BBO Discussion Forums: Zar points, useful or waste of energy - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 19 Pages +
  • « First
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Zar points, useful or waste of energy New to the concept, does it help...

#261 User is offline   mikestar 

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 913
  • Joined: 2003-August-18
  • Location:California, USA

Posted 2005-September-08, 09:00

Pattern[space][space][space][space]Trick[space][space][space]+trk[space][space][space][space]ZAR[space][space][space][space][space][space]Ztri[space][space][space][space]TSP[space][space][space][space]Ttric[space][space][space][space]135[space][space][space][space][space]135tric
4-3-3-3[space][space][space][space]7.80[space][space][space][space]0.00[space][space][space][space][space]8.00[space][space][space][space]0.00[space][space][space][space]0.00[space][space][space][space]0.00[space][space][space][space]0.00[space][space][space][space]0.00
4-4-3-2[space][space][space][space]8.09[space][space][space][space]0.29[space][space][space][space]10.00[space][space][space][space]0.40[space][space][space][space]1.00[space][space][space][space]0.20[space][space][space][space]1.00[space][space][space][space]0.33
5-3-3-2[space][space][space][space]8.14[space][space][space][space]0.34[space][space][space][space]11.00[space][space][space][space]0.60[space][space][space][space]2.00[space][space][space][space]0.40[space][space][space][space]1.00[space][space][space][space]0.33
5-4-2-2[space][space][space][space]8.41[space][space][space][space]0.61[space][space][space][space]12.00[space][space][space][space]0.80[space][space][space][space]3.00[space][space][space][space]0.60[space][space][space][space]2.00[space][space][space][space]0.67
6-3-2-2[space][space][space][space]8.51[space][space][space][space]0.71[space][space][space][space]13.00[space][space][space][space]1.00[space][space][space][space]4.00[space][space][space][space]0.80[space][space][space][space]2.00[space][space][space][space]0.67
4-4-4-1[space][space][space][space]8.62[space][space][space][space]0.82[space][space][space][space]12.00[space][space][space][space]0.80[space][space][space][space]3.00[space][space][space][space]0.60[space][space][space][space]3.00[space][space][space][space]1.00
5-4-3-1[space][space][space][space]8.69[space][space][space][space]0.89[space][space][space][space]13.00[space][space][space][space]1.00[space][space][space][space]4.00[space][space][space][space]0.80[space][space][space][space]1.00[space][space][space][space]1.00
6-3-3-1[space][space][space][space]8.78[space][space][space][space]0.98[space][space][space][space]14.00[space][space][space][space]1.20[space][space][space][space]5.00[space][space][space][space]1.00[space][space][space][space]3.00[space][space][space][space]1.00
7-2-2-2[space][space][space][space]8.91[space][space][space][space]1.11[space][space][space][space]14.00[space][space][space][space]1.20[space][space][space][space]6.00[space][space][space][space]1.20[space][space][space][space]3.00[space][space][space][space]1.00
6-4-2-1[space][space][space][space]9.02[space][space][space][space]1.22[space][space][space][space]15.00[space][space][space][space]1.40[space][space][space][space]6.00[space][space][space][space]1.20[space][space][space][space]4.00[space][space][space][space]1.33
5-5-2-1[space][space][space][space]9.03[space][space][space][space]1.23[space][space][space][space]14.00[space][space][space][space]1.20[space][space][space][space]6.00[space][space][space][space]1.20[space][space][space][space]4.00[space][space][space][space]1.33
7-3-2-1[space][space][space][space]9.14[space][space][space][space]1.34[space][space][space][space]16.00[space][space][space][space]1.60[space][space][space][space]6.00[space][space][space][space]1.20[space][space][space][space]4.00[space][space][space][space]1.33
5-4-4-0[space][space][space][space]9.38[space][space][space][space]1.58[space][space][space][space]14.00[space][space][space][space]1.20[space][space][space][space]6.00[space][space][space][space]1.20[space][space][space][space]5.00[space][space][space][space]1.67
5-5-3-0[space][space][space][space]9.51[space][space][space][space]1.71[space][space][space][space]15.00[space][space][space][space]1.40[space][space][space][space]7.00[space][space][space][space]1.40[space][space][space][space]5.00[space][space][space][space]1.67
6-4-3-0[space][space][space][space]9.51[space][space][space][space]1.71[space][space][space][space]16.00[space][space][space][space]1.60[space][space][space][space]7.00[space][space][space][space]1.40[space][space][space][space]5.00[space][space][space][space]1.67
8-2-2-1[space][space][space][space]9.57[space][space][space][space]1.77[space][space][space][space]17.00[space][space][space][space]1.80[space][space][space][space]9.00[space][space][space][space]1.80[space][space][space][space]5.00[space][space][space][space]1.67
6-5-1-1[space][space][space][space]9.61[space][space][space][space]1.81[space][space][space][space]16.00[space][space][space][space]1.60[space][space][space][space]9.00[space][space][space][space]1.80[space][space][space][space]6.00[space][space][space][space]2.00
7-3-3-0[space][space][space][space]9.65[space][space][space][space]1.85[space][space][space][space]17.00[space][space][space][space]1.80[space][space][space][space]8.00[space][space][space][space]1.60[space][space][space][space]5.00[space][space][space][space]1.67
7-4-1-1[space][space][space][space]9.67[space][space][space][space]1.87[space][space][space][space]17.00[space][space][space][space]1.80[space][space][space][space]9.00[space][space][space][space]1.80[space][space][space][space]6.00[space][space][space][space]2.00
8-3-1-1[space][space][space][space]9.83[space][space][space][space]2.03[space][space][space][space]18.00[space][space][space][space]2.00[space][space][space]10.00[space][space][space][space]2.00[space][space][space][space]6.00[space][space][space][space]2.00
6-5-2-0[space][space][space][space]9.88[space][space][space][space]2.08[space][space][space][space]17.00[space][space][space][space]1.80[space][space][space][space]9.00[space][space][space][space]1.80[space][space][space][space]6.00[space][space][space][space]2.00
7-4-2-0[space][space][space][space]9.89[space][space][space][space]2.09[space][space][space][space]18.00[space][space][space][space]2.00[space][space][space][space]9.00[space][space][space][space]1.80[space][space][space][space]6.00[space][space][space][space]2.00


