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.



Is that a promise?

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.



So you are advocating rewarding inconsitency and punishing those players that are consistent? Brilliant! :confused:

One of the points of this new ratings approach was to get the priorities in order on this front.

Oh....I get it. It is all about you, a quickly improving player. How dense of me - when DG_Pimples is talking it is all about DG_Pimples...

I think DG_Pimp and 25322 are on the same lines with different deliveries.

Standard deviation is fine. But where did they (Chuck) come up with 2.5? Is that a figure they pulled out of a hat or is that the average SD of PDGA players. If an average SD of all players was used, which isn't difficult to figure out with Stat software, then it would be a fair yard stick of how to decide what rounds get dropped and what does not. 25322 suggested that based on his small research that a SD of 1.8 to 2.0 was more accurate. Granted this was a small sample and there could be players out there vastly more inconsistent then his sample.

As far as SD hurting consistent people, that was a very uniformed comment. A consistent player would have a very low SD, something around 1.0 to 1.5. So all their rounds would fall into the cut and would never be affected since their bad rounds would not be so bad as to cause their rating to fall.

Lowering the SD would help the inconsistent players more, I imagine that most of us would call ourselves inconsistent because a majority of PDGA membership is in the Amateur ranks, if we were consistent we would likely be professional. A lower SD would also help the ratings of up and coming players. For example I am shooting more then 100 points better then I was a year ago! But those rounds that are 100 points or more lower then what I am at now get added into the calculations.

Keeping a more accurate track of what players are shooting right now, in the case of up and coming Am's helps prevent sand bagging problems. Granted, by virtue of the system there is technically no sand baggers in MA1 but with the cap on MA2 there is the potential of players playing well above their rating to play in that divison. For example my rating is 910 after this update. For this spring I have been averaging 940 golf if you take out my one sub 900 round. So it would not be fair if I played MA2. Ratings should be set up so that players like me are kept out of MA2, I am also for a hard cap on MA1 as well.

So you are advocating rewarding inconsitency and punishing those players that are consistent? Brilliant!

One of the points of this new ratings approach was to get the priorities in order on this front.

Oh....I get it. It is all about you, a quickly improving player. How dense of me - when DG_Pimples is talking it is all about DG_Pimples...



Are you a complete [I'm a potty-mouth!]??? Im inconsistant because 90 percent of my rounds this year way above my rating and I had 3 crap ones. Im consistantly improving. I dont shoot 1020 rounds followed by 860 rounds all the time. I am consistantly shooting well above my rating which in turn makes my standard deviation much much higher then someone who has hit a platuea. Therefore someone low rounds from over 6 months ago are inlcuded in my ratings becaues my standard deviation is so high which in turn holds my rating back. I dont know about you but if I go to a tournament and im playing against someone who is playing at a 960 level thats what I want their rating to display. The ratings are in place to prevent SANDBAGGING. Not to help it along the way. You need to take your head or of your arse and get away from the I hate DiscPimp mentality that you have and really take a look at what this system has done and how it has no made it harder for players that are already good to go down and harder for players that at improving to go up. This system make work if you only used your last 30 rounds or so because then the standard deviation would change at a more rapid rate but as long as you are taking rounds from 12 months ago all you are doing is making the ratings lag behind even more then they were before. If you cant see that then you are either ignorant or just plain blind.

I also love how this comes from a person who has played as many rounds in the last 2 years as I had put into my rating in the last update.

I agree with Steve...Ratings should prevent sandbaggers and the current deviation process is making it easier for a person to play beneath their level. The current ratings system simply is not working the way it should.

I would like to see the bottom half of all ratings dropped.

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:



We debated this quite a bit, and decided to avoid the extra complaints and leave the ratings as-is for players that hadn't played any rounds in 2005. In the long run (a year from now or so), most of the issues related to the transition will be gone.

-Theo

We debated this quite a bit, and decided to avoid the extra complaints and leave the ratings as-is for players that hadn't played any rounds in 2005. In the long run (a year from now or so), most of the issues related to the transition will be gone.



I hate to break it to you but we need something thats going to work NOW!!! This standard deviation is KILLING players like myself who are rapidly improving and shooting higher and higher rated rounds. This makes our standard deviation so high that we almost have to play opposite handed to get a rounds dropped. Maybe if we used the new ratings system and only counted the last 30 rounds it would be better because then my standard deviation would be more on track with how I am playing rather then being held back and inflated by all the rounds from last year that are rated alot less then the rounds I am shooting this year.

It will also give the top rated players an inflated rating if they ever start to have a bad streak because their deviation is so low that they really dont have to have that bad of a round for it to be dropped therefore creating an inflated rating even though they are playing poorly.

Do you see where I am coming from. All the problems with the ratings would go away if they were either real time updated or updates atleast monthly.

We are working on that Pimp. Put your energy into something that is going to get somewhere.

I know I know. Its just kind of funny to watch grown men resort to name calling when they know they are wrong and they dont want to admit it :eek: :D

Killing you exactly how? How are you hurt or benefited in any way by a higher or lower rating, especially considering that every disc golf babe out there is already taken? [And you're doing just fine with your non-disc golf babe.]

Do you get in to exclusive nightclubs by flashing your PDGA rating? Do you get to go to the front of the line at the grocery check out when your rating is over 950?

I can understand how an incorrectly calculated higher rating could be bad for a lower division player. What possible consequence is there if the inclusion of too many older rounds results in ratings drag for an advanced player?

But my poor, fragile ego is at issue here!!!

:D

We debated this quite a bit, and decided to avoid the extra complaints and leave the ratings as-is for players that hadn't played any rounds in 2005. In the long run (a year from now or so), most of the issues related to the transition will be gone.

-Theo



It seems the PDGA is content with temporary sandbagging at the expense of finally getting a consisten ratings system. By this statement, I doubt that the ratings system will be changed for at least a year.

Now it seems, the only thing to do is just play better golf and be honest about what division you SHOULD be in.

So I say we can break the knee caps of sandbaggers until the ratings are resolved next year. (just kidding).

I know I know. Its just kind of funny to watch grown men resort to name calling when they know they are wrong and they dont want to admit it :eek: :D

you mean like this?
Are you a complete [I'm a potty-mouth!]???

oh wait, you said "grown men"... nevermind

oh wait, you said "grown men"... nevermind



Exactly :D

Maybe I should have said OLD men because that is what I meant :D

If it is sandbagging that the PDGA is trying to fix then they would go to the flattest of flat payouts, or trophy only payouts. For the most part, this would solve sandbagging. Who wants to play for 10 years winning trophies only?

But what about the players that are "too good for advanced", but "not good enough for open?"......What would happen to them? They would probably disappear from competitive play forever, and WE(the disc golf community, not nec. the PDGA) don't want that.

I think that the ratings are there so we can see how well we can be compared to each other. So Barry is rated 40 points higher than me....SO F***ING what!!!!! Ironically, he does beat me by a few strokes each round.....and if every 10 points is 1 stroke.....then......maybe the ratings are closer to being correct than you think.

I know I know. Its just kind of funny to watch grown men resort to name calling when they know they are wrong and they dont want to admit it :eek: :D



Wrong in whose world?

And again I ask the question to both you (Pimp) and Grunion...What is your background in statistics and statistical analysis that will lead me to believe you can create a better rating system than the one that has been developed by the PDGA?

I hate to break it to you but we need something thats going to work NOW!!! This standard deviation is KILLING players like myself who are rapidly improving and shooting higher and higher rated rounds. This makes our standard deviation so high that we almost have to play opposite handed to get a rounds dropped. Maybe if we used the new ratings system and only counted the last 30 rounds it would be better because then my standard deviation would be more on track with how I am playing rather then being held back and inflated by all the rounds from last year that are rated alot less then the rounds I am shooting this year.



Hey Pimp - have you ever taken a statistics class? It has been 20 years since I studied statistics on my way to an Electrical Engineering degree so I am a little rusty, but you sound like you have no clue what a standard deviation even is.

