In 1st place, we have (yes, again) "iPeg". 2nd place is "BigD4Life" (up from 23rd last season) and in 3rd we have "dkatz1877" (up from 9th last season). A close call in 4th is "236Postie", so a special shout out for that run at the top. This season's other honorable mentions go to 5th place player "ernie313" who came up from 30th last season, "Br1Guy" who was 21st last season and now 8th, and "DertyFerd" in 10th rising from 44th. I believe those improvements certainly represent some real hard work to get there. There were a lot of other big improvements again this season, including several new to the Top 50, so congratulations to you all as well.
I do have some potential inside information that may indicate iPeg could be taking a breather this new season. If you were sitting out and waiting for your chance to make a run at it, this may be your chance, or I suppose iPeg reads this and decides to not sit out! Should be a fun and exciting season either way. With that said, iPeg's accumulated Gold so far should make for a fun opponent in the Cribbage Contests system if you are looking for a way to make some extra cash. Maybe send iPeg a friend invite/challenge to put those winnings to good use! (sorry iPeg, you are about to get spammed with friend requests - the price of fame and fortune).
As with past seasons, everyone who finished the season in the Top 50 ("Recent" list), have been awarded both a special in-game "board peg" as well as Cribbage Pro Gold that can be used in the Cribbage Pro Contests system and then redeemed for cash (awards must be used at least once in a Contest to be cashed out to USDC, see the full terms and conditions for details). The top finisher is awarded the "crown" board peg, and all others in the Top 50 are awarded a "star" board peg. These pegs are shown to everyone when playing in online multiplayer games, and they are permanent, so if you see your opponent has one of them you can know that they have earned it by finishing in the Top 50 in competitive play. The Cribbage Pro Gold awards are as follows (not cumulative):
- 4 Gold for Top 50
- 7 Gold for Top 25
- 10 Gold for Top 10
- 20 Gold for 3rd Place
- 30 Gold for 2nd Place
- 50 Gold for 1st Place
Here was the final Top 50 for Summer 2021 / Season 5:
| 1 | iPeg | 26 | cribfan44 |
| 2 | BigD4Life | 27 | Duane1952 |
| 3 | dkatz1877 | 28 | koala29 |
| 4 | 236Postie | 29 | RedRickM |
| 5 | ernie313 | 30 | mbhenjum |
| 6 | Gssj21 | 31 | james500 |
| 7 | Shee7235 | 32 | c3polerud |
| 8 | Br1Guy | 33 | MondoMan |
| 9 | VGKnights | 34 | SH00TER |
| 10 | DertyFerd | 35 | biyeme |
| 11 | fisher17 | 36 | Cmoney421 |
| 12 | kb92129 | 37 | roberttt |
| 13 | lbolt58 | 38 | SASK03 |
| 14 | pegmstr77 | 39 | Malbogia |
| 15 | rattle15 | 40 | nob4one |
| 16 | cyrusg | 41 | auck |
| 17 | 4KA | 42 | younggun9 |
| 18 | Numan1 | 43 | catslover |
| 19 | dixietix | 44 | Freddie69 |
| 20 | dph | 45 | Yompopo |
| 21 | jwr13 | 46 | gtgplayer |
| 22 | joekayak | 47 | Kev8888 |
| 23 | hunterIT | 48 | Tutti |
| 24 | Trucha1 | 49 | 2Fnbad |
| 25 | dcpastore | 50 | scotiagir |
Thanks Fuller Systems for providing a very challenging format for competitive players! Rather than risk suffering from CWS (cribbage withdrawal syndrome), iPeg will participate again this season. Good luck to all the players!
ReplyDeleteLet me add to ipegs comments.. The competition is by far the best implementation of matchplay cribbage that i've seen
ReplyDeleteI look forward to seeing even more enhancements over the coming months!!
Wholeheartedly agree. Aces.
DeleteDear app master here's a recent issue that i have encountered. I have both wifi and data with great connection. i have had a a few games where the opponent goes past the 10 seconds and there is an exclamation mark on there photo and says time exceeded and it kept on going on for more than 8 to 10+times during the games yet the game is allowed to continue??? Sometimes it just stays on the exclamation mark and i get charged for the loss and sm not allowed to log back in for the penalty???