I have added entires to the table for simple 135 at 3 points per trick. The distribution points Ben is calculating under BUM RAP are actually TSP distribution points and the scale is 5 points per trick. I have recalculated the trick values accordingly. As you see, TSP tracks quite closely with ZAR.

All of these distribution counts are improvements over 123. There really is little difference among them. Where ZAR, TSP, and BUM RAP pick up their big gains over Goren is the more accurate evaluation of honors for suit contracts.
0

#262 User is offline   hrothgar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,306
  • Joined: 2003-February-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Natick, MA
  • Interests:Travel
    Cooking
    Brewing
    Hiking

Posted 2005-September-08, 10:51

inquiry, on Sep 8 2005, 04:54 PM, said:

I am not exactly sure you want to compare ZAR initial evaluation to BUMRAP 5+3+1 using the data you created in the other thread, or BUMRAP will suffer by the comparison. But since you do, ok.. here goes.

First the table you show here is if GAME can be made. This depends upon satistical evaluation of the chance of fit, whether the fits found are in the major or not, etc.

Ben

I think that you are missing Tysen's point:

Tysen provided a set of 4 distributions, each of which is worth a total of 14 Zar points.
He also provided a set of 4 distributions which are are worth 3 distributional points using a 5/3/1 scale. This relationship has nothing to do with whether or not game can be made. It is a simple function of the shape of the hand.

Having created a set of hand that are treated identically by a given evaluator, it seems reasonable to examine these to determine whether there is any kind of clustering. In order to do so, its necessary to impose some kind of "order" to the data... Tysen has suggested ordering the hand shapes based on the double dummy analysis that he provided in another thread.

Please feel free to suggest alternative orderings if you think that this will add to the discussion.
Alderaan delenda est
0

#263 User is offline   inquiry 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 14,564
  • Joined: 2003-February-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Amelia Island, FL
  • Interests:Bridge, what else?

Posted 2005-September-08, 10:53

cherdano, on Sep 8 2005, 10:56 AM, said:

Ben, first about some naming confusion: BUMRAP is just the 4.5-3-1.5-0.75-0.25 hcp scale, no distribution. BUMRAP + 531 is this plus 5 for void, 3 for single, 1 for doubleton (no points for lengths). If you do BUMRAP +531 + points for lengths you completely overvalue distribution.
Then there is TSP, which uses IIRC the same point scale for honors as Zar, and 531+length points for distribution (plus other stuff). So what your table shows are the TSP distribution points, not BUMRAP.

Where did you take this number 2.5 from, by which you divided the TSP distribution points? It seems completely random, and one look at your table confirms that it is non-sense. I think you should use 5 if I understand Tysen's RGB post correctly. This also makes sense since, as you have pointed out a couple of times, TSP distribution points and Zar points are pretty close.

Arend

For the naming post, Tysen's post have always confused me. His evalautoin method seems slippery to me (at least when I read it), because it is always changing. I did a TSP study and the then changed the number of "points" needed for different levels. It was like 39 or something. HE has changed from pushing blinky, to bumrap, to bumrap 321 to bumrap +531, and his TSP thing. He ahs been talking exclusively lately about bumrap 531... and richard calls for bumrap 531 as well, so bumrap i used...

This is why I spelled out what my creteria were, so lets see if I can clear up some of the problems...

Problem 1, Now why did I add the point for both long and short suits? Because my reading of tysens post suggest this is what he is calling bumrap 531, probably you are right, his BUMRAP + 5-3-1 plus point for cards over 4 in a suit is probably his TSP (or maybe his TSP *version 9.32). This is why I spelled out exactly what criteria was being used to calculate the numbers (notice the difference here, where I said how I calcuculated everything, you could say "WAIT.. that is not right... this is different from how Tysen calculated ZAR points in a number of his studies.. he showed the results in this thread and said "see ZAR doesn't work" when in fact he failed to do the calculations are described by ZAR". I will repost the data with BUMRAP 5+3+1 without the addition for long suits (which would be TSP I guess)...

Problem one, where did I get 2.5 I divided by. Fair question. Tysen argues that 25 points is enough for game with goren points, 25 points divided by ten tricks is 2.5 points per trick. Tysen also agues that Zar has been that it's slightly more complicated to calculate than BUM+531 and it's not any more accurate. Plus it uses a completely different "scale" which some people don't want to use and makes it more difficult to explain to opponents . So since Tysen's arguement is BUMRAP uses the same scale, 2.5 points per trick seems not arbitrary at all. For ZAR, he states clearly he thinks 5 points per level in his documents, which explains the division by five in his case.

Here is the correct BUMRAP 531 with no correction for "long suits". As you can see Bumrap wins on 4432 (by 0.02) and the