Just out of interest how do you go about deciding who has won? Is it the person who gets the correct order 1 to 10 or the person who most closely matches the year end rankings of individual players? I can't imagine how you'd calculate the latter but since there are clearly some wizard statisticians on this forum I'm sure you'd find a way. It's not that I'm competitive or anything - just as a newbie I'm interested to understand how things work.
Wishing a very happy New Year to all
It's sim's system, and all credit and thanks goes to them.
You get points for how close you get in predicting the GB ranking spot for a player, and a separate set of points for how close you get to predicting the final WTA rank for a player, irrespective of wherther you get the GB ranking place for them correct or not. You can score in one category for a player whilst having got the other completely wrong.
Here, from queries made last year is sim's explanation:
Scoring system:
GB ranking. Spot on = 5pts, 1 out = 4 pts, 2 out = 3 pts, 3 out = 2 pts, 4 out or in top 10 = 1 pt
World ranking. Within 5% = 5pts, 5-10% out = 4 pts, 10-15% out = 3 pts, 15-20% = 2pts, 20-25% = 1pt.
The 1pt for being in GB top 10 was added as the the main aim is to predict who you think will be in the GB top 10.
Note it is possible to get points if a player finishes in GB 11,12,13 or 14 (e.g. you predict 10 and they finish 14 = 1pt.
Something interesting to note here, is that, because of the end date of the competition, points scored by players after the week of the YE Finals are efffectively locked in - they won't come up to be removed from a players ranking score until after the next years forum competition is complete.
This mens that players performing well in that period after YE finals might have a better start in th eforum competition.
For example: Gabi Taylor's wonderful $25K win that came in December is still going to be eligible to count in the final reckonging of the 2018 forum competition. She won't have to win another $25K in 2018 to have at least one score of that value count.
On the other hand, Katie Swan's $25K win points from earlier in the year will fall off before the 2018 forum competition runs it course - if she is to have a points score that large to count, she will need to win one again at some point in 2018.
Players could perform sufficiently well in 2018 to supercede all of their scores up to and including any hauls they made in the period after YE finals, and then it wouldn't be a consideration. With Gabi having made that 50-pointer, she would need 16 scores in advance of that. I'd love to see that! It's probably not likely quite yet though.
__________________
Data I post, opinions I offer, 'facts' I assert, are almost certainly all stupidly wrong.
With the WR prediction scores been based on % deviation rather than number of places deviation ( absolutely rightly in my view ) it does mean you have to get very close with hopefully very well ranked players such as Andy and Jo. And clearly in general to score decent points you need to get closer in ranking places the better the player is ranked.
If the player finishes WR 1, 2 or 3 you have to be spot on to get any points. It's a 5 or 0 deal. If they say finish WR 9 even one place out is more than 10%, two places out more than 20% and 3 places out no score.
In light of indiana's valid critique, here is a different way to look at the forums perceived ranking increases for our players in 2018 that shows the number of selections for each player.
The size (area) of the bubble represents the number of selectors for that player as a poportion of the total number of available selectors - now 37 entrants (up to and including scottie1) This reflects, not the confidence of the perceived 2018 performance, because confidence has a specific statistical meaning, but you can think of it as the collective authority of the forum in the prediction - bigger bubble, greater authority, and vice versa.
We still think everyone will improve.
__________________
Data I post, opinions I offer, 'facts' I assert, are almost certainly all stupidly wrong.
Yes for Laura for instance, there have been a wide range of projections for her within the top 10 as you show, ranging from those who think she will improve to those who thing she will decline.... and then there are a further 6 people who think she will fall out of the top 10 altogether, and thus have her projected at 300+, which I'm sure would shift her average overall prediction to one of being a net decliner rather than improver. Similarly and even more so for Tara. It would actually be really interesting to have the 'true' averages of all those who received at least one top ten vote. I gave everyone within the present top 25 predicted rankings on my own list in order to arrive at the top 10.
I could see a whole cluster of players competing for tenth place around a ranking of 350, Tara, Jodie, Maia and Francesca but eventually opted for Sam as the most likely to take that spot.
Predictions table is up and running here: http://www.britishtennis.net/predictions/2018%20Female%20Ranking%20predictions.htm
The current rankings are included as "Status Quo" as last entry.
A very high proportion have gone for the current top 9 with the battle for the final spot pretty evenly split between Tara, Sam and Sarah Beth with Eden not far behind.
EWS is the highest ranked player not to get any picks at GB16
Just out of interest how do you go about deciding who has won? Is it the person who gets the correct order 1 to 10 or the person who most closely matches the year end rankings of individual players? I can't imagine how you'd calculate the latter but since there are clearly some wizard statisticians on this forum I'm sure you'd find a way. It's not that I'm competitive or anything - just as a newbie I'm interested to understand how things work.
Wishing a very happy New Year to all
It's sim's system, and all credit and thanks goes to them.
You get points for how close you get in predicting the GB ranking spot for a player, and a separate set of points for how close you get to predicting the final WTA rank for a player, irrespective of wherther you get the GB ranking place for them correct or not. You can score in one category for a player whilst having got the other completely wrong.
Here, from queries made last year is sim's explanation:
Scoring system:
GB ranking. Spot on = 5pts, 1 out = 4 pts, 2 out = 3 pts, 3 out = 2 pts, 4 out or in top 10 = 1 pt
World ranking. Within 5% = 5pts, 5-10% out = 4 pts, 10-15% out = 3 pts, 15-20% = 2pts, 20-25% = 1pt.
The 1pt for being in GB top 10 was added as the the main aim is to predict who you think will be in the GB top 10.
Note it is possible to get points if a player finishes in GB 11,12,13 or 14 (e.g. you predict 10 and they finish 14 = 1pt.
Thanks for the explanation Blob and thanks to all those who do the work required for the calculations. Think I'll just sit back now and enjoy the ride - and the tennis!
Katie Swan WR 301 (CH 296) is the only player man or woman selected by everyone and with a lowest prediction (265) better than their CH.
Jay Clarke WR 255 (CH 219) is the only other player selected by everyone and with a lowest prediction (220) better than their current ranking. In his case that lowest prediction is one place short of his CH.
Out of interest, I calculated an average from everyone for Laura and Tara if all the people that didn't put them in their top 10 ( 6 for Laura and 29 for Tara ) ranked them just one WR place below their #10 selection.
Results :
Laura overall then averages 210, as against her average from her 33 selectors of 189 and current ranking of WR 228.
Tara overall then averages 306, as against her average from her 10 selectors of 242 and current ranking 350.
So on that very conservative basis I can't prove that either's 'true' overall average would be lower than their current ranking. But certainly more towards it than my figures and much more towards it than the average from their selectors.