ReplyDeleteHi, connection problems are often complex. Remember that when it comes to play time, the other players connection will be a factor as well so that even if they play within the time limit on their device it may take a while to reach our servers and then back out to you. Our servers account for this, and that is why you may see it as exceeded on your side when it has not yet by the server calculation. That said, if you are given a loss, then that means it was seen as your side losing connection. If you would like more insight into ways to improve your particular connection situation, email us at support@FullerSystems.com and we can review your game logs and go from there.
DeleteYes same happens me as well
DeleteThe end of match stats... Hand and pegging scores.... Do these refer to all 3 games or just the final game?
ReplyDeleteFor matches with multiple games in the match, like in Competitive Matchmaking, the stats shown at the end are for the entire match over all games played in that match.
DeleteWould love to see opponent stats as well. And perhaps avg cut points and avg crib pts.
DeleteEnjoy the game, but so many games are determined by opponent getting 4 or 5 large hands against my 2 hands. I’ve skunked and have been skunked many more times than in normal play.
ReplyDeleteAlso, have never seen so many fours of a kind
DeleteDoes the CR ranking system use any means to take the 'luck' out of the game? Or is the best-of-3 format used the only means?
ReplyDeleteFor example, if the winner of the match had >2.0+/pts per had hand more than the loser, you can assume that luck played heavily into their win (assuming the loser was still making the correct discards, which could be verified by the program), and that the skill (pegging) played almost no part.
Should the result of this type of match carry the same weight as a match where the points/hand average was roughly equal between the two players and it came mostly down to the pegging to determine the winner?
Hi, the short answer is "no". The multiple games played per match is what is used to help, but certainly nothing is perfect. There are some other ways to do ranking systems that we have some ideas about, but they look less like a traditional game of cribbage in various ways. We have a very strict policy that the game will never manipulate cards or anything else like that, so doing anything like that is off the table. Perhaps there is some math that could be done that can determine what part of a win is luck versus skill, but I'm not aware of any proven methods.
DeleteTrying to credit a player for good decision making vs simply getting better than or poorer than average hands would be very tricky. Sometimes playing defensively results in lower pegging, lower hand averages, but may be the best strategy to win, for example. The bottom line is winning percentage over the long term. The best way to remove the “luck factor” is to play a large number of matches, so the cards dealt become statically balanced. Luck matters in any given game, but in 500 games, the most skilled player will be at or very near the top. “Strength of schedule” is applied also in the multiplayer competitive format, giving more credit for a win against a highly rated player (typically high winning percentage) vs one with a lower rating.
DeleteThanks for the reply.
DeleteI'm just putting out some suggestions that I think could work. I'm not at all suggesting that the app should manipulate how the cards are dealt, but I do think that some analysis on the stats of each player could be done to determine how much luck was involved in the result of each match, and then use that to adjust how much weight the system gives to it.
There's obviously some skill involved in the discard, as an inexperienced player won't make the correct optimal discards that a more experienced player will. But the system (or at least other cribbage apps do) should be able to analyze player discards to determine this and take it into consideration.
If each player makes the correct discard 98+% of the time (this should be the case for all matches between CR 4000+ players), you can determine the luck of the cards based on their average points/hand. If there is a large differential between the average points per hand of each player (eg. 6.75/hand vs 8.75/hand) we can assume luck played a large part in the game, no? The skill part (pegging) did not have an affect on the result.
I think there's a opportunity to look at such data and perhaps incorporate it into the CR ranking system.
I would also be interested in statistical averages for hand, crib, and pegging for various players, both for the player and for their opponents. A very small difference, a 1/4 point per hand can make a big difference in winning percentage. I think there was a blog post about this previously, analyzing A,B,C,D player levels.
Delete@Sawyer More stats would be great. @Fuller is there any possibility of these type of stats being added to the app?
DeleteI think it'd also be nice to see a snapshot of the stats from your last 500 games or so and how it compares to your 'career' stats and see whether you are improving or not. Your win rate can tell a lot but once you've played several thousand games it looks like it never changes.
@XLNC21, we have a long list of things we want to do, and adding more stats on many different things is definitely on the list. Again, it is a long list, so I can't say when it will be done, but we do plan to eventually get to everything.
DeleteOh boy iPeg, have i thought about this one. As perphaps the 4200+ player with the most matches, volume is a two edge sword as ones reward tends to diminish over time while the risks appear to remain eerie similar. I would think some kind of win probablity or ELO-like adjustment to a match result would help smoothbout the luck factor a bit. So perhaps instead of losing 8 points in a match where one has a win probablity below 10 (regardless of opponent rank) only 6 or lost.
DeleteThat said, yes, over time cream does seem to raise to the top.
Not sure why my name didnt appear. Unknown is dkatz1877
Delete@Sawyer you're probably right, it likely does even out over the long run and the skill does prevail in the win %. But a system that can identify the skill sooner would be an improvement, no?
ReplyDeleteI want to clarify that I am not criticizing the CR system. It does seem to be very good at ranking players as it is, as the top CR 4200+ players I've played are without a doubt excellent players. I just thought there is a potential to possibly eliminate some of the luck involved in the ranking system. It's also possible what I'm suggesting would have no bearing on the overall standings in the competitive leaderboard at the end of every season.
It is an interesting concept. Optimal decision making can be measured to a large extent. However, a vast number of players have a healthy winning percentage against the advanced computer (brutal) mode on the app. So the computer still needs some help in making optimal decision. There are so many subtleties in cribbage, it a wonderful game!
Delete@Sawyer, my position tends to be that "optimal cribbage" is searching for a unicorn. Just my personal 2 cents. However, I don't disagree that the strategy of the computer AI could be optimized in many ways. We generally don't do much to improve that because frankly it is hard enough as it is.
DeleteOne way to remove 'luck' would be to get all matches to be with the same dealt cards.. In a similar way to how Duplicate Bridge is played and scored..
DeleteJust an idea..
Question about scoring - I just played 3 games and win the first two getting 4 points per win and I lose one game and lose 10 points for the loss. Is this correct?
ReplyDeleteHi, the thing to remember is that this is not a points system. It is a skill ranking system. The explanation on the blog post announcing it has more information if you would like to dive into it a bit deeper, but know that who you are playing against is a factor as well. In short, don't expect CR values to go up and down by a set amount on a highly predictable basis.
DeleteIf you were playing these games against players with the same ranking as you, you probably would have raised your ranking by winning 2/3 matches. Playing against opponents with lower perceived skill levels results in a higher penalty for a loss than the reward for a win. By the same token, if you win against an opponent with a higher ranking, you will receive a bigger boost in rank. To avoid playing opponents with vastly different ratings, you may limit the match time by canceling if no matches are found after several seconds. The longer you wait, the wider the criteria for matching becomes.
DeleteFuller Systems, thanks for all the hard work improving the app. Is implementing an “all time” top 50 for competitive matches on the horizon any time soon? After 5 seasons, there are many good players who have “stars” and have finished in the top 50. It would be interesting to see all time top players ranked who consistently play well each season or play well each season they choose to play.
ReplyDeleteHey, thanks for playing, and for your great support of the game! Each season is really structured as its own thing, from a ranking perspective. It could be possible to compile all past Top 50 and merge them together somehow, but I'm not sure the results would be entirely meaningful. Something to think about.
DeleteMaybe a green star for the most recent season or a star with a number of top 50s. Would love to see 1st,2nd 3rd top 10 top 25 top 50 counts in player stats
DeleteCompetitive Matchmaking still needs work regarding finding opponents. The estimated timer is rarely accurate. The longer you wait the more likely higher CR players will be matched up against significantly low CR players. For example, last night I waited about 10 seconds and was matched up against a player who's CR was 1,000+ lower than mine. I lost and my CR dropped 10 points. Next match and I'm matched up vs. a player 400+ points lower than me. I win and only get a few points back. I win my next match against a closely rated player and my CR is back to where I was at before my 10 point drop from that 1,000+ CR low ranked player.
