[barmar]

Bbradley62, on 2014-April-27, 17:17, said:

I don't think it's at all obvious (or likely, for that matter) that strata in an ACBL game are determined by BBO Masterpoints.

Obvious or not, it's in the online help file about ACBL Tournaments:

Quote

All ACBL pairs games on BBO are stratified into three Strata, A, B and C. The Strata are determined by the number of BBO and ACBL points held by players in each game. This means the Strata are fluid and can change from game to game. The points held by the players in the given game are gathered and divided into the three Strata, with Stratum A being those players holding the most BBO and ACBL points, Stratum B the next third highest and Stratum C the players with the fewest points of the group.

[MrAce]

barmar, on 2014-April-19, 20:02, said:

Isn't think likely to degenerate into the same lousy situation that OKB has with Lehmans? No one wants to play with people who have 45% Lehmans, and if we published robodupe stats, no one will play with the 45% players.

Publishing stats is great for the people who have good results, but it makes pariahs of the ones who don't.

Oh, and don't forget. If you played with these %45 or less players and your % is higher, then you will be called "bunny basher"

[mycroft]

Which might even be true; especially if you care about your rating. If you're a 53% pair and playing against 45%ers, you need appoximately 56% *to not drop*. That probably will feel (and possibly look) like bunny-bashing, when in fact it's a "fair game".

[Lovera]

HighLow21, on 2014-March-02, 15:58, said:

Ok I understand everyone's concerns. For the type of bridge I play, it suits me to know if my partner's any good and not get stuck with lousy results because I had no way of knowing my partner was a fool.

I do completely understand MrAce's point about moral hazard in publishing such a rating--BBO could become a lot more cutthroat and it could ruin the experience for a lot of people. It is an excellent point and probably that reason alone is strong enough to kill the argument behind objective ratings. I disagree with a number of other points that have been made, but I'll only address a few here and let the others go:

- Nothing I can think of is more objective that statistics from historical results. It's one heck of a lot more objective than a self-rating system with very ambiguous guidelines and no penalties for dishonesty. They cannot tell the whole picture, but they tell a lot more than no statistics tells.
- Simple Bayesian analysis would indicate that someone with a -1.2 IMPs average is FAR more likely to be a truly bad player than someone who is Advanced and regularly plays way out of their league. There may be 1 of those for every 10,000 terrible players out there. That 1 person could simply create a new login if he/she wanted to start fresh.
- Similarly, you can get a great result, in theory, by "bunny bashing." But seriously, just try to pull that off in the long run. You have to find a willing, good partner, and then selectively allow only bad players to your table to whip on them. They have to stick around or be replaced by other bad players. In my experience, this is completely unsustainable in the long run. Anyone who has good results over a decent number of hands actually knows what they are doing.
- Helene, very simple: the fact that you do not understand an argument does NOT imply that the person who made the argument needs to rethink it. I will restate it, but the logic behind the argument is very solid. There are people who regularly chuck a hand in a major way and pretend to be Advanced--they often blame partner for their ridiculous bids or play. Some are malicious, but most are just obliviously foolish. These people very strongly negatively impact the experience of playing pick-up bridge at BBO. I'm not sure what needs to be re-thought here.

Again, I prefaced all this by saying that for many reasons, the system is not going to change and I'm fine with that. I for one would simply cast my vote in the minority, and nod when my side loses. It's fine. I'd still rather play here than anywhere else.

Please, allow the minority opinion in the debate have a voice. It's fine to debate it on the merits, but simply not understanding it, or coming up with unlikely situations as a counterpoint doesn't change the fact that there are plenty of people with solid reasons for wanting a rating system. There are simply not strong enough reasons to merit BBO changing anything (or to MrAce's excellent point, there is a VERY important reason to AVOID changing it).

Final point: for those of you who actually WANT to find out how your partner has been doing, you can find it at: http://bboskill.com/. This page calculates IMP averages and a quantitative rating for any player who has played enough hands. It even adjusts (to some degree) for average opponent skill.

The only problem with it is that you have to go to the separate page for any given partner, type in their username, and wait about 10 seconds for the results to come back. It can be a handful when you're trying to concentrate on the hand in front of you.

In my experience, there is a very strong correlation between the IMP average published on that site and how strong the player actually is at the table. On many occasions I've picked a bad apple and later check this site only to find out his/her average is indeed terrible. Similarly, not once have I played opposite a great player and found his IMP average to be below +0.50.

For what it's worth, my adjusted IMP average is +1.07 per hand and it's not because I play against bad players or have Bob Hamman sitting across from me.

At the beginning of last year when i was playing, i tried to calcolate my skill level. After a pause of monthes i have reprised to play and actually in about a week i have played round 60 hands but skill level doesn't sign to improve number of hands played :however ? It should be not in real time ? Why does not change the number of hands played ? Thanks, bye.

[mgoetze]

barmar, on 2014-April-19, 20:02, said:

Isn't think likely to degenerate into the same lousy situation that OKB has with Lehmans? No one wants to play with people who have 45% Lehmans, and if we published robodupe stats, no one will play with the 45% players.

Anyway as I understand it the main problem on OKB is that people didn't want to play with people with low ratings because they thought (rightly or wrongly - probably the latter) that it would drag their own rating down. In my suggestion, playing with other humans would never change your rating, so that wouldn't be a reason not to do it.

[BillHiggin]

mgoetze, on 2015-February-04, 13:35, said:

Anyway as I understand it the main problem on OKB is that people didn't want to play with people with low ratings because they thought (rightly or wrongly - probably the latter) that it would drag their own rating down. In my suggestion, playing with other humans would never change your rating, so that wouldn't be a reason not to do it.

