95%-ile isn't that good (2020) • Hacker News Board

Re: 95%-ile isn't that good (2020)

#141

Post by netcan » Mon, Feb 21, 2022, 4:35 PM UTC

xboxnolifes wrote: post #70

xigency wrote: post #17

Admittedly, I only skimmed this. But within the space of video games, I’m not sure Overwatch is a stunning example since it’s generally a casual game. I’ve been playing various iterations of Counter-Strike and StarCraft for decades. Sometimes with deliberate practice, including reading strategies, playing custom maps to practice certain skills, and watching series aimed at improving level of play. And despite the hun…

In every competitive game I've ever played (Overwatch, CSGO, LoL, TFT, Rocket League), the top 5% definitely wasn't "that good". In my mind, the top 20% are people who actually play. If you are stuck anywhere below that, you aren't even trying to improve. If a leaderboard says you haven't even cracked top 50%, then that leaderboard is definitely cutting players that don't play much from the bottom of that list. In mo…

Idk...

Top 5% rating cutoff for lichess blitz chess is currently 2200. That corresponds to the bottom levels of master/pro players in classic odb chess tournaments. A lot of pros play online, so benchmarking is decently reliable.

"Not that good" is subjective... but to me, this is serious levels of chess play.

Re: 95%-ile isn't that good (2020)

#142

Post by andi999 » Mon, Feb 21, 2022, 4:46 PM UTC

xboxnolifes wrote: post #133

coldtea wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Then the top 5% is when you start understanding the game at a competitive level. The very start. On the other hand, your handle is "xbox, no life". The whole OP premise is: "Reaching 95%-ile isn't very impressive because it's not that hard to do. I think this is one of my most ridiculable ideas. It doesn't help that, when stated nakedly, that sounds elitist. But I think it's just the opposite: most people can becom…

Congrats on the ad hominem I guess? My name is a joke. > Even more so if you're 95% on more than one things (imaging meeting someone that's 95% programmer, conversationalist, cook, guitar player, marathon runner, business owner, ... He would automatically be hella more impressive than the huge majority of people you meet)... Being in the top 5% for more than 1 thing is trivially easy. Top 5% is just 1 in 20 people wh…

Personally running a marathon seems impressive to me (despite many ppl doing it)

Re: 95%-ile isn't that good (2020)

#143

Post by paultopia » Mon, Feb 21, 2022, 4:49 PM UTC

netcan wrote: post #141

xboxnolifes wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In every competitive game I've ever played (Overwatch, CSGO, LoL, TFT, Rocket League), the top 5% definitely wasn't "that good". In my mind, the top 20% are people who actually play. If you are stuck anywhere below that, you aren't even trying to improve. If a leaderboard says you haven't even cracked top 50%, then that leaderboard is definitely cutting players that don't play much from the bottom of that list. In mo…

Idk... Top 5% rating cutoff for lichess blitz chess is currently 2200. That corresponds to the bottom levels of master/pro players in classic odb chess tournaments. A lot of pros play online, so benchmarking is decently reliable. "Not that good" is subjective... but to me, this is serious levels of chess play.

oh, that's so depressing, given that I've played for years and can barely stay above 1900 reliably

Re: 95%-ile isn't that good (2020)

#144

Post by HDMI_Cable » Mon, Feb 21, 2022, 4:54 PM UTC

I think this only applies to some things, not others. If you're in the 95th percentile of high-school students, then you're probably getting into a good university. For university, the 95th percentile is enough to get into medicine, law, or a good business school. The 95th percentile for overall intelligence is 125. The 95th percentile for household income is $250 000.

For things like video games, which have a broad net of casual players and a few who are very competitive, it isn't that good. All you need to do to get in the 95th percentile is to be competitive; but for applications where everyone is acting somewhat competitively, or for non-zero sum competitions like school or income, the 95th percentile can be very good.

Re: 95%-ile isn't that good (2020)

#145

Post by D13Fd » Mon, Feb 21, 2022, 5:18 PM UTC

I think this is really "it's not hard to get into the 95th percentile of things that you are already fairly good at."

Yes, if you have a history of playing video games, it's not hard to pick up another game and do well--and, with some focus, do very well.

But what if he tried to pick up playing the flute? How about drawing comics? Competitive swimming? Investing?

What about being in the 95th percentile of a complex field like medicine or law?

Assuming he doesn't already have a background in those things, he's probably going to have a hard time reaching the "95th percentile" of skill.

Re: 95%-ile isn't that good (2020)

#146

Post by maweaver » Mon, Feb 21, 2022, 5:18 PM UTC

netcan wrote: post #141

xboxnolifes wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In every competitive game I've ever played (Overwatch, CSGO, LoL, TFT, Rocket League), the top 5% definitely wasn't "that good". In my mind, the top 20% are people who actually play. If you are stuck anywhere below that, you aren't even trying to improve. If a leaderboard says you haven't even cracked top 50%, then that leaderboard is definitely cutting players that don't play much from the bottom of that list. In mo…

Idk... Top 5% rating cutoff for lichess blitz chess is currently 2200. That corresponds to the bottom levels of master/pro players in classic odb chess tournaments. A lot of pros play online, so benchmarking is decently reliable. "Not that good" is subjective... but to me, this is serious levels of chess play.

But you're looking at "chess players with a lichess rating", not all chess players. Chess in particular has a ton of people who only play very occasionally, can barely remember the rules, and move the pieces semi-randomly rather than develop any sort of tactics or strategy.

