Big thousand tournament series

In my opinion, taking the average result as a basis is a good idea. With the current system, it is easy to win tournaments by taking big risks and succeeding, but it is also possible to end up last. However, the best are those who play consistently in higher places and almost never end up in the bottom half of the table at the end of the tournament. There is a good word for this in English - consistency. The biggest drawback of the current scoring system is that the result depends too much on the number of participants in each individual tournament. Coming 20th in a tournament with 40 participants is more useful than coming third among 20 participants - it is not quite fair.

If you get 3 points in five rounds, the average is 0.6. If you get 1 point in seven rounds, the average is about 0.14. Your logic is skewed, bog.

Read and think everything through before you start doing a math lesson here! I said that you have to divide by 30, no matter how many points you have, then with the current point system it is possible to understand where you really are in the table! Let me explain it more simply, the table should show the real ranking if the tournament were to end at this point in time! The average is generally 1 of the worst and most confusing indicators to consider here and elsewhere: average salary, average height, average lifespan, etc. etc. You should rather deal with medians.

3:30=0.1 1:30=0.0333333333 Even more skewed logic. I don't know exactly how many grades a child should understand that if you divide multiple numbers by the same number, the order of the quotients is exactly the same as the dividend. But I think a third grader should already know this.

Let the swamp shine. He's already screwed up a thousand tournament sys and a big thousand series anyway.

You should think before posting something stupid here! Me and something that's messed up, you little bugger!? If you're talking like that, then don't talk like that, read the whole thing first, what's been posted and how and when and see what system actually came about! And Hawk, I thought you had everything more or less in order in your head. What numbers are you dividing and messing around with here, like dividing 1 pig by 30 cuckoos, how many sausages do you get, etc.? Look at the numbers I suggested above, but don't start dividing, multiplying, etc. You probably don't understand how many and how place points are awarded in a tournament according to the current system. Of course, it would be easier under the current system not to let players into the table at all until they've played 30 games. Right now, a player who has only played 2 tournaments, whose average is higher than a player who has played 29 tournaments, is placed at the top of the table, even though he may not play more - what's the point of this table then!? Therefore, the missing games of this participant must be counted as 0 points, and this is how their real average is obtained. If you don't understand this, something is still wrong!

I understand everything, but you don't know how to express yourself correctly and you are also rude. In the example at the end of your post made on 24.02. at 17:00, based on your own logic, the "player with 1 point" cannot in any case be above the "player with three points" in the table. It was I who suggested "adjusting" the table after a moment, when it is clear that some of the players in the table do not complete the minimum required number of tournaments (see my post made on 22.02. at 22:38). Your proposed "division by 30" would make the table even more inadequate, because it is probably clear that a player who has reached an average of 25 in, for example, 5 tournaments is still stronger than a player who has reached an average of 15 in, for example, 25 tournaments. As long as this first player is at least theoretically able to complete 30 tournaments, he should still be in the table and still take into account the average, because the final result is also determined by the average amount.

What averages and other legalities. Specifically, a certain number of tournaments, a certain number of first places, get a certain number of points for places, add them up and it's done. Like F-1. Tournaments can be regattas starting from, for example, 1600 reit or so. In short, I hope that something better will be thought of than now. Why 30 to take into account, if the guy wants to earn, then he would already make the participation fee 20-30 credits one-time. Whatever. As long as there are disagreements and discussions, a satisfactory result can be reached for the majority.

The first thousand tournament series was won by Setu, participating in exactly 30 tournaments, winning 5 of them and receiving an average score of 27.43! Second place went to user heykko, participating in 37 tournaments, winning 3 of them and receiving an average score of 22.95. User AlQaholic came in third, participating in 33 tournaments, winning 3 of them and collecting an average score of 22.91. The full table of the competition opens under the thousand game room on the "Ten Thousand Tournament Series" link. A total of 235 users participated in the tournament series, which is significantly more than originally planned. 44 users met the qualification standard (participating in at least 30 tournaments)! The prizes for the top three will be transferred today!

A total of 235 users participated in the tournament series, which is significantly more than originally planned. From here, at least 115 who accidentally missed this tournament, because at the same time there was no other (who played up to 3-5 games) I hope that the next one will come with changes. Good luck and congratulations to the winners