I have posted these ELO ratings previously for both the PDC and BDO.

Have left the Twitter post in for anyone on the forum who wants to post feedback direct.

I'm almost catching up (This weekend I will).... Here are the best players who mainly play County Darts... Feedback is always much apreciated!! https://t.co/CtxtesePlG

In fairness the ratings above are consistent with the inclusion of both Nigel Heydon and Kevin Dowiling in the England team.

I'm sorry, what is the above referencing exactly?
How are the scores calculated?

ssjsa wrote:I have posted these ELO ratings previously for both the PDC and BDO.

Have left the Twitter post in for anyone on the forum who wants to post feedback direct.

I'm almost catching up (This weekend I will).... Here are the best players who mainly play County Darts... Feedback is always much apreciated!! https://t.co/CtxtesePlG

Not a clue on what criteria this is worked out or how recent but remember Andy Chalmers going over 4 years unbeaten and still not a sniff of an England callup , baffled alot of folk then

BlueSpark wrote:I'm sorry, what is the above referencing exactly?
How are the scores calculated?

You may remember I recommended 2 bets not that long ago which the odds available from the bookies were far lower than the odds based on ELO ratings. They both won. Have attached his explanation of how his ratings work.

From his Twitter feed below.


I used a formula in chess and tweaked them to make it usable and more precise for darts. What the calc are exactly I an keeping to myself, but I’m woeling on a website where ppl can insert their results and a ELO comes out.

ssjsa wrote:"... but I’m woeling on a website where ppl can insert their results and a ELO comes out."

Eh? That's not how Elo systems work, you can't just calculate a rating value based on some game results without full context. Unless he means that it's going to estimate your rating based on what you tell it about where you achieved those results, but that would be totally pointless. ("You described yourself as a mediocre Challenge Tour player, and you won 17 games and lost 12 on that tour. Your estimated strength value is 1530, which marks you as a mediocre Challenge Tour player.")

Was this the guy who calculated Michael Barnard as a top 25-strength player based on his recent results a couple of months ago? If so, I reckon his Elo formula is rather less "precise" than he thinks.

Zeyes wrote:

ssjsa wrote:"... but I’m woeling on a website where ppl can insert their results and a ELO comes out."

Eh? That's not how Elo systems work, you can't just calculate a rating value based on some game results without full context. Unless he means that it's going to estimate your rating based on what you tell it about where you achieved those results, but that would be totally pointless. ("You described yourself as a mediocre Challenge Tour player, and you won 17 games and lost 12 on that tour. Your estimated strength value is 1530, which marks you as a mediocre Challenge Tour player.")

Was this the guy who calculated Michael Barnard as a top 25-strength player based on his recent results a couple of months ago? If so, I reckon his Elo formula is rather less "precise" than he thinks.

Yes it was and I agree that was nonsense. Still work in progress but definitely useful in identifying where the bookies might have underpriced certain matches.

ssjsa wrote:Yes it was and I agree that was nonsense. Still work in progress but definitely useful in identifying where the bookies might have underpriced certain matches.

That depends on the tournament format. Might be reasonably useful for something like the Matchplay where it's long games and only between players who have a large match history (= reasonably high confidence in the ratings), but in short-format games I think the inherent volatily of darts makes ratings-based betting fairly useless, except for people who bet professionally and are okay with having lots of losing bets along with their winning ones, as long as they're EV+ overall. I don't like the phrase "darts is on the day" normally, but here it's appropriate - in short formats, current form absolutely swamps long-term trends, and Elo ratings by definition are a long-term measure (the longest possible in fact).

Zeyes wrote:

ssjsa wrote:"... but I’m woeling on a website where ppl can insert their results and a ELO comes out."

Eh? That's not how Elo systems work, you can't just calculate a rating value based on some game results without full context. Unless he means that it's going to estimate your rating based on what you tell it about where you achieved those results, but that would be totally pointless. ("You described yourself as a mediocre Challenge Tour player, and you won 17 games and lost 12 on that tour. Your estimated strength value is 1530, which marks you as a mediocre Challenge Tour player.")

Was this the guy who calculated Michael Barnard as a top 25-strength player based on his recent results a couple of months ago? If so, I reckon his Elo formula is rather less "precise" than he thinks.