ReplyDeleteA ladder competition shouldn't allow players with huge CR differences to match up because it significantly penalizes the higher CR player. If you're going to do this, just make it a free for all.
First, let me agree that it certainly isn't perfect and there are things we plan to improve. Some matchmaking improvements are likely to be done "next" on the list.
DeleteSecond, just to clarify, this is not a ladder system. In a ladder, it is usually more of an open system where anyone can challenge anyone else and exchange "rungs" on the ladder, and that is not what we are doing here and not what it sounds like you are asking for either. It is intended to be a skill ranking system.
Finally, the CR shown is just the output of a formula and not ever going to perfectly represent the factors involved, or frankly perfectly match your actual skill in the game even. The system is concerned with finding the best estimate of your skill relative to everyone else. How to do that "perfectly" in a game where luck is still a factor is where the challenges persist. If we skew it too highly towards only playing those that are at a very similar skill rank, there are negative consequences to both wait times to find a match and a feedback loop of sorts that can lead to driving some players higher and never letting lower level players play against them while having many stuck at the bottom. The matchmaking component as it stands right now is actually pretty complicated to try and balance these things, but as with the CR system, there likely is no "perfect" to be had - just compromises and balancing as best we can. I play in a few other competitive game systems personally (not cribbage), and I can tell you I have never seen one that I thought was always great/perfect, and I can't think of one where everyone thinks it is perfect either. Compromise is the name of the game.
I appreciate your input, and others, and know that we will continue to work to improve when and where we can.
I also get a bit frustrated at times when having a string of bad luck against against the much lower CR ranked players, and my ranking tanks because of it.
DeleteI put forth a suggestion that could possibly be used to take out the 'luck' and identify the skill better, but at the end of the day (or season), a larger amount of games played will even out the luck. If we look at the leaderboard we see iPeg at #1 once again with many matches played, so the CR ranking system certainly appears to let the cream rise to the top.
Correct, I'm not suggesting a ladder format where opponents swap places but rather a limit as to the difference in CRs that can be used to match up opponents. The longer you wait the greater your chance you'll be matched up against someone significantly lower than you in CR. There's no reason for a top-tier player to do this b/c you get penalized more with a larger hit to your CR if you lose. If you're going to deduct a large amount from the CR of the top player in this match-up then the system should award the same amount if they win.
DeleteI get it that part of the issue is a smaller player base to draw from. But that's because you chose a best of 3 game format. If you want a large player base with a lot of activity and fluidity in the the standings then go with a best of 1 game match format. There's a reason why this is the most popular option in the Classic game play so it makes sense to offer a competition event to cater to these players.
Why do you give 4 points for a win but take 10 points for a lose? Very frustrating
ReplyDeleteHi Ric, as described in the first blog post about competitive matchmaking and mentioned in some of the comments here, this is not a points system, but a skill ranking system. It doesn't "give points" or "take points", even if the output is a value change in your CR that you see. If you are interested in exactly how (and why) the system works, start with the that initial blog post and follow the links there to the descriptions of the systems this is based on.
DeleteI realize that no system is perfect how ever if you get opponents let's say 1500 pts below you and again not by choice and they consistently get lucky cards and win you lose massive points which doesnt always makes sense. This ranking system is decent( but not so sure its so good for cribbage) butfar from perfect where players let's say have played 500 games and have similar records and have a winning percentage well above 50% can be on opposite sides of the rankings (one can be in the top 5 and the other can be ranked southside of 150 )and be 300 to 400 points apart which doesnt really make any sense. Hope my tidbits help improve this game for the future!
DeleteYou can avoid playing opponents with vastly different ratings by limiting match time. Regarding two players with similar win/loss records having significantly different ratings, it’s because the computer tries to factor in the strength of schedule, so to speak. It may not be perfect, but I think it’s a good system, especially when compared with some I’ve seen on other sites.
