BoB Power Rankings

[BLeonard]

http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m130/BLeonard1996/BoBPR8-27-11.jpg

As I said in the other thread, this DOES NOT TAKE INTO EFFECT the "hotness factor" of the girls. Since "beauty is in the eye of the beholder," I'd need to have multiple people rank each card from best to worst to get a fair "hotness factor."

The score is calculated based on a weighted formula. The following factors go into the formula:

1: How many total cards the player has
2: How much of the player's $200,000 salary cap is remaining
3. The average cost per card won by the player (EX: 2 cards totaling $70k would average $35k)

Each player is "ranked" in the 3 categories... 1 is the highest rank, where 31 is currently the lowest rank (since 31 players have at least 1 card)

The 3 rankings are then added together... The sum is divided by 3 to come up with the score you see. Like golf, you want the lowest score.

Since I'm still experimenting with this, any constructive criticism is welcome. The current formula I'm working with is:

((CardRank x 2.25) + CapRank + AvgRank)/3 = Score

For non-nerds...

CardRank:
You are ranked based on how many cards you have... Currently, the highest amount of cards any one player has is 4 (4 players have 4 cards). Those players get a "1" for CardRank. anyone with 3 cards gets a "5" for CardRank and so on. That ranking is multiplied by 2.25.

CapRank:
You are ranked based on how much cap space you have left. The Jokeman currently has the most cap space left among card owners... So, he gets a 1 in CapRank. Ranking goes down from there. In this category, TacklingDummy would be 31st with $69 ZB left under the cap.

AvgRank:
You are ranked based on your average cost per card. The less you spend per card won, the better.

The above three rankings are added together and then divided by 3. Whoever has the lowest score at that point is #1 in the Power Ranking.

Questions, comments, suggestions?

-Bill

[jamze132]

Seems logical.

[TacklingDummy]

One problem I see is take for example BLen..

He is ranked 4th overall having Hope Solo and Jamie Chung as cards. Out of the 65 women who have been auctioned off so far those 2 probably are not in the top 45.

Yet BLen is ranked higher than someone who has Kristen Bell, Rosie, Christina, and Jill Wagner in their stable.

I just can't see how people with dogs are ranked higher than people with hotties.

[BLeonard]

As I said in the other thread, this DOES NOT TAKE INTO EFFECT the "hotness factor" of the girls. Since "beauty is in the eye of the beholder," I'd need to have multiple people rank each card from best to worst to get a fair "hotness factor."


This didn't explain it to you, TD?

I didn't take "hotness" into account, because I don't have a fair, unbiased way to judge "hotness." If that changes, we can certainly find a way to include it.

-Bill

[TacklingDummy]

