BuzzerBeater Forums

It looks like you don't want to accept there should be an bug. And you don't want to check whether there is a bug or not. It's the only think I want you to do.

There is statistic of sum of points for NT teams (the date is date of rankings update)
20.10.2008 18644,2
27.10.2008 18670,8 difference 26,6
3.11.2008 18650,4 difference -20,4
10.11.2008 18625,4 difference -25
17.11.2008 18620,7 difference -4,7
24.11.2008 18595,7difference -25
1.12.2008 18565,5 difference -30,2
8.12.2008 18579,6 difference 14,1
15.12.2008 18628,3 difference 48,7
22.12.2008 18686,7 difference 58,4
29.12.2008 18743,8 difference 57,1
5.1.2009 18794 difference 50,2
12.1.2009 18841difference 47
19.1.2009 18906,6 difference 65,6
26.1.2009 18891,2 difference -15,4
2.2.2009 18872,1 difference -19,1
9.2.2009 18846,2 difference -25,9
16.2.2009 18831,4 difference -14,8
16.3.2009 18866,1 difference 34,7 (difference not for 1 week but 4 weeks)

There is statistic of sum of points for U21 teams (the date is date of rankings update):
9.3.2009 17555,2
16.3.2009 17039,9 difference -515,3
23.3.2009 16519,9 difference -520
older data is not relevant, because it was first 2 seasons of U21, so no older points were losing

20.10.2009 was sum of points 4595, this is time, when I start NT/U21 Rankings analysis. At this time were played 7 round of first groups and 1 round of second group. So average points gained in this weeks is 574,375 and because second groups are worth more, so than I take into account average for followed weeks, which was 706,63, average for fisrt round groups weeks drops to 555,48.

So can you insist on that gaining something around 35-40 points for all teams is correct? I don't think so.

Last edited by rwystyrk at 3/24/2009 6:31:54 AM

It looks like you totally ignore that there should be an bug. And you don't want to check whether there is a bug or not. It's the only think I want you to do. But you only finds alibi not to have to do anything.

Please watch your tone a bit, remember everyone's here to help you, especially the BBs, there is no need at all to use words like this.

Sorry, for inconvenience, English is not my native language, so some words somebody could feel in another way than me (more sensitively).
But I think my message describe sittuation very exactly. I don't think BB-Forrest message sounds like yours:

remember everyone's here to help you, especially the BBs.

It sounds like:
There surely is not any bug in U21 rankings. And there is no need for me to look about it.

But finally I decided to correct my first message.

Last edited by rwystyrk at 3/24/2009 6:29:56 AM

It looks like you don't want to accept there should be an bug.

Or you don't want to accept that there is not one after multiple explanations.

What is highly unlikely?

everyone calm down...

i didnt write the ratings formula so i can't go look for a bug, as I dont know the fine details of how it works.. I will ask charles about it.

can I ask, stepping back from the quantitative aspect whether or not your relative world ranking is in line with what you think it should be.. not the rating number, but the rating position.. and likewise, do the other ratings make relative sense to one another? or is the bug in your mind that the quantitative number is off and you haven't thought or examined the rankings beyond that? if you feel the rankings are off qualitatively can you get a specific example of a team that dropped many spots, or rose many spots in a way counter to what you would expect from their recent results?

I am asking this specifically to assist in tracing back the behavior of the algorithm to see whether the results match with the way it was designed, not to be a pain in the butt.

Last edited by BB-Forrest at 3/24/2009 3:27:31 PM

My relative world ranking (or better european ranking) is ok, but there was quite big differences between our U21 (Ceska Rep. U21) and the team up and bottom of us at the end of previous season.
But the relative rankings of others team is hard to say because in my mind the quantitative number is off.

What data do you store in the database? Is it possibble for example to find points which every team gains for every particular match (or every particular week - sometimes there is more than 1 match in a week)? I my opinion this should help us a lot in loooking for the reason.
I think almost all U21 teams have strange points last two ranking updates.
For example
Chile U21 (win against Rep. Dominicana U21 118:89)
Malaysia U21 (win against India U21 114:93)
Bulgaria U21 (lost to Andorra U21 125:126)
Hong Kong U21 (win against Hanguk U21 104:78)
Uruguay U21 (win against Costa Rica U21 114:59)
Nigeria U21 (win against Tounes U21 93:74)
has -15 pts last update. It looks like they lost 15 old points and gain 0 new points (maybe Bulgaria is near to correct points, but the others not).

this is where i have to get charles involved because your approach to figuring out whether something went wrong makes a lot of assumptions about how the algorithm works that I'm not sure are true... i'm not sure they aren't true either... but it might not be as simple as ... look at the last game they played... add/subtract some points based upon some analysis of that game.

I thinks it works something like this (maybe I'm not right):
1) There are some inputs (stored in database - like teams, position and points in rankings before match, match data)
2) There is some algorithm
3) There are outputs - points for a single match or single week and cumulative points for last 28 weeks (some of this I supposed to be stored in database)

My idea is to look over the outputs stored in database, this could shows whether there is a real problem. (For this first step we don't need to know algorithm).
And if it shows there is real problem than we need to now algorithm to search for bug in it. Or maybe there is "only" problem with input data (but for this case we also need to now algorithm).

but the concept of "points for a single match" might have no meaning in the contest of the algorithm. If its makes some complicated comparison of relative win/loss records and strength of schedule it becomes a very complicated question how a single game contributes to the ranking.. certainly an straight additive effect is not predetermined. again, i dont know how it works, i didnt write it, but if i did write it I could imagine doing it in a way that wouldn't allow for the contribution of a single game to be analyzed in the way you suggest (looking at the isolated quantitative change of the ranking variable outside of the context of all the other rating variables).