Is total points really due to player activity alone?

[Thrutchy]

(11-09-2012 08:08 AM)terenceshiu2005 Wrote:  

(11-09-2012 02:00 AM)Thrutchy Wrote:  I agree that points by themselves aren't that meaningful. But, when you look at both points and wins you can get a rough measure of skill within a given league. Of course league is a more important first-order measure of skill. I look at the ratio to see points/win. I don't think you can access the number of wins when looking at the players in your division (tell me how if you can), but you can see this for your opponent (chat->player's icon). Having the total wins include 1v1 and 2v2's muddies things further, but you can still use the ratio of the sum of points vs. wins. There are plenty of flaws in using this ratio as a measure of skill, but I still think that points with wins can be meaningful.

I actually did the same thing to measure my opponents when I started playing outwitters. I would think total points/total wins > 10 would be a great players. However, it won't work if the hidden ratio is used for the top players. this explained some of the top player don't have many points.

Yep. For top players, just use the top 200 list for comparison. As I said, using the ratio has plenty of flaws, but it still can be useful for measuring skill. If the ratio is high, you might conclude a high win/loss ratio and that the player is moving up in the leagues. A lower ratio might say that the player has stabilitized in the league (but, you don't know where).