US20190314704A1 - System and method for facilitating wrestling matches and competitions - Google Patents

Abstract

An event management system and method for organizing and facilitating wrestling matches, as well as better matching of the wrestlers, utilizing storing and displaying results and ratings from wrestling events, analyzing the results and ratings and generating Elo-derived ratings and weigh-adjusted Elo-derived ratings for participants, and predicting the probability that a given participant will defeat another using the accurate Elo-derived ratings and weigh-adjusted Elo-derived ratings.

Description

CROSS REFERENCE OF RELATED APPLICATIONS
• This patent application is a nonprovisional application of, and claims priority to, provisional patent application Ser. No. 62/658,332 filed on Apr. 16, 2018, which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety.
FIELD OF INVENTION
• This invention relates to the field of event management systems and methods, specifically including management systems and methods for organizing and facilitating wrestling matches and for better matching of the wrestlers. The system and method of the present invention is designed to store and display results from wrestling (and similar) events, including wrestling ratings, and generate accurate Elo-derived ratings for participants.
• This invention was not made pursuant to any federally-sponsored research and/or development.
BACKGROUND
• Elo rating systems are known in the art as the methods for calculating the relative skill levels of players in competitor-based games. Elo rating systems were specifically created, designed and used for chess. In chess, for example, the difference between the ratings of two chess players serves as the predictor of the match result.
• However, Elo rating systems have not been used in the field of competitive wrestling, including youth and high school wrestling. Organizing wrestling matches has been difficult because no system or method exists for the “matchmaking” between different categories of wrestlers, including based on age, weight, and rankings. The current process of organizing wrestling events typically involves a limited number of factors based on which the wrestlers are made to compete, but the current process does not yield a good match-up system.
• The organizers usually manually review several limited wrestler identifiers to make the decision whether to match a pair of wrestlers for competition. There are rules and guidelines the organizers and trainers follow to make these determinations, including what weight category the wrestlers are in. However, the process is manual, limited, and does not always lead to a well-matched competition. Needless to say, wrestling is a competitive contact sport, and placing two wrestlers into a competition who are not well matched is not only unfair but may also be dangerous to one of the competitors if he or she is outmatched by the opponent. Poor match-ups are not only unsafe, but they do not provide for a good viewing experience because wrestling is a spectator sport, depending on its audience for recognition. The most interesting and unpredictable matches to watch are the matches where the wrestling opponents have approximately equal skills or abilities.
• It is important to understand how inefficiently the tournaments in the United States are currently ran. There are three types of competitions that occur: ladder tournaments, round-robin tournament, and dual meets. All of these types of competitions have drawbacks, which are addressed by the novel system and method of the present invention.
• The Ladder Tournaments break competitors up by age and weight class. They are usually double elimination. This tournament format is typical in organized sports, leading up to the World Series, the Super Bowl, and the Stanley Cup.
• In the Round-Robin Tournaments, the competitors are manually placed into small groups based on their weight and skill. Each competitor faces every other competitor in their group one time. This is usually the format used for small, local youth wrestling tournaments.
• In the Dual Meet Tournaments, each team brings one wrestler per weight class (there are about 15 weight classes), and a round-robin or a ladder tournament occurs where teams are pitted against teams. They often occur over the course of a weekend, where each wrestler competes 8-10 times. This format is rapidly growing in popularity because it guarantees participants will get a lot of matches against only tough competition.
• This invention relates to a system and method for allowing the operators of the system and method to accurately match wrestling competitors based on a number of factors, and predict the outcome of the match with great accuracy using the Elo-system-based methodology. The system and method are computer-implemented through a combination of computer software and hardware, and the preferred implementation is a web-based solution using an Internet browser interface or an app-based solution for mobile platforms.
• The system and method of the present invention include a key rating system based partly on the weight-based component (the ratings are weight-adjusted), a pairing engine, and options for ladder-style tournaments. The elements of the system and method are described in more detail in the detailed description of this invention. In this disclosure, the terms “module” and “component” are used interchangeably and mean a software module or component.
• The system and method of the match-up process of the present invention is quickly becoming an indispensable tool in organizing wrestling matches and competitions because it allows the organizers to pair the competitors better and more fairly by rating the participants and using the participant ratings to predict the outcomes of the matches.
• This means that the wrestling matches and competitions will be organized faster, the match-ups will be better, and the overall competitions will be safer and therefore more accessible to the youth and high school wrestlers. The system and method of the present invention allows for live-pairing at wrestling competitions, creating good, even match-ups on the fly, one at a time. No technology to do this currently exists in the wrestling world. The system and method will dramatically increase the quality of match-ups between competitors while eliminating the time it takes to create match-ups.
• What is needed is a system and method that allows the wrestling event organizers utilizing them to ensure fair, accurate, and safer wrestling matches, which will make the sport safer for the participants and more enjoyable for the viewing public. The system and method of the present invention are directed towards this goal by giving the wrestling and other sporting event organizers an opportunity to quickly organize such events in a safe and efficient manner.
SUMMARY
• This invention meets the current need for a system and method that are used to pair up wrestling competitors for matches and competitions. A computer-implemented system and method, or an app-based method for mobile platforms, give the wrestling match organizers an opportunity to generate rankings and provide fair and balanced match-ups.
• The system and method of the present invention use the results of past wrestling matches, the current weights of the competitors, and the current ages of competitors to form match-ups. This method virtually guarantees that only fair match-ups will occur and eliminates mismatches. The system and method do that by objectively considering the skills of each wrestler based on past performance. Once a pairing is formed, the system and method assign the match-up to a mat so that the match can begin. After the match is completed, the results are entered into the database, and the competitors can immediately reenter the tournament if/when they wish to compete again and be selected another fair match.
• Additionally, the system and method of the present invention eliminate the negative consequences and drawbacks of the three currently-used tournament types. With respect to Ladder Tournaments, the negative consequences or drawbacks include:
• • Some competitors only get two matches while others get ten (they pay the same amount in registration fees);
  • Distinct weight classes influence wrestlers to “cut-weight”, which is the most negative aspect of the wrestling sport: wrestlers purposefully, and sometimes very rapidly, lose their weight to be able to compete in the next (lower) weight category—this is not a safe practice, especially for the younger wrestlers;
  • Long wait times between rounds: a lot of parents complain about sitting around in gymnasiums all day waiting to see their child wrestle only three times;
  • Unfair age divisions: parents are more likely to enter their children into tournaments where they are towards the older end of the spectrum (there are usually more 6th graders in 5th/6th grade events);
  • There is only one winner and a lot of losers: this style of tournament may be acceptable for older your wrestlers because they truly decide who the champion is, but it is not the best model for the younger beginners and newcomers to the sport;
  • Bracketing can often be confusing to newcomers;
  • Participant wrestlers can end up waiting around for a match, only to find out that the other competitor is no longer there: it is a very frustrating experience to wait for two hours to find out that you do not have a match and have waited for nothing; and
  • There are often massive mismatches, where one competitor has no chances of winning.
• With respect to Round-Robin Tournaments, the negative consequences or drawbacks include:
• • Unfair matchups happen constantly due to the lack of an objective rating system because parents are asked rate their own children, and, as a result, beginners are often trounced by more experienced competitors that they the beginners should not compete against;
  • There is usually one competitor in each group who is the worst: this child loses every match that day and is much more likely to quit the sport as a result;
  • Coaches have realized that it is dangerous for them to bring a child to a tournament too soon for fear of their athlete quitting;
  • Mat assignments are often confusing for parents;
  • Just like with Ladder Tournaments, a participant can end up waiting around for a match, only to find out that the other competitor is no longer there; and
  • It is a difficult job for the tournament director to manually match competitors. It is very time consuming and frustrating, as tournament directors are forced to form some bad match-ups because the directors feel they don't have a category for a particular child so they put the child into whatever they believe fits, and the fit is usually not good.
• With respect to Dual Meet Tournaments, the negative consequences or drawbacks include:
• • Very unfair age divisions: k-6 grade tournaments are very popular. The upper weights are predominantly 6th graders, with the lower weights being filled with older children who are small for their age. A lot of children are unable to participate as the result of being potentially too young compared to their competitors;
  • Incredibly difficult for coaches to setup teams (a coach needs to recruit for all 15 weight classes, or they will lose money. This often creates discord on the team when two members of their team want to be in the same weight class;
  • Recruiting empty weight classes is very time consuming and often causes political conflicts between the wrestling clubs (poaching);
  • Coaches need to put up large cash deposits to secure admission ($300-$900). They then need to sell each weight-class to recoup their money;
  • No standardized weight classes, which this makes it difficult to form teams that last for a season. New teams need to be formed for each event;
  • Very little profit margin for coaches (who are doing a lot of work); the lion's share of the profits from the events goes to the organizations organizing the events;
  • Weight classes cause weight cutting;
  • Unfair wrestling parents who hold children back a grade to give them an age advantage (the currently-run tournaments are often based on the grade, not the birthday, of the competitor); and
  • These tournaments are dominated by “rolodex teams” which are made up of elite competitors randomly recruited together. It has made it unfair for real teams that train together.
• The system and method of the present invention comprise a computer or computer server running the software and the databases necessary for the operation of the system and method, and providing a graphical user interface (GUI). The graphical user interface provides access to the Registration (create account, login/logout, reset/change password, and update/change email address or other information), Events (wrestling matches and competitions), Rankings, and other features. The databases are preferably backed up automatically, on a daily or weekly basis to protect against accidental deletions and corruption of the databases.
• The operator of the system creates the participant profile utilizing the user interface of the system and method of the present invention, and the operator manually completes or uploads the participant profile. The profile (player or participant detail) includes the first and last name, the date of birth (based on which the system and method of the present invention create match-ups rather than on the flawed grade-level system), the player's rating, number of games or events participated in, rating change indicators (if any changes), the weight-adjusted rating pursuant to the system and method the present invention, and the recent rating history if any (including the recent opponents, opponents' ratings, results of matches, the new ratings, and the events participated in).
• The system and method generate rakings for this particular participant based on a number of factors. The rankings can then be used for rating the wrestler against and matching the wrestler with the other participants, thus organizing wrestling events or ladder competitions. The advantages of the system and method of the present invention are speed, accuracy, and better safety versus the manual methods used previously.
• The system and method of the present invention can also match an original player to any participant.
• The system and method of the present invention will enable the operators to quickly and efficiently organize wrestling competitions and matches using system and method of the present invention.
• By addressing the negative consequences and drawbacks of the currently-used tournament styles and by providing dynamic weight-adjusted ratings and live match-ups, the system and method of the present invention accomplish the following objectives:
• • Eliminate mismatches, which is one of the biggest problems the wrestling sport is currently facing;
  • Allows for all skill levels to compete: the current competitions are mostly for advanced wrestlers, eliminating the larger part of the market. By allowing the beginners to compete safely, the system and method of the present invention will cause a large growth in wrestling participation, especially among the younger participants;
  • Coaches are no longer concerned about bringing all of their wrestlers to compete (if a coach brings a wrestler who isn't experienced enough, there is a good chance the wrestler will have a bad experience and quit the wrestling sport);
  • Competitors get to choose when they compete;
  • Competitors get to choose how often they compete;
  • Competitors can pay registration or entry fees per match;
  • Challenge matches can occur (send a match to a rival or ask for a rematch);
  • Tournaments can now hold all styles simultaneously (folkstyle, freestyle, Greco Roman, no-gi grappling, gi grappling, judo, etc.);
  • Ability to compete in multiple styles at the same tournament, which will massively promote participation in other styles;
  • Ability to do multi-style challenges (determining who is the best between wrestlers in all of the styles);
  • Provide an option for the coaches to receive financial rewards per match for bringing their wrestlers into the competition (the coaches have invested the time into training and built a market, so they deserve a share of the profits);
  • Removes the frustration the coaches face in building Dual Meet Teams (saves hours of headaches, allows coaches to bring their entire team instead of only a few wrestlers, and removes the hassle of recruiting);
  • Large bulk purchases available for loyal customers (100+ match purchases)
  • Greatly reduces the cost of competitions for the consumers/participants;
  • Competitors can now do rapid-fire arena-style competitions;
  • The system and method can handle more simultaneous matches than ever before, with the potential for mega wrestling events, tournaments, and competitions with more than 10,000 competitors;
  • Eliminates weight cutting in wrestling, which provides you with no advantage under the system and method of the present invention;
  • Much more flexible pairing due to eliminating weight classes and age divisions (current divisions have sharp borders that don't always make sense: an eight year old can currently wrestle against a 9.9 year old, but a 9.9 year old cannot wrestle a ten year old; a 149.0-pound wrestler cannot wrestle a 149.1-pound wrestler).
  • Parents and competitors can show up and leave at any time; and
  • A wrestler will never be matched against his/her teammates (unless so requested).
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
• These features, aspects and advantages of the novel system and method will become further understood with reference to the following description and accompanying drawings where
• FIG. 1 is an overview of the process and flow of the system and method of the present invention;
DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENT
• The present invention is directed to a method and system that are utilized on a computer or computer server, or may alternatively be app-based for mobile platforms (which still requires a computer server for the system and method), which allows the operators to rate, rank, and match wrestling competitors for wrestling events and competitions.
• There are several important components of the system and method: the Rating Engine, the Matchmaking Engine, and the Mat Dispatcher Integration and Pool Management Module
• The Rating Engine is the component that takes player ratings and results as input, and outputs updated ratings. The ratings will follow the standard Elo rating algorithms known in the art. An example of the algorithm can be seen at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system, which is attached to the disclosure of this application and made a part hereof. For the first eight games, the ratings will be provisional. Provisional rating changes will be calculated by setting the K-factor to 800/2N where 8>=N>1, 400 where 1>=N. After 8 games, the K-factor will be 32.