I totally missed this topic, interesting.
First of all, i think the guys system going from 1500-2000 does not make any sense. Why restraint yourself to a range of 500 points? There's a reason why i stretches from zero-ish for beginners to 2850 (2900-almost 3000 if you take rapid/blitz ratings into account) to world number one in chess (where ELO originates).
I have a chess ELO of about slightly above 2250, which means that the system would expext me to beat anyone who is a casual player and also about lets say 95% of other club players. However, I would not have much of a chance against the likes of Carlsen or other top 10 players, the system would expect me to average way less than 1/10 points playing such guys.

In darts, it would only work sort of properly, if you create an initial ranking table based on something like the PDC OOM, pro tour OOM or a reasonable combination of both, calculate the ratings of players of "the next lower tier" who are not ranked in that base system based on their results against players in that base system and so on.
Once you have that initial rating, ALL official games of players in that list OR players competing against players in that list have to be tracked. The rating changes are determined game by game based on the rating difference between the players (statistical likelyhood of a win), with some fine details (e.g. you cannot score points by beating too bad players, but you can also not lose points by e.g. beating 9 too bad players and drawing one equal player, although your win expectation over the ten games would be above 95%)

Does that dude have an offical website or something? I do not use twitter or facebook or all that social media spy shit...

Duterprat wrote:

Zeyes wrote:

ssjsa wrote:"... but I’m woeling on a website where ppl can insert their results and a ELO comes out."

Eh? That's not how Elo systems work, you can't just calculate a rating value based on some game results without full context. Unless he means that it's going to estimate your rating based on what you tell it about where you achieved those results, but that would be totally pointless. ("You described yourself as a mediocre Challenge Tour player, and you won 17 games and lost 12 on that tour. Your estimated strength value is 1530, which marks you as a mediocre Challenge Tour player.")

Was this the guy who calculated Michael Barnard as a top 25-strength player based on his recent results a couple of months ago? If so, I reckon his Elo formula is rather less "precise" than he thinks.

I totally missed this topic, interesting.
First of all, i think the guys system going from 1500-2000 does not make any sense. Why restraint yourself to a range of 500 points? There's a reason why i stretches from zero-ish for beginners to 2850 (2900-almost 3000 if you take rapid/blitz ratings into account) to world number one in chess (where ELO originates).
I have a chess ELO of about slightly above 2250, which means that the system would expext me to beat anyone who is a casual player and also about lets say 95% of other club players. However, I would not have much of a chance against the likes of Carlsen or other top 10 players, the system would expect me to average way less than 1/10 points playing such guys.

In darts, it would only work sort of properly, if you create an initial ranking table based on something like the PDC OOM, pro tour OOM or a reasonable combination of both, calculate the ratings of players of "the next lower tier" who are not ranked in that base system based on their results against players in that base system and so on.
Once you have that initial rating, ALL official games of players in that list OR players competing against players in that list have to be tracked. The rating changes are determined game by game based on the rating difference between the players (statistical likelyhood of a win), with some fine details (e.g. you cannot score points by beating too bad players, but you can also not lose points by e.g. beating 9 too bad players and drawing one equal player, although your win expectation over the ten games would be above 95%)

Does that dude have an offical website or something? I do not use twitter or facebook or all that social media spy shit...

There is a video explaining ELO here http://www.dutchdartsmedium.nl/2018/07/ ... darts-elo/

Think this might benefit from it's own thread.

http://www.dutchdartsmedium.nl/2018/07/ ... darts-elo/

Can someone delete this thread please.

London Eye wrote:Can someone delete this thread please.

Here's the rankings for The WSOD events down under.

The Darts Oracle
@DartsElo1

In total I got 526 English players in my system (that I know of). I probably have more that I don't know are English. Total rank contains 1968 players.
England's Top 100 in ELO as of Aug.

The Dutch Top 100 in the Elo rankings.

Aileen 1 point higher than Wouter Vaes. Interesting

ChrisW wrote:Aileen 1 point higher than Wouter Vaes. Interesting

It’s a load of bollocks. Look where Mandigers is and look where he is ranked for Finders and WC.

What a load of nonsense. Some people have way too much time on their hands.

The guy who does this list really needs to go and find a Sweet Talkin' Woman, and get himself some poon.