Looking at your ratings history:
Your stdev for your last 1.5 months is 31.4
Your stdev for your last 30 rounds is 32.7
Your stdev for your last 12 months is 29.7

What this means is that about 2/3's of your rounds are within 31.4 (or 32.7 or 29.7) ratings points of your average.

Looking at Ken Climo's ratings history:
stdev for his last 1.5 months is 18.1
stdev for his last 30 rounds is 19.3
stdev for his last 12 months is 20.4

Looks like the top pros have a stdev of about 10 ratings points below yours. That is 1 throw per round. Edited to add: and that menas that you have to shoot around 2-3 throws per round more than a top pro would to have to get your respective rounds dropped (when using the 2.5stdev model).

Again, you are full of hot air when you claim you have to practically throw opposite handed to get a round dropped.

Please give up the bashing. You are making yourself look foolish and uneducated.

This minor correction in the ratings approach is a temporary glitch that will work out fine in the long run. Just give it 2-3 more ratings cycles and you will see.

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!


Hmmm.... That point sounds awfully familiar! :D

When I checked my ratings detail, it shows all my individual rounds are included. Why aren't my lowest 15% dropped? Has anything changed?

(Sorry if this has been discussed before. I have not kept up with this thread.)

Who cares if your precious rating goes down. Your rating doesn't win tournaments. The way you play wins tournaments. Forget about your rating and just go out there and play. Statistics are overrated anyway. You can get them to say whatever you want.

Well, I didn't get on and complain about anything. I am not concerned with how my rating shifts. I was merely asking a question on whether or not the system has changed.

So unless you can give me a clear answer to my simple question, I am not concerned with your opinions on the importance of ratings.

Well, I didn't get on and complain about anything. I am not concerned with how my rating shifts. I was merely asking a question on whether or not the system has changed.

So unless you can give me a clear answer to my simple question, I am not concerned with your opinions on the importance of ratings.



The formula has changed.

-Theo

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!



Great quote and it was by Mark Twain.

I thought it was by Samuel Clemens. ;)

I know I know. Its just kind of funny to watch grown men resort to name calling when they know they are wrong and they dont want to admit it :eek: :D



Wrong in whose world?

And again I ask the question to both you (Pimp) and Grunion...What is your background in statistics and statistical analysis that will lead me to believe you can create a better rating system than the one that has been developed by the PDGA?



I dont have time to lead you to believe anything Tbender. Either you are for it or skeptical but my debating days are over as I have bigger fish to fry.

I for one am skeptical too that you will have a meaningful ratings system soon. Not because of anything personal about you because I do not know you. You could be a statistics genius.

The problem is not with you, but with the chicken and egg effect of starting a ratings system: you need to both come up with a gold standard for player skill level ratings AND for course difficulty ratings. These are completely inter-related and it takes quite a while for anomalies caused by incorrect assumptions (this will happen if you are starting from scratch) that will happen to propogate through all the stats.

You shouldnt assume anything. Im not a statistics major or a genious by any means (We all know that Chuck is) but you guys will just have to wait and see what we come up with :D

In the mean time try not to assume anything :D

United Disc Golf

So when I try to have you sell me, like you want the PDGA to do for you, you won't answer?

Classic. Thanks for the info. Now I know you're a fraud.

I for one am skeptical too that you will have a meaningful ratings system soon. Not because of anything personal about you because I do not know you. You could be a statistics genius.

The problem is not with you, but with the chicken and egg effect of starting a ratings system: you need to both come up with a gold standard for player skill level ratings AND for course difficulty ratings. These are completely inter-related and it takes quite a while for anomalies caused by incorrect assumptions (this will happen if you are starting from scratch) that will happen to propogate through all the stats.



What I want to do is create something that is different and offer it back to the PDGA. Time will tell. I have alot to do but want to make one thing clear, we are doing this for disc golf.

I am not going to sell you anything from a different source like *** for the simple fact that it would be ethically wrong to do on this site.

If you are curious then keep checking www.**************.com (http://www.**************.com) for when we go live.

Go Daddy?

Yes sir! ;)

Thanks for the quote claification...so I guess Henry Kissenger stole it from Samuel.

Point is: Don't let ratings be a "self fulfilling prophecy".

Is it just me or do a lot of players put way too much emphasis on what their rating is? The ratings are what they are, which is not a good indication of what you will score or any particular round, but a reasonable estimate of what you will average for a large number of rounds.

Is the rating system perfect, no.
Could it be improved, yes.
Will it be improved, most likely.
Would more accurate ratings really change the sport, most unlikely.

If the ratings were perfect then we could have ratings based tournaments where all you had to do was email in you entry fee, then the TD could just mail winnings to those with the best ratings.

If the ratings were perfect then we could have ratings based tournaments where all you had to do was email in you entry fee, then the TD could just mail winnings to those with the best ratings.




Great statement! :D

If the ratings were perfect then we could have ratings based tournaments where all you had to do was email in you entry fee, then the TD could just mail winnings to those with the best ratings.




Great statement! :D

Sounds like a greta idea as long as I don't turn pro. :D:D

Obviously some of you have never played a tourney that was ratings based(gold,silver,and bronze).This would be how one could take advantage of a low rating.
I feel like my rating is low,but when i joined the PDGA i wasn't even a rec player for a month who then jumped into tourneys right away,so now that i play better i feel my rating is a little off.

It does matter to some people,for those of you whom it does not concern,why i ask are you in this thread???Do i need to make a thread for you!
Here's a start "People who could care less about ratings but still want to pay the PDGA for some reason"!

Most people pay dues to the PDGA for statistical reasons and some are doing it to support,sorry i had to explain that to some of you!

IMHO :p

Obviously some of you have never played a tourney that was ratings based(gold,silver,and bronze).This would be how one could take advantage of a low rating.
I feel like my rating is low,but when i joined the PDGA i wasn't even a rec player for a month who then jumped into tourneys right away,so now that i play better i feel my rating is a little off.

It does matter to some people,for those of you whom it does not concern,why i ask are you in this thread???Do i need to make a thread for you!
Here's a start "People who could care less about ratings but still want to pay the PDGA for some reason"!

Most people pay dues to the PDGA for statistical reasons and some are doing it to support,sorry i had to explain that to some of you!

IMHO :p




<<<<<<<<<<<--- Just played Mid nationals (and won) :o:o

SO...whats the cutoff for the next update? I just helped send a report in late last night...will it be up soon? (The unofficial ratings anyways?)

Also, are the results for the Blown Glass Open in Emporia, KS in yet? How about AM Worlds?

The only person who can answer questions about event reports is Dave Gentry who needs to be emailed at the PDGA office. He doesn't respond here. He set the cutoff for receiving event results as Tuesday, Sept 6th for the next ratings update.

are the ratings going to be calculated the same this time?

are the ratings going to be calculated the same this time?



Who knows. All I know is that I will have a TON of rounds that are way above my ratings getting added so hopefully this time I will break the 950 barrier and maybe even get close to 960 :D

Pimp should be happy with this one. It's not totally confirmed yet with our committee but we're looking at double weighting the most recent quarter (25%) of your rounds in the prior 12 months instead of exactly 8. Players with lots of rounds will end up with more round ratings doubled. For example, if you have 48 rounds in the last 12 months, your most recent 12 rounds will be double weighted. Roughly, what this will do is double weight rounds for everyone's most recent 3 months of play.

The other tweak which won't be obvious is a slight change to a factor in the formula we think will narrow if not eliminate the difference in SSAs generated by lower versus higher rated players on the same course.

Will the dropped rounds stay the same using the 2 SD formula?

The 2.5SD drop plan is sticking around. It means about 1 in 50 of player's rounds will be dropped.

Another item being discussed has to do with DNFs. It's possible that next year we'll do something about players who DNF too many times to avoid getting a round rated. What that might be is unclear. Personally I don't see it as a problem but some on the committee think it's not right.

