MrL said:You're raising issues that don't really exist. The hypothetical situations you raise are pointless.
You say that, but you didn't address anything I said at all. :-(
MrL said: In your situation... there are now 20 teams that Jaice is a part of on the list of teams (just because of one person, let alone the 50 others who may switch between partners; lots of clutter).
That's not true at all, and even if it was, do you see the irony here? This is fundamentally the problem with your approach, and hurts your "registered teams" method. Your solution is, "well, this is convoluted, so we ignore it." That's not a solution; it's a "la la la I can't hear you I will ignore this" approach.
You know how we don't list players on the Elo list if they haven't played for the past six months? We could easily do the same here, if not just have a set minimum of matches. Hell, the beauty of this player-centric way is that it doesn't need to be listed at all, but all those results would be acknowledged on a player's singular page. Your strawman above is akin to saying "we have many people who never attended a tournament, so why are we listing them at all?!" The answer is, we don't, so why are you saying we do?
MrL said: But there's also no way to determine which time is better, other than a theoretical algorithm.
I've read this a few times, and I don't get it. You say you don't have a solution, so you are complaining about a potential solution that we can continue to tweak and improve. No one is saying we do any sort of overfitting or underfitting, so I'm not really sure what you're getting at. An algorithm is indeed the solution, so there is a way. O_o
MrL said: It may say that one team is better than another, but only in theory; the teams would need to face each other to determine that, which can't happen. Then this process would have to happen with every person.
You realize that is what Elo is all about, right? How does the same exact
statement not apply to your approach? Elo is LITERALLY a predictive score. It is a guess about, when two entities face each other, who will win. When it's right, it reaffirms the distance between the entities; when it's wrong, it reduces the difference. Elo is "in theory," as is your registered team Elo.
Why else are we using Elo? Why are you using Elo in your registered teams approach if you are arguing that the theory of Elo is not acceptable by your standards? Elo was in fact designed to predict hypotheticals, even if they never ever happen, like two chess masters who were separated by generations.
MrL said:It not only would just look ridiculous to have one person in every (or even multiple) team(s) as 'the best teams' but also impossible to determine which is the best amongst those as they cannot battle eachother.
Yes, there would be n * (n-1) potential teams, but your registered team ignores the vast majority of them. We don't have to list them all (see above), nor do we calculate their scores either (that's the beauty of a player-based approach!).
Your method: I don't see how ignoring these teams represents anything. Do you just want a handful of teams that don't represent anything but a selective group that has no predictive value - or any meaning for that matter? If you're saying one person can only register with one other person, that's a "la la la ignore" solution.
MrL said:No data will ever be 100% accurate, players and results are constantly changing, and at any given time someone's elo may not represent their skill.
That's what Elo is all about. That's why it changes. How does your approach "100% accurate"-ly predict changes?
MrL said:With set teams, there are constant variables that are pit against each other over a period of time.
Great! Can you specify what these are? Bear in mind you just said above that "results are constantly changing" and Elo "may not represent their skill" but somehow your registered team is immune.
MrL said:Within this set of teams, a ranking order would be able to be established (and one person won't be in multiple teams that will be unable to face each other).
From this, a more accurate PR can be established.
How can any PR be established? I've explained this before, and you did not address it. Your Elo approach wouldn't represent anything after more and more results are acquired. You're free to use the example I gave, of Bob the Builder and Timmy the Tester scenario. This is the value of the hypothetical situations you quickly dismissed without explaining why you dismissed them. It explains why your approach will fail over time. How, in those situations - which would eventually happen as the number of doubles matches increases - will your solution continue to be "100% accurate," "not in theory but in practice" best team ranking order?
MrL said: Using that algorithm and making a new team and scoring them based on who is teaming, that will only result in the top 10 being 5 teams with jaice and 5 teams with jezmo.
I think you're making assumptions on Jaice and Jezmo's team variables, as well as other players they would team with. Again, while my equation is just an example and wholly incomplete, it still doesn't suggest this in the slightest. Feel free to punch some numbers in. Talking in the abstract may be the reason for the confusion.
MrL said:However, I'd rather a few one-off teams slip through the cracks than have an entire list of teams be made up of one person holding the top several ranks with [insert random players]. Again, even with that list which would look ridiculous, there's no way of determining which is better among them.
You're not getting this if you're thinking this way. At a certain point, the "registered team" Elo doesn't represent anything but a biased sampling of people. You ignored it the first time, so I'll say it again: the more results you have, the LESS accurate your approach will be (see Bob and Timmy). You haven't demonstrated a solution to this. Instead, you ignored it and just said there's no way to figure out with my method (although there is). What part of Bob and Timmy is not making sense? And how would Jezmo plus random player even be high? Have you actually plugged in Jezmo with a random 1000 Elo player in my equation? Again, my equation may not be perfect, but even it doesn't rank them high.
MrL said:It's just not viable to have a system that tries to rank every combination of players, as that way the teams that play against each other will be different each time and impossible to accurately show improve because of the number of variables (hence why we don't already have it), let alone one person can't be on two teams at once to determine which of the two (or more) they are a part of is better.
You can do it all hypothetically with the algorithm as said but that's not reflective of actual doubles results between the various teams. I just don't see your way as a viable or accurate way to determine the best teams.
Okay, no more strawmen after this, okay? I never said we rank "every combination of players," and thinking that demonstrates a complete failure in understanding my player-centric approach. You need to explain how you "solve" all the "issues" you've raised. It's really not acceptable to say, "I'm okay with all these problems to the point it becomes meaningless to have team Elo." Why would qldsmash implement it then?