Difference between revisions of "Thread:Talk:Premier League/Why x2?/reply (12)"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Reply to Why x2?) |
(PL/APW reply) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
I would also prefer counting 1 point for a win and 1/2 for a tie in PL. Other formats for showing the score could be: | I would also prefer counting 1 point for a win and 1/2 for a tie in PL. Other formats for showing the score could be: | ||
| − | - Leaving wins, ties and losses separated, like "840-0-1". | + | |
| − | - Or using Copeland score, which is (wins - losses), 840 wins and 1 loss would be "839". The difference is, missing pairings would be more easily counted as ties instead of losses. | + | :- Leaving wins, ties and losses separated, like "840-0-1". |
| + | |||
| + | :- Or using Copeland score, which is (wins - losses), 840 wins and 1 loss would be "839". The difference is, missing pairings would be more easily counted as ties instead of losses. | ||
As for APW, after reading a lot about voting/ranking systems, I realized PL is superior to APW in the fairness subject. If there would be a new ranking system, it would vote for a [[Wikipedia:Schulze_method|Schulze]] based one. | As for APW, after reading a lot about voting/ranking systems, I realized PL is superior to APW in the fairness subject. If there would be a new ranking system, it would vote for a [[Wikipedia:Schulze_method|Schulze]] based one. | ||
Latest revision as of 02:44, 16 December 2011
I would also prefer counting 1 point for a win and 1/2 for a tie in PL. Other formats for showing the score could be:
- - Leaving wins, ties and losses separated, like "840-0-1".
- - Or using Copeland score, which is (wins - losses), 840 wins and 1 loss would be "839". The difference is, missing pairings would be more easily counted as ties instead of losses.
As for APW, after reading a lot about voting/ranking systems, I realized PL is superior to APW in the fairness subject. If there would be a new ranking system, it would vote for a Schulze based one.