I know of a player in the state of New York who DNFs from most tournaments he plays in. However, I'm not convinced he does that to avoid getting rounds rated. How will you distinguish people who DNF for whatever reason from people that DNF specifically to avoid getting a round rated? How will you know? (unless the player publicly states "I'm taking a DNF because I'm having a crappy round and don't want it rated?)

Thanks for the info Chuck.

Did you end up playing in Kalamazoo?

As someone who hasn't ever DNF'd in my 16 years along with many others I know, I'd say that anyone who has 3 DNFs in the last 12 months might be singled out for further scrutiny. Things such as projecting a round score from partial results have been discussed along with perhaps just simply indicating the number of DNFs in the past 12 months in parentheses after someone's rating if it's at least 3.

What about a -10 point ratings deduction for not playing in an event in a year. Inactivity = ratings drop.

Did you end up playing in Kalamazoo?



Apparently you missed my posts in the Kalamazoo thread of the Course topic.

What about a -10 point ratings deduction for not playing in an event in a year. Inactivity = ratings drop.



No ratings will change due to inactivity. However, we have discussed the possibility of suppressing players from being displayed on ratings ranking lists if their rating is older than a certain amount, probably 12 months.

Pimp should be happy with this one. It's not totally confirmed yet with our committee but we're looking at double weighting the most recent quarter (25%) of your rounds in the prior 12 months instead of exactly 8.



Sounds like I actually voiced a decent idea for once. :D:D

Like they have an option. Its been a heated subject for quite a while. They know when to step it up. :D

Sounds like I actually voiced a decent idea for once.



That was my IDEA!!! :mad:

Good ideas have many fathers and poor ones are orphans...

Wow - are you guys serious?

What difference does it make if your rating goes up or down? Do you NOT go to every event in the hopes of shooting your best golf and hoping that you came out on top? Do you really quit events simply because you're worried about a freaking rating? Do you run at your last putt of an event you are leading by 2 just because you want the rating to be higher and instead lose the event because the putt rolled away? Do you pay for the PDGA and 'support' it simply because of the numbers are generated after your events? Do you constantly come on the PDGA board and complain about trivial things even though you never lift a finger in terms of volunteering?

I believe if you answer YES to any of these questions - you need to find a new hobby/sport to TAKE from. I don't post much but when I do, it's because people on threads like this really frustrate me.

Instead of me writing anymore of my original thoughts, I thought I would just COPY and PASTE parts of previous posts that really drive this subject home.

"You are going to get some players that only complain about the rating system when their rating doesn't go up."

"Spearheading the ratings will always be a thankless job where someone is always upset."

"Do you get in to exclusive nightclubs by flashing your PDGA rating? Do you get to go to the front of the line at the grocery check out when your rating is over 950?"

"Now it seems, the only thing to do is just play better golf and be honest about what division you SHOULD be in. "

"So Barry is rated 40 points higher than me....SO F***ING what!!!!!"

"And again I ask the question to both you (Pimp) and Grunion...What is your background in statistics and statistical analysis that will lead me to believe you can create a better rating system than the one that has been developed by the PDGA? "

"Please give up the bashing. You are making yourself look foolish and uneducated."

"Is it just me or do a lot of players put way too much emphasis on what their rating is? The ratings are what they are, which is not a good indication of what you will score or any particular round, but a reasonable estimate of what you will average for a large number of rounds.

Is the rating system perfect, no.
Could it be improved, yes.
Will it be improved, most likely.
Would more accurate ratings really change the sport, most unlikely.

If the ratings were perfect then we could have ratings based tournaments where all you had to do was email in you entry fee, then the TD could just mail winnings to those with the best ratings."

Well, Some people actually set goals, and Ratings are a really good benchmark. Of course a bad rating won't make you play any different, but you want it to be a fairly accurate portayal of how you are playing. Most of the people you see complaining about them are Ams, and they are the most inaccurate for us due to the lag.

Maybe if you payed a little more attention to your rating, you might be able to get out of the 980's you've been stuck in for 2 years and start playing some real Pro golf. :eek:

Again - WOW!

I won't get into a pi$$ing match with anyone on this board because I tried to swear that off years ago.

HOWEVER - I am too busy PROMOTING disc golf as a full time career instead of playing the game. I have 3 sanctioned wins this year at the B, B, and D tier levels - do you think at ANY point I gave a crap about my rating? No - I played golf and I happen to come out on top. Personally, I don't care if my rating is 800 or 1100, I am out to play golf (when time allows) and VOLUNTEER my time (instead of sitting on a web-board complaining).

Again - WOW!
won't get into a pi$$ing match with anyone on this board because I tried to swear that off years ago.

HOWEVER - I am too busy PROMOTING disc golf as a full time career instead of playing the game. I have 3 sanctioned wins this year at the B, B, and D tier levels - do you think at ANY point I gave a crap about my rating? No - I played golf and I happen to come out on top. Personally, I don't care if my rating is 800 or 1100, I am out to play golf (when time allows) and VOLUNTEER my time (instead of sitting on a web-board complaining).


I don't even have a rating, myself, but I find it interesting that someone has put the time in to develop one for everybody. Sort of like seeing the solution to an interesting math puzzle being worked out.

It's no mystery to me that some people look at their ratings to see how they're playing. It's similar to trying to improve your average score at a course. Those who try to improve their scores are likewise trying to improve their ratings. Right?

Post deleted by Big_DG_Pimpin

They say rating are supposed to tell you what level of play you are at. As of right now they DONT DO THAT!!! So people complain about it.



Let's do a little experiment here. Here is a graph of your past performance as of the last ratings update. On the verticle bar are the number of occurances of rounds you shot in each 5 ratings point increment you see on the horizontal bar. 860-864, 865-869, 870-874, etc....

http://www.charlottedgc.com/images/pimpstats.jpg

I am willing to bet my lunch money that this will predict your next tournament performance exactly.
If you shoot average, you will shoot 5-7 strokes per round above the course SSA. (60% chance of this happening)
If you shoot poorly, you will shoot 8-10 strokes above the course SSA. (20% chance of this happening).
If you shoot well, you will shoot 2-4 strokes above the course SSA. (20% chance of this happening).

If you tell which course(s) and layouts you will be using and how many rounds at each, I will tell you what score you will shoot.

If I win this bet, I will be gracious and not take your lunch money. But...you will have to quit your whining and complaining about how inaccurate the ratings are.

I think Steve and my way of promoting the sport are the same.....Play a ton of tournaments, lead by example, and spread the game via word of mouth. The sport needs more people like us.

We are all doing our part as there are many roles to fill.

These ratings are going to be more accurate than the last ones. :D

Let's do a little experiment here. Here is a graph of your past performance as of the last ratings update.



Funny thing is the last ratings update didnt include ALL THE ROUNDS I SHOT before they were updated so the data you are using to do your calculations is INACCURATE!!!

You dont even understand what I am getting at. The ratings may be accurate for the data they use but they dont ever use all the data that is available and they dont update enough times a year for your rating to display how you are performing at that exact point in time.

Those figures you are using may be correct for my performance prior to June 12th but they have NOTHING to do with how I am playing now.

What dont you understand about that???

Well, I guess Steve and Zach have really showed me. I mean without you guys this sport would be in shambles right? You guys actually introduce people to the game and show them how to play? Thank you, thank you, thank you. I mean how do you dare fit all of that hard work and volunteering and promoting into your precious schedule? Heck, I figured that besides all that work you do and all of that playing that you do that the rest of your time would be used for eating, drinking, and complaining about how the PDGA and others don't do ENOUGH to suit your needs! A case in point would be a classic Steve quote, "I hate to break it to you but we need something thats going to work NOW!!!"

I see it like this: People are told they are allowed to have an opinions, they get on this board to complain about EVERYTHING, someone then points out a few legitimate details like how tough it would be to implement a change along with other pros and cons, they get defensive and they run scurry off to complain about the volunteering that is going on. If you are so worried about your ratings Steve you should do one of two things:

1) Play better golf consistantly
2) Use some of your hundreds of hours at work on your PC and come up with a better ratings system which the PDGA would adapt if it was truly 'better'.

