[inquiry]

mike777, on Apr 28 2006, 02:30 PM, said:

So if I understand some conclusions drawn from this data are:
1) 15 Pearson pts=open
2) 11+ hcp with a stiff or void=open
3) pass the rest?

I think we ahven't gone that far. The data suggest with 12 hcp for sure open. The first post hinted at 11 hcp and 4333 not opening and opening is about the same. With 11 hcp and 4432, open at matchpoints is suggested (maybe add other factors, like T's and 9's and honor location, as we didn't evaluate subsets of those distributions) but really open with 4♠.

I think there is a lot of room for additonal factoring of hands (4432 with neither major, for instance, is that a good one pass out with 11 hcp? With 12 hcp?, etc). I think the takehome message so far is that you can and should open a lot of hands with well less than 14 pearson points.

[sfbp]

Quote

I think we haven't gone that far. The data suggest with 12 hcp for sure open. The first post hinted at 11 hcp and 4333 not opening and opening is about the same.

These are exactly the same criteria I use for opening in first seat, second seat, third seat. Except that I don't open balanced (no 5-card suit) 11 counts there. Nor do most people.

The only difference I see is that in fourth seat it may be SAFER to open on 11 since you now know there's noone at the table who has enough to open, and therefore it will be difficult for them to double you. To me, at least, that's what the figures suggest - more likelihood that you aren't too many tricks out if you open.

Stephen

[hotShot]

I simulated 10000 deals and eliminated all deal where seat 1-3 had more than 11 HCP or 5-11 HCP and a 6+ card suit. The 875 deals left had an interesting effect:
HCP+ suitlength(all suits) , Zarpoints
13 , 24.x
14 , 25.y
15 , 26.z
16 , almost 28
So there is something happening at 15 PP's, but it is happening to all suits.

[sfbp]

Welcome to the WonderWorld of Whatif

However your simulation misses some important points: what about the hands with a six card suit and 5-6 points that no one would open in 1st or second seat? (honours in all the wrong places) I don't think this is a very good test of those hands, which are clearly in the real mix, when last players opens the bidding in real life.

I stand by my assessment that the only fair test (notwithstanding strong pass and misclick) is to pick deals that were passed (by all four players) at least once. The fact that Ben's data more or less coincided with this is good, but not conclusive evidence that his criteria approximate to mine.

But you have to think about the effect of arbitrarily ruling out certain patterns.

Perhaps other BRBR users will agree with me, that when you actually see the data flowing past you and start to look at what real people did, as opposed to arbitrarily restricting a deal in multiple ways, is it possible to make action judgements based on percentages?

Stephen

[hotShot]

sfbp, on May 1 2006, 04:36 PM, said:

Welcome to the WonderWorld of Whatif

However your simulation misses some important points: what about the hands with a six card suit and 5-6 points that no one would open in 1st or second seat? (honours in all the wrong places) I don't think this is a very good test of those hands, which are clearly in the real mix, when last players opens the bidding in real life.

It also misses that:
- precision player will open majors with 11HCP
- SAYC player don't have a weak2 in ♣
- lots of online player open any 54xy distrubution with 10 or 11 HCP
I need to compensate that.

Quote

I stand by my assessment that the only fair test (notwithstanding strong pass and misclick) is to pick deals that were passed (by all four players) at least once. The fact that Ben's data more or less coincided with this is good, but not conclusive evidence that his criteria approximate to mine.

But you have to think about the effect of arbitrarily ruling out certain patterns.

I guess that all deals interesting for this problem should be in your subset.
But hand recods from online play suffer from:
- pickup partnerships
- agressive strategie (neccesssary to win tourneys with low board numbers)
- people experimenting with psyches etc.
- enormous swings caused by the heterogenous field
- shifted averages in the result due to some extreme scores
You need to compensate that.
I think both methods are valid, if used carfeully.

Quote

Perhaps other BRBR users will agree with me, that when you actually see the data flowing past you and start to look at what real people did, as opposed to arbitrarily restricting a deal in multiple ways, is it possible to make action judgements based on percentages?

The question is:
Are your real people a good representation of the field I'm going to play in?
At club level or regionals for sure, but what about (inter)national championships?

One gets no help from data flowing by, unless they lead to information that can be transformed to knowledge.

[sfbp]

Quote

But hand recods from online play suffer from:
- pickup partnerships
- agressive strategie (neccesssary to win tourneys with low board numbers)
- people experimenting with psyches etc.
- enormous swings caused by the heterogenous field
- shifted averages in the result due to some extreme scores
You need to compensate that.

That's exactly what a large number of results does. Simulation doesn't.

BTW real play has all of the same things in the dataset too.

Stephen

[pigpenz]

I thought originally Pearson Points were more for deciding to open in 4th seat @ matchpoints? So basically at matchpoints the idea was not be able to be beat by the master suit spades. So in matchpoints it would seem to be more releavant that at imps since you want to compete and not get beat by the spade suit.....but the stats seem to show that at IMP's by using the Pearson Points to determine the openings you tend to create more +/- 2-3 imps swings.

[sfbp]

the imp data and mp data pretty much agree