Whether or not playing with another would or would not change your rating is somewhat irrelevant. The more important thing is what peoples expectation is (reality be damned).
I used to play on another site with a rating system patterned after the chess "Elo" system. After some time, I became aware that playing with very weak partners actually would raise one's own rating. I did observe one individual who seemed to really exploit this (especially since he would "talk as dummy" to direct his partner towards lines that would be better than they were really capable of). Other than that one individual, most everyone else avoided those with low ratings. Perception trumps reality!

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2014-April-19, 20:02, said:

Isn't think likely to degenerate into the same lousy situation that OKB has with Lehmans? No one wants to play with people who have 45% Lehmans, and if we published robodupe stats, no one will play with the 45% players.

Publishing stats is great for the people who have good results, but it makes pariahs of the ones who don't.

My experience on OKBridge is different to yours. What I found was that people with 45% wanted to play with and against other 45% players, and kicked people who had higher ratings than they were looking for. But I haven't played on OKBridge for a few years, so your information is more current than mine.

[barmar]

Vampyr, on 2015-February-05, 02:37, said:

My experience on OKBridge is different to yours. What I found was that people with 45% wanted to play with and against other 45% players, and kicked people who had higher ratings than they were looking for. But I haven't played on OKBridge for a few years, so your information is more current than mine.

I haven't played on OKB in a decade. When I said "no one wants to play with 45% players", I meant no one worth playing with -- the only people you could get games with were other 45 percenters.

It's easy to play with people at your own level, the problem was that the site was effectively segregated -- playing up was practically impossible.

[Bbradley62]

barmar, on 2015-February-05, 09:54, said:

I haven't played on OKB in a decade. When I said "no one wants to play with 45% players", I meant no one worth playing with -- the only people you could get games with were other 45 percenters.

It's easy to play with people at your own level, the problem was that the site was effectively segregated -- playing up was practically impossible.

Emphasis mine.

Terrible attitude, or maybe just unfortunate choice of words, particularly from a representative of BBO.

[barmar]

I was trying to describe it from the perspective of the people looking for a game -- someone with low Lehmans doesn't seem worth playing with. They're like people who self-rate as Intermediate or lower on BBO.

So if you have a low Lehman, the only games you can get are with others who also have low Lehmans, you can never challenge yourself. It's like a bridge club/tournament where flight C players aren't allowed to play in the open game.

[Bbradley62]

Based on the descriptions provided by BBO, Intermediate should be the most common self-rating. Do you have any stats on this?

I would expect that a significant portion of BBO members who go to MBC looking for pick-up games are more interested in just playing bridge than in using that as a means for improving their games (although I would also expect very few forum posters to take this position). Those who self-rate as Intermediate are probably perfectly happy to play with others of the same self-rating, and likely even prefer it.

[Lovera]

Bbradley62, on 2015-February-06, 11:56, said:

Based on the descriptions provided by BBO, Intermediate should be the most common self-rating. Do you have any stats on this?

I would expect that a significant portion of BBO members who go to MBC looking for pick-up games are more interested in just playing bridge than in using that as a means for improving their games (although I would also expect very few forum posters to take this position). Those who self-rate as Intermediate are probably perfectly happy to play with others of the same self-rating, and likely even prefer it.

..but it must consider that improving own play in this way is not easy(=productive) because probably needs a (collateral) study.

[Antrax]

barmar, on 2015-February-06, 10:41, said:

someone with low Lehmans doesn't seem worth playing with. They're like people who self-rate as Intermediate or lower on BBO.

[Lovera]

After my post n. 64 here, when i was playing on application the same day, it was suggest to me {some random external site} that is initially free. Because bboskill.com is blocked do you know a skill search totally free, thanks.

This post has been edited by diana_eva: 2015-August-21, 08:04

[1eyedjack]

You do know what "totally free" means, right?

[EDIT] Oh, I see, you say it is initially free but are looking for a totally free alternative.

I wonder whether anyone has actually paid.

[diana_eva]

1eyedjack, on 2015-February-07, 12:18, said:

You do know what "totally free" means, right?

[EDIT] Oh, I see, you say it is initially free but are looking for a totally free alternative.

I wonder whether anyone has actually paid.

I hope they haven't. That site looks like a copy/paste of BBO's Hand Records. Even the copyright notice at the bottom - pretty amusing. At least BBO Skill put a little effort in making it look different.

[Lovera]

1eyedjack, on 2015-February-07, 12:18, said:

You do know what "totally free" means, right?

[EDIT] Oh, I see, you say it is initially free but are looking for a totally free alternative.

I wonder whether anyone has actually paid.

After a certain initial number you cannot see again the hands played if you don't pay..whilest the complete ranking is always accessible.

[1eyedjack]

Lovera, on 2015-February-07, 12:45, said:

After a certain initial number you cannot see again the hands played if you don't pay..whilest the complete ranking is always accessible.

Just from technical curiosity (and I am not a technician) I wonder how they know who you are in order to keep track of your free initial attempts? You are not required to log in, so it seems to me that either it tracks your IP address or it saves a cookie. To anyone who understands these things, circumventing either should be trivial.

[diana_eva]

Lovera, on 2015-February-07, 12:45, said:

After a certain initial number you cannot see again the hands played if you don't pay..whilest the complete ranking is always accessible.

You know that hands played are available for free here:
http://bridgebase.co...hands/index.php

I hope you haven't paid for the hand analysis stuff, if you look it's the exact same page on a different color background.

[1eyedjack]

diana_eva, on 2015-February-07, 12:58, said:

You know that hands played are available for free here:
http://bridgebase.co...hands/index.php

I hope you haven't paid for the hand analysis stuff, if you look it's the exact same page on a different color background.

Or you could save them permanently for posterity (and really free) with bridge captain's double dummy solver