[highridge]

What % of BBO players are at each level over "10"?

[Gilithin]

10 as in the EBU definition? Or...?

[highridge]

Inquiring about how may players in each ranking over "10".

[pescetom]

over "10" multiple posts?
I think you are the only one

[Gilithin]

You are going to have to provide more explanation if you want an answer. Repeating the same question in a PM is unhelpful. If you mean the dots under a user name, those are given for posts made. I think the 11th dot is added at somewhere around 15000 posts but barmar would be the best person to ask about that as he will know precisely.

[pescetom]

More likely the question is about the "award symbol" number that appears after a nickname and the self-rank of Beginner/Intermediate/Advanced/Expert.
The number does at least have some correlation with successful play, unlike the self-rank which is often arbitrary or Private (although that is almost always an honest warning of incompetence).
But also in this case @barmar has the answer.

[barmar]

Only about 4.5% of users have a rating number at all, and only 3.6% of the users with ratings are at least 10.

Within them, here is the breakdown.

+--------+-------+------+
| rating | count | pct  |
+--------+-------+------+
| 10     |   927 | 10.7 |
| 11     |   795 |  9.2 |
| 12     |   666 |  7.7 |
| 13     |   556 |  6.4 |
| 14     |   515 |  5.9 |
| 15     |   435 |  5.0 |
| 16     |   380 |  4.4 |
| 17     |   327 |  3.8 |
| 18     |   315 |  3.6 |
| 19     |   252 |  2.9 |
| 20     |   270 |  3.1 |
| 21     |   207 |  2.4 |
| 22     |   190 |  2.2 |
| 23     |   180 |  2.1 |
| 24     |   179 |  2.1 |
| 25     |   176 |  2.0 |
| 26     |   146 |  1.7 |
| 27     |   136 |  1.6 |
| 28     |   121 |  1.4 |
| 29     |   106 |  1.2 |
| 30     |   104 |  1.2 |
| 31     |    95 |  1.1 |
| 32     |    82 |  0.9 |
| 33     |    83 |  1.0 |
| 34     |    69 |  0.8 |
| 35     |    73 |  0.8 |
| 36     |    65 |  0.7 |
| 37     |    61 |  0.7 |
| 38     |    51 |  0.6 |
| 39     |    47 |  0.5 |
| 40     |    42 |  0.5 |
| 41     |    42 |  0.5 |
| 42     |    47 |  0.5 |
| 43     |    44 |  0.5 |
| 44     |    30 |  0.3 |
| 45     |    26 |  0.3 |
| 46     |    43 |  0.5 |
| 47     |    27 |  0.3 |
| 48     |    17 |  0.2 |
| 49     |    28 |  0.3 |
| 50     |    34 |  0.4 |
| 51     |    21 |  0.2 |
| 52     |    16 |  0.2 |
| 53     |    19 |  0.2 |
| 54     |    15 |  0.2 |
| 55     |    21 |  0.2 |
| 56     |    25 |  0.3 |
| 57     |    14 |  0.2 |
| 58     |    15 |  0.2 |
| 59     |    16 |  0.2 |
| 60     |    13 |  0.1 |
| 61     |    17 |  0.2 |
| 62     |    14 |  0.2 |
| 63     |    10 |  0.1 |
| 64     |    14 |  0.2 |
| 65     |    13 |  0.1 |
| 66     |    14 |  0.2 |
| 67     |    16 |  0.2 |
| 68     |    14 |  0.2 |
| 69     |     7 |  0.1 |
| 70     |    14 |  0.2 |
| 71     |     8 |  0.1 |
| 72     |    12 |  0.1 |
| 73     |     8 |  0.1 |
| 74     |     9 |  0.1 |
| 75     |     9 |  0.1 |
| 76     |     9 |  0.1 |
| 77     |     4 |  0.0 |
| 78     |    10 |  0.1 |
| 79     |     4 |  0.0 |
| 80     |     3 |  0.0 |
| 81     |     5 |  0.1 |
| 82     |     9 |  0.1 |
| 83     |     4 |  0.0 |
| 84     |     8 |  0.1 |
| 85     |     5 |  0.1 |
| 86     |     4 |  0.0 |
| 87     |     4 |  0.0 |
| 88     |     2 |  0.0 |
| 89     |     6 |  0.1 |
| J      |   150 |  1.7 |
| Q      |    70 |  0.8 |
| K      |    29 |  0.3 |
| A      |     1 |  0.0 |
+--------+-------+------+