Re: 95%-ile isn't that good (2020)

#147

Post by jvanderbot » Mon, Feb 21, 2022, 5:18 PM UTC

NeverFade wrote: post #140

jvanderbot wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TFA: The "one weird trick" is that, for a lot of activities, being something like 10%-ile among people who practice can make you something like 90%-ile or 99%-ile among people who participate An important point is that you're now better than 95% of starcraft players if you reach middling competitiveness against those who compete regularly. At 50th pctile in competitions youre absolutely better than the vast majority…

It's not clear what being 99% among people who play very casually actually gives you. In many cases it's not a lot. Take chess, for example. By practicing regularly on Lichess, you can achieve a skill level that will beat 99% of casual chess players. However, you'll almost never play against this people. You'll play against other folks on Lichess, who all play regularly, and a top 1% of all chess players can easily b…

I think the point of the article is more in line of: "If there's something useful you want to be excellent at, rest assured it'll take much less effort than you think".

> Take chess, for example. By practicing regularly on Lichess, you can achieve a skill level that will beat 99% of casual chess players.

> However, you'll almost never play against this people. You'll play against other folks on Lichess, who all play regularly, and a top 1% of all chess players can easily be in the bottom 50% of the people you'll play on Lichess.

Yes, that's in line with TFA and my comment (being middling against top 10% makes you excellent against 90% of people).

> It's not clear what you gain from being better than 99% of people who don't play on Lichess with any regularity, and you'll therefore never encounter.

You gain the ability to say "I'm probably in 95%-le of people who play chess". and "Oh you play chess? We should play!" and you will soundly defeat them. If you don't soundly defeat them, you can rest assured they have studied and practiced and regularly compete, since you do those things. Maybe you can organize chess clubs. Maybe there are in-person tournaments you'd like to compete in. Maybe it'll make you friends or a spouse or open up job opportunities or be a decent interview discussion to show "extra curricular activities". Who knows.

It's not as clear an advantage in every-day situations as, say, practicing a martial art or car maintenance or long-distance running or cooking, where the 10%/95%-ile tradeoff becomes painfully obvious. The problem is that chess isn't very useful. So, being 95%-ile at chess just doesn't get you much.

Re: 95%-ile isn't that good (2020)

#148

Post by mi100hael » Mon, Feb 21, 2022, 5:25 PM UTC

Golf is a real-world activity that can be used for comparison here. It's a good candidate because there is a standard handicap rating system issued by a central governing body, and there are a large number of amateur players who play regularly, compared to other sports.

- Roughly 10% of golfers in the US maintain a handicap rating.

- "Today, the 2,417,905 who have a handicap included 2,051,675 “active posters,” meaning they posted at least one score in 2020. However, the average number of posted scores was 38, almost double the average number of rounds played by golfers overall last year—so it’s pretty clear that those who get a handicap are among the game’s most engaged participants." [0]

- "it has been found that on a given day the average golfer would be expected to post a score of approximately 100 strokes when following all the rules of golf" [1] which is 28 strokes over par. A 28 handicap is around the 5%-ile of golfers with a handicap [2]

- As such, those 10% of golfers with a handicap should overlap pretty heavily with the top 10-20% of all golfers. The 50%-ile of golfers with a handicap is 13 [2], so by extrapolation that should be 90-95%-ile of all golfers.

- 13 is still a solid handicap. That's someone who is breaking 90 (better than bogey golf) pretty much every round and likely has years of practice. Saying it "isn't very impressive because it's not that hard to do" would be an incorrect statement in my opinion.

- (as a sanity check, the 90%-ile of golfers with a handicap is a handicap of 5. Most D1 golfers will have a handicap right around 0, and D3 will be maybe 2. Given the number of casual golfers, it seems likely that only about 1 or 2 out of 100 are nearing that level.)

[0] https://www.linksmagazine.com/how-do-you-match-up-against-th...

[1] https://golftips.golfweek.usatoday.com/average-golf-handicap...

[2] https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/han...

Re: 95%-ile isn't that good (2020)

#149

Post by raydev » Mon, Feb 21, 2022, 5:49 PM UTC

D13Fd wrote: post #145

I think this is really "it's not hard to get into the 95th percentile of things that you are already fairly good at." Yes, if you have a history of playing video games, it's not hard to pick up another game and do well--and, with some focus, do very well. But what if he tried to pick up playing the flute? How about drawing comics? Competitive swimming? Investing? What about being in the 95th percentile of a complex f…

> But what if he tried to pick up playing the flute? How about drawing comics? Competitive swimming? Investing?

Having seen exactly 2 of your examples in real life, particularly people who had no experience and no interest in painting or playing an instrument until their 40s, a few years of persistence and targeted practice made them better than me after a lifetime of “casual play”.

I might have to put in less time to “get better than them” if I really sat down and tried for a year, but I’m not sure that matters in the way you’re thinking

Re: 95%-ile isn't that good (2020)

#150

Post by ghaff » Mon, Feb 21, 2022, 5:50 PM UTC

mi100hael wrote: post #148

Golf is a real-world activity that can be used for comparison here. It's a good candidate because there is a standard handicap rating system issued by a central governing body, and there are a large number of amateur players who play regularly, compared to other sports. - Roughly 10% of golfers in the US maintain a handicap rating. - "Today, the 2,417,905 who have a handicap included 2,051,675 “active posters,” meani…

It also shows that the population you're comparing yourself to, i.e. the denominator, matters a lot. If you're comparing yourself mostly to people who do some activity pretty regularly, top 5-10% means you're pretty good compared to the average person on the street who may never have touched a golf club. But if you draw your population from anyone who has ever taken a swing at a golf ball, 5-10% is a lot less impressive.