DeleteJust wondering if Sawyer as an undoubted expert player, has ever experienced a series of 6 or 7 games where the opponent has averaged as least 4 points per hand greater than his. No matter what skill level...this is not normal....I've hit a 24 hand...pegged a 21...played tight in all of these games. It would be good to have an explanation and an account of your own experiences. Thanks Sawyer.
ReplyDeleteBlog
DeleteHi, very good question! Having played as many games as I have, I’ve seen just about everything, from miracle finishes in single games, to long winning streaks making me feel invincible, to protracted slumps having me question whether my strategies are any good. I really don’t keep track of how lucky my opponent gets or how many games in a row the cards seem biased one way or the other. I’m totally convinced the cards are dealt and cut randomly. Out of 100 games, I’ll lose 30 because my opponent gets better cards and I’ll win 30 because I get better cards. It’s the other 40 games where I can use advanced strategies and manage risk effectively that really matter. That’s where one or two points can make the difference.
Just played a match where my opponent's play time exceeded 10 TIMES and the match never forfeited. I took screenshots every time it happened. This isn't the only time it's happened, hate playing matches that drag on after every card is played.
ReplyDeleteHi, sometimes what looks like a delay from your perspective may be a slow internet connection somewhere between any of the devices involved. What that means is that although your timer will expire, their timer on their device may not have expired by the time they played. The timer you see is always relative and can't account for delays over the internet. Our system accounts for this. As such, it is entirely possible that what you saw was just a slow internet situation. If you email us at support@FullerSystems.com with the exact details, I would be happy to investigate.
DeleteI can understand a few times where the time exceeded notification pops up but 10 times in one match is pretty excessive. This isn't the firs time it's happened so I decided to take a screenshot every time in the last match. If the countdown timer/message warning doesn't mean anything or is unreliable then just get rid of it (along with the estimated timer to find a match).
DeleteGreat game concept...I am a decent player and have found this to be challenging to my game and improved my strategy... although not a master....improving
ReplyDeleteJust played most of a match against Wahoo something. They were taking as much as 20-25 seconds between moves and still were allowed to continue. I couldn't take it any longer (25 minutes for 1 match), let the clock expire 4 times and was given a loss. I don't mind losing but why was my opponent given so much time and not counted out like I was?
ReplyDeleteAs mentioned in other comments earlier, this is usually because of a slow internet connection (latency). If you have a specific case that you want us to look at, please email us at support@FullerSystems.com and include your username and the approximate time of the match.
DeleteThrough four plus seasons of the multiplayer competitive play, I think this format does a great job of identifying the top players. In my opinion, it’s the best competitive format available for online cribbage. I have a few comments on this format for consideration and ideas for future competitive play. Many of the comments in the blogs are related to playing opponents with large differences in rankings. The formula is generally perceived to penalize a high ranked player over the long term when playing a much lower ranked player. Sometimes it seems to require an 80 percent or higher winning percentage for the high ranked player to break even in these games. In cribbage, this is nearly impossible, as the best players are near 60 percent against all opponents. To avoid these matchups, some players limit match time to a few seconds before canceling. For the top players, this can be a tedious process. Often times, more time is spent attempting matches than actually playing matches. Please consider tuning the algorithm based upon the results of previous matches, if possible. The adjustment should be small to avoid rankings that continually climb on sheer volume of play. Another idea would be to tighten the matching criteria to maybe within 200 points or less, or to within 50 ranking positions.
ReplyDeleteOne idea for future competition would be to match players completely at random for two-game sets, with each player dealing once. Players would be required to play a set number of matches, say 250 (500 games) in a 90 day season, no more, no less, so that all players are on equal terms for number of games played. Players could only be matched against each other once, to ensure a variety of opponents, assuming enough players participate. Pure winning percentage would determine how the players rank. This format wouldn’t require a complex skill estimation formula and would eliminate the issues with matching criteria and matching times. Matching would be instantaneous, as long as enough players are online. Fuller Systems and other players, please comment. Thanks!
@Sawyer
DeleteI have also noticed what appears to be an unfair penalty for the higher ranked players when they lose to the lower ranked (CR under 4000) player. However, I have not tracked what winning % in matches is required to maintain a high CR level against them.
