Bottom Feeding

[unbiasbob]

I was online last night and having a nice, lighthearted conversation with acerimmer, art and edfx. I have been accused of playing mainly bottom feeders and this is true and I do not deny this; afterall I AM a bottom feeder at #80 on the Kleier's ranking. one thing I will never do is avoid a guy ranked lower that me. After this conversation, I decided to analize Acerimmer's 2007 games (being that he is the #1 rank for 2007, thus no one is lower than he). Here are my findings:


List of active high rank players (and some not so high) Ace has not played in 2007. Is he avoiding at least some of these guys??? Kinda looks that way

1. maribo
2. sadistic
3. Wellington
4. Brass
5. Nochance
6. Bolivar
7. warlord
8. Rapunzel
9. dcannies
10. Psychonaut
11. warzero (he would not play ace anyway)
12. skilgannon


Below is a list of guys Ace has played only once in 2007

1. Gpet0
2. Miltos
3. Darthremark
4. Iceman
5. citron505
6. ogetarts (loss)

Top guys that Ace has played 4 or more times

1. ricardo
2. ambiorix

Bottom feeders Ace feeds off

1. Akritas (9 times)
2. warhammer (6)
3. generalbobby (4)


just wanted to bring this to light for others to analize.

not a personal dig sgainst ace, just an observation. is ace, as what sadi once said, an acerunner and rank preserver? Does he avoid the likes of brass, gpet, wellington, rapunzel, skilgannon and sadistic? Afterall, all of these guys are on constantly and play loads of games. This is a question for bigger minds than I. Perhaps we should send it in to dear abby

[eindhoven]

i saw that a long time ago..........but against me its 3-3 and he will not play me because the long games i play....lol

make a list about who makes the longest games and how many?

and you'll get 1 name.................that says enough about the way someone plays........

[unbiasbob]

very interesting eindy, I had no idea that you were the marathon king. Does rapunzel fit that bill also perhaps?

[eindhoven]

i am no king

no rapunzel is ok (play always) exept maybe his taktic but thats his choice.

i don't care how people play/act........ except players who say they are great or even say they are the best.....

and i look to the list of those players ........ i see no results that makes me
respect them as a topplayer !!!!

that's why i sad and say it again for me ricco is the topplayer here on Gravon

[lightwing]

lol

He Eind, why did you forfeit in the last game? just wondering, you have lottoed alot of my pieces in other games, so I kicked the sh!t out of you, by doing the same --> you forfeit, after I killed your MOVED colonel?

lol

[eindhoven]

mmmmmm cannot remember, because i play too much

and i lotto when i need to, you did it in the begin and go with you marshal
true my field...... thats real lotto/risk......

and i was not in the mood for that because you go back and it will be a long game...... i prefer you get the win instead of wasting time....

btw this has nothing to do with this topic !!!!

[darthremark]

lol. And so it begins. Just like the ranking formula topic, the observations about the top rated player topic always comes around to the Stratego boards. The fact is both rating formulas used at Gravon are not accurate and never will be. Everyone would have to play everyone else an equal number of games to begin the calculation, and even then the order in which the games were played would affect the result. It's an impossible task. The formulas are good for approximations of relative strength only. Clearly, Ace is a good player. Is he the best on Gravon? I don't know, but I do know the formulas won't tell you.

I came to the conclusion a long time ago that the only way to determine who was best was via playoff. And it would have to be structured in a way to marginalize the aboration of luck. Not trying to plug a particular tourney here, but the description I read of Hal's summer FOSP tourney is along the lines of what I always thought was the way to approach it. The series play of each matchup, coupled with a losers bracket, goes a long way to minimize the impact of luck wins. The winner of such a tourney would have a strong case that they were the best.

[eindhoven]

the system/formule here on Gravon is very good it works........

like the way you say starting by 0 and each win is 1 or more points, makes the same list.....

after a while you can see who is more easy to get or not

and that is the point here ........ some high ranked players play mostly
low ranked players........ and win a lot and think and even say they are the best

your list DarthRemark shows how good you are win a lot and against different high ranked players..........
(they just wait for them)

look at my results ......... its just too easy....

i don't say it's wrong ...........it isn't........but to act that way a hole year or more makes them ungettable.........but thats the way it is......

and yes, i believe too it would be better to get more ranked tournament here on gravon (about 3/4) makes the ranking more accurate

[lightwing]

@eind; First you don't know, because you play too much, but it seems to be you CAN remember what happened?

[eindhoven]

yes, got a flashback

[unbiasbob]

Hey darth, thanks for your input. I didn't even think to have a look at your 2007 games, but after your post, I decided to check it out. I was having difficulty finding bottom dwellers on your games played list and when I did, it was a game or 2 and no more. It appears to me that you challenge all comers, no evidence of dodgeball on your record, lol

[darthremark]

Well, thanks for the compliment Bob. My playlist is unintentional though. I'm just playing for fun these days and tend to play whoever is around, although I will pick the higher rater if I have a choice. Back in my serious days I would definitely pick and chose matches.

The reason I replied to this thread is that it brought back memories. Back in the WSC days I went through a stretch where I was in 1st place for well over a year. During that time I was mostly a top feeder and caught grief from some for not playing "just anyone". It struck me that this is just the opposite of what Ace is accused of! lol. My reasons for top feeding were that I liked the stiffer competition and thought it was a lot less risky than playing a low rater who might go lotto happy on you. If you beat a low rater there is little reward, but you get a big ding if you lose. I don't know why Ace bottom feeds, but to each his own.

You guys are talking like Ace is boasting of being #1? I haven't seen him do that. He's always been friendly to me. But I'll go back to my original assertion that the formulas have limited usefulness. They are calculated using incomplete, uneven, and often quite different input sets. They provide a general impression of strength, but by no means are they definitive, nor can they be. I always glance at the chart before entering a game so I can get an idea of how tough the opponent might be. The Kleier and WSC formula's are incapable of producing a definitive result though, and the free-for-all method of online play invites manipulation. It's easy to nurse a rating under either system.

The ratings are kindof like sports stats. They're good for comarision, but champions aren't crowned by winning stat contests.

[eindhoven]

mmmmmmm fine with me.... 445 games since 2003 ok understand it

[darthremark]

[jerry]

Lol..Darth, If Anyone can understand Eindy...Let me know

Cheers Jerry.
_________________
"The Thunder From Downunder"