Girl Rankings..,

65. 08/01/2011 - Jodie Sweetin - 45,025 Forward Lateral
64. 06/29/11 America Ferrera - 30,000 Forward Lateral
63. 08/08/2011 - Jennie Garth - 27,551 northernbillfan
62. 08/05/2011 - Soleil Moon Frye - 47,222 CuseJetsFan83
61. 08/22/2011 - Lucy Lawless - 34,000 methos4ever
60. Flash - Hope Solo - 28,500 BLeonard
59. 07/29/11 - Coco - 34,257 Jokeman
58. 07/19/11 - Anna Paquin - 82,500 Stewie
57. 06/23/11 - Julie Benz - 40,000 Ebenezer
56. 07/07/11 - Rosario Dawson - 68,695 Dujek
55. Flash - Julie Bowen - 50,001 northerbillfan
54. 07/09/11 - Tina Fey - 107,000 Historian
53.08/03/2011 - Sarah Palin - 69,269 CuseJetsFan83
52. 07/15/11 - Gwen Stefani - 43,000 Dujek
51. 07/27/11 - Kat Von D - 35,001 Static
50. 08/17/2011 - Christina Hendricks - 53,000 BlackMetalNinja
49. 07/07/11 - Rosario Dawson - 68,695 Dujek
48. 07/14/11 - Danni Boatwright - 43,000 DraftBoy
47. 07/28/11 - Marisa Tomei -50,001 methos4ever
46. 08/04/2011 - Michelle Rodriguez - 75,000 bf1
45. 07/21/11 - Rihanna - 78,243 Stewie
44. Flash - Jaime Pressly - 41,600 chernobylwraiths
43. 08/16/2011 - Pam Anderson - 37,716 Mski
42. 06/30/11 - Danica McKellar - $165,000 clumping platelets
41. 07/01/11 - Lindsay Lohan -50,000 X-Era
40. Flash - Christina Aguilera - 16,690 TacklingDummy Would be higher if lost weight
39. 08/15/2011 - Hilary Duff - 52,000 DraftBoy
38. 07/05/11 - Daisy Fuentes - 80,001 SabreEleven
37. 07/04/11 - Beth Ostrosky - 80,000 SabreEleven
36. 06/27/11 - Kelly Ripa - 55,069 Stewie(sold to Historian for $501,000)
35. 07/22/11 - Jamie Chung - 41,500 BLeonard
34. 06/20/11 - Kate Mara - $25,000 DraftBoy
33. 08/10/2011 - Lauren Graham - 35,009 jamze132
32. 06/24/11 - Laura Prepon - 45,000 Forward Lateral
31. 06/14/11 - Hether Graham - $14,345 Mr. Miyagi
30. 06/22/11 - Christina Applegate - 25,069 Stewie
29. 06/16/11 - Cameron Diaz - $11,000 SabreEleven (sold to Historian for $500,000)
28. 07/04/11- Drew Barrymore - 45,752 Michael82 (sold to northernbillfan for 200,000)
27. 07/20/11 - Gwyneth Paltrow - 51,000 EricStratton
26. 08/11/2011 - Tiffani Amber Thiessen - 82,799 TMu11
25. 06/17/11 - Rhona Mitra - $26,500 Forward Lateral
24. 06/21/11 - Gina Carano - $50,000 BlackMetalNinja
23. 07/13/11 - Cristina Scabbia - 47,000 BlackMetalNinja, Free Agency sold to Novacane for 47,000
22. 07/13/11 - Eliza Dusku - 81,000Forward Lateral, Free Agency sold to methos4ever for 49,700
21. 07/11/11 - Kari Byron - 80,003 Mr. Miyagi
20. 07/06/11- Amy Adams - 58,999 Mr.Miyagi
19. Flash - Camila Alves - 27,500utmhead (sold to northernbillfan for 55,000)
18. 06/13/11 - Kate Upton - $27,599 thelastbuffalofan
17. 07/04/11 - Amy Smart - 36,000 FunTimesYay!
16. 08/23/2011 - Danica Patrick - 61,000 Novacane
15. 06/15/11 - Pippa Middleton - $19,000 SabreEleven, Free Agency sold to Eric Stratton for 87,500
14. 07/18/11 - Kristen Bell - 69,690 TacklingDummy
13. 08/09/2011 - Sophia Bush - 70,082 Michael82
12. Flash - Rosie Huntington-Whiteley - 69,690 TacklingDummy
11. 08/02/2011 - Kaley Cuoco - 70,000 DraftBoy
10. 07/25/11 - Kim Kardashian - 104,000 X-Era sold to syd1364 for 18,000
9. Flash - Jill Wagner - 43,861 TacklingDummy
8. 08/12/2011 - Rebecca Herbst - 41,120 Novacane
7. 07/12/11 - Miranda Kerr - 110,201 SabreEleven
6. 07/26/11 - Kristin Cavallari - 69,699 jamze132
5. 06/28/11 - Olivia Munn - 75,000 Static
4. 08/17/2011 - January Jones - 51,204 YardRat
3. 08/24/2011 - Jennifer Connelly - 54,700 chernobylwraiths
2. 07/13/11 - Lucy Pinder - 80,000 hydro
1. Flash - Penelope Cruz - 53,000 Eric Stratton

[YardRat]

Why is the card rank multiplied by 2.25? That seems to skew the rankings in favor of those with multiple cards.

[BLeonard]

Why is the card rank multiplied by 2.25? That seems to skew the rankings in favor of those with multiple cards.

Initially I had it set where they were all weighted equally.... I noticed that it tended to favor the people with a lower amount of cards, as long as they didn't spend so much on the card, it canceled out.