• The Rating Engine has a Weight-Adjusted Algorithm Development component that accounts for changes in participant weight, and approximates an increase in Elo rating points based on a percentage weight increase in the participant's body mass. For example, the component may approximate an increase in 200 Elo points for an eight percent increase in body weight (the actual numbers may vary and be changed by the operator of the system and method, based on further research and engine performance results). The Rating Engine also rates wrestlers based on their past results and their current weight in order to predict the probability that any given wrestler will defeat another wrestler with a similarly-derived Elo rating.
• The Elo rating in wrestling is based on the concept of expected scores—if a participant over-performs his/her expected score, the rating goes up, and if the participant underperforms the expected score, the rating goes down. The magnitude of the rating change is based on the magnitude of the over/under-performance: the larger over/under-performance leads to a larger rating change.
• A conventional Elo rating works as follows: R₁′=R₁+K(A−E), where:
• R₁′ is the new rating
  R₁ is the old rating
  K (known as the “K-factor”) is an arbitrary multiplier (commonly used values are 16 and 32),
  A is the actual score in the match (1=win, 0.5=draw, 0=loss)
  E is the expected score, which is calculated as follows:
  E=1/(1+₁₀ ^{(R2−R1)/400}) where R₂ is the opponent's rating.
• Several representative examples of calculating the Elo-based ratings of wrestling participants are illustrated below:
• Example 1: A 1200-rated participant defeats a 1321-rated participant. Using a K-factor of 32, to the rating change for each participant is:
• 
  R′=1200+32(1−E)
• 
  E=1/(1+10^{((1321−1200)/400)})=1/(1+10^0.3)=1/(1+2)=⅓=0.333
• 
  R′=1200+32(1−0.333)=1200+32(0.67)=1221.44
• Similarly, for the 1321 participant:
• 
  E=1/(1+10^{((1200−1320)/400)})=1/(1+0.50)= 1/1.5=0.667
• 
  R′=1321+32(0−0.667)=1200−32(0.67)=1299.56
• As long as the same K-factor is used for both participants, they will always have equal and opposite rating changes. The sum of the expected scores will always equal 1.0, and you can roughly assume that the expected score is the probability a participant will win (so a 1200-rated participant has a 33.3% chance of winning against a 1321-rated participant).
• Variable K-Factor and Provisional Ratings
• Initially, when participants have completed very few matches, their ratings will be inaccurate. To reflect this increased volatility and help new participants' ratings more quickly converge on their proper values, the K factor in increased for the first eight matches according to the following formula:
• 
  N<1: K=400
• 
  1≤N≤8: K=800/2N
• 
  N>8: K=32W
• Where N is the number of matches the participant has completed before the current match being rated.
• Example 2: A 1200-rated participant who has played three matches defeats a 1321-rated participant who has played eight matches:
• 
  R′=1200+(800/6)(1−E)
• As calculated in Example 1, E=0.333.
• 
  R′=1200+133(1−0.333)=1289.11
• For the other participant:
• 
  R′=1321+(800/16)(0−E)
• As calculated in Example 1, E=0.667
• 
  R′=1321+50(−0.667)=1287.5
• To mark the increased volatility of ratings based on less than eight matches, the Applicant calls these provisional ratings and denotes them as R (PN), where R is the rating, and N is the number of matches the provisional rating is based on. In the example above, the rating changes are written as follows:
• 1200 (P3)→1289.11 (P4)
• 1300 (P8)→1285.5
• Note that since the 1300-rated participant has now completed more than eight matches, his/her rating is no longer provisional and thus does not have the (PN) indicator next to it.
• Weight Offset
• In order to account for the fact that weight plays a significant impact on expected score for wrestling and similar sports, a weight-offset is calculated based solely on each wrestler's weight. The weight-offset is calculated as follows:
• 
  B+(−400*log₁₀(1/((3.17^12.5*J)/(1+3.17^12.5*J))−1)
• Where B is a constant defined by the following:
• 
  0≤W≤100: B=2505
• 
  100≤W≤200: B=5845
• 
  200≤W≤300: B=7181
• and J is defined as:
• 
  0≤W≤100: J=(W−50)/50
• 
  100≤W≤200: J=(W−150)/150
• 
  200≤W≤300: J=(W−250)/250
• This offset calculation can be easily modified for other sports.
• During the practical implementation of the weight-adjusted system and method (process), and issue was encountered that centering the weight-adjusted method around 50 lbs. (the predicted winning probability is expressed in terms of how likely a wrestler of weight X is to beat a 50-lb wrestler just on weight alone), it was impossible to make meaningful distinctions between wrestlers above 130 lbs., since they all have basically the same winning probability: 100%.
• This issue was resolved by utilizing three proprietary formulas that differ only in the weight they center around: 50 lbs., 150 lbs., and 250 lbs. Thus for the example, for anyone with a weight between 0 and 100 lbs. the Rating Engine uses the formula centered around 501bs, for anyone with a weight between 100 and 200 lbs. the Rating Engine uses the formula centered around 150 lbs., and for anyone with the weight between 200 and 300 lbs. the Rating Engine uses the formula centered around 250 lbs. The Applicant envisions that additional modifications of the formulas may be made to further refine the weight-adjusted method of rating.
• The three formulas are combines into one coherent system by offsetting by the max rating of the top of the previous range. Specifically, the max rating produced in the 0-100 lbs. range, at 100 lbs., is 2505 (assuming 50 lbs.=0). The max rating produced by the 100-200 lb range, at 200 lbs. is 1670 (assuming 100 lbs.=0), so the offset is 2505 to get a rating of 4175 for a 200-lb wrestler. The max rating produced by the 200-300 lb. range is 1002 at 300 lbs., so the offset is 4175 to get 5177.
• Under this methodology, the weight and rating ranges are:
• • 0-100 lbs.: −2505 to 2505;
  • 100-200 lbs.: 2505 to 4175; and
  • 200-300 lbs.: 4175 to 5177.
• The final weight-adjusted Elo used for bracketing/pairings is obtained by adding the weight-adjusted Elo and the regular Elo ratings.
• The final Weight-Adjusted Algorithm Development for the Rating Engine is based on the Elo rating algorithm. The Elo rating algorithm in turn is based on the concept of expected scores: if a player over-performs his/her expected score, his/her rating goes up, and if he/she underperforms, his/her rating goes down. The magnitude of the rating change is based on the magnitude of the over/underperformance: a larger over/underperformance means a larger rating change.