You talk about how you only have time to work and play golf - you poor soul. Too bad you don't have more time to find productive things to do and to make the PDGA move forward instead of complaing about how bad it is.

After talking with Tom of BasketHead I was almost ready to give you another chance and a fresh new look at your mentality but I don't need to because you prove yourself over and over on this board.

Sounds like he's willing to wager that you'll shoot between the numbers despite any time lag in the ratings data. Is there a bet of some sort going to happen here? Or do you want to wait until after the Sept update?

chuck, i downloaded the excel spreadsheet for calcing unofficial ratings in local play... it is password protected! could you tell us the password or provide an unlocked version?

thanks

never mind! i'm a dork.

Steve, Chuck is correct. I understand that all your rounds were not used AND that you have played well since the last data points. And.....I am willing to make a bet that your scores will fall within the ranges I outlined.

Bottom line (as I have showed you before), cut the numbers up any way you like and your ratings will not vary by more than 10-20 points. That is 1-2 strokes per round. How much more accurate do you want to get? Can you shoot round-on-round more consistently than that?

True, ratings can not predict if you will have a good, stellar, poor or average round. If they could do that, then why would you ever compete?
But.....they can associate a score to "good", "average", "lousy", or "stellar" that matches your personal skill level.

So.....will you take me up on my bet??? If I loose the bet, I will mail you a beautiful De LaVeaga stamped tiedye Buzzzz (in lieu of my lunch money).

Post deleted by Big_DG_Pimpin

Jeez Terry,

Get off your high horse already! Obviously someone who has "960 Rated player but the PDGA says 946" in his signature doesn't care about his rating. Neither does the guy who says "Four strokes better than the PDGA says I am." In fact, I bet Millz doesn't even care what you think of him, even though he will probably start another "What Do You Guys Think of the DiscPimp" poll next week.

Seriously Terry, you really need to stop hating the playa' and start hating the game. And for Pete's sake, you really need to stop promoting the game so that you can dedicate all of your free time to improving that crappy 986 rating of yours. Maybe if you are lucky, someone will teach to throw more than 330 feet and then you can start bragging on this board about how far you can throw.

I'm OUT!

/msgboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif :mad::cool::) :( :o:D:confused: /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif :eek: :D ;) :p

How about this? I will make my bet for the USADGC. And, for the record, I hope you win it and score well enough to prove me and the ratings system wrong (I'm sure I would like you as a person, but I hate your unfounded and misdirected whining about ratings). :eek:

From what I wrote earlier, and assuming the same course and setup and format is used this year as last (SSA = 56, 3 rounds - if not, we can adjust it to actual format and SSA's), here is the bet:

If you shoot average, you will shoot 5-7 strokes per round above the course SSA. (60% chance of this happening).
Your total score at the USADGC will be 183-189

If you shoot poorly, you will shoot 8-10 strokes above the course SSA. (20% chance of this happening).
Your total score at USADGC will be 192-198

If you shoot well, you will shoot 2-4 strokes above the course SSA. (20% chance of this happening).
174-180

If you match last years top 5 scores (171-173) you will win the bet. All you have to do is improve by a little over 4 strokes per round from what you did last year (187) and you win.

I have more than enough info on here to consider this a thread I am done with.

Steve - If you truly mean that you are appreciative of the efforts of volunteers make - I will say from my end that you are welcome. I don't volunteer because I want a pat on the back instead I do it because I love the sport.

I don't expect EVERYONE to volunteer to the level that another other person does - what I ask is that people are rational and logical when speaking to said volunteers. Yelling, complaining, and getting worked up over stuff isn't exactly the best way to thank a volunteer. Remember - you're not doing it so you can only expect SO much out of others that are.

And lastly - I did NOT CONTACT your sponsor. I simply met him while I was marshaling at Am Worlds. He's a nice and unique guy and he told me, "Steve is great off the message board so take it at that." So that is exactly what I tried to do but every post of yours seems to be bashing or complaining the current work of the PDGA. As a TD, a State Coordinator, and the 2007 Am Worlds Td - I take offense to some of those things. That's why I feel compelled to post on here occasionally - to stick up for the volunteers that are abused.

My only remaining concern is that I hope someone doesn't take all data that is generated from the PDGA and then turn it into something that is a separate entity. If you wish to use PDGA related data to create a PDGA related solution - please go for it. However, is it legit for someone to use all of the work of the TDs and PDGA volunteers to create a SEPARATE entity? That's just food for thought and I don't need a response about it.

As I said - I'm done with this thread and have no grudges or ill will. Instead, I'll just be content with the fact that Steve and I will agree to disagree.

Take care boys...

Those figures you are using may be correct for my performance prior to June 12th but they have NOTHING to do with how I am playing now.

What dont you understand about that???



How you are playing now?? Your last 3 rated rounds were 946, 926, and 914. GOOD POINT!! And NO excuses!

How you are playing now?? Your last 3 rated rounds were 946, 926, and 914. GOOD POINT!! And NO excuses!



Thats only three out of the 4 rounds that tournament. What was the first one??? 1005. Oh yeah you must have over looked that one because it didnt fit into your stab at me. During the 946 round I took 2 7s just so you know and the second day I didnt even care cuz I was already out of it. I did shoot those rounds though.

It also interesting how I play one good round and three crappy ones and still average above my rating. How does that happen??? :confused:

During the 946 round I took 2 7s just so you know and the second day I didnt even care cuz I was already out of it.


I said NO excuses.

Actually, after you gave your input, the PDGA now calculates ratings by doubling the latest 25% of your rounds. The average of 1005, 946, 926, 914x2 = 941.
That's below you current rating.... :p
:D

You forgot to include my first round though. Why did you leave that round out of it. Thats also how I played last tournament too isnt it??? Why did you leave it out???

Looks like at that tournament I still averaged better then my rating while playing like CRAP for three rounds. Holy smokes. How is that possible??? :confused:

Actually, after your gave your input, the PDGA now calculates ratings by doubling the latest 25% of you rounds. The average of 1005, 946, 926, 914x2 = 941.
That's below you current rating....



Actually when they do it they would use the 1st round as the latest so the 1005 would be doubled. (I know its whack but thats how it happens :eek:) So if you did it that way then it would be 959.2 :eek: Straight up though the math comes out to 947.75 so I averaged above my rating :eek:

Like I said, slice it up any way you like and you will be within 1-2 strokes of your calculated rating. Those ratings are one helluva accurate! :D

So, are you on for the bet. You stand to gain a sweet disc You stand to loose nothing other than the right to continue whining about how inaccurate the ratings are.

http://www.charlottedgc.com/images/buzzz.jpg

I will do it but dont want to do it for USADGC. I already have enough pressure for that tournament. I dont need any more added on. However I am playing our state finals next weekend and will be playing a few tournaments after Nationals that I would be willing to be on.

I dont throw dyed plastic but that BUZZZ sure would look great on my wall :D

This one? "The Finals - DMDGS and J-Bird Summer Slam"

SSA's at Mason County Park look like:
Beauty = 53
Beast = 55
Goliath = 58 (as of last years' MDGO. It looks like it might now be 67-69)

So you need to to better than 53+2 + 55+2 + 58+2 = 172 to win (assuming same setup and format are used). We'll check back after scores are posted and compute against tournament SSA.

I hope you win the Buzzz!

I believe that Advanced and Open will be Playing Beast Flip City Goliath this year. We shall see how I do.

Terry Miller talking about ratings and Disc Pimp braging about his 960 rated game. Now THIS is a good thread . . . . .

Sounds like I actually voiced a decent idea for once.