Since the idea was to have the "better stable," I felt there should be a bit of an advantage to one who holds multiple cards... As I would think someone with multiple cards has a better chance of winning than someone with one card. The 2.25 is low enough that it can still be trumped if you spend too much on a card.


TD: Your list is fine. But, at the same time, it's one opinion. To make it more objective, we'd need multiple opinions... And they'd have to be willing to do a list like that once a week.

I am brainstorming about another possible idea that people would be willing to do, without making them make an entire list of every card weekly.

-Bill

[BLeonard]

My thought on the "hotness ranking" would be rating each players' card(s) as a collective group? That way, anyone willing to participate wouldn't have to rate every girl every week, just comprise a ranking of 1-31 (as of now) of best to worst current stables?

Kinda like a coaches poll in college sports?

-Bill

[YardRat]

Initially I had it set where they were all weighted equally.... I noticed that it tended to favor the people with a lower amount of cards, as long as they didn't spend so much on the card, it canceled out.

Since the idea was to have the "better stable," I felt there should be a bit of an advantage to one who holds multiple cards... As I would think someone with multiple cards has a better chance of winning than someone with one card. The 2.25 is low enough that it can still be trumped if you spend too much on a card.


TD: Your list is fine. But, at the same time, it's one opinion. To make it more objective, we'd need multiple opinions... And they'd have to be willing to do a list like that once a week.

I am brainstorming about another possible idea that people would be willing to do, without making them make an entire list of every card weekly.

-Bill

You could've just said 'I pulled it out of my ass' ...

[BLeonard]

You could've just said 'I pulled it out of my ass' ...

Well, to be honest, I didn't pull it out of my ass... As I said, I had them all even at first. But with 2 "Cash factors" in there (remaining cap & average card price) it seemed like there wasn't enough weight on actually having cards. The 2.25 basically gives players who have more cards a .25 advantage, since 2/3 of the scoring is money-based.

Think of it this way: Without that weight, you could buy the cheapest card in the game and be ranked #1 in salary cap and average card price, which would likely get you the #1 in the power ranking. No weight on number of cards held just gives too much weight to the cash aspect of the game.

If we get a way to include a "hotness ranking," should that not be weighted, considering the object is to have the "best overall stable?" I would think it should be weighted. That's why getting an unbiased "hotness ranking" is important... It would probably hold the most weight.

-Bill

[YardRat]

I was just bustin' on ya :D

[BLeonard]

I was just bustin' on ya :D

I figured, but wanna make sure any questions were addressed sufficiently. :nod:

-Bill

[YardRat]

"Hotness" should be determined by number of bids and value of average bid, throwing out any outliers.

[BLeonard]

"Hotness" should be determined by number of bids and value of average bid, throwing out any outliers.

Couple problems with that:

1: On the days where multiple women were up, but you could only bid on one, each girl those days obviously would get less bids than if only one girl were up.

2: Not a knock on Bedard, but there have been times when people's bids haven't been posted... Didn't you actually have that happen recently? In the grand scheme, they weren't winning bids, so didn't really matter, but it'd be inaccurate if you used that info to create a "hotness factor."

3: Not everybody is able to bid everyday, thus lowering the number of bids, without any relation to "hotness."

It's not a bad idea in theory, just wouldn't be accurate in application.

-Bill

[YardRat]

Good points.

[BLeonard]

OK, I think I have a fair, yet unbiased way to do a "Hotness Ranking" and incorporate it into the formula I currently have... The catch is, I would need the help of at least 4 people. If more people want to participate, that's fine, but I need at least 4, because I need 5 voters (4 others, plus myself).

The good news would be: Your first vote would likely be the most difficult/time consuming. People who play daily are ideal as voters, since they could adjust their rankings daily, following every auction. Obviously, if you think one players' team is hotter than another players' and neither have changes to their cards in a given week, I don't see why they would change in your "poll." After your first vote, the only changes you would have to make would be based on changes made throughout the week (additions by winning auctions, trades, free agents, etc).