[jillybean]

Interesting cluster of players at the lower end. The numbers gradually flatten until a spike at the top end again.
It would be interesting to see how much the JQKA players play to maintain their position. Do the rating points have a lifetime?

[smerriman]

 jillybean, on 2024-January-10, 19:11, said:

Interesting cluster of players at the lower end. The numbers gradually flatten until a spike at the top end again.

That's because they're different definitions entirely - numbers are a scale based on the number of points, while JQKA are rankings based on the 250 players with the most points (so always add to 250).

If the letters were dropped, the numbers would continue to flatten.. e.g. Leo was over 300 four years ago which is a long way from 89

[jillybean]

Yes, 300 is a long, long way from 89
It seems rather pointless to group the top 250 players like that. Are these awards are for "successful play" in pay tournaments, with human partners or bots. or both?
Another ego driven waste of time imo

[shyams]

 jillybean, on 2024-January-11, 05:12, said:

Are these awards are for "successful play" in pay tournaments, with human partners or bots. or both?

It is both.

For example, my "rank" is almost entirely due to past play in paid Robot tournaments.

[pescetom]

The player with the highest award symbol (wasn't BBO against rankings? this does not seem one in any case) that I know well from play on BBO has 40 and is very close to my own level of competence and style of play.
As I am nowhere near 86% of an elite, this prompts me to think that this is another number with little relevance to skill against humans or human+robot.

[Gilithin]

 pescetom, on 2024-January-11, 16:24, said:

The player with the highest award symbol (wasn't BBO against rankings? this does not seem one in any case) that I know well from play on BBO has 40 and is very close to my own level of competence and style of play.
As I am nowhere near 86% of an elite, this prompts me to think that this is another number with little relevance to skill against humans or human+robot.

The player with the highest BBOMP rating is a specialist in robot play and pioneered many of the exploitation techniques that have become widely adopted. I do not know him personally but from the comments of those that do know him he appears to be a good but not expert level player in all human play.

[sfi]

 Gilithin, on 2024-January-11, 17:02, said:

The player with the highest BBOMP rating is a specialist in robot play and pioneered many of the exploitation techniques that have become widely adopted. I do not know him personally but from the comments of those that do know him he appears to be a good but not expert level player in all human play.

The two of you aren't talking about the same person. Pescetom put his parenthetical comment in an unfortunate place.

[pescetom]

 sfi, on 2024-January-11, 17:38, said:

The two of you aren't talking about the same person. Pescetom put his parenthetical comment in an unfortunate place.

Yes, it did not help in parsing the sentence, sorry. I meant the highest of those I actually know through frequent play and discussion, not the highest I know of or the one I know is the highest
Not that I am sure that 'BBOMP rating' is the same thing as 'Award Symbol' or whatever barmar is listing as 'rating number' (and not that I care, I ignore these things and the various stars and purples too).

[barmar]

 shyams, on 2024-January-11, 06:20, said:

It is both.

For example, my "rank" is almost entirely due to past play in paid Robot tournaments.

Me, too. Since I work for BBO, I play for free. So for the last 12 years I've been playing enormous numbers of robot games. As a result I'm an 85 on BBO and an ACBL Emerald Life Master. My results at national tournaments don't match the expectations of someone with 8200 masterpoints. The way I'm going, I may become a Platinum LM in a few years without ever scratching in an unlimited national event (I did come in 2nd in the Mini-Blue Ribbon a few years ago, so I'm not totally hopeless).