Author |
Topic: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable (Read 20624 times) |
|
chessandgo
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #1889
Gender: 
Posts: 1244
|
 |
Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
« Reply #60 on: Aug 22nd, 2012, 3:08pm » |
 Quote  Modify
|
I have a very limited understanding of what twitter actually is, but I created an account to follow you Joel.
I try to avoid any post where actual budget calculations are mentioned, for fear I'd feel even more ashame than I am now every time my team fields me, thinking of the chunk of our budget I'm taking away.
|
|
 IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
« Reply #61 on: Aug 22nd, 2012, 5:33pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Aug 22nd, 2012, 3:08pm, chessandgo wrote:| I try to avoid any post where actual budget calculations are mentioned, for fear I'd feel even more ashame than I am now every time my team fields me, thinking of the chunk of our budget I'm taking away. |
|
Yes, I know the feeling. There are not many situations in which I can play without hurting my team. Usually it is best for me to root from the sidelines, to play only when there aren't three other volunteers, and to hope that it isn't necessary for me to play so often that the team goes over budget.
You might suspect me of advocating a larger budget so that I could have more playing time without dragging down my team's prospects, but I don't think that's my real beef. In the past I have argued against increasing the budget just as I am opposed to the present decrease in budget. It isn't the size so much as the method that bugs me.
I'm mostly reacting against the idea that a number produced by a formula should be considered a good number merely because it is precisely defined and can be precisely computed. I feel that the budget number from the current rules, although it has no subjectivity and can be worked out to ten decimal places, is wildly inaccurate compared to the highly subjective judgement of whether last season's budget was too high, too low, or about right. In this case, subjective judgement makes for a better yardstick. Using a round number like 2000 per player (*6 rounds *3 players = 36000 total) protects us from the illusion that we can compute a good budget in advance, without knowing how often everyone on each roster will volunteer to play, if they volunteer at all.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
browni3141
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #7014
Gender:
Posts: 384
|
|
Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
« Reply #62 on: Aug 22nd, 2012, 8:25pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Aug 22nd, 2012, 3:08pm, chessandgo wrote:
I try to avoid any post where actual budget calculations are mentioned, for fear I'd feel even more ashame than I am now every time my team fields me, thinking of the chunk of our budget I'm taking away. |
|
Thanks for the warning. I'll try to stay weak.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
chessandgo
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #1889
Gender:
Posts: 1244
|
|
Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
« Reply #63 on: Aug 23rd, 2012, 6:44am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Aug 19th, 2012, 4:42pm, Fritzlein wrote:
I think not, as I have in the past entered times that didn't register because I had them in the wrong event.
|
|
I thought so too, but the times I had entered using woh's link actually carried over to Joel's link. Maybe the scheduler is now unified? It'd be cool, we're likely to have several scheduler-using events runining simulteneously in the very near future. But maybe instead of having to select just over half the possible times, we might have to select a half + total number of current events, to ensure proper scheduling?
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
novacat
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #751
Gender:
Posts: 119
|
|
Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
« Reply #64 on: Aug 23rd, 2012, 10:45pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Aug 22nd, 2012, 12:16pm, Fritzlein wrote:| It seems absurd that the budget was tightened after a season in which every team struggled to stay within budget. The formula for calculating some number other than 36000 assumes that everyone who expressed interest on the survey will actually play, which we know is not true, especially for people who have never played before and just thought it sounded like a cool idea. |
|
on Aug 22nd, 2012, 5:33pm, Fritzlein wrote:| Using a round number like 2000 per player (*6 rounds *3 players = 36000 total) protects us from the illusion that we can compute a good budget in advance, without knowing how often everyone on each roster will volunteer to play, if they volunteer at all. |
|
I agree the situation is not ideal. Teams struggled to stay under budget last year because of a lack of low ranked players (both the Ring of Fire and the Rockies had only 1 player ranked below 1930 that played in the second season). This year, we have a great group of new faces, but we can't guarantee how many will actually play.
I disagree with the solution (i.e. make the budget so that the teams can get by playing their higher ranked players with the occasional really low ranked player). The whole point of the budget was to make sure the lower ranked players have equal opportunity to play. It would be a shame if any of the new recruits don't get to play because we assumed they would not volunteer and made it so they are not needed even if they do volunteer.