Assuming we can get 4 others to agree to vote weekly, here's what I'm thinking:

Each week (I'm thinking Friday, following the day's auction), voters rank players from first to worst (right now, worst would be 31). First team gets 1 point, 2nd gets 2 and so on, based on team hotness.

After all votes are in, each team would have 5 scores. I'll remove the best and worst score for each player, to ensure fairness. Then, I'll add the remaining three scores for each player for a total.

The lowest total score would be ranked #1 for team hotness, 2nd would be #2 and so on.

This would fit in pretty easily with the formula I already have, as we'd then weigh the hotness rank, then add it to the other three ranks (CardRank, CapRank and AvgRank) and divide by 4 for a score.

The only question I have would be... How much weight should the Hotness Rank get? Since the ultimate goal of the game is to have the hottest team, obviously, it has to be higher than the 2.25 weight given to the number of cards...

Personally, I'm thinking the hotness weight should be 3. That would mean, everyone's score would be comprised of the following:

CapRank
AvgRank
CardRank (x2.25)
HottyRank (x3)

The first question, obviously is, how many are willing to participate weekly in voting?

If people aren't willing to vote, there's not really much sense in exploring this option further.

-Bill

[Forward_Lateral]

Hotness ratings are purely subjective. Sweeten last? Come on. I'd put her hotter than at least half the chicks.

[YardRat]

Theoretically speaking...

If I were to win the next auction for 48,000 how would that specifically affect my ranking? How many spots would I move up or down?

[TacklingDummy]

Hotness ratings are purely subjective. Sweeten last? Come on. I'd put her hotter than at least half the chicks.

The bottom 10 are interchangeable.

Same with the top 10.

Who's your Top and Bottom 10 from the list of 65?

[BLeonard]

Theoretically speaking...

If I were to win the next auction for 48,000 how would that specifically affect my ranking? How many spots would I move up or down?

As the formula stands now, you'd be 11th.

-Bill

[BLeonard]

Hotness ratings are purely subjective. Sweeten last? Come on. I'd put her hotter than at least half the chicks.

That's why I haven't included a hotness factor as of yet. If I had, I would have only been able to use my own judgment in determining hotness.

On something as subjective as "hotness," an opinion of one just isn't good enough.

-Bill

[Novacane]

Hotness ratings are purely subjective. Sweeten last? Come on. I'd put her hotter than at least half the chicks.



Take away those huge mams and she's a bow wow.

[Forward_Lateral]

Take away those huge mams and she's a bow wow.

Her and half the broads that were auctioned.

[YardRat]

That's why I haven't included a hotness factor as of yet. If I had, I would have only been able to use my own judgment in determining hotness.

On something as subjective as "hotness," an opinion of one just isn't good enough.

-Bill

OK, I think I might have something that'll work...

HOTNESS-For regular auctions only, the average bid placed exclusive of the obvious outliers (the high and low bids), then ranked accordingly.

HOTNESS FACTOR-For Flash Auctions-Determine a multiplier (%) based on regular auctions' cumulative winning bids and cumulative average bid. There is a large enough sample size that the multiplier could be determined at this point and applied for the rest of the game and still be accurate enough to be fair. For example, assume the total of all winning bids is 100k, and the total of all average bids is 60k, the 'hotness factor' would be 60%. Any flash auction winning bid would then be multiplied by the .60 and placed into the rankings accordingly.

Hotness has already been determined by the amount of the player's bids, and flash auctions would be weighted accordingly by the multiplier to account for any discrepancies in the format.

[BLeonard]

OK, I think I might have something that'll work...

HOTNESS-For regular auctions only, the average bid placed exclusive of the obvious outliers (the high and low bids), then ranked accordingly.

HOTNESS FACTOR-For Flash Auctions-Determine a multiplier (%) based on regular auctions' cumulative winning bids and cumulative average bid. There is a large enough sample size that the multiplier could be determined at this point and applied for the rest of the game and still be accurate enough to be fair. For example, assume the total of all winning bids is 100k, and the total of all average bids is 60k, the 'hotness factor' would be 60%. Any flash auction winning bid would then be multiplied by the .60 and placed into the rankings accordingly.

Hotness has already been determined by the amount of the player's bids, and flash auctions would be weighted accordingly by the multiplier to account for any discrepancies in the format.