KenC456 posted a very detailed comment in a previous blog post where he tracked this over his season 3 and 4 matches, and I'll quote him here:
"From experience, to maintain a 4300+ rating, you have to score 3-2 (60%) against 4000+ rated players, while against 3500-3999 players you have to score slightly higher than 3-1 (75%), and against 3000-3499 rated players you have to maintain a record of 8-1."
This seems to align with what you have figured or calculated as needing a ~80% win rate to break even. And based on this, I would agree, the formula is expecting a very unrealistic win % for the top players to have against the lower ranked players.
For an experiment, I've run some simulations to see what win % a player would have in best-of-3 matches based on their single game win%:
50% win rate player wins 50% of best-of-3 matches
52% win rate player wins 53% of best-of-3 matches
54% win rate player wins 56% of best-of-3 matches
56% win rate player wins 59% of best-of-3 matches
58% win rate player wins 62% of best-of-3 matches
60% win rate player wins 65% of best-of-3 matches
65% win rate player wins 72% of best-of-3 matches
Doing further simulations (and based on KenC456's comment):
- to have a 60% best-of-3 win % against CR4000+ players, you'd need a 56.5% singe game win %
- to have a 75% best-of-3 win % against CR3500-3999 players, you'd need a 67% singe game win %
- to have a 88.9% best-of-3 win % against CR3000-3499 players, you'd need a 79% single game win %
So I would have to agree, the CR formula does appear to require top players to have an unattainable win % against the lower ranked players.
So I'll keep it relatively short. I truly appreciate all of the feedback, and even "free analysis" that everyone has offered. We do think that the system is "fairly good", but do also agree there is room for improvement. I have some ideas that should help address some of the bigger concerns, but I will be doing some testing and analysis before I can commit to anything specific with respect to what will improve, how and when.
DeleteStop quitting at the end of matches. Nothing wrong with losing, it happens all the time. Just please finish the games.
ReplyDeleteI've asked before but I'll comment again and am curious how others players may feel. I would like to see an "all time" top 50 ranking for competitive matches. An all time ranking would show the players who consistently play well each season. Even with a best 2 out of 3 format and hundreds of matches in a season, luck plays a big factor over the season. Mediocre players can get hot cards and finish in the top 50. As more seasons progress, it seems like everyone I play has a "star." I'd like to see all time top 50 to see who the real top 50 are. Thanks for all the hard work.
ReplyDeleteThe top 50’s for past seasons are listed in the blogs. I reviewed only the top 10’s but similar analysis could be done with the entire top 50’s. iPeg was in the top 10 in all 5 seasons. Dkatz1877, VGKnights, and TC2 each had 3 top 10’s, Nytric456/KenC456, enaud58, lbolt58, Br1Guy, fisher17, and BigD4Life each had 2 top 10’s. These player would be in consideration for the all time top ten, but some players may have done better if the entire top 50 was evaluated.
DeleteI believe the best players who also have the time and inclination to play a larger amount of games will do well in this system. It's a good system, but one should keep in mind that caveat. It's a great business model to promote and reward those who play the most games.
DeleteAt this moment, the 6th place player has played 1113 games, the 10th place player has played 30 games, and the 46th place player has played 996 games so I wouldn't say there's a bias towards having time to play a lot of games.
DeleteAs discussed previously on here if you play more luck effects your rating less; thus, two equally matched players are effected by that. You could have longer matches to deal with that, but under the current system one just plus more. As a result,play more. We are about 60 days in annmost players in the top 50 have 200 or more matches in. That's a little over 3 matches per day. Some have 500 or more...that's a little over 8 per day. I don't have a problem with it, but I do think there are many players ho are equally as good at 4000 rating who play a lot less than those at 4200 plus. If you look at each players overall win percentage in competitive match play it's a better indicator of overall ability. That was my only point. I'm an verge player but I can tell when I play a really good one.
