. This in turn makes it so that when they play a bad round it is also kept in their ratings because the standard deviation is so great due to the fact that they are vastly improving and shooting higher and higher rated rounds. In turn the standard deviation helps the high rated super pros that play very consistantly because their standard is so low that its nearly impossible to drop in ratings because if they play a semi bad round it will not count toward their rating because they play so consistantly.

That being said I would also like to see the ratings updated once a month and if at all possible in real time.

Thats just my 2 cents.

In the mean time I will continue to consult on and help out with an alternative to the PDGA ratings system.

United Disc Golf :D

maybe it would be useful to have 2 ratings. regular and last 6 months only. this might give an idea of who is playing above their average. my current rating is 923, but if you average just the first 6 months of 2005 it is 938 or so i think.



This is the type of ratings change I agree with. A dynamic rating based on recent play and a static rating based on a year or so. Theo- ya heard? :cool:



Chuck has talked about doing something like this - a list of hot shot players who are playing well above their ratings. I think all of these ideas are recognised by the PDGA as good ideas, but it is a matter of man power to do all the things they would like to do.


It would take the same amount of man power to create a dynamic rating...ADD A SCRIPT THAT FACTORS ONLY THE MOST RECENT ROUNDS...Let the computers do the work, and let the humans play /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Keep up the input as I plan on incorporating everyones ideas into a THE system that everyone wants to see. We will have ours going very soon.