OK, see, Yardie... I'm a certified nerd and you managed to confuse the hell out of me... But, some issues I can see would be if someone missed an auction and "would have bid more." Also, keep in mind that the first auctions were limited to 5 players and under different cap rules. On top of that, there were a lot less people that knew about the game when it started... That doesn't necessarily mean a girl that went early in the game was "less hot," it just means less people knew about the game, creating less bids, which most likey would lower the average.

The only way I see getting a true, individual hotness factor, would be to have people rank each girl, in order, each week. That's a LOT of work and I'd bet people would get disinterested in ranking as the number of girls to rank gets higher.

Also, since every other ranking is based on teams (with each user being his own "team") it makes sense that the hotness ranking should follow the same idea. After all, the goal is to have the best stable of girls in the end.

I posted this on the first page and I still think it's the fairest way to get an unbiased ranking: http://www.billszone.com/fanzone/showpost.php?p=3513377&postcount=16

Like I said in the post, I'd need 4 others minimum to commit to ranking teams weekly to make it happen.

-Bill

[mysticsoto]

I think, in taking in account the scoring, you should also consider the paid amount in the card vs the average bid on the card - so people that overpay extensively get dinged on score, but people who win in a close match up get hit much less so.

[Historian]

I'm 16!!!!

My Mom will be so proud!!!

[BLeonard]

I think, in taking in account the scoring, you should also consider the paid amount in the card vs the average bid on the card - so people that overpay extensively get dinged on score, but people who win in a close match up get hit much less so.

I've thought about taking the margin of victory into effect when coming up with a "hotness score," meaning cards with less margin of victory being "hotter," but, I'm gonna just pull two cards out and show you why that won't work:


269
15,600
21,369
24,500
25,000
25,000
27,560
37,501
40,002
40,125
41,500 WINNER BLeonard!

Margin of victory: $1375
Total Bids: 11



21,000
27,500
30,000
30,050
37,800
42,001
45,001
57,400
61,552
62,500
70,001
75,000
110,201 WINNER SabreEleven

Margin of victory: $35,201
Total bids: 13

In thse two instances the bids are close (13 to 11). But, the margin of victory is very different. If I'm understanding you right, card #1 should be considered "hotter," because the margin of victory is considerably smaller.

Card 1: Jamie Chung
Card 2: Miranda Kerr

I own Jamie Chung, but I don't think people would say she's hotter than Miranda Kerr.

Keep in mind, if any of those bid totals are incorrect or missing, it throws everythng off as well. Keep in mind, this is comparing 2 cards... We'd have to find a way to accurately judge EVERY CARD... As I said before, with some bids in areas missing, some might be incorrect and the fact that less people bid on cards in the early game, I just don't see that sort of formula holding true for EVERY card.

Again, that's not even taking into account situations where a bidder would have bid more, if they were aware of the auction. I likley would have bid more for Jaime Pressly, but she was a flash auction and I missed it... That would throw that card off right there and I'm one of the players that doesn't miss auctions too often. Actually, she's the ONLY one that I can recall missing since I started playing. On top of that, I didn't have a shot at the first 5 cards (beta) and I didn't start playing until the end of June, as I didn't have enough cash to really compete.

I'm using myself as an example, because I know when I started paying and whih cards I missed (or had no chance at, due to funds). That doesn't mean that the girl that I couldn't bid on wasn't hot, though.

In short: There are way too many factors that could potentially skew bids and number of bids on a given card to really accurately come up with a hotness factor that works for every card. Chances are, close to the end of the year, as people get closer to the cap, the bids will skew lower as well. Doesn't mean the girl isn't hot... It means peple can only bid so much.

-Bill

[YardRat]

That's why you throw out the high and low bids.

[TacklingDummy]

That's why you throw out the high and low bids.


Don't be throwing my $69 out.

[BLeonard]

That's why you throw out the high and low bids.

That's fine... Until...



Two official bids.

5,000
16,690 WINNER Tackling Dummy

Also, as I've mentioned before, the first 5 cards were not up for public auction, so how do I rate them appropriately? They were also won under different cap rules.

