Those wins are ancient history though, 5 in last 100, 1 in last 43. #notwinning

No idea what has changed, don't know if you remember, but when you tried playing fast a long time ago, you could play under 65 s, with somewhat decent scores too. And I don't think I can play under 55 s at home no matter what I do, TC/Timed doesn't work as well here than at school, where I've played all those fastest games. Still don't have any idea what causes the difference.

So you didn't actually even realise anything, this was just a clever plot to try to get me to play the match.

hatersgonnahate.jpg

It was a goal of mine for a long time to reach the Daily Master, no idea why you think it is wrong to be happy about reaching your goal. It isn't like a did that by sacrificing win EV, on the contrary, it was a byproduct of trying to win DCs. Nothing I can do about being too horrible of a player to actually win them.

Removing Daily rating would mean there is even less to play for players like me, who aren't good enough to win DCs consistently. It gives players more goals than just winning a DC every 50 or so days. Scrapping could lead to even less players. If you don't care about rating, fine, then just ignore it, but there are plenty of players who do, why would you want to take it away from them?

And if you truly didn't care about rating, you wouldn't have even suggested scrapping it/making it based on top 3 finishes. #justsayin

I have been producing trainwrecks for more than a week now in the DC

Currently active players with winrates at 9% or above, and their head-to-head rating amongst currently active players:

Paul101: 11.27%, 2nd
TH10: 10.61%, 1st
Derwi: 9.75%, 6th
Gaby: 9.49%, 4th
Dynasty: 9.10%, 3rd

I don't think you can say something like this. People find their own motivators, you can't discredit one form of assessment/achievement just because it's not yours. Imo they're equally valid.

I've been autopiloting for living memory. I need to overhaul my opening strategy, but whatevers

The thing is that your goal would be like an NFL football team playing to kick as many field goals as possible rather than to win as many games as possible. It helps to win games, but is not winning games. Terrible analogy I know, but I think my point should be clear.

So I guess my question for you is why isn't it your goal to be daily master and not to be the #1 DC player?


The current rating system doesn't really capture how good players really are at the DC. They certainly are correlated, but you can come up with a better rating system.

And no I just would like to see a rating system that is better. It should be pretty clear that I don't care about my rating given how low it is compared to my timed rating and how I still don't change my strategy.



I'm not sure why you posted this as it doesn't really have anything to do with my post. I still think that taking EV hits on purpose at times is my best strategy. I'm not going to win many DCs playing with my timed strategy. I agree that players like you and TH10 shouldn't be doing this because you don't need to do it to win. But I do, and because of it I'm going to lose to players like you and TH10 a lot more than in timed, but I don't care because I'm playing to get 1st and 1st only. It increases the gaps in our ratings a lot more than the gaps between our actual DC ability.


Actually I can. I know I'm not the only one who thinks this. Who cares about some random achievement when the people you are comparing yourself with aren't playing with the same objective?

It has a lot to do with your post. The data shows a very strong correlation between high overall winrates and high rating/head-to-head winrate/EV.

I agree that sometimes taking an EV hit to increase variance, and therefore chances of winning, is a good play, but not to the extent of the July 7th game. You're sacrificing so much EV (which is bad as it strongly correlates to wins) and you have a very good (much better) chance of winning by playing the highest-EV strategy anyway.

Lol at "some random achievement". It's hardly more "random" than wins when it's on the Main Leaderboards page and wins isn't. Some/most of the people I'm comparing myself with are playing with the same objectives of both rating and wins. You haven't read this thread properly if you think most people don't care about rating.

Just started messing with this game.

Man do I suck.

Welcome! You'll get better fast, and if you need any tips there are plenty of people in here more than willing to help.

Anyone know how an Anon managed to play the DC today? First time I've ever seen that.

Thanks.

Once I figured out that putting 1's together was bad, and more than 2 2's, I broke 8000.

/embarrassed

Did you read my comments to TH10? I know they are correlated. But it still does not completely capture how people actually do in the DC. It would be pretty clear if you didn't cut your list of players off right before the best DC players who routinely make plays similarly to what I do. I'm 22nd in the DC in rating, but in actual DC skill I'm probably more like 7th or 8th. If you go through the rest of the list you are going to see some large disparities between win rate and rating. It should be pretty obvious that a more accurate rating could be used that more strongly correlates with win rate.

Most of my -EV plays aren't such huge gambles as like I did in this particular game (at least four 6s in ten dice is like 7% or something like that). Yeah this one in particular is probably too big of a gamble, but I could point to other examples in which I think the -EV play is a good play to make.

I mean when we get games of 5-6 of the better players in a timed game, I don't think I even come in first in those games 10% of the time playing my timed strategy.



My comment was about not being able to think lowly of someone else's accomplishments in general and not so much about this particular example.

While not totally random in this particular case, I still think it applies because in order to maximize your rating you have to take hits in your win rate. It's pretty common in the late stages of DCs (at least for me) where you would play a particular way in a timed game, but you know you need to play it differently and hope to run good (particularly with bonus) to have a chance to win. If you miss out on the bonus run good, then you will get beaten by a lot of players that you could have beaten by playing straight up, but playing straight up pretty much never wins.

LOL at using the main leader board page for your argument when wins is on the home page and rating isn't.

was it an anon, or was it a user named "anon"

It was an anon

The "Anon" account is one that I use for testing sometimes

Like I've said before, I've always chosen the win EV instead of rating EV when there was a decision between those two, so never played for rating only.

Did you write the question correctly? Doesn't really make any sense to me atm, extra "n't"?