I think the current implementation works ok. After all, if you are running over budget, it means you have a stronger roster. As long as you don't go more than 700 over and you win one game more than you would have otherwise, you're ahead. Of course, if you go over budget and still lose you're toast, but they say fortune favors the brave. 
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
« Reply #65 on: Aug 24th, 2012, 1:34pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Aug 23rd, 2012, 10:45pm, novacat wrote:| I think the current implementation works ok. |
|
Perhaps it does work fine. After this season, we'll have another data point by which to judge. If the method of calculation is sound, the tighter budget won't be an issue because it is compensated by the greater number of new players who signed up.
An interesting addition to the standings (if megajester can auto-generate it without too much trouble) would be the amount over/under target budget divided by 350. For example, Let's say Europa wins two of three from the Rockies and thus leads by 7 points to 5. But Europa overspent the target by 720 and the Rockies underspent by 230, which is worth -2.06 and +0.66 respectively. So when you take budget into account, the standings would be 4.94 to 5.66, i.e. the Rockies would actually be leading. (Of course we need to win one to make this scenario come true.  )
|
| « Last Edit: Aug 24th, 2012, 1:41pm by Fritzlein » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
megajester
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Istanbul, Turkey
Gender:
Posts: 710
|
|
Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
« Reply #66 on: Aug 28th, 2012, 4:35am » |
Quote Modify
|
Atlantics and Europa tie for first spot, as Europa's roster was 20 points over the round spend limit. Click the wiki and Twitter links in my signature for more.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
odin73
Forum Guru
Gender:
Posts: 65
|
|
Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
« Reply #67 on: Aug 28th, 2012, 6:15am » |
Quote Modify
|
Why is there a penalty for Europe? Else it should have 6 points and 100% won?
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
« Reply #68 on: Aug 28th, 2012, 9:58am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Aug 28th, 2012, 6:15am, odin73 wrote:| Why is there a penalty for Europe? Else it should have 6 points and 100% won? |
|
Because Europa was more than 700 points over target budget for an individual round. Since I'm not on team Eurpopa, I don't know whether this was an oversight or there was no alternative.
I do know, however, that in round two the Rockies are more than 700 points over target budget because we have literally no other options. We will take a two-point penalty this round, not because we want to beat up the Ring of Fire so badly, and not because we are failing to pay attention, but because our team members Aamir, balaclava, cptroot, and Copac, whose low ratings all figured in the calculation that lowered the target budget by 200 points per round this season, all were not available to play. Indeed, only three of us were available. It was simply impossible for us to remain within 700 points of target for this round.
I remain unhappy about the formula behind the budget calculation.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
ChrisB
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2339
Gender:
Posts: 147
|
|
Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
« Reply #69 on: Aug 28th, 2012, 10:42am » |
Quote Modify
|
on Aug 28th, 2012, 9:58am, Fritzlein wrote:
Because Europa was more than 700 points over target budget for an individual round. Since I'm not on team Eurpopa, I don't know whether this was an oversight or there was no alternative.
I do know, however, that in round two the Rockies are more than 700 points over target budget because we have literally no other options. We will take a two-point penalty this round, not because we want to beat up the Ring of Fire so badly, and not because we are failing to pay attention, but because our team members Aamir, balaclava, cptroot, and Copac, whose low ratings all figured in the calculation that lowered the target budget by 200 points per round this season, all were not available to play. Indeed, only three of us were available. It was simply impossible for us to remain within 700 points of target for this round.
I remain unhappy about the formula behind the budget calculation. |
|
Oh no! I thought we were only 690 points over the target, but with the new ratings we are 710 over. If I had known that, I might have gambled with balaclava on the roster (who said he might be available late in the week). Looks like a tough break for both the Rockies in this round and Team Europa in Round 1. At least the mutual bad breaks help even the playing field.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Fritzlein
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #706
Gender:
Posts: 5928
|
|
Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
« Reply #70 on: Aug 28th, 2012, 1:24pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Aug 28th, 2012, 10:42am, ChrisB wrote:| Oh no! I thought we were only 690 points over the target, but with the new ratings we are 710 over. If I had known that, I might have gambled with balaclava on the roster (who said he might be available late in the week). |
|
Oh, well, it is good to know that there was the option of a maybe-forfeit in addition to the options certain-forfeit and two-league-point-penalty. That give me more hope for next round.