What about cards that are won that become free agents? Or, cards like Sarah Palin, who weren't won in a reglar auction? People are allowed multiple bids in Free Agent style auctions.

Combine those questions with the ones I had initially... Not all of the bids being posted, people not being able to bid everyday, etc.

There's just so many moving parts in using the bids, it makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to come up with something that can be universally applied.

Rating the teams of cards also makes more sense in the grand scheme... At the end, we'll be deciding who has the best team of girls, not judging the cards individually... We'll be deciding between the team with the great QB (really hot girl) and poor RB (lower end girl) vs the team with an average QB and average RB (2 middle of the road girls).

The other three areas that currently make up the power rankings are calculated by comparing the teams against each other... A hotness factor should be calculated the same way and is the best way to get a universally fair score.

-Bill

[Mski]

as usuall bill you put the snooze in stats:D but perhaps a method for coming up with ""hotness factor"" is to rank them, not by average bid, but total zb bid

[utmhead]

Mski
very good point, the amount of people bid and the amount bid would give you an idea of a hotness factor IMO

[BLeonard]

Another reason I feel a weekly, human vote poll for "hotness factor" would be the most accurate... Borrowing from TD's post...



40. Flash - Christina Aguilera - 16,690 TacklingDummy Would be higher if lost weight


If next week, it was revealed that, for example, Christina Aguilera, lost 15 poundds, people would consider her "hotter than she was before." In a human poll, voters could then rank her higher, based on real-time information. Putting a non-fluid averaged, cold hard number on "the hotness factor" doesn't allow for any sort of movement.

Another example: Say next month, Kaley Cuoco poses for Playboy. I would think that would likely raise her "hotness." Or, in other voters' eyes, could lower her "hotness" (Though I can't imagine how...).

The other three parts of the formula are pretty hardwired... The only part that would be subjective would be hotness. With the 5 voter proposal I laid out, it would give a fair rating of where everyone's team stands. But, unlike the other three areas, it could be adjusted for anything that happens with the girl in real time, similar to a fantasy football player's value fluctuating, pending on how they perform.

-Bill

[BLeonard]

as usuall bill you put the snooze in stats:D but perhaps a method for coming up with ""hotness factor"" is to rank them, not by average bid, but total zb bid

I'm not understanding what you mean by "total ZB Bid."

Let's use Jennifer Lopez as an example...


69
25,000
29,151
31,500
31,500
33,877
34,500
35,000
35,700
36,001
37,750
40,100
47,000
70,000 WINNER bf1!


Are you saying, add all of the bids together? That would be 440,148...

The previous problems still remain: More people are playing the game now than were at first and only 5 people played for the first 5 cards. Obviously, cards now (with more bidders) are going to attract more bids (and as a result, more cash) than the ones in the "early days." That doesn't mean that Jennifer Lopez would be considered "hotter" than say, Kate Upton... Lopez was bid on by more people and under different rules.

Also, the salary cap problem remains... I'm gonna guess that TacklingDummy was the guy that bid $69... Well, that's all he CAN bid. I assume, if he had more, he would have bid more. The hottest girl in the world could be up for bid, but guess what? TD can still only bid that $69.

TD's bid $69 on every card recently... That's all he has... It doesn't mean that he thinks the girls he bid the $69 on are all equal in hotness.

-Bill

[YardRat]

I don't think you're going to find enough people dedicated enough to come up with a ranking system.

[BLeonard]

I don't think you're going to find enough people dedicated enough to come up with a ranking system.

That's why hotness wasn't included from the start...

Initially, I was thinking that I'd have to get a number of people rank the girls individually, like TD did... The problem is, that would change as girls are added. I don't think many would enjoy ranking a ever growing list on a weekly basis.

That's what got me to thinking, maybe I can get a few people to rank the teams, based on the hotness of the girls the teams had. To pull that off, I'd need 4 people to rank the teams on a weekly basis.

On the brainstorming I've done, it's by far the most accurate, least time consuming way to get a system that works within the current system I have, without having to create different scenarios for the different ways cards are acquired.

