Difference between revisions of "Thread:Talk:Premier League/Why x2?/reply (12)"

From Robowiki
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.