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.Originally Posted by Forward_Lateral
On something as subjective as "hotness," an opinion of one just isn't good enough.
-Bill
Take away those huge mams and she's a bow wow.
Her and half the broads that were auctioned.
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.
YardRat Wall of Fame
#56 DARRYL TALLEY #29 DERRICK BURROUGHS#22 FRED JACKSON #95 KYLE WILLIAMS
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/sho...7&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
Last edited by BLeonard; 08-29-2011 at 08:32 AM.
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'm 16!!!!
My Mom will be so proud!!!
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:
Margin of victory: $1375
Total Bids: 11
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
Last edited by BLeonard; 08-29-2011 at 08:27 AM.
That's why you throw out the high and low bids.
Don't be throwing my $69 out.
That's fine... Until...
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
Last edited by BLeonard; 08-29-2011 at 02:28 PM.
as usuall bill you put the snooze in statsbut perhaps a method for coming up with ""hotness factor"" is to rank them, not by average bid, but total zb bid
Last edited by Mski; 08-29-2011 at 02:48 PM.
RIP Tommy D!
12/25/1978-9/9/2008
If you make something "Idiot-proof", they'll only make better idiots!
Mski
very good point, the amount of people bid and the amount bid would give you an idea of a hotness factor IMO
Another reason I feel a weekly, human vote poll for "hotness factor" would be the most accurate... Borrowing from TD's post...
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
Last edited by BLeonard; 08-29-2011 at 03:19 PM.
I'm not understanding what you mean by "total ZB Bid."as usuall bill you put the snooze in stats
Let's use Jennifer Lopez as an example...
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
Last edited by BLeonard; 08-29-2011 at 03:23 PM.
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
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.
3rd from the bottom of the league in the Power Rankings? I'm just like the Bills.... great
After Every Dark Night Comes a Brighter Day
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
Posting Permissions