• In order to account for the fact that weight plays a significant impact on expected score, a weight offset is calculated based solely on each wrestler's weight. Given the assumption that an 8% increase in weight results in a 0.75 expected score (that is, assuming base skill levels are equal, a 54-lb wrestler beats a 50-lb wrestler 75% of the time, as does a 108-lb wrestler versus a 100-lb wrestler), the weight offset is calculated as follows:
• 
  0-100 lbs: 2505+(−400*log₁₀ 1/((3.17^{12.5 *(weight-50)/50})/(1+3.17^{12.5*(weight-50)/50})))
• 
  100-200 lbs: 5845+(−400*log₁₀ 1/((3.17^{12.5 *(weight-150)/150})/(1+3.17^{12.5 *(weight-150)/150})))
• 
  200-300 lbs: 7181+(−400*log₁₀ 1/((3.17^{12.5 *(weight-250)/250})/(1+3.17^{12.5 * (weight-250)/250})))
• Example 3 illustrates the calculation of the weight offset for a 131-lb wrestler, using the 100-200 lb algorithm:
• $5845+\left(-400*{\log }_{10}\left(1/\left(\left({3.17}^{12.5*\left(131-150\right)/150}\right)/\left(1+{3.17}^{12.5*\left(131-150\right)/150}\right)\right)\right)-1\right)=5845+\left(-400*{\log }_{10}\left(1/\left(\left({3.17}^{-1.58}\right)/\left(1+{3.17}^{-1.58}\right)\right)\right)-1\right)=5845+(-400*{\log }_{10}\left(\left(1/\left(\mathrm{.161}/1.161\right)\right)-1\right)=5845+(-400*{\log }_{10}\left(\left(1/\mathrm{.139}\right)-1\right)=5845+\left(-400*{\log }_{10}\left(7.19-1\right)\right)=5845+\left(-400*{\log }_{10}6.19\right)=5845+\left(-400*\mathrm{.79}\right)=5845-317=5528$
• So, the final determination for this system is:
• New Rating=Old Rating+(K*(E−E′)), where E is the actual score (1 if win, 0 if loss, 0.5 if draw), E′ is the expected score, and K=32, unless the participant is provisionally rated. E′ is calculated by comparing the two wrestlers' current weight-adjusted rating, and then finally the weight-adjusted rating is updated with this formula:
• The Weight-Adjustment is calculated using the following equation:
• 
  New Weight-Adjusted Rating=New Rating+Weight Adjustment
• Example 4: Wrestler 1 is rated 1146 and weighs 145 pounds. Wrestler 2 is rated 1086 and weighs 154 pounds. Assume wrestler 1 wins and they have both played more than eight matches.
• First, calculate the weight-adjusted Elo rating of both wrestlers:
• 
  Wrestler 1: 145 lbs=5761 (weight offset)+1146 (regular Elo)=6907
• 
  Wrestler 2: 154 lbs=5912 (weight offset)+1086 (regular Elo)=6998
• Second, find the expected probabilities (E′) based on the weight-adjusted Elo ratings:
• 
  Wrestler 1: 1/(1+10(6998−6907)/400)=1/1+(1091/400)=1/(1+1.69)=1/2.69=0.371 (or 37.1%)
• 
  Wrestler 2: 1/(1+10(6907-6998)/400)=1/1+(10-91/400)=1/(1+0.59)=1/1.59=0.629 (or 62.9%)
• Third, insert the weight-adjusted expected probability into the standard Elo formula to solve for the new ratings:
  Wrestler 1 new rating:
• 
  =1146 (old rating)+(1−0.371) [result−expected score]*32 (k-factor)
• 
  =1146+0.629*32
• 
  =1146+20.13
• =1166.13
  The weight offset is still 5761, so the new weight-adjusted rating=5761+1166=6927.
  Wrestler 2 new rating:
• 
  =1086 (old rating)+(0−0.629) [result−expected score)*32 (k-factor)
• 
  =1086−0.629*32=1086−20.13=1065.87
• The weight offset is still 5912, so the new weight-adjusted rating=5912+1065.87=6977.87.
  It should be noted that, as long as the K-factors are the same, the sum of the rating changes between the two wrestlers will always be 0. In this example, Wrestler 1 gained 20.13 points and Wrestler 2 lost 20.13 points.
• Example 5: using Example 4 above, if Wrestler 1 had played seven matches and Wrestler 2 had played four matches, the calculation in the final step would be:
• 
  Wrestler 1: 1146+0.629*(800/14)=1146+0.629*57.14=1146+35.94=1181.94 (rounded)
• Add the weight offset of 5761 for a weight-adjusted rating of 1181+5761=6942
• 
  Wrestler 2: 1086−0.629*(800/8)=1086−0.629*100=1086−62.9=1023.1
• Add the weight offset of 5912 to get 6935.1 for the weight-adjusted rating.
• It should be noted that the magnitude of the rating change was larger for both in this example, and much more so for Wrestler 2 since Wrestler 2 has played fewer matches, the rating changes for Wrestler 2 are more volatile to reflect the increased uncertainty in his rating.
• The Rating Engine also has a Weight-Adjusted Ratings Implementation component that involves tracking weight as an additional parameter, converting the weight-adjusted parameters into computer code and testing the code due to the added complexity of this algorithm as disclosed herein.
• The Rating Engine also includes Player Profiles and Player Search GUI pages, which display recent results of players, their rating history, and the events they've participated in. The search component allows users to search for specific players by name, player ID, or date of birth to view their results.
• Events, Player Creation, and Rankings: this component allows tournament directors to create new players to add to the system, and new events to link games to. This page will have the ordered ranking of all players in the system. The Events page may be reached from the Home page through the Core page, and the Events page will display the available events (tournaments for example) and will give the administrator the opportunity to add new or delete existing events, or to change the parameters of the event by selecting the name of that event, including changes to the event title, date and time of the event, number of mats, maximum and minimum wrestler weight, maximum age difference, maximum weight difference, cost per match, city and state of the event, and/or a more specific location of the event.
• By accessing the Mats page from the Home page (through the Core page), the administrator will see all available mats for each of the events and tournaments. From that page, the mats can be added, deleted, or their information modified by selecting a particular mat, including modifying the associated Event, Mat ID number, and/or timer. Another page that may be accessed through the Core page from the Home Page is Payments, where payments may be added for a particular event. Yet another page that may be accessed through the Core page from the Home Page is Pools, where the event or tournament player pools will be displayed. By selecting a particular pool, the administrator may view the names of the participants assigned to that pool. Another page that may be accessed through the Core page from the Home Page is System Settings, where the administrator may change the Wrestling Ratings System Settings, including Site Name (i.e. “Wrestling Ratings”), token price in number of tokens, style (wrestling), refund policy, Tier discount percentages for Tiers 1 through 6, and Tier discount volumes for Tiers 1 through 5. Thus, for example, Tier 1 discount percentage may be 5%, Tier 2 8.3%, Tier 3 16.7%, Tier 4 21%, and Tier 5 discount may be 25%.
• Another page that may be accessed through the Core page from the Home Page is Transactions, where the administrator may view and/or change the last transactions, in FIFO or LIFO order, including token redemption for a match in a particular event, purchases of tokens (with or without discounts), etc.
