General > Tournaments
Mighty MO - June 16th
phisherman_77:
Par doesn't mean anything really.
Scores and participating player ratings are what's important.
I'm not 100000000% sure on this, but Timko can probably chime in with some more technical jargon and explain it better.
Timko:
Ratings are only affected by how you shoot in relation to the rest of the field on a given day. Nothing about any previous rounds played on that course affects the ratings, nor par does not factor into it.
Here's my simple breakdown of ratings for people. If you'd like more information, look up information on a multi-player zero sum game.
Propagators are the people that set the ratings. They are people with a rating over 799. Each player over 799 has a bucket of points (determined by their rating). Those players also have a score they shot on that course. In what I think is a linear fashion, players give points to those who scored lower than them, and receive points from those who scored higher than them. These points come out of a person's bucket. So no points leave the game, but no points are added. In the end, these points are used to determine round ratings. So as you can see, ratings are simply based on how you played against the competition that day.
Utz:
a player must have 8 rated rounds and above 799 rating to be a propagator
Ken Franks:
--- Quote from: Timko on July 03, 2012, 10:40:19 AM ---Ratings are only affected by how you shoot in relation to the rest of the field on a given day. Nothing about any previous rounds played on that course affects the ratings, nor par does not factor into it.
--- End quote ---
. Interesting, you would say that chris. When you were keeping ratings for leagues, and I shot the 46 at cliff, cd shot a 57, the next best score, I said that has to be 1100 plus rated, you didn't give it to me cause you said you had to base everything of Matty-O's 45 at worlds... sounds contradictory a bit...
Cooper:
Not that I would presume to speak for Timko, or know anything, but I would posit that because our league attendances have much lower participation the inclusion of other players scores on the same set up in similar conditions would be helpful in making the ratings more accurate and less dependent on an otherworldly round and a few other players having a poor (or even just slightly below average) round.
Does that sound about right Timko?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version