Billy, you simply aren't good enough to get #1 in the ladder for a while. Maybe in 3 months, but I doubt it. You are a decent player, and I can see improvement in the past few weeks. But you are going to have to wait for all those losses to expire and you also have a long way to go before you are good enough to get #1.

JSA,

you simply aren't good enough to make that determination, i'm about to have a higher rating than you've ever had.

you are right about one thing though, it's going to take awhile for all of these losses to expire...

http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=3384707

like you said to me, 1 game means nothing, if you want to prove you are the best, beat him again, and while your at it, try beating me once

I like Niko's style. All this herp derping and he says nothing, just sipping some wine and dipping his french fries in mayonaise.

Billy, we've already had the discussion on that game months ago I believe. I made a big mistake and if I hadn't played bad, I would have won. One game means nothing, unless you're saying 69!, who has beaten you twice is better than you.

As for you having a higher rating than I've ever had, you aren't there yet. I have no doubt you will eventually though. As you can see, I am improving though and I guarentee after a few months when I come back, I will break my personal high rating too. Not to mention, Strategic 1v1 is not my strong suit. I am more of an all around player and Medium Earth can get boring.

I like the wins though :) It shows you are getting better. 4 good wins on that list, but you also have to remember those losses you had, including 2 against below average players, jasdanmoo and darhma. They will take a while to expire.

I am interested to see how good you end up getting. You have improved a lot over the last month, but you definitely aren't one of the top guys in the game yet. But if you keep improving, maybe you will be there someday.

15 games is just too small a sample size, the ladder is basically nothing but a who's hot ranking(or whos hot + whos the best exploiter). 30 games and 6 months before expires would go a long way to improve the ladder.

Even with 30 games and 6 months though you still have the problem of ELO being very inaccurate when it comes to high ranks vs low ranks. Players who play the minimum number of games are at a huge advantage over those who play 2 or 3 times the minimum like zibik and HHH. Look at the top players who play the minimum the average rating of their opponents are way higher than the average rating of HHH's opponents.

billy doesnty need to wait for thoise losses to expire, if he plays a significant amount of games the losses will eventually become irrelevant (thats the advantage of not opting for olliebol's and zibik's strategy, many games make your losses become insignificant)

what looks strange about oliebol is that he is in the first place but hasnt yet defeated the players which currently r in 2nd and 3rd, and he isnt even playing them at the moment

Backwards HHH, theres no way Billy can become #1 with the losses he has, even if he would win another 20. There's some bad losses in there and it'd take many wins against top players to equal even one of those out.

can't we just save this for the other "Billy" thread? One is more then enough

what looks strange about oliebol is that he is in the first place but hasnt yet defeated the players which currently r in 2nd and 3rd, and he isnt even playing them at the moment

Ya I agree. That is a weakness in the algorithm. Once you get to the top it should be like king of the hill. You should keep having to play and beat other players at the top. And once you show that you can beat good players it should stop giving you bad players. Whats the point?