• Another page that may be accessed through the Registration page from the Home Page is Registration Profiles, where the administrator may add, delete, view or change the profiles of registered users.
• Event Signup and Registration Export: this will create a custom, unique signup page for each individual event, which can be sent to participants so they can input their information to register for the event. This feature will match participants with their pre-existing database entries, or create new participants if they aren't already in the database.
• Specific care will be taken to ensure a) the tournament director can close the event to registration and b) the possibility of duplicate values is minimized by first searching the existing database for players before creating a new player to be added to the database.
• At any point, the event can be downloaded, preferably as a comma separated values (CSV file), which can be read by Microsoft Excel. The CSV file will contain: participant names, unique ID, age, weight, rating, and weight-adjusted rating.
• Results Input: this component handles the input of results and will allow users to input results, one by one. They will only be able to input results for existing players; if they want to input results for new players, they will have to create a new player in the system first.
• Authentication, Permissions, and Other: This is the system for creating accounts for tournament directors and managing what type of actions they can do, like create new players, create new events (if you go with events item above), and add new results. From the “Authentication and Authorization” dashboard screen, the administrators can add or change groups, users, events, mats, pairing, payments, pool entries, pools, results, system settings, transactions, weigh ins, wrestlers, and/or registration profiles. The screen may also display the last and/or recent actions of the administrator who is currently logged in, in either FIFO or LIFO order.
• If the administrator elects to change the groups, for example, he or she may do so from the “Groups” screen under “Authentication and Authorization”. By selecting “Admin”, the administrator is presented with the list of available permissions to that administrator, including log entries and additions/deletions of groups, permissions, etc. The chosen permissions for the administrator are displayed in the “Chosen permissions” box.
• By selecting “Employee” from the “Groups” screen under “Authentication and Authorization”, the administrator is likewise presented with the available permissions of adding or deleting log entries, adding or deleting groups, and so on. The chosen permissions for the Employee are displayed in the “Chosen permissions” box.
• By selecting “Participant” from the “Groups” screen under “Authentication and Authorization”, the administrator is presented with the available permissions of adding or deleting log entries, adding or deleting groups, and so on. The chosen permissions for the Participant are displayed in the “Chosen permissions” box.
• By selecting “Users” under “Authentication and Authorization”, the administrator is presented with the list of available users by Username, Email Address, First and/or Last Name, with the available permissions of adding, deleting or modifying user entries or information. Several optional filters are available to sort the users by staff status, super-user status, active status, and/or groups status.
• One key feature of the system and method of the present invention is that the Matchmaking Engine will use the participants' weight-adjusted ratings, weight, and age as inputs for determining the best pairing. The Matchmaking Engine will pair wrestlers based on the order of their entry into the participant pool. The Matchmaking Engine may be optionally set to be bound by the maximum weight and/or age constraints that can be set by the user. For example, if the user sets the maximum allowable weight difference of 20% (twenty percent), a 65 lb. wrestler and a 50 lb. wrestler will never be paired because the weight difference is greater than 20%.
• The Matchmaking Engine typically pairs wrestlers in the order they entered the participant pool, although that can be programmed by the operator of the system and method as well. When pairing wrestlers on a first-come basis, the Matchmaking Engine will pair the first wrestler to enter the pool with his/her best match, then the engine will pair the second wrestler to enter the pool with his/her best match (unless the second wrestler was already paired with the first wrestler), and so on.
• Using an optional Mat Dispatcher module, the operator of the system and method may create an optimal pairing of two wrestlers, dispatch the wrestler to the appropriate wrestling mat for the match or competition, visible in the Mat View screen of the graphical user interface, and the dispatched wrestlers are then removed from the pool of wrestlers waiting to be paired. The Mat Dispatcher module takes a pairing (two wrestlers) and assigns it to a mat, and as a result the pairing will appear in that mat's Mat View. The Match Dispatcher automatically assigns the pairing to the mat with the least number of people on deck. If there are multiple mats with the least number of people, the pairing is assigned randomly to one of those mats.
• The Mat View screen will show the current match at any given wrestling mat, as well as all upcoming matches. When a match is complete, the user (who must be logged in to see this view) will be able to manually input the result, which will update the two participants' ratings and send them back to the queue. The Mat View's queue is updated accordingly, along with any new pairings that have been dispatched to this mat. The operator (Tournament Director for example) will have the master controls applying to all styles of wrestling matches in queue, including seeing the number of mats running, the number of matches in queue for each mat, and the ability to turn off the mat feature for injuries and other stoppages.
• PAIRING CREATOR. The Pairing Creator component allows the tournament director to manually create a new pairing and send it to the match dispatcher. In an alternative embodiment, the Pairing Creator may allow auto-generated pairings as well.
• UPDATED EVENT PAGE WITH WEIGHT ENFORCEMENT. The Updated Event Page with Weight Enforcement event page is typically updated with the following features:
• • Acceptable weight range. Any participant not within this range will be automatically rejected from the event. The range can be edited at any point by the operator, and the participants who are not within the new range will be automatically removed from the event (i.e., the participants pool will be auto-updated).
  • Number of mats. This is the number of mats being used in the event or competition, preferably with associated mat identifier (number or letter). The number of mats may also be increased or decreased by the operator as the number of actual wrestling mats in use increases or decreases.
  • Event toggle. This is the ability to toggle whether the event is currently still going on or has ended. This will be useful for player profiles in the future because it will allow the software running the on the system and implementing the method of the present invention to know if a player is currently participating in an event.
  • Pool and dispatch view. This view shows all of the current participants in the event pool, and the current dispatch queue for each mat.
• The system and method of the present invention comprise a computer, preferably a computer server, and software that runs the rating and matching engine using a database of participants and utilizing the proprietary algorithms developed by the Applicant. The system and method interface may operate through a website, preferably using a graphical user interface (GUI) for the operators' and users interaction with the system. The system and method of the present invention include the following Common Tasks:
• Logging In. To log in, the user should click “log in” at the top right corner of any page. The user can also get to the login page by trying to do any action that requires logging in (like adding an event) and will automatically be redirected to the login page.
• Creating events (login required): from the home page, click “create new event”, or go to/event/add/. The user can also click the “create new event” button from the events page, which can be reached via/events/, or by clicking “events” on the navigation bar at the top right of the screen. The event details should include a list of participants (at least two) with all associated fields from the participant profiles, the total number of the participants, and the time and location of the event. The results of recent events may also be viewed from this screen.
• Creating wrestlers (login required): from the home page, click “add new wrestler”, or go to/player/add/. New wrestlers can also be created via CSV upload when adding participants to events.
• Adding participants to events (login required): once the operator or user created an event, he/she will be automatically redirected to the event page. Otherwise, the operator or user can get to the event page by clicking “Events” on the navigation bar and finding it, or by going to/event/[event id] (if the event id is 15, then go to/event/15). Once there, there are two ways to add participants:
• • 1. Individually, by clicking the “add participant” button. The operator then searches for the participant, and adds him/her to the event. It should be noted that the operator can only add participants who are already in the database.