Assuming so, being #1 in Daily rating was a goal too. But that had already happened a long time ago. No disrespect to Dynasty, but Daily Master was something that had never been reached during the modern days of TC, so imo it was a very good goal, and a fine achievement to get there. Since you've said you don't care about the rating, obviously based on that you don't value the accolades either, but other players do.

But it does, in fact it does exactly that, just not the aspect you care about most.

For example the difference between your Daily and Timed ratings (169) is just four points more than Alex's (165), so that doesn't really tell us anything.

When people don't care about something, they don't pay any attention to it, simple as that.

LOL. Yes, you aren't the only one who thinks like you do, but I'm certainly not even close to being the only one who thinks like I do either.

Are you serious? This has to be the most ******ed argument ever, Wins were only added on the Home page like a month or so ago, before that they were only on the Daily leaderboard. So you just made a huge argument against yourself, basically what you are saying is that Daily rating actually is a perfectly valid goal, or that Wins didn't matter until a month ago, well played.

Yep, I noticed this too, even took a screenshot of it. From it you can clearly see, that the Anon isn't underlined, and thus isn't an account. No idea how that is possible though.



Anyone want to make yesterday's DC as a puzzle? On quick look it seems like it could be interesting, didn't check the racks though, so could be wrong.

I think dc wins is a bigger deal than dc ranking. Unfortunately I suck at both.

(Rack 8 overthink related error today)

FYP

I don't see the image

Welcome! And don't worry, you'll always be learning new stuff and feel stupid for not knowing it before. I've played over 5000 games and am still learning!

Absolutely, feel free to pick our brains.

Oh yeah... lol.

Hmm, try another browser? It works for me in both I tried (Firefox and LOL IE).

+1

Welcome bowens! GL!

i've lost 6-7 rating points in the last week. It's just freefall

TH10,

First of all, I want to apologize for signalling you out. I didn't need to do that to make the point. Paul's post suggesting that there was no justification for my play pissed me off, and I said things that I wish I hadn't.


You've never gotten into a situation where you had to do something crazy to have a chance to win, and then actually do it? I just quite frankly don't believe it. I don't think it's possible to get your rating that high while having to make some really risky plays late in DCs that will make you finish in the bottom of the ranks more often than not. And if you aren't occasionally making these plays, you aren't maximizing your win EV.


Do you really think think that this metric most accurately captures a player's ability to win DCs? I mean I don't know what to say other than it pretty obviously does not do that.

Are they correlated? Absolutely. Is there another metric that would be more strongly correlated? Pretty obviously so.

Top players can land in the top 3 or 5 spots pretty consistently just by maximizing their EV. Lower ranked players can't, because we make slight errors here and there that cost us, and when we try to make only +EV plays, we get beaten out by the better players.

That being said, if we make some plays that will allow us to land in the top 3-5 spots when the top players will get unlucky and not get top finishes, then it is worthwhile to do so. We probably aren't going to win as often as the top players are, but we can win more than we would with another strategy. A better rating would view these types of plays as good rather than bad.



Alex plays with a similar philosophy as to what I do. So yeah it actually tells a lot. It tells that what I'm saying is correct. He is one of the top DC players and is ranked 15th in ranking.


Dude....seriously if I cared about this rating I would change my strategy. You should know that I am good enough to get my DC rating significantly higher than 22 if I wanted to.

All I'm saying is that a better rating could be imposed that more accurately captures a player's ability to win DCs. You seem to think that I'm butthurt or something, and I'm not at all. I'm being objective here. If we came up with a rating that more strongly correlated with wins and it had me ranked lower than I am now then I'd be fine with it. I just think it's bad overall for the game that we have players who are costing themselves wins just to raise a suboptimal rating. And even worse, we have players who aren't even playing at all any more just to maintain a suboptimal rating.



It should be pretty clear that I wasn't using that as my own argument.

I somewhat disagree with this, since the thing about this is, that it is often very difficult to know what you need to do to win. I've won some games where I thought there was no way I could win that game, and have not won some where I was pretty sure I would win. I've done some crazy plays, but very rarely, less than five total. But anyways the point I'm trying to make is that it is difficult to tell when you need to go for the crazy play in order to have a chance to win, so making them might be in vain. So because of that I've very rarely found myself in situations were I absolutely felt I needed to make a crazy play in order to have a chance to win.

No, I never said it does that, you are falsely assuming that everyone only cares about winning DCs. I just said it does what it is supposed to do perfectly, that is to measure the h-2-h winrates. I also never said I thought it was perfect, and in fact I agree with you that it could be better, if you wanted it to measure something other than it currently does. That said I do think it is fine as it is, and isn't bad enough that it needs to be changed, and I don't have a problem with it being just the indicator for h-2-h winrates either. Don't think there is anyone who does this, but it allows the option to play for rating only, if someone wants to do that, and I don't have a problem with that, imo people can choose their plays and goals however they wish.

I don't know for sure, but I don't think Alex plays like that anymore, used to, but doesn't anymore, since the change a few months ago I believe Alex's Daily rating has gone up by something like 10-15 points.

Our difference is only 17 points too, so that isn't huge by any means either, and we clearly don't play by the same philosophy. Anyways one could always argue that the ratings aren't currently even accurate one way or another, so pretty difficult to make more accurate conclusions based on them.

Counter-argument = your argument iyam. But we can just list it as a thing.

Fair enough. Tbh my first reaction was that 'is mrgibson having a bad day?', since I certainly didn't expect something like that from you. Anyways, accepted, if you don't have anything more to add, let's move on, GL!

Yesterday's winning score was 18848, but it was possible to score 45425 in that game, should be close to the worst winning score in comparison to what was possible.

yesterday's DC was probably the worst game I've ever played.