Originally posted by Aiko
Same with me. I am not 1450. Nor am I 1100. I hit both levels every now and then without time outs or carefully saved wins and cashing the in all at once. I am 1300, but just going up and down because I have my good days and bad days. A number should not be fixated for eternity on just one aspect of my rating...

Originally posted by GalaxyShield
Bad idea. Take my rating for example. I hit 1950 or so through rating inflation, but can't (normally) compete on the same level as 1900+'s. I might if I increased my time spent on a game, but I don't want to have to do that every time I enter a high band, and still probably end up losing.

Since the administartors have started the thread, how about a comment?

I think everyone agrees that the "Highest rating in past 30 days" is just not long enough. I also believe that your "Highest rating EVER" is also terribly unfair (I'm not alone).

Let's meet in the middle, how about something like "Highest rating in past 180 days", or "Highest rating in past 100 games". And to equally cover both slow and fast players how about the daddy.....

"The highest rating of 'Highest rating in past 180 days' or 'Highest rating in past 100 games' "

job done, now let me sort out Isreal.

A justifiable complain is... "I couldn't enter the band that I wanted to, so I entered one too low for me.

This is caused because all the bands are currently mutually exclusive, i.e. they are set something like this....
1400-1499
1500-1599
1600-1699
.....

We can still have banded tournies, but how about adjusting the lower band so that lower rated players can still enter, i.e.

1200-1499
1300-1599
1400-1699
....

Therefore a 1650ish player who has lost some games to timeouts can still enter the sub-1700 band!

Also, if a player loves playing in tournies then they have the opportunity to enter more if they want, against harder opponents.

Right, job done again, Get President Sharon on the phone.

I feel the only way to do this fairly is to take your total average rating over your time at RHP excluding all time outs and base it on that.

My highest rating is about 150 points about where I should be, mainly due to a run of time-outs from higher rated players and holding out on a few games I was loosing to see how high I could get it. It would be unfair to put me in a 1650+ band as I have no chance of ever winning so whats the point of entering?

Also, if i wanted to I could manage my rating below a certain threshold by choosing when I give up on games I am loosing (or I could be even more tactical if I wanted and resign the odd game just to keep below a certain rating all the time).

As I said before to me the fairest to total average, minus all timeouts as these just skew raitings upwards.

Andrew

Having read the whole thread again, I think that it is time for me to stick my oar in. I think that there are a number of great suggestions here and many that could be implemented with some success. However, I feel that the number of calls for a "simple" solution are going to create difficulties and that each sysem on its own perhaps would still be open for abuse.

I have no problem with the current system as it seems to work for me, but I understand that this doesn't solve the problem of sandbaggers or serial timeout boys. One thing I would change is that if a player's rating rises over the highest rating limit of the band before the start of that tournament then they should immediately be removed. I am amazed that this hasn't been implemented yet.

I would be in favour of creating (perhaps voting on) a more complex formula for eligibility in banded tournaments. I'd be in favour of using a number of statistics to come up with a score that accurately represents that players ability. Here are my stats

Current rating: 1511
Current highest rating (in last 30 days): 1548
Highest ever rating: 1711 (way too high)
Total Average rating: 1468
Average in last 100 games: 1576
Highest win: 1804 😀
Lowest loss: 1103 (don't ask :'( )

Now, I feel that I am a good 1400-1500 player who has got lucky recently, and I am swifly heading back to that level now. I am sure that there can be a formula created that can use all of these stats. Of course, games won and lossed by timeout should be ignored. Averages always create good reults, and with a suitable weighting in certain areas, I'm sure that the above stats can be used to come up with a figure that'll be used for tournament entry.

In my opinion, a combination of stats and a number of the ideas in this thread will be the best way to cover all bases and come up with a system that keeps everyone happy.