Theoretically, we could have one person ranking the teams based on the hotness of girls on the teams, but it would almost have to be someone with no stake in the game (meaning a non-player) and even then, it would be biased, based on that person's personal preferences.

With 5 people voting, you can eliminate the biasedness, because you drop each team's highest and lowest ranking... In that scenario, people who have cards could vote with no real risk of a player getting an unfair ranking... They rate their own team too high, it'll get dropped off anyway.

Yes, it would be a hotness rating based on 5 people's opinions, but, it's a helluva lot better than a rating based off of one, with no checks or balances built in to counterbalance it.

-Bill

[chernobylwraiths]

One of the better ways to do it would be to do an average of the bids while throwing out the top few and anything under 1000. Many times you have one or two people way over bidding for someone. You would also need to have a minimum amount of bids, so many of the flash auctions wouldn't count. Trouble is, even with the ones that have been done where Mike put in a bunch of bids, he even admitted that all the bids weren't there. There were many times where people said that their bid wasn't even shown.

Good job on your ranking system, though I think I am not high enough only being in 10th.

[TMu11]

3rd from the bottom of the league in the Power Rankings? I'm just like the Bills.... great

[BLeonard]

One of the better ways to do it would be to do an average of the bids while throwing out the top few and anything under 1000. Many times you have one or two people way over bidding for someone. You would also need to have a minimum amount of bids, so many of the flash auctions wouldn't count. Trouble is, even with the ones that have been done where Mike put in a bunch of bids, he even admitted that all the bids weren't there. There were many times where people said that their bid wasn't even shown.

Good job on your ranking system, though I think I am not high enough only being in 10th.

The problem is, I have to then define "throw out the top few." Some auctions are very close at the top, where sometimes, you see 1-3 bids WAY ahead of the pack. To say "well, I'll throw 2 out on this card and 3 out on this one," etc, just doesn't make it very accurate.

As for your ranking, I'm just reporting what the formula spit out... Without an accurate "hotness factor," I can only base the formula off of known stats. At this stage, with 4 months still to go, there is a lot of fluctuation with rankings, so it's not like you don't have plenty of time to go up in the rankings.

-Bill

[BLeonard]

3rd from the bottom of the league in the Power Rankings? I'm just like the Bills.... great

Having only one card and it being the 6th highest costing card in the game isn't gonna spit out a good ranking.

Like I told chernobylwraiths, though... We've still got 4 months in the game, so right now, rankings are almost like a preseason ranking in college football... A lot of games to be played (cards to be won) and a good chunk of time to better your position.

-Bill

[chernobylwraiths]

The problem is, I have to then define "throw out the top few." Some auctions are very close at the top, where sometimes, you see 1-3 bids WAY ahead of the pack. To say "well, I'll throw 2 out on this card and 3 out on this one," etc, just doesn't make it very accurate.

As for your ranking, I'm just reporting what the formula spit out... Without an accurate "hotness factor," I can only base the formula off of known stats. At this stage, with 4 months still to go, there is a lot of fluctuation with rankings, so it's not like you don't have plenty of time to go up in the rankings.

-Bill

Well, the high bids are somewhat more subjective. Some will bid really high because they really like the person. I would take a high bid off if is was really way over the rest (as in Clump's case). Anything under $1000 isn't going to get anything unless it is a lucky flash bid when nobody else is bidding or if there were several that we up and one wasn't going to receive a bid. It was more of a hope that nobody else would bid.

[BLeonard]

Well, the high bids are somewhat more subjective. Some will bid really high because they really like the person. I would take a high bid off if is was really way over the rest (as in Clump's case). Anything under $1000 isn't going to get anything unless it is a lucky flash bid when nobody else is bidding or if there were several that we up and one wasn't going to receive a bid. It was more of a hope that nobody else would bid.

That's one of the difficult things with taking bids out of the equation... Where to draw that cutoff... It would likely vary with each card. If you're not judging each card with the same criteria, it really skews the results.

Also, like you said, if there weren't enough bids, it could be an issue as well. I still argue that, just taking the bids to determine a htoness factor wouldn't be accurate, as many other factors play into what bids players end up sending. Examples would incluse how much cap space they have, how cheap they think they can win the card for, etc...