That was my IDEA!!! :mad:



I have a new Idea that will give a more consistant ratings system. Double weight all the new rounds coming into your update instead of your last 8 rounds. This way if you play 15 rounds in between updates they will all be double weighted instead of 7 being left out. If it stays like it is now people will have 1 good tournament and then stop playing until the next update so that it will be double weighted. If you use all the new rounds as double weighted you will get a better idea of how players are progressing. Let's say you play 12 rounds and your 1st four are great and the nedxt four are just as good. Why would you want to risk not having these double weighted by playing in another event?

Pimp-I agree with that. My rounds at DGLO will never be double waited because I will play more then 8 rounds before they get included in my rating. I agree that ALL new rounds should be doubled. But in all actuality ratings dont even matter. Move up when your ready to move up. I cant wait till the season is over and I can start playing with the big dogs

chuck-We'll first look and see what happens with double weighting 8 rounds. My inclination is that a better way might be to double weight your most recent 25% of your rounds but no less than maybe 6. This is close to Matt's suggestion. If you have 24 rounds in the last 12 months, your most recent 25% would be 6. If you're one of the more active players and have 48 in the past 12 months, your most recent 12 would be double weighted.


How about that Steve? :D:D

Double weighting only your "new" events doesn't work because some of your new events will be older than events that have already been rated. By using your most recent 25% by date, it double weights them in order going back by date and not when the TD happens to submit their reports.

How about that Steve?



I like the recent 25 percent because for me that means 18 round if you round up so ALL my rounds that show up for this new rating will be double weighted. The same will go for you and anyone who plays a full touring schedule :D:D

For once I have to agree with Chuck on this one and thank him for implementing something that I suggested even though he may have already thought about it :D

Several of these ideas have been percolating for several years but we had to take deliberate steps to confirm the fundamental process before making tweaks. There are some other things we'd like to do that are more sophisticated that are further down the road. The primary goal now is to confirm that the factor change we made has eliminated or reduced the higher SSA for higher average propagators. Once that has been pinned down, we hope players will have more confidence that they'll get a similar rating for shooting the same score playing the same course under similar conditions.

I'm rated 110000000 by terry miller........what do you think about that?

No,
But I bet you can get into some of the alternative bars in " Boys Town" :D:D

I think that the ratings system is a good idea, however I also think that the newer players put WAY too much stock in their ratings. The ratings system is a nice guideline to try and keep a tab on the different skill levels of disc golf, but the time that people spend worrying about ratings is absurd!!!!! I mean, you think that somehow your rating is gonna dictate your play or something, please!!!! You are only as good as your next round of golf. That is the beauty of the sport of golf in general, and mulling over some mathematical formula is NOT gonna help your golf game. I personally could care LESS about ratings. Because I know that on a good day I can keep up with anyone!!!! So it matters not if my rating is 983 and some other guys is 1025 or something like that. At the end of the day you still have to go out there and perform at your highest level, and your rating will NOT dictate that, only YOU will. Nuff said! :D

Nicely put Todd. You pretty much summed up everything I was thinking.

Brock - when did I say you had that high of a rating? You rank 8th on my speed dial list on my cell so I don't think your rating is as high as you might think!

Also - I'd can't dare take props for your sig file because it was in fact Bruce Brakel that wrote it and I simply quoted it in my highlight post. Please give proper credit where credit is due.

Personally I would still like to see more scores dropped so that ratings would be an average of your potential. I think 2.5SD is a bit to large of a gap, especially in a lower rated player. I'd like to see that drop to 1.5SD (though I would also like to see some numbers on how big of a gap that would be) I think your average 900 rated player should have a rating lower than about 860 or so kept on his ratings...to me that's obviously a really bad round. The 2.5SD probably works great for the top pros because that's only going to come out to about 20-25 points off probably, but in your mid level AM2 guys that 2.5sd will work out probably 60-70 points different.

Again, I would really like to see some numbers to see how much difference these would make.

2.5SD is roughly like this:

<table border="1"><tr><td> Rating</td><td>SD</td><td>Drop</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>1000</td><td>24</td><td>60</td><td>below rating
</td></tr><tr><td>900</td><td>32</td><td>80</td><td>below rating
</td></tr><tr><td>800</td><td>40</td><td>100</td><td>below rating
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

Even if your personal SD is more than 40, we're going to drop any rounds more than 100 below your rating.

in other words, you have to completely and totally shoot worse than your wildest nightmares to get a round dropped anymore. :D

Pretty much. But you'd be surprised how many have more than one round dropped that's not a DNF.

in other words, you have to completely and totally shoot worse than your wildest nightmares to get a round dropped anymore. :D



YUP!!! and sometimes that doesnt even get it dropped. I shot an 880 rated round and it was included. Thats 66 points below my rating. Thats close to the worst round I have played in my entire carreer. For all tournaments EVER!!! My second rating was 866 and that was back when I started in August of 2003 so you can Imagine how bad the round was and it still counted :eek:

Did I figure this right Chuck?
Rating 1004 SD 31.67 drop 80 below rating

If that's what your SD is, then that should be it.

chuck, what does DPH stand for? I've heard it thrown around in reference to ratings but have never heard it actually defined, was curious what it was. thanks

Here's the Ratings terminology. DPH is the difference in your score average per hole in comparison to scratch on that course. If you shoot 72 on a course with an SSA of 54, your DPH is 1.0=(72-54)/18

http://www.pdga.com/competition/ratings/RatingsTerms.pdf

2.5SD is roughly like this:

<table border="1"><tr><td> Rating</td><td>SD</td><td>Drop</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>1000</td><td>24</td><td>60</td><td>below rating
</td></tr><tr><td>900</td><td>32</td><td>80</td><td>below rating
</td></tr><tr><td>800</td><td>40</td><td>100</td><td>below rating
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

Even if your personal SD is more than 40, we're going to drop any rounds more than 100 below your rating.



Oh yeah, with those numbers I definately think the 2.5sd needs to be reconsidered. 1.5sd would put a 900 rated player into a spot where a 50 point drop wouldn't be counted.

I would still like to see the ratings be closer to ball golf that only counts the top half of your last 20 rounds but I know that will not happen anytime soon.

Read this document to see a comparison of ball golf handicapping and our rating system which explains why it makes sense to use almost all of your rounds in the calculation:

http://www.pdga.com/competition/ratings/USGAVSPR.pdf

cool, thanks chuck. that had some terms i had never heard of, either.

Hey I meant to ask before, now that you've tweaked the ratings calculations to help account for the "Pro field SSA/Am Field SSA" issues, do you think you will be releasing a new spreadsheet to help local TD's calculate course WCP and generate "local" player ratings with the change included? I'm not sure exactly how big the change you made was, but I'm sure if it would help give a more accurate portrayal of ratings that a lot of people would be appreciative of a new version :)

The new version is ready. Send PM with email addy if you want a copy faster than the PDGA will replace the current one for downloading.

how close is the rating that the new version yields to the final "official" rating that will appear on the pdga site after the next ratings update?

that is, if i put the results for an event into the new version, can i expect that the numbers it yields to be identical to the ratings on september 20?

All the file does is generate individual round ratings and doesn't know whether everyone with a rating over 799 is a propagator. Your official rating has double weighting and perhaps some rounds thrown out so it doesn't attempt to estimate your new rating. But the unofficial round ratings will be pretty close to the online system.

ok thanks. i understand it is just the round rating... thats all i was looking for. thanks again!

My apologies to our hard working PDGA staff who got our revised league ratings template available for download last Friday (but didn't let me know). This has the new calcs which boost the round ratings by about 8 points and should generate closer SSA values and ratings between groups of high rated players versus lower rated players:

www.pdga.com/competition/ratings/CalcWCPtemp4.xls (http://www.pdga.com/competition/ratings/CalcWCPtemp4.xls)

hey chuck , sorry to bother you,,, just want to know why the Hot-lanta event is not up... If they havnt sent in the numbers yet that what gives. That might be the biggest slacking i have seen. They had a huge payout and raised a lot of money, so i know they are not lazy. Maybe you guys misplaced them....Not accusing, just wondering.

