Originally posted by ArrakThe average says nothing. The rating graph says more.
rhp should have a feature that not only shows your average rating but also the the average rating of your opponents. because some people could be rated like 1700 but only play players under 1300 and others could be rated like 1200 and only play players above 1600. it would be a cool feature if rhp did supply it!
do you think it will be doable?
Originally posted by padgerNot sure it has anything at all to do with rating floors. There are other threads for that.
This all refers to rating floors
Which sets off a lot of discussion
The T E R should be set to 365 days instead of the current 100 to discourage sand bagging
Originally posted by FabianFnasI'd go for the average of the last 100 days, but it is open to debate. I'd include all rated in that time.
What is average, by the way?
Is it the average for all games from beginning of time, or is it the last 100 days, or last 100 games, does it include timeouts, or ordinary games only, or what is it?
Originally posted by gezzaIt's done on other CC sites and gives you some idea whether a player's rating is inflated by playing weak opposition.
Not sure it has anything at all to do with rating floors. There are other threads for that.
It would be interesting to know the average rating of someone's opponents, as this might encourage people to try to play similarly rated players. That said, it is your choice who you play, so why should it matter to anyone else?
Originally posted by no1marauderanybody on the rhp administration who has the power to do this?
It's done on other CC sites and gives you some idea whether a player's rating is inflated by playing weak opposition.
Originally posted by FabianFnasI don't see what is wrong with the rating.
The average says nothing. The rating graph says more.
Any player with hundreds of timeouts has a sudden drop in his rating. But he still has the skill of his former self, and given time he regains his lost points. Average here is not worth much.
What you really want is a true measure of a players skill. This would be nice. But I have no idea what this measure could be based upon.
Originally posted by techsouthThe rating should mirror the true skill. It isn't. An average even more less.
I don't see what is wrong with the rating.
If I play only play players 200 points below me, I have a 75% chance of winning each game and get 8 points for a win, but lose 24 points for a loss.
I win 3 out of 4 games, but my average does not change over the long haul. If I win more than 3 out of 4 games, then perhaps I am better than 200 points higher ...[text shortened]... dies that show a player can inflate his theoretical true rating by playing more weak opponents?