  • 2. In a batch, by clicking the “upload CSV” button under “participants” and uploading a CSV file. If the CSV file contains any players who are not already in the database, the software of the system and method of the present invention will automatically create new entries for the new participants in the database and then add the new participants to the event. The fields of the CSV file should match and contain the same information as the player/participant profiles (names, dates of birth, weight-adjusted ratings, etc.).
• Resolve Potential Duplicates. If there are any potential duplicates (a potential duplicate is defined as someone in the CSV who is not in the database, but shares a birthday and either first or last name or weight with someone in the database), those will be flagged and the operator will be given the option to “merge” the participant records if the potential duplicate is actually the same person as the one in the database or “create new record” to add an entirely new entry into the database if the new CSV-uploaded participant is an entirely different person than the one in the database. Once the potential duplicates issues is resolved, the participant will be added to the event.
• Adding results (login required). There are two ways to add results:
• • 1. Individually, by clicking the “add result” button from the event page, for every match.
  • 2. In a batch, by uploading a CSV file, by clicking “upload CSV” under the results section of the event page. The CSV file must be in the correct format, or the resulting upload will fail. To make this process easier, the operator can click the “download form” button in the results section to download a CSV file already in the correct format, fill out the results, and then upload the CSV file.
• View Event Participants. On the event page, click the “Total Participants” link to see all the participants in that event, including any participant's name, ID, date of birth, weight, and all other database fields in the participant profile.
• View Event Results. On the event page, click the “Total Matches” link to see all the results for the event.
• Resetting passwords. On the log in page, click the “Reset your password” link and enter your email address to be emailed a password reset link.
• Creating new accounts (login required). Go to the admin interface, click “Users”, and click “Add User” in the top right of the screen.
• Editing results. Go to the admin interface (see below), click “Matches”, and choose the match you want to edit. Note that editing a match does not trigger the system to re-rate the match. This functionality can be added on as a separate project later, if so desired.
• Editing events. Log in, and go to the event page. There is an “edit” button on the left side, which appears only when the operator is logged in. The operator may add participants to the events or results of the events. Before adding a new wrestler participant, the operator should search for the participant to ensure he/she is not already in the database. Events can also be edited via the admin interface by logging in, and clicking “Events”.
• Editing players and ratings. To edit player data, log in, search for the player the data of which needs to be edited and click the result to go to their player page (alternatively, if you know their ID, go to/player/id). If logged in, there should be an edit button where you can edit player data, including ratings. Player's first and last name, ID, date of birth, and other player information may be edited. If the player's rating is edited, the weight-adjusted rating will automatically be updated to reflect the changes. However, editing the rating will not change any of the data relating to the matches that this player has participated in, including the rating changes with that match (this function is present in an alternative embodiment of the present invention, called “cascade corrections” described below). Generally, the operator may edit the event the player is associated with (date and time of the event), add an event, or add or edit the result of the event.
• Using the admin interface. The admin interface is where the operator has the complete power to change the data stored on the site server running the software implementing the method of the present invention. The operator can create new users, view, create, edit, or delete all events, users, and wrestlers. To log in to the admin interface, go to/admin/ (e.g., wrestlingrating.com/admin) and enter your username and password.
• The Applicant envisions multiple alternative embodiments and potential modifications of the system and method of the present invention within the scope and spirit of the invention disclosed in this application. Without limitation, such alternative embodiments and modifications may include the following features:
• • Pairing Engine: generates matchups between participants in an event based on predetermined criteria (round robin, double round robin, Swiss, knockout, etc.);
  • Rating graphs: generate rating graphs based on the participant ratings and weigh-adjusted ratings;
  • Ranking Engine: generate separate wrestler ratings/rankings by weight class, age, or school grade (other fields of the database used or filled by the Ranking Engine include Rank, Name, Weight, Rating, Weight-Adjusted Rating); for example the Ranking Engine may take Wrestler 1 with the associated ratings and generate a Wrestler 1 ranking, which is then compared to the ranking of Wrestler 2, generated the same way, to predict the outcome of a match between Wrestler 1 and Wrestler 2;
  • Integration: more direct integration with registration systems to avoid the need for slow and potentially error-prone CSV uploads, and to save time by having everything get automatically set up as soon as a wrestler's parent pays the registration fee;
  • Cascade corrections: give the ability to edit ratings or match results and have the updated data “cascade” down to matches played after the rating was edited. For instance, if John Doe played a match two months ago that was erroneously marked as a loss instead of a win, changing the result to a win would trigger that match and every match John Doe has played after that match to be re-rated, which would update the ratings of the opponents in those matches, which would then trigger the re-rating of matches they've played since then, and so on.
• With reference to FIG. 1, the system 10 and method of the present invention are generally described as follows: an operator signs into the software, using a previously established username and password, and generates a participant (player) profile by entering the information 30, including age, first and last name, weight, and rankings 40, and any miscellaneous database fields 50 through the GUI installed on the operator's computer, which is connected to the system via a network, preferably via the Internet, but possibly via a local network.
• The operator may uploads the participant information to the system 10 through the network in a CSV file. Once the information is uploaded to the system, which is preferably hosted on the administration website 70 of the system, the Ranking Engine generates wrestler rankings based on the proprietary Elo-based rating method.
• The Pairing Engine generates matches when the operator selects the “Find a Match” button, using the wrestler (participant) profiles in the database, whether the wrestlers are manually entered into the database or uploaded via the CSV containing the participant profiles. The operator then assigns the wrestling styles to the paired wrestlers and the Mat Dispatcher module takes the pairing (the two wrestlers) and assigns it to a particular mat for the match or competition, and as a result the pairing will appear in that mat's Mat View. The Match Dispatcher automatically assigns the pairing to the mat with the least number of people on deck.
• Adding multiple styles adds an additional layer of complexity because each wrestling referee may not be approved for each wrestling style. The dispatch system (Mat Dispatch module) takes this into consideration by allowing Mat 1 to handle freestyle, folkstyle, and Greco-Roman, Mat 2 to handle freestyle only, and Mat 3 to handle no-gi grapping and gi grapping. The referees and their skills need to be added to the database of the event and matched to the particular mat by the Match Dispatch module. The additional features used for each style are: length of the match or competition, cost to compete (registration/entry fees), maximum age differential, maximum weight differential, and minimum/maximum weight currently allowed in the pairing pool.
• The system and method of the present invention allow to organize the results, after the tournament is completed, to find out how many matches were completed for each team that is participating in profit sharing. The system and method also allow a parent to manage the wrestling matches of multiple children through the same GUI, whether on a computer or a mobile device through an app. The software will allow users to purchase match tokens to compete.