I'm never the one to ask on that. I'm the last to know. Ask the TD or Dave at the PDGA office whether the report is there yet.

So, I finally have to agree (in short) with Chuck about how accurate the ratings are, so here goes the long version in how I disagree.

Shot 3 out of 4 rounds near my "current" rating, but......

1) Never played the courses before.
2) One course was very difficult even for locals, Mt. Airy.
3) Had not picked up a disc in a week, rounds 1 and 2 were at Mt. Airy.
4) Doinked a lot of putts (~50), rising my mental state to near extreme frustration level.

With all those factored in to the tournament, and realizing how upset I was at my performance, I went home and saw that these rounds were pretty much what I was rated.

So, if I play a course blind and play it terribily, then I am playing where my rating is at. Unfortuantely it will be my only rated tournament in this next update, so my rating will likely not change, and only get weighted heavier at the level it is at now. But at least I am over looked at tournaments because people are so heavily judged on their rating.

Looking forward to the next update.

Maybe I will play MA2 at my next tournament so I can be guarrenteed and easy win?

Remember that the PDGA Player Ratings only measure what you have done in PDGA tournament play. Some might figure it also translates to how well you play under all circumstances. We've never made that claim. Nor does it necessarily forecast what you'll shoot in any future round. Many players play better in non-tournament play due to less pressure and likely more familiar courses. That's why many feel they are better then their rating indicates. Heck, I feel I'm better than my rating indicates. But then again it's been that way for 7 years now :DIf I could just convert all of my 'made' practice putts into ones that were just 2 inches higher at Worlds, I coulda been a contenda...

It is not necessarily that I am "better" in unsanctioned play then PDGA tournaments. But I have been discribed as the streakest putter on the planet. Some days I will not miss inside 35ft, other days I cannot hit a 20 footer to save my butt. Those streaks will last days, if not weeks.

Thankfully my drives stay normal to where I feel I am at. On most holes under 450ft (without foilage/elevation/wind) I can give myself a legitimate duece opportunity. And I can hit routes on demand. So, yes, I am 4 strokes better then the PDGA says I am, specifically off the tee box and upshots. My putts are only sometimes better, or sometimes they are where the PDGA says they are.

While I have my gripes about my personal rating, I take it with a grain of salt. Because I know the level of play that I am at, and even other people know it. Just yesterday people here in the SN did not want to enter the advanced division because me and another guy were entered already. And if I moved down to MA2, they would all jump up and play MA1. That says more then any 3-4 digit number that is update 5 times a year.

Thanks Chuck,

PS.....Proud moment.

I was officially, for the first time called a bagger, on the SN boards by the one and only EOG. I feel so special. :D

I got started thinking. And when I get thinking, heads (most notably my own) explode.

Only scores outside of 2.5 times the standard deviation for a golfer get dropped. Now, these are only the values below 2.5 times the standard deviation. Now, here is where I grab my statistics book and start looking stuff up. The Z-value I discover, assuming a normal distribution, is 0.988. This value means that 98.8% of all rounds should be within 2.5 standard deviations.

But, then I realize my estimate is actually somewhat flawed. Since we are accepting all values above the current rating, we must instead take the Z-value of 2.5 and add it to .500. The .500 indicates that all values above the rating will be accepted.

After this, our z-value becomes .994 (.494 is the z-value for 2.5). If you are a steady golfer, you will either need to have your arm cut-off, or you will need to play 995 rounds before one is dropped. I remember reading why the PDGA wants to include rounds, but doesn't the 2.5 SDs pretty much ensure that no rounds will be dropped?

Again, remember, the normal distribution would assume that the golfer's ability is not changing significantly, but looking to what has already been posted, even golfers who are rapidly improving are seeing their rounds not dropped. I see this as a result of large standard deviation between their scores.

If your rating is important to you, I suggest you not play PDGA until you are at the top of your game. Otherwise, your rating may not accurately reflect your ability.

What you're missing is that rounds more than 12 months older than a person's most current round are dropped each time the ratings are updated. If a player is improving, on average lower rated rounds are being dropped each ratings update and in theory newer higher rated rounds are not only being added, but they are double weighted.

Yes, almost every round will now be included in a player's rating. The purpose of the 2.5SD is to exclude any rounds that are out of whack due to reasons that are not related to a player's skill such as penalties for arriving late, or giving up and making ace runs, or attempting to bag rounds to lower their rating.

Wouldnt dropping the low 10% of round be more affective at this because now all you have to do is figure out how low you can go and still have a round counted then attempt to shoot that bad so your rating decreases???

I think 90 out of 100 round would be a great description or how a person plays on a regular basis wouldnt you??? Sure if you keep 100% of a persons rounds it will be at average of what they have shot for the past year but I dont think it is a good indicator of your level of play at the time of the update. The new double weighting of 25% of your rounds will help out with this greatly I believe but I also think that the low 10% of your rounds should be dropped as well if we are trying to come up with a figure that accurately depicks (sp?) a players ablility at the time of the update.

And for all of you out there. I appreciate what Chuck and everyone does and im not complaining im just offering up suggestions on way to make the rating more accurate so please dont jump all over me.

Thanks

Personally I think the 2.5 *SD is quite a jump, I think 1.75-2 would be better mutilplier. That is just my opinion though.

From a practical standpoint, the change in the dropping percentage is insignificant for many PDGA members. About 1 out of 3 members has a rating based on fewer than 10 rounds. They will see no difference in how many rounds are dropped. If anything, a few of them might now have a round dropped using the 2.5SD. The average PDGA member has 15 rated rounds in 12 months. Two of those rounds used to be dropped. Now mostly none are. However, their most recent rounds are double weighted AND the new SSA formula boosts round ratings by about 8 points. A good percentage of members will have slightly higher ratings under this new process. Active players will get the benefit of the point boost and the 25% double weighting.

Overall, the change from 15% down to about 2% drops affected all PDGA ratings by about 8 points on average. So, changing to 10% would be of insignificant benefit in the scheme of things.

Yes, almost every round will now be included in a player's rating. The purpose of the 2.5SD is to exclude any rounds that are out of whack due to reasons that are not related to a player's skill such as penalties for arriving late, or giving up and making ace runs, or attempting to bag rounds to lower their rating.



Even ace runing in round 4 when you're in DFL will most likely still be kept in these calculations for everyone except the 980+rated guys. I'm at 879 and that means I have to shoot a round of lower than about 780...**** near impossible no matter how bad I'm playing! Even ace running in the rain I'll probably shoot an 820 rating.

Oopps...I knew I was forgetting something with the newer scheme. All rounds older than one year are dropped.

1.75 times SD would include 96% of all rounds.

To do Pimp's idea 1.28 times SD would include 90% of the rounds.

Remember that Standard deviation is related to a bell curve. The tails are flat so minor changes between 2-1.75 do not have large effects.

I think that 1.25 would be a fairly easy to remember and fair cutoff point. 89.4% of rounds would be included.

I don't even have a rating yet, so take my opinion as you will.

I don't even have a rating yet, so take my opinion as you will.



You can have my rating, I don't want it any more. It is useless to me. :D

You can have mine too :D

No one should worry about an 874 or lower rated player bagging their rating anyway since they're already in the Rec division. The cost of playing events and throwing rounds to bag your rating will likely be more than any rewards you might earn for winning prizes in a lower division and then having your rating bounce back up. There's no profit in bagging assuming you're even clever enough to figure out what you need to do in terms of scores to shoot.

if all ratings are raised by 8 points, how does it change anything?

if all ratings are raised by 8 points, how does it change anything?


We feel 8 points better about our games, and some poor 943 player will jump to 951 and think, "Hey, I'm over 950 so I should play Open Pro". That will "improve" the pro purse at the next couple of tourneys that guy plays. :)

Only round ratings are raised by about 8 points. That will roughly offset the ratings drop that was experienced by players who used to have 15% of their rounds dropped and now have all of them counted. The idea was to keep stable players at the same rating with the math changes but accelerate the rating increase for those hwo are getting better by double weighting their most recent rounds.

please explain how that reduces the rating disparity between a field of high rated players and a field of low rated players. reducing/eliminating that disparity was previously offered as the reason for the 8 point adjustment.

