Savvy enough to know you are a little too eager to do Mark’s bidding for him.
Club Team Tiers
- Thread starter Rollonyoubears
- Start date
RandomSoccerFan
PREMIER
"Mark's bidding" in supporting a helpful app that is intended for a similar space that this board covers? You continue to let people know very clearly that you're a dumbass conspiracy nut. I'm not sure why you want to keep reinforcing that belief.
Pointing out a problem with the app makes me a dumb ass? Maybe you have something to hide? You don’t get to answer for Mark if you don’t get to see the source code.
RandomSoccerFan
PREMIER
Nope.
Posting this does.
Posting this does.
Nobody, including me, is answering for Mark. Me, myself, and I, initially tried to help you understand what you're struggling with. But I have since conclusively realized you're not capable of rational thought or discourse.
Soccer Dad & Ref
SILVER ELITE
You mean besides the handful of parents that have their phones out discussing the upcoming game's likely score? My buddy got me hooked, and then we got a few more parents hooked. Provides us with good pre-game recreation for us while we are waiting for the last game to end and those parents to move their chairs.
If you are not able to see the source code so you are in fact guessing yourself. I don’t need you to repeat things I already know. The fact remains the program has trouble with one data iteration and according to you Mark has no idea how the problem came about. Your words not mine. This doesn’t give me a lot of confidence. But it’s your words. Mark would probably disagree.
I am looking at the problem itself. If the program can get something so obvious wrong, how can someone has any confidence in other ranking that aren’t so obvious. And your claim that a program gets x percent of predictions correct. Unless you are Mark, how didn’t you get that type of detail? If you are Mark, I suggest you go fix the problem in the code.
RandomSoccerFan
PREMIER
You are a walking advertisement for the ignore button. Are you this slow and disagreeable in real life, or just on internet forums? But in case some neurons upstairs decide to fire, all of my knowledge is both from using YSR for years, and now the app, from its birth. And dozens, if not hundreds, of email conversations back and forth to Mark and his team about things I was seeing and suggestions for improving the app. Quite a few of them have made it in; he's incredibly responsive. A number of current and past posters on this board also have a similar relationship with him and his team.
And yes - as discussed in the first post about in this thread, there seems to be a glitch where when data sources are added manually, sometimes the rating of the combined team seems strange for a day or two. I've noticed it. I've talked to Mark about it. He's investigated it quite a few times. It isn't reproducible. And as also discussed since that first post, it resolves itself shortly, just as it did in this case.
If you want the details on the predictivity, ask support! The queries run periodically and automatically so the team can make sure that the predictions continue to track as expected. If you lost confidence in the app as a whole because of the bug above, so be it. I think you're a fool, but being foolish is certainly anyone's right.
People like you are who my company fires. No desire to improve and hope things resolve by themselves. If you care about a product you put out, you would want to fix any glitch.
RandomSoccerFan
PREMIER
People like you who can't understand why their language and behavior turns everyone off aren't hired in the first place by my company.
This is a very nieve statement from someone who clearly hasn't worked on complex systems.
It’s so complex that Random and Focomoso can’t explain the glitch. It’s so complex that no one can reproduce it.
RandomSoccerFan
PREMIER
rainbow_unicorn
PREMIER
OR this is a statement from a typical manager unqualified to oversee a complex system but offers up recommendations like "change the soccer ball avatar"
I still can't get enough of rankings programs. Now I follow this.
Massey Ratings - College Soccer Women : NCAA D1 Ratings
Computer ratings and rankings for CSOCW (College Soccer Women), with links to team predictions, scores, and schedules.
masseyratings.com
Yep. That's what happens in complex systems. In this case, it's not the algorithm itself that's particularly complex, it's its recursive nature and the sheer amount of data running through it.
Inputs are mapped to outputs. Simple. But then those outputs are fed back into the system as inputs. This creates a "state space" that grows exponentially and is far too vast for any individual to get their head around. This can give rise to anomalies that are dubed "unreproducable" because small changes in the initial inputs can have such large consequences in the eventual outputs that even in a fully deterministic system (which I suspect this is) an analyst may not be able to create the inputs that lead to a specific anomalous behavior.
Note that this is what I do in my day job. (Someone's gotta pay for all that soccer.)
I, too, toil in the realm of computer instruction generation to primarily financially support the activities of my other family members.
There is another great part of the app. You can click on any team on it and see the game results for that team. Nationals proved to me that the algorithm isn't perfect and I think there should be more weighting to the "difficulty of schedule". I say that because of the dominance of SoCal. We play great teams and a lot of other clubs play very sub-par teams, beat them 9-0, and the app gives them way too much credit. Really good teams can absolutely score goals at will against really weak teams and you learn nothing playing those teams if the score is 4-0 or 14-0.
The other side to this coin is good teams that generally play terrible teams in league get penalized.
What will happen is when good teams from not so good leagues play against poor teams from good leagues they'll destroy them.
I would suggest weighting teams ranking by geography not league. CA TX then everyone else.
RandomSoccerFan
PREMIER
Both of these things can't be true at the same time. Good teams playing poor competition either get too much credit (and have inflated ratings), or not enough credit (and have deflated ratings). It doesn't mean either of you are seeing things incorrectly, and it might be a a direct interpretation of actual games that you're seeing.
But I think it might be helpful to separate the predicted score / difference between two teams (Did we win by 3 goals), and the win/loss result (Did we win). The ratings are optimized so a higher rated team will beat a lower rated team. If there are circumstances where higher (better) rated teams are losing to lower (worse) rated teams, the ratings of both of the teams will adjust in the expected direction. If it were happening enough, the percentage of successfully predicted wins would be expected to be noticeably lower than it is.
I think we'd all agree that a team that can beat another by 5 can also beat them by 10, and the inherent differences between the teams don't matter much whether the score differs by 5 points, 10 points, or 20 points.
The problem with what you're describing is after a team gets up by 5 goals they tend pull back from scoring.
RandomSoccerFan
PREMIER
Right - but that's the point. Regardless of why that difference isn't as large as it might be in a perfect world (A better team might theoretically keep on scoring to go up by 10 if there weren't a stigma), it doesn't matter. The results are the results, the wins are wins, and the scores are recorded.