• With reference to FIG. 2, the selection criteria of the participants is preferably divided into several categories (age based on the date of birth, weight, and weight-adjusted rating).
• The operator is greeted by a functional dashboard 270 that shows the new actions that can be taken with respect to any participants. The dashboard 270 may also display the last several participant profiles 272 created or uploaded by that operator, for example the last five wrestler profiles. The operator may also access, view and change any and all participant profiles from the dashboard 270, create new participant profiles, and view reports from the “Participant Profiles” tab 280. The operator may also change the login settings by using the “Settings” tab 290, or hit the “Home” button 300 on the dashboard 270 to be returned to the initial screen, or log out of the system 10 and network.
• With reference to FIG. 3, the dashboard 270 also displays a “Rating” field associated with the participant 30 profiles, as well as the Events field. The participant 30 profile is populated with the first and last name, date of birth, weight, rating, and weight-adjusted rating of the participant. The operator may run a participant query 35 from the dashboard 270 and view the resulting snapshot of the resulting participant profiles report illustrated in FIG. 7, or the other details accessible through this screen by clicking each respective “View Participants” button 39 associated with each participant 30.
• With reference to FIG. 4, to create a new participant profile, the operator clicks the “Participant Profiles” tab 280 in the dashboard 270 of the administration website 70 of the system, and from the dropdown menu of the “Participant Profiles” tab 280 selects “New Participant Profile” to create a new wrestler profile for a participant 30. The operator is then presented with the screen where the operator initially enters all of the pertinent wrestler's information: first and last name, date of birth, weight, rating, and weight-adjusted rating, and optionally address, contact telephone numbers, email address, city, state, zip code. The operator then clicks the “Create” button 44 to upload the participant information to the system 10 of the present invention. There is also a “Cancel” button 46 next to the “Create” button should the operator wish to cancel creating a profile or begin a new one.
• Once the operator submits at least two wrestlers' participant 30 information, the operator may be taken to the “Browse Participant Profiles” screen illustrated in FIG. 6, where the operator may review and observe the list of participants 30 and their information, the current Even 180 in the system 10, the date and place of the Event, the results of the Event, and the other details accessible through this screen by clicking each respective “View Details” button 39 associated with each participant. The operator can also run a query 35 from this screen, by entering the participant name into a search window or selecting a time period/date to view (i.e., this month, this week, etc.).
• An alternative embodiment of the present invention may automatically match the wrestlers not only by their Elo-based weight-adjusted ratings, but also by their proximity to one another, including by address or by the zip code where the wrestlers are located.
• The Participant Profile 280 view is illustrated in FIG. 4: the operator sees the name, date of birth, weight, weight-adjusted rating, and other fields of the participant profile in the database, including the contact information of the participant 30.
• Alternative embodiments of the present invention include video recording capabilities that are indexed and saved in the database for each participant for later viewing, commentary, and additional training. The software will have a social media extension for sharing the recorded videos from the participants' profiles and/or a chat feature. The system and method of the present invention will also allow for arena-style competitions (rapid fire tournaments, multi-style tournaments, ladder tournaments, rating less than 1200 tournaments and so on). The system and method will keep track of the current regional or state champion who has the highest rating for anyone of his/her weight or light and/or his/her age or younger. The system and method will allow for “girls-only” divisions for matches and competitions and age-range functionality to create open challenges.
• An arena-style tournament according to the present invention as a tournament that has the following characteristics:
• • Contains a pool of participants, where participants are continuously paired with each other based on factors such as how long a participant has been in the pool (the longer the wait, the higher priority your getting paired is) and the quality of matches between other participants in the pool (e.g. two pool participants that are close in rating are probably a high quality match)
  • As soon as a participant finishes a match, he may return to the pool to be immediately eligible to be paired again
  • The tournament is bounded by a time limit, rather than a specific number of rounds. As a result, participants can play a different number of rounds, depending on how quickly they complete their matches and return to the pairing pool.
• Advantages of Arena Tournaments. In exchange for forgoing the structure of a tournament using a single-elimination (also known as knockout), Swiss, or round-robin pairing system, Arena-style tournaments offer several key advantages:
• • More efficient use of mats. In wrestling, the limit on the number of concurrent matches depends on the number of mats. An Arena-style tournament ensures all the mats are always in use due to the continuous pairings and mat assignments. Compared to single-elimination tournaments, where each subsequent round only uses half of the mats used in the previous round, leaving the vast majority of mats unused in the later rounds, this is much more efficient.
  • Participants can come and go as they please, and play as many or as few matches as they want. Other pairing systems would be not be able to accommodate the participants leaving mid tournament.
  • Most participants will play more matches, because they will never be eliminated from the Arena-style tournament (as in single-elimination systems) and never have to wait until all matches from the round have finished (as in Swiss and possibly round-robin systems).
• FIFO Pairing. The implementation of an Arena-style tournament of this invention preferably organizes the Pairing Pool (the group of tournament participants ready to be paired) into a queue in the order they entered the Pairing Pool. The pairing process follows a First In, First Out (FIFO) structure that can be summarized as follows: the player at the front of the queue is paired with the best match from the remainder of the queue. An alternative way of handling pairing is to keep track of the exact amount of time, and use that as one of the parameters in determining a pairing. The “best match” is determined by using the Pairing Engine and Matchmaking Algorithm as illustrated below.
• Example 6: a tournament with 10 participants/players and 3 mats. The players are ordered in a queue in the Pairing Pool in the order they entered:
State Diagram 1
• • Pairing Pool: Player 1, Player 2, Player 3, Player 4, Player 5, Player 6, Player 7, Player 8,
  • Player 9, Player 10
  • Mat 1: [Empty]
  • Mat 2: [Empty]
  • Mat 3: [Empty]
  • Since Player 1 is first in the Pairing Pool queue, Player 1 is paired with the best match of players as determined by the pairing engine and matchmaking algorithm. If Player 1 is paired with Player 6, they are both removed from the pairing pool, and dispatched to the mat with the shortest wait. Since all mats are empty, they are arbitrarily assigned to Mat 1.
State Diagram 2
• • Pairing Pool: Player 2, Player 3, Player 4, Player 5 Player 7, Player 8, Player 9, Player 10
  • Mat 1: Player 1 vs Player 6
  • Mat 2: [Empty]
  • Mat 3: [Empty]
  • The process now repeats for Player 2, who is at the front of the Pairing Pool queue. If Player 10 is found to the best match for Player 1, they are now removed from the Pairing Pool and assigned to Mat 2. In the meantime, Players 11 and 12 decide to join the Pairing Pool.
State Diagram 3
• • Pairing Pool: Player 3, Player 4, Player 5 Player 7, Player 8, Player 9, Player 11, Player 12
  • Mat 1: Player 1 vs Player 6
  • Mat 2: Player 2 vs Player 10
  • Mat 3: [Empty]
  • Repeating the process, suppose Player 3's best match is Player 5. They must be assigned to Mat 3, as it has the smallest wait.
