Same here got my MS in mechanical engineering. and have been practicing engineering for more than 35 years (humm why should I disclose this...?) . Life is not always but sometimes is about numbers.
Agreed, though for better accuracy a Glicko system like Ratings Central needs more data than an Elo system. Might not make much difference outside table tennis hotbeds. Could be why USATT doesn't use it, or maybe it's just politics.
It should be. The theoretical ratings difference vs percent win graph in OldUser's link looks like it is for chess.
Ohh so secretive , you joined the free masons or what? Btw, you’ve got an error there in your post, it’s obvious though so you should know what’s wrong.
Tropical is right.
. But I may still use it to have a fun discussion with some players who are 100 or 50 pts higher/lower than me. Life is short, folks.The sigmoid is the better match because no matter which ratings difference you use, the result is a probability that goes from not quite -1 to not quite +1. This confirms your belief that the probability shouldn't be and isn't 1 at 250 although it is pretty close.
Yes, yes, yes but I took a lot of sh!t for just saying it was obvious.
The pdf I sent you was only pages 12-13 out of 29. The rest has all sort of caluations.For me only, I'd not use it to tell my friends that I will beat you guys 100% for sure since my rating is 250 pts above
The one modeling the non-linear valve? That is complex. The USATT data to sigmoid is trivial by comparison. The cool thing is that you pause and scrub back and forth to go over the video a couple of times.
No you didn't take a lot of sh!t for saying it is obvious. You took a lot of sh!t because you said it was obvious while it's obviously not obvious to the OP, and refused to elaborate, in other words you took sh!t because you were just being rude, that's all. Also, obviously you're ignoring the post where you were being pointed out that you were obviously wrong, classic.
I thought I was being nice by giving you a chance to show us your ability with numbers.
Like I said way way back, I didn't come on a TT forum to do math. And you're clearly still not acknowledging where you were wrong in the post I quoted. I guess it's not obvious to you, just like what you said was obvious, but was not to the OP.
Now I think (I hope) I understand both hclnnkhg and brokenball's points. hclnnkhg was just trying to estimate probability of winning/losing with a simple equation while brokenball wants a more accurate equation (sigmoid) that can match real data. However, there is no real data (for example: results of win/lose of 1000 rated players playing multiple matches in USTTA database) here for comparison to tell which equation is better to match.
It is clear that the quadratic function is not good if the range is beyond 250. For me only, I'd not use it to tell my friends that I will beat you guys 100% for sure since my rating is 250 pts above