DeleteAnanon I agree that long term winning percentage is a very good indicator of how good a player is. Also, player with a 55% winning percentage with 1000 games played can be better or worse than a player with the same winning percentage but with only 200 games played. It helps to evaluate players relative skill levels when they both play the same number of games, and the more games that are played, the higher the confidence in the estimation of skill.
DeleteA player can get really lucky (or unlucky) over only 100 or 200 games, so their win rate % at that point can be misleading. Over 1000 games it's more reliable, but over many 1000s of games looking at an overall win % can again become misleading. A player can have improved substantially after playing 5,000+ games, but their overall win% may still be 53% yet they may actually playing at 56% over their past 1000 games. A last 500 or 1000 games snapshot in the statistics section would detail this. I think it would also help players show how or if they are improving.
DeleteAnother drawback in comparing win % player-to-player, is you also have to assume they are playing the same average level of opponents, which may or may not be the case at all. Some players may look to only play the best or most experienced players they can find, and some others may not care at all who they match with. A system like the CR ranking that takes into account the strength of opponents is needed to account for this.
Analyse my last 40 matches...tell me the run has been fair...I look forward to your response.
ReplyDeleteHi, I have no idea which player you might be exactly, or what you seem to believe what has or has not been "fair" to you in your "last 40 matches". We regularly audit the card shuffle and distribution, and have periodically published the results of those audits on this blog. If you have a specific match that you want us to review, then email us with your username, the time that the match completed and the specific claim you would like investigated.
DeleteA good addition would be to state the opponent's average hand score against your own at the end of the game. I have been on the end of some barbaric hands for quite a while now.
ReplyDeleteAgreed, would be nice to see the opponent's average hand stats.
DeleteMakes two of us unknown
ReplyDeleteI’ve been saying this for months now fuller systems and keep saying it’s a game of skill but if you’re dealt multiple 19 hands and cribs how can a person possibly compete? It’s phoney and not random dealing End of story
We have never claimed that cribbage is 100% skill. We have said it involves a significant amount of skill and we have even put a number to that if about 60/40. These concepts are not mutually exclusive, and the fact that cribbage involves an element of chance doesn't mean that the shuffle isn't fair and random.
DeleteAll I was saying in my post about seeing not only your own high and average hand at the end of Competitive Matches is to see also that of your opponent. When you are getting hit for 16...21...24...in the same game on a regular basis as I have had for a long period against 12...6...3..4...etc well at least you have the information your opponent has had the superior hands... unrealistic as they may be in normal regular face to face play... honestly...I have found a lot of the games absurd....
DeleteI was winning we were tied 1each then. This lame system went down no time for a screen shot as it just shut down
DeletePOS
All of our systems are online and functioning normally. Nothing has "shut down" on our end. If this happened recently, we can possibly review the game log from your device to see where the issue was that caused your problem. Email us at support@FullerSystems.com
DeleteMe to know how, why do you keep subjecting yourself to such punishment? I think you would be happier playing checkers or tic-tac-toe, where a biased random number generator cannot be used to undermine your exceptional skills.
DeleteHere’s a thought for you ipeg/sawyer mind your own business and get a life. Who do you think you are?
DeleteLet's keep things civil and productive, or I will close down comments.
DeleteI agree Fuller, there is no need for animosity.
ReplyDeleteSo what do you think of the suggestions from a few of us to show your opponent's average scores on the same page as your own at the end of the best of 3 Competitive Matches?
You must be sending both pieces of info out separately after each game to both opponent's so it would be good to see this to know you're not playing badly but just the subject of a bad run of cards. Thanks.
I think it is definitely something we want to do, and it is "on the list". I'm not sure when we will get there, but we plan to add it.
DeleteAverage player hand and average opponent hand would be meaningful statistics over all matches played. In any single match there can be a large difference due the the random nature of the cards, but over 1000 matches, for example, it will be more closely balanced.
DeleteThank you Fuller for your response, most appreciated. I appreciate Sawyer's comments about a balance over 1000 games, however, although a keen player, as most on here are, I also have to do some work and spend time with friends and family, as I'm sure most do. Appreciate several thousand games a season would even out in favour of the most skilled....most can't commit to that though. I think the average hand data and average box data would be good just for the player's sanity on a bad run. Thanks for listening.