State Diagram 4
• • Mat 1: Player 1 vs Player 6
  • Mat 2: Player 2 vs Player 10
  • Mat 3: Player 3 vs Player 5
  • Now that all mats are occupied, the next match will be dispatched arbitrarily to one of the mats.
  • Pairing Pool: Player 4, Player 7, Player 8, Player 9, Player 11, Player 12
  • Mat 1: Player 1 vs Player 6
  • Mat 2: Player 2 vs Player 10
  • Mat 3: Player 3 vs Player 5
• Now that all mats are occupied, the next match will be arbitrarily dispatched to any of the mats. When a match finishes, those two players can choose to return to the Pairing Pool, while the next matchup in the queue for mat begins.
• Pairing Engine and Matchmaking System. With the weight-adjusted rating system and the tournament pairing system of the present invention, it is possible to determine the best match for the person at the front of the Pairing Pool queue. A simple but somewhat impractical approach would be to simply pair that person with the person with the closest weight-adjusted rating in the Pairing Pool. This would be reasonably effective, since we are already factoring in time in the Pairing Pool (by using the FIFO queue structure), weight, and skill with the weight-adjusted ratings. However, the drawback is that further “guardrails” or safeguards may be desirable to prevent certain kinds of pairings: a maximum allowable age difference, a weight difference, and so on.
• Under the system and method of the present invention, the weight-adjusted rating is the most important factor, age is the second most important factor, and weight (which is already accounted for to a great extent in the weight-adjusted ratings) is the third most important factor.
• A pairing's quality, Q, can be calculated as follows:
• 
  Q=1−(−1+e ^-.7D)−A−W
Where:
• 
  D=|R ₁ −R ₂|/100,
• where R₁ and R₂ are the two players' ratings.
• 
  A=(|A ₁ −A ₂|/(.Y))³,
• where A₁ and A₂ are the two players' ages, and Y is the maximum allowable difference in age
• 
  W=(|W ₁ −W ₂|/(.Z))⁴,
• where W₁ and W₂ are the two players' weights, and Z is the maximum allowable difference in weight
  If Q<0, round up to 0. The max value of Q is 1, indicating a perfect pairing (no difference in rating, age, or weight).
• For each person at the front of the Pairing Pool queue, calculate Q for a matchup with all other players in the Pairing Pool, and create a pairing between the players with the maximum value of Q. To avoid bad pairings, it is possible to also add a minimum Q threshold to create a pairing. At the very least, no pairing of Q=0 should be permitted. This is further illustrated in Example 7.
• Example 7: given a Pairing Pool queue of the following players, a maximum weight difference of 20%, and a maximum age difference of 25%, create an optimal pairing:
Pairing Pool Queue:

• 		Weight-Adjusted
  Queue Position	Name	Rating	Age	Weight

  1	Player 1	6494	13	135
  2	Player 2	6678	15.5	140
  3	Player 3	6661	14	133
  4	Player 4	7546	16	180
  5	Player 5	7563	17	175
  6	Player 6	7095	14.5	141

  
  First, calculate Q for each possible pairing involving the person at the front of the queue, Player 1:
• $Q_{\mathrm{player}1-\mathrm{player}2}=1-\left(-1+e^{-\mathrm{.7}\left(6678-6494\right)/100}\right)-(13-15.5/{\left(\left(3.25\right)\right)}^3-{\left(135-140/27\right)}^4Y,\mathrm{the}\mathrm{range}\mathrm{of}\mathrm{the}\mathrm{allowable}\mathrm{age}\mathrm{difference},\mathrm{is}3.25,\mathrm{since}\mathrm{the}\mathrm{allowable}\mathrm{age}\mathrm{range}\mathrm{is}+/-25\%\mathrm{of}\mathrm{Player}1\text{'}s\mathrm{age}\left(13*\mathrm{.25}=3.25\right),\mathrm{and}Z,\mathrm{the}\max \mathrm{allowable}\mathrm{weight}\mathrm{difference},\mathrm{is}27,\mathrm{since}\mathrm{the}\max \mathrm{allowable}\mathrm{weight}\mathrm{difference}\mathrm{is}+\text{/}-20\%\mathrm{of}\mathrm{Player}1\text{'}s\mathrm{weight}\left(135*\mathrm{.2}=27\right)\begin{array}{c}=1-\left(-1+e^{-\mathrm{.7}*1.84}\right)-{\left(2.5/2.6\right)}^3-{\left(5/27\right)}^4\\ =1-\left(-1+\mathrm{.276}\right)-{\left(\mathrm{.769}\right)}^3-{\left(\mathrm{.185}\right)}^4\\ =1-\mathrm{.724}-\mathrm{.455}-\mathrm{.001}\\ =-\mathrm{.32},\mathrm{rounded}\mathrm{up}\mathrm{to}0.\end{array}$
• The largest reason for such a low Q value was the rating difference (−0.724), followed by the age difference (−0.455).
• 
  Q _{player1-playe3}=1−0.689−0.029−0.000=0.28
• 
  Q _{player1-player4}=1−0.999−0.787−7.716=−8.5, rounded up to 0.
• Notice how large the weight component is (−7.716), because player 4 is far outside the allowable weight boundary of +/−20% (180 lbs vs a max allowable of 162 lbs)
• 
  Q _{player1=player5}=1−0.999−1.864−4.817=−6.68, rounded up to 0.
• Since player 5 is outside both the allowable weight and range values, this makes those terms (−1.864 and −4.817) very large to ensure a very low pairing quality Q.
• 
  Q _{player1-player6}=1−0.985−0.098−0.002=−0.089 rounded up to 0.
• Thus, the conclusion of the Pairing Engine and Matchmaking System is that the best (and indeed, the only acceptable) pairing for player 1 is player 3 (Q=0.28), while the worst pairing for player 1 is with player 4 (Q=−8.5, rounded to 0).
• The same principles hold true: the best pairings are those with the minimum rating difference, age difference, and weight difference, and the Pairing Engine pursuant to the present invention is an optimization function operating on that basis.
• The above description of the disclosed preferred embodiments is provided to enable any person skilled in the art to make or use the invention. Various modifications to these embodiments will be readily apparent to those skilled in the art, and the principles described herein can be applied to other embodiments without departing from the spirit or scope of the invention and the subject matter of the present invention, which is broadly contemplated by the Applicant. The scope of the present invention fully encompasses other embodiments that may be or become obvious to those skilled in the art.

Claims (1)

What is claimed is:

1. A method of rating wrestling competitors comprising:

(a) Receiving ratings and match results of a plurality of wrestling competitors and where the wrestling competitors participated;

(b) Deriving Elo-based ratings for each of the plurality of wrestling competitors from the ratings and the match results; and

(c) Predicting the probability that any one of the plurality of wrestling competitors will defeat another one of the plurality of wrestling competitors using the Elo-based ratings.

Images