How to extend Elo: a Bayesian perspective

IF 1.1 Q3 SOCIAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICAL METHODS Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports Pub Date : 2021-01-06 DOI:10.1515/JQAS-2020-0066
Martin Ingram
{"title":"How to extend Elo: a Bayesian perspective","authors":"Martin Ingram","doi":"10.1515/JQAS-2020-0066","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The Elo rating system, originally designed for rating chess players, has since become a popular way to estimate competitors’ time-varying skills in many sports. Though the self-correcting Elo algorithm is simple and intuitive, it lacks a probabilistic justification which can make it hard to extend. In this paper, we present a simple connection between approximate Bayesian posterior mode estimation and Elo. We provide a novel justification of the approximations made by linking Elo to steady-state Kalman filtering. Our second key contribution is to observe that the derivation suggests a straightforward procedure for extending Elo. We use the procedure to derive versions of Elo incorporating margins of victory, correlated skills across different playing surfaces, and differing skills by tournament level in tennis. Combining all these extensions results in the most complete version of Elo presented for the sport yet. We evaluate the derived models on two seasons of men’s professional tennis matches (2018 and 2019). The best-performing model was able to predict matches with higher accuracy than both Elo and Glicko (65.8% compared to 63.7 and 63.5%, respectively) and a higher mean log-likelihood (−0.615 compared to −0.632 and −0.633, respectively), demonstrating the proposed model’s ability to improve predictions.","PeriodicalId":16925,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/JQAS-2020-0066","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICAL METHODS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Abstract The Elo rating system, originally designed for rating chess players, has since become a popular way to estimate competitors’ time-varying skills in many sports. Though the self-correcting Elo algorithm is simple and intuitive, it lacks a probabilistic justification which can make it hard to extend. In this paper, we present a simple connection between approximate Bayesian posterior mode estimation and Elo. We provide a novel justification of the approximations made by linking Elo to steady-state Kalman filtering. Our second key contribution is to observe that the derivation suggests a straightforward procedure for extending Elo. We use the procedure to derive versions of Elo incorporating margins of victory, correlated skills across different playing surfaces, and differing skills by tournament level in tennis. Combining all these extensions results in the most complete version of Elo presented for the sport yet. We evaluate the derived models on two seasons of men’s professional tennis matches (2018 and 2019). The best-performing model was able to predict matches with higher accuracy than both Elo and Glicko (65.8% compared to 63.7 and 63.5%, respectively) and a higher mean log-likelihood (−0.615 compared to −0.632 and −0.633, respectively), demonstrating the proposed model’s ability to improve predictions.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
如何扩展Elo:贝叶斯视角
Elo评分系统最初是为国际象棋选手评分而设计的,后来在许多运动中成为一种评估选手随时间变化的技能的流行方法。虽然自校正的Elo算法简单直观,但它缺乏概率证明,这使得它难以扩展。本文给出了近似贝叶斯后验模估计与Elo之间的简单联系。我们通过将Elo与稳态卡尔曼滤波联系起来,提供了一种新的近似证明。我们的第二个关键贡献是观察到,推导表明了扩展Elo的一个简单过程。我们使用这个过程来推导包含胜利边缘、不同场地的相关技能和不同网球比赛水平的不同技能的Elo版本。结合所有这些扩展结果在最完整的版本的Elo呈现的运动。我们以2018年和2019年两个赛季的男子职业网球比赛为样本,对所得模型进行了评估。表现最好的模型能够以比Elo和Glicko更高的准确率预测比赛(分别为65.8%和63.7和63.5%)和更高的平均对数似然(分别为- 0.615和- 0.632和- 0.633),证明了所提出的模型改进预测的能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports
Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports SOCIAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICAL METHODS-
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
12.50%
发文量
15
期刊介绍: The Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports (JQAS), an official journal of the American Statistical Association, publishes timely, high-quality peer-reviewed research on the quantitative aspects of professional and amateur sports, including collegiate and Olympic competition. The scope of application reflects the increasing demand for novel methods to analyze and understand data in the growing field of sports analytics. Articles come from a wide variety of sports and diverse perspectives, and address topics such as game outcome models, measurement and evaluation of player performance, tournament structure, analysis of rules and adjudication, within-game strategy, analysis of sporting technologies, and player and team ranking methods. JQAS seeks to publish manuscripts that demonstrate original ways of approaching problems, develop cutting edge methods, and apply innovative thinking to solve difficult challenges in sports contexts. JQAS brings together researchers from various disciplines, including statistics, operations research, machine learning, scientific computing, econometrics, and sports management.
期刊最新文献
Improving the aggregation and evaluation of NBA mock drafts A basketball paradox: exploring NBA team defensive efficiency in a positionless game Bayesian bivariate Conway–Maxwell–Poisson regression model for correlated count data in sports Bayesian bivariate Conway–Maxwell–Poisson regression model for correlated count data in sports Success factors in national team football: an analysis of the UEFA EURO 2020
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1