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Adanac
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #892
Gender:
Posts: 635
|
|
Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
« Reply #71 on: Aug 28th, 2012, 1:42pm » |
Quote Modify
|
Maybe I'm blind, but after looking through all the rules twice I still can't figure out:
1. Which players on Ring of Fire are eligible to substitute for Ivers0n in round 2. Surely not just anyone can substitute onto 3rd board?
2. Is there a budget penalty for using a substitute player or is it just the rating of the person who plays the game?
EDIT: After reading some more, I have an additional question:
6.3.3 "Managers may not overspend or underspend in any one round (ie. spend more or less than 1/6 of their total ratings budget) by more than 700 points. Exceeding this limit will be penalized by the deduction of 1 league point plus a point for every 350 rating points or part thereof in excess after the 700 point mark. This only applies to the initial roster submitted; if a substitution causes this limit to be exceeded no penalty shall be applied."
3. Isn't there a major loophole here? Any team can avoid the penalty points by submitting a valid roster and then "unexpectedly" needing to substitute higher-rated players into the lineup above the 6580 limit. However, if there's already a penalty for using a substitute (which I couldn't find), then I would agree with not double-penalilzing a team for using a substitute player.
|
| « Last Edit: Aug 28th, 2012, 2:08pm by Adanac » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
ChrisB
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #2339
Gender:
Posts: 147
|
|
Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
« Reply #72 on: Aug 28th, 2012, 2:25pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Aug 28th, 2012, 1:42pm, Adanac wrote:Maybe I'm blind, but after looking through all the rules twice I still can't figure out:
1. Which players on Ring of Fire are eligible to substitute for Ivers0n in round 2. Surely not just anyone can substitute onto 3rd board?
2. Is there a budget penalty for using a substitute player or is it just the rating of the person who plays the game?
|
|
You can substitute with any player not on the roster, but if the substitute player's rating is higher than the original player's, the sub's cost is increased by that rating difference over sub's posted rating. For example, if is you at 2560 substitute for Ivers0n at 1580, your cost would be 2560 + (2560 - 1580) = 3540.
See:
"8.3 When a substitution is made the deduction made from the teams budget is calculated as follows: If the originally rostered player's rating is higher or if both players' ratings are the same, the originally rostered player's rating is deducted; if the substitute player's rating is higher, the substitute player's rating plus the difference between the ratings of the two players is deducted. The same deduction is made even if the substitute player forfeits."
|
| « Last Edit: Aug 28th, 2012, 2:29pm by ChrisB » |
IP Logged |
|
|
|
Adanac
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #892
Gender:
Posts: 635
|
|
Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
« Reply #73 on: Aug 28th, 2012, 2:34pm » |
Quote Modify
|
on Aug 28th, 2012, 2:25pm, ChrisB wrote:
You can substitute with any player not on the roster, but if the substitute player's rating is higher than the original player's, the sub's cost is increased by that rating difference over sub's posted rating. For example, if is you at 2560 substitute for Ivers0n at 1580, your cost would be 2560 + (2560 - 1580) = 3540.
See:
"8.3 When a substitution is made the deduction made from the teams budget is calculated as follows: If the originally rostered player's rating is higher or if both players' ratings are the same, the originally rostered player's rating is deducted; if the substitute player's rating is higher, the substitute player's rating plus the difference between the ratings of the two players is deducted. The same deduction is made even if the substitute player forfeits."
|
|
Thanks. So I am blind!
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
supersamu
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
Arimaa player #7523
Gender:
Posts: 140
|
|
Re: 2012 Arimaa World League Roundtable
« Reply #74 on: Aug 28th, 2012, 6:24pm » |
Quote Modify
|
I just want to point out that the links to the league games on the wiki are incorrect. All links lead to an old AWL game.
A question to ChrisB: So, if i understand correctly, the peak WHR rating of one of our players inceased too much since you submitted the roster? If not, from which day are the peak WHR ratings taken? I won a game against harren 5 hours before the AWL game, i hope this game didn't cost us one point. 
|
|
IP Logged |
|
|
|
|
Home
Help
Search
Members
Login
Register
Reply
Notify of replies
Send Topic
Print