Also, take into account your situation a couple weeks ago... IIRC, you were away from internet access for like a week and, as a result, didn't bid. Is it really fair to factor something like that into determining how hot a girl is? Your "dream girl" could of been up for auction that week, yet you still wouldn't have bid, because you didn't have internet access... Doesn't mean she's less hot, because you weren't able to bid.

Especially in the event of Flash auctions... Not everyone gets to bid on them, not because they don't think the girl is hot, but because they weren't on the computer at the time the auction went up.

Example: X-Era from the Danica Patrick auction

9:38am till 4pm?

OK, I guess I'm out.

I have to assume he didn't even see this auction, until it was over... Now, had he seen it, perhaps he would have bid. Whether or not he would have won would be irrelevant, as it was a bid that would have been available to use in figuring a "hotness factor," if the hotness factor were to be calculated, based on the bids. Also, if he would have won, it means he would have bid higher, pushing the winning bid (then the 2nd place bid) down into the equation of figuring hotness.

That's why you really can't use the bids to figure a "hotness factor." Too many factors go into bidding... It's not just how hot the girl is.

-Bill

[chernobylwraiths]

That's why you really can't use the bids to figure a "hotness factor." Too many factors go into bidding... It's not just how hot the girl is.

-Bill

I don't disagree, I just think it is a way to gauge things a little.

[BLeonard]

Well, obviously, the best way to determine a "hotness factor" is to ask Bedard a simple question: How is the winner of the game going to be determined?

If I remember right, the winner is going to be determined by some sort of a vote by people playing the game. Unfortunately, that's about as specific as it got, from my recollection.

Once we know how the winner is actually going to be determined, perhaps it will help us come up with a somewhat realistic hotness factor to enter into the equation.

-Bill

[The King]

Right, That's pretty much how it will go.

I think the criteria will be managed cap (most girls) which is easy to grade.
Then you'd rate the stable of girls which will obviously be interpreted differently.

[BLeonard]

Right, That's pretty much how it will go.

I think the criteria will be managed cap (most girls) which is easy to grade.
Then you'd rate the stable of girls which will obviously be interpreted differently.

OK, when you say "rate the stable of girls," thats where I'm looking for more clarification...

Currently, there are 31 "teams." Let's say it ends with 31 teams (just to make things easy). How are you envisioning the vote?

1: Every team will be asked to rank the stables from first to worst, with whoever has the highest average then being the winner.

2: Every team will be asked to rank a certain number of stables, such as a top 5, top 10, etc... Similar to how college sports' coaches polls work out.

3: Some other way that I'm not thinking of... The top two scenarios seem to be the most logical.

I assume simply winning a card qualifies your team...?
Say 2 "teams" have 5 cards each and people "rank" them on an equal level... Could less cash spent on your stable serve as a tiebreaker?

Just questions off the top of my head. It's sounding like there will be some sort of human vote, meaning the most accurate type of hotness ranking would be the scenario I pitched and won't really have anything to do with the bids.

-Bill

[The King]

I will probably list each team similar to what I did with todays poll and allow for an A-F ranking. Purely on hottness.

[BLeonard]

I will probably list each team similar to what I did with todays poll and allow for an A-F ranking. Purely on hottness.

OK, so voting won't be limited to people playing the game...

The teams that get "A" ratings would obviously be the best, then... Then, the question would be, how do you determine the winner from the teams that got an "A" vote...?

If I could get people to rank teams weekly on an A-F scale, I might be able to get a hotness factor in the power rankings yet... That would be considerably shorter than ranking teams 1-31... Just would need to translate it from letter grade to a number grade:

A = 1
B = 2
C = 3
D = 4
F = 5

As is the case with all of the power ranking numbers in the formula, you want a low score... A group of 5 people would still be enough to get a sample size, so I'd still need 4 others to help... But, it would be a much shorter process this way.

-Bill

[BLeonard]

3rd from the bottom of the league in the Power Rankings? I'm just like the Bills.... great

FYI: Today's win helped you some...

Not a lot, but some...

-Bill

[TMu11]

FYI: Today's win helped you some...

Not a lot, but some...

-Bill

Baby Steps