Flying Jinko
New member
Alright Flagg, this is my illustration and explanation. Hope it helps.
Assume that there are 3 teams, A,B and C and they have equal number of members at the begining (or can have unequal numbers, does not matter). But the number of players who played are as follows. Round 1 is A vs B, round 2 is B Vs C, Round 3 is C vs A.
In the next table I calculated the number of matches in each round based on the number of members who played
Next, the table below shows the total points won by each team in each round. Also note than in each round, the total points would be the maximum possible point per match (which is 3) multiplied by the number of matches in table 2. The total of the points of the opposing teams in each round must tally with the aforementioned calculation.
total points in each round
Round 1:25+20=48=15*3
Round 2:18+12=30=10*3
Round 3:37+38=75= 25*3
In the next table I just took an average based on two methods. One based on number of players played and the other based on number of matches. I shall came back to this again soon.
Finally in the last table I made an aggregate total for each type of score for all teams to assess who is the winner.
Thus from the above it is clear that we get three different rankings for all the three methods.
A wins in the first, C wins in the second and A wins in the third.
Now my arguments for each of the method
Method 1: I don't think this method of just considering the aggregate total is viable mainly because a team with a higher number of players has a starting advantage over the other. Also if team A scored 20 points with 5 players and team C scored 20 points with just 3, I would say Team C has done a better job. This point is also my support for the points per player method.
Method 3: Points per match method. I initially favored this method but my main gripe was that in each round we are diving the total aggregate score of each of the teams with the same denominator. For example in round 1 A scored an aggregate of 25 points vs B who scored 20. When both of these are divided by 10 we get 1.67 and 1.33 respectively. In other words, as far as a single round is concerned it does not make a difference if we take the aggregate or the average since in both cases A is winning. however I do agree this method has some importance while totaling up all the averages, which is evident in table 5.
Method 2oints per person method. I favor this method mainly because of my argument in method 1 and also the fact that we are dividing the total score by the persons played (different denominators for each, A-5, B-3, in round 1). Thus it has its relevance in individual rounds and also the total as a whole.
Hope this helps you somehow, also if you got doubts I don't mind explaining again.
Cheers mate!
Assume that there are 3 teams, A,B and C and they have equal number of members at the begining (or can have unequal numbers, does not matter). But the number of players who played are as follows. Round 1 is A vs B, round 2 is B Vs C, Round 3 is C vs A.
In the next table I calculated the number of matches in each round based on the number of members who played
Next, the table below shows the total points won by each team in each round. Also note than in each round, the total points would be the maximum possible point per match (which is 3) multiplied by the number of matches in table 2. The total of the points of the opposing teams in each round must tally with the aforementioned calculation.
total points in each round
Round 1:25+20=48=15*3
Round 2:18+12=30=10*3
Round 3:37+38=75= 25*3
In the next table I just took an average based on two methods. One based on number of players played and the other based on number of matches. I shall came back to this again soon.
Finally in the last table I made an aggregate total for each type of score for all teams to assess who is the winner.
Thus from the above it is clear that we get three different rankings for all the three methods.
A wins in the first, C wins in the second and A wins in the third.
Now my arguments for each of the method
Method 1: I don't think this method of just considering the aggregate total is viable mainly because a team with a higher number of players has a starting advantage over the other. Also if team A scored 20 points with 5 players and team C scored 20 points with just 3, I would say Team C has done a better job. This point is also my support for the points per player method.
Method 3: Points per match method. I initially favored this method but my main gripe was that in each round we are diving the total aggregate score of each of the teams with the same denominator. For example in round 1 A scored an aggregate of 25 points vs B who scored 20. When both of these are divided by 10 we get 1.67 and 1.33 respectively. In other words, as far as a single round is concerned it does not make a difference if we take the aggregate or the average since in both cases A is winning. however I do agree this method has some importance while totaling up all the averages, which is evident in table 5.
Method 2oints per person method. I favor this method mainly because of my argument in method 1 and also the fact that we are dividing the total score by the persons played (different denominators for each, A-5, B-3, in round 1). Thus it has its relevance in individual rounds and also the total as a whole.
Hope this helps you somehow, also if you got doubts I don't mind explaining again.
Cheers mate!
Last edited: