3 ms·
The nature of Elo should mean that competitions against weak opponents are not free. You should be very likely to win them, yes, but when you lose them, you ge
by robrenaud 16y ago
The nature of Elo should mean that competitions against weak opponents are not free. You should be very likely to win them, yes, but when you lose them, you get penalized harshly for it. It's kind of like betting on a roulette table that has no zeros (eg, no 'house advantage') on every number except for 36. You are likely going to win (probability 35/36), but your winnings are very low (36/35), and so the expected value of the bet is still no gain (35 * 36) * (36 / 35) - 1. Occasionally, you lose all of your money. The really bright kid with the 1550 SAT from the middle class family decides he'd rather take the full ride to state U than go to MIT because the family doesn't really want to pay the tuition.
On the other hand, the model just might not fit, and it could be over-predicting rare events, I haven't looked at the data.
- carbocation 16y agoIn the Elo system, losing against a lower ranked opponent is most certainly not free. But when you are Harvard and you win ~80% of cross-admit battles, losing only to Stanford, Princeton, Yale, and MIT (other high-Elo-point schools) then battles against lower ranked schools end up being free points. Contrast this with MIT, which, as pointed out above, does lose against lower ranked schools from time to time, bringing down it's ranking despite beating higher ranked schools frequently. In other words, the features that you suggest are critical, and the system already has those features.