ReplyDeleteHello,I sometimes have difficulty getting in 10 games and wondered when the start date and time is. I usually try to get a game in Saturday but notice they don't always count and I get a message Friday evening saying I need to get a game in I thought I completed. Thanks
ReplyDeleteHi, the link to the FAQ with the answer to your question is in this blog post, but here it is again: FAQ on matchmaking
DeleteIf a doc told me I had 10 seconds to live I'd use the Current Match Timer because it would last for eternity 😜
ReplyDeleteYeah, it's just an average for all recent players. If your player rating is not average, it won't be as close of an approximation. I'm hoping to improve that in the future.
DeleteIt's all good. Most players have learned to cancel waiting for a match after about 10 seconds otherwise you get screwed and matched up against someone whose CR can be 1000+ lower than yours
DeleteI'm not sure what exactly the CR number represents in competitive play, but after winning 2 games against opponents around or over 4000, mine climbed to about 3 shy of 4000. I didn't play for about 2 days and when I did I beat another opponent who's CR was over 4000 last night, yet mine had dropped 30 points to 3969 somehow? What gives?
ReplyDeleteHi, it sounds like you didn't play the 10 match weekly minimum. See the FAQ for details, but without playing the minimum the confidence factor drops and the CR shown is impacted.
DeleteUgh,my attention lapsed while waiting for a match and about 15 seconds went by. Next thing I know I'm matched up against a player whose CR is 1500+ lower than mine. That really makes no sense, would rather be told that no viable matches are available.
ReplyDeleteThis will change before the start of the next season. Stay tuned.
DeleteMay be my last season unless you offer a best of 1 game Matchmaking League. That would be more exciting, fast paced, with more competition.
DeleteWe have played around with a few ideas for single game matches, but have not yet found something that handles the chance/luck enough with just a single game. Even at a best of 3 it is pushing it. Any suggestions?
DeleteMatch players at random, play two games, each player gets first deal once. Play 20 sets per week, no more, no less. Opponents are matched only once. Rank by winning percentage at the end of the season. This would eliminate long wait times, first deal luck, disparities between number of games played, arguments over rating formula.
DeleteLuck will always be a factor regardless of the number of games in a match. Best of one game matched will draw a lot more players and movement in the ratings, keeping the activity level up. It'll be a playing frenzy up until the end which is what you want. There's a reason why it's the favorite got players in Classic. There are a lot of top, regular players who don't play Competitive Matchmaking only because it's a best of 3 format.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the suggestion. Certainly luck of the draw is going to be a factor in cribbage, but our goal is to help lower that factor as much as we can so that the results are showing the truest representation of rank we can reasonably get to. That said, I may just run a future season with single games instead of "best of 3", and see how it works out. It is too late to do that for the next season, so it would be at least after that.
DeleteBest of one matches will bring a lot more players so it makes the season more competitive and enjoyable. You play a lot more matches which lessen the luck impact.
DeleteI'm bowing out of the next season but if you follow up with that best of one match season I'll be back... with friends! 😁
ReplyDeleteI don’t blame you Uber pooch and I’m on the same page as you
DeleteThe only way a person can get ahead is to play a whole lot of games but I assume you have a life like I do
MTKH, are you aware that the current season leader has played only 117 matches? That’s less than 10 per week. Uber is currently 5th, which is excellent, and he has played a very large number of matches.
DeleteTwo questions:
ReplyDelete1- Is there a minimum number of weeks required ?
2- please explain how rating is determined when CR is a tie?
Thanks,
Rhuby
Hi,
Delete1) Not exactly, but that may change. Today you can't join the season for the first time at the very end (last 2 weeks).
2.) I'm guessing you are asking how to determine ranking when two people tie. The first part of the answer is that the CR is actually a very long decimal value and I have never seen any of them actually be identical after initial placement ranking is done. Second, to answer your question directly, if that ever happens (and again, extremely unlikely) the system will use a combination of your regular classic games points values and overall win rate to break the tie.