Nothing to do with it directly. The factor change in the formula has more to do with it. However, part of the high/low issue relates to time lag of ratings with more "under-rated" propagators with lower ratings than higher ratings. The double weighting helps address that. There were also more lower rated propagators who didn't have a full 15% of their rounds dropped, since we didn't start dropping until you had 10 rounds. That was another element that kept their ratings under-rated relative to higher rated players who had a higher percentage of rounds dropped on average. With everyone on the same 2.5SD drop scheme, now there's no difference between higher and lower rated players in terms of number of rounds dropped.

Chuck, are 9 hole rounds rateable?

No. See section 1.0: www.pdga.com/competition/ratings/USGAVSPR.pdf (http://www.pdga.com/competition/ratings/USGAVSPR.pdf)

Thank you.

Hi all and or Chuck????
Can anyone tell me how to calculate a player rating. I have looked everywhere trying to find out how. Thanks for any help that you can give. :confused:

These are the PDGA docs that will get you started. They need to be updated since we've made some tweaks this year but the fundamentals remain the same.

www.pdga.com/competition/ratings/index.php (http://www.pdga.com/competition/ratings/index.php)

These are the PDGA docs that will get you started. They need to be updated since we've made some tweaks this year but the fundamentals remain the same.

www.pdga.com/competition/ratings/index.php (http://www.pdga.com/competition/ratings/index.php)



That link also fails to mention the following things....

1. If you are playing in a pro only event, add 20 points to your round.
2. If someone kills it, deduct 20 points from your round.
3. If everyone shoots like crap, add 10 points to your round.
4. If you are playing a long or tough course, deduct 20 points from your round.

These are the PDGA docs that will get you started. They need to be updated since we've made some tweaks this year but the fundamentals remain the same.

www.pdga.com/competition/ratings/index.php (http://www.pdga.com/competition/ratings/index.php)



That link also fails to mention the following things....

1. If you are playing in a pro only event, add 20 points to your round.
2. If someone kills it, deduct 20 points from your round.
3. If everyone shoots like crap, add 10 points to your round.
4. If you are playing a long or tough course, deduct 20 points from your round.


you forgot one
5. if you are playing with MTL deduct 10 points from your round

6. If you have patience, disregard the previous five...


(remember, the ratings are better than disc golf /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif)

Hey Chuck,

Will Am Nationals be included in the new update?

No. Only event results actually sent in by Labor Day a few days ago. The events you now see with Official results online with NO round ratings yet, will be the new events that will get ratings this time. If an event online is listed as unofficial, it means the PDGA doesn't have the results and it won't be rated this time. I think Dave just posted that results for 33 events earlier this year are now more than 30 days overdue.

only 12 days til ratings are overdue!!! so its time to start guessing how you'll do with this update.

dont forget to factor the new formula, the doubling of your last eight rounds, lingering effects from Katrina, and the timing being so close to the full moon.

taking all of that into consideration, i am banking on an increase of between 3 and 10 points (923 to 930) and officially guessing a +4 to go to 924. (i'd guess higher, but the am worlds unofficial ratings were just plain too low to trust that they will get completely "corrected" using the new math)

I bet I go up 1 point.

I bet ill go up at least 5.

im hoping for the 980's or at least to tie my old rating of 978

You will definitely make it to 980+

hopefully but i averaged like a 930 and had my only sub 900 in one tourney thats included

The sub 900 won't get counted, and the rest of your tourneys were like 1000+ rated. You will be rated 981...GUARANTEED /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I just want to go up two to hit 975. :D

I'm looking to get into the 960s.

Over a 1000, I hope.

I'm looking to get into the 960s.


A 22+ jump with over 10 800+ rated rounds? That would be highly impressive! Good luck!

c'mon 4 digits!

Hey Chris, I have the ratings already :D

I do

In chat - like always.

Thanks to Jack Smalls for winning am worlds and keeping the pre-ratings ratings in NC for another year!!

Sorry Chris that Barry couldn't pull it out so ya'll could have this privledge, but Cali is loving it

965

I just want to go up two to hit 975. :D



Ok I rethought my summer ratings and it is probable that i will hit 980 I averaged like 980 this summer and I am dropping15 "old" rounds that averaged 937 so hopefully I can get 7 points at of that. :D

i should be at a 1000
mj

Just hope I don't drop back too far :o

I don't think i've played anything since the last update. :confused:

I'm hoping for a jump to around 900.

although I've been playing worse than did at the end of my am career, I expect my rating to go up simply b/c I'm playing pro now.

I don't think i've played anything since the last update. :confused:

I bet your rating changes though. :D:D Looks like it will be up to 990

I'm looking to get into the 960s.


A 22+ jump with over 10 800+ rated rounds? That would be highly impressive! Good luck!



Hey, its great you know what you are talking about. :oI've averaged 965 golf all year, including a recent tourney averagin 995+. Oh, and I have over 15 rounds averaging less than 910 getting dropped. :o

I'll be OK, thanks.

Im hoping to get into the high 960s.

Any body else have any predictions for their rating???

Only 7 more days till the next update :D

I'm thinking I'll go up 2 pts. :D

Im guessing 1024-1026ish.

FH remember that they double weight the last 8 rounds, so you will probably make it to 1030+

I think they are double weighting the most recent 25% of your rounds this time :eek:

Oh, in that case I'll go up 3 points :D

FH remember that they double weight the last 8 rounds, so you will probably make it to 1030+



Yeah but i had a couple stupid 1010 rounds before that...

I hate shooting < 1020 rounds :mad:

Thinking I'll drop to about 1000. If the Flying Pig makes it in time I might stay about 1004.

You should drop simply because you tied a mullet in an A-tier. :D

are they dropping bad rounds this time? whats the theorem? doubling most recent 25% or 8 rounds?

I think I'll jump to 960. hopefully...

Doubling most recent 25%. Dropping only those more than 2.5SD below your previous rating.

what does that 2.5SD mean?

I have a 950 rating now....

with only 1 890s round, I asume that one will drop plus maybe a 900s or 2?

That'd bump me up a point or so...

2.5 standard deviations (SD). It's based on the actual statistical spread of your individual round ratings. Depending on your SD, rounds from roughly 70-100 pts below your current rating will be dropped. On average, across all players, only 1 round in 50 will be dropped.

Doubling most recent 25%. Dropping only those more than 2.5SD below your previous rating .


thats a new twist

I still think the 2.5SD is too high. Heck I would need to shoot left handed to get one dropped because my scoring spread is high due to improving. :confused: :confused:

I agree with you on this one but lets just wait and see how this update goes and then we can decide if we like it or not :D

By previous rating, I mean you look at your current round ratings to do the calculations. SD drops for your new rating will be based on your new average.

lets try it this way this time and if it doesn't work out than we can try another new way next ratings and keep changing it every time ..these ratings mean so much. NOT!!!!!!!! /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Hey Chuck,

Are the Am Worlds ratings going to calculated with the new formula?

yes

Sweet, so the ratings will be roughly 8 pts. more than the unofficial ratings?

Pretty much anything that was posted since June or so should end up about 8 points higher.

plus, AM worlds should be officially calculated by division, which could help or hurt, depending on the division you were in

Well, lets see, I only played 4 rounds before the last ratings update, and 4 rounds before the one before. And these were the worst 8 rated rounds I had all year....

I am predicting a 10 point drop. :mad:

I am being optimistic that I will remain above the 900 level :(.

does that mean you are about to become FIVE strokes better than the PDGA says you are? :D

This could make about 300 instant ADV players.

i predict mine to go dowwwwwn.
who cares about a stupid number anyhow....

If the USADGC is included i am going to dive like a submarine :D

Doubles and Singles C tiers at Idlewild (http://www.cincinnatidiscgolf.com/forum/thread-view.asp?threadid=563&amp;start=1)

So Chuck what is the weekend cutoff for events included?

And Is Am Nationals included?

The cutoff was events received by Labor Day.

does that mean you are about to become FIVE strokes better than the PDGA says you are? :D



No, I will stay at 4. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I have had a bit of a slump this past month and a half. I am hoping it will break this weekend and next. Two tournaments in a row, I don't know what to do with myself.

The cutoff was events received by Labor Day.



A little birdie told me that USADGC may be included even though it was past the cutoff :D

I have had a bit of a slump this past month and a half. I am hoping it will break this weekend and next.



I heard his "desperate" strategy was to sleep with the ratings guy to pick up some points. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Chuck,

Can we start lobbing our standard "one ratings question"? If so, did I meet or exceed 962?

No prelim draft yet. Processing the complex Am and Pro Worlds is dragging down the process this time with all of their multiple pools. From draft checking to posting will likely be close to the deadline this time.

Close, as in before the deadline, or a week after? :D Either way, thanks for doing the math.

I have had a bit of a slump this past month and a half. I am hoping it will break this weekend and next.



I heard his "desperate" strategy was to sleep with the ratings guy to pick up some points. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif



That's a low blow. :mad:

And for that I will be using up all the hot water! :eek:

im predicting anywhere from a 105 point jump to a 105 point fall.

im predicting anywhere from a 105 point jump to a 105 point fall.



Are you talking about your rating, Northwest stock or gas prices :eek: :eek:

This could make about 300 instant ADV players.


lmao!! that would be real kewl!!!! ;)

I'm gonna guess mine is 938. Depends on which tourney's get the doubling.....Would be sweet to crack 940, but I can wait.

Less then 24 hours and counting :D I hope I break 960 :D

im predicting anywhere from a 105 point jump to a 105 point fall.



Are you talking about your rating, Northwest stock or gas prices :eek: :eek:



:) :D:D

The new ratings draft is on our test server for review and everything is on track for Theo to post tomorrow evening, probably not until he gets home from work after 5pm PDT (8 EDT). Here are some nuggets: If Mills turned pro and cashed, his rating is now too high to slide over and play Advanced if he wanted to. Linus, the Under 19 World Champ ended up with a slightly higher rating (989) than any of the guys in the Advanced Final 4. Kenny climbed back into a tie with Jesper for second place overall, one point behind Barry who's still the highest rated player at 1035.

If Mills turned pro and cashed, his rating is now too high to slide over and play Advanced if he wanted to.



How much to high??? :D

mills, looks like you are gonna have to go play some crap rounds to bring your rating down....

Since all the friZZaks are adding about 32-36 rounds...I think....2 will go up....2 will go down....2 will stay about(2-3pts) the same

mills, looks like you are gonna have to go play some crap rounds to bring your rating down....



Why does it matter. Im not going to accept any pro cash next year anyway. Im playing Advanced for another year :D

Less then 24 hours and counting :D I hope I break 960 :D



i hope i fall below 915 so i can win twice as much stuff to sell by playing intermediate AND advanced!! :eek:

Since all the friZZaks are adding about 32-36 rounds...I think....2 will go up....2 will go down....2 will stay about(2-3pts) the same



Frizzakly!

(I have no idea. It just sounded cool)

I'm going to guess I'm dropping 3 points :(

Lowest rated guy in Wisconsin with a rating over 999 :D
(no change)

Hey Chuck,

Am I correct in assuming that even though the formula changed, my rating will stay the same because i have not added any new rounds since the last update?

Thanks!!!

Less then 24 hours and counting :D I hope I break 960 :D



Don't hold your breath.:DIt's already 9/20/05 somewhere in the world. :p

I could care less. I don't think i have even played a sanctioned event since the last update. :eek:

Sorry to read your Irony signature E. :confused:

yeah y_h

i might get to play in two weeks... :(

Your rating might change by a point or two even if you don't have any new rounds unless your current rating is based on 30-33 rounds. We switched to double weighting your most recent 25% of your rounds (rounding up) instead of exactly 8 rounds. The one thing we stil need to tweak is how the program grabs your most recent 25% when it's in the middle of an event with all rounds having the same date. Right now, it doubles rounds 1 & 2 instead of 3 & 4.

It's pretty minor but we'd like to try and have it grab them in reverse chronological order when possible. Of course, because we posted scores for Ams Worlds by course column rather than round sequence, we'll still be slightly out of order for some people who at some point have their doubling break occur in Am Worlds, perhaps at the next update.

I think my goal for next year is to become the highest rated advanced player in history with over 50 rounds counted toward his rating :eek: :D

thanks!!!

Why not just double 25% and all ties for the last date?

chuck, have you considered just using all rounds from any event where at least one round is "supposed" to be doubled? that would totally eliminate the struggle to figure out which round came first. it also makes sense in that one could reasonably postulate that all rounds on a single weekend are a better indicator of skills for that weekend than a partial set of rounds.

as an added benefit, the coding is less complicated.

Those are good ideas. When Roger gets back in a week, we'll take a look at it for the next time. I think the idea of just doubling all rounds of an event on a date is good for simplicity of explanation as much as ease of programing. However, if an event like Worlds has 8 rounds including the semis, I'm not sure we want to use all 8 if only 1 or 2 should be doubled. We don't record round dates for multiple day events so all we have is the round number to use as a sequence reference.

I think my goal for next year is to become the highest rated advanced player in history with over 50 rounds counted toward his rating :eek: :D


That would be quite an accomplishment. Everyone would remember it! :D

Hey chuck what is the highest rating for an AM in TX including me? :D

chuck,

please tell me that my rating went down and that I move back down to advanced.

Hey chuck what is the highest rating for an AM in TX including me? :D



Matt --- except you're no longer an AM. Nice playing at Hitchcock.

Including you?!?!?

You mean to say "What is the highest rating for an AM in TX? and How do I, Matt Hall, a Profesional Disc Golfer, compare to them?"


:D

Well i am still going to be listed as an AM on this update. :DIt was just my indirect way to ask what mine went to.

Did I break the 1000 barier? :confused:

I pullin for you B(.)(.)bs

Ok I'll go direct. Did I hit 980

are they ready yet? midnite, morning , noon ????? :Dwhat changes were made this rating cycle?

I want to know how many 1000 rated rounds ill have after this update :D

I think with the new calculations Ill have averaged over 1000 at DGLO :D

Hey Pimp I bet I end up being what you calculations said. "SEE BELOW"

are they ready yet? midnite, morning , noon ????? :Dwhat changes were made this rating cycle?



keep dreaming. By 9/20 they really mean 10/3 or maybe 10/7.

The new ratings draft is on our test server for review and everything is on track for Theo to post tomorrow evening, probably not until he gets home from work after 5pm PDT (8 EDT). Here are some nuggets: If Mills turned pro and cashed, his rating is now too high to slide over and play Advanced if he wanted to. Linus, the Under 19 World Champ ended up with a slightly higher rating (989) than any of the guys in the Advanced Final 4. Kenny climbed back into a tie with Jesper for second place overall, one point behind Barry who's still the highest rated player at 1035.



:)

I call 10pm CDT.

Linus, the Under 19 World Champ ended up with a slightly higher rating (989) than any of the guys in the Advanced Final 4.


I call 10pm CDT.

:D:D


Yeah that's because he only has the worlds rounds in his ratings.

The best rounds of Linus' 20 were actually in the European Championships with 3 of the 4 over 1000.

Ok nevermind then :D

so whats up...?

Hopefully our ratings.

why don't we just re-name this the matt hall post whoring thread

Why? At least my posts have some sort of meaning. :D

Hopefully our ratings.



oh yeah, that post REALLY changed someone's life

I answered his question though

Am I beating MTL? I'm thinking I boosted this rating period a bit, at least to a new personal high, even after an 8 point drop last ratings.

MTL has you by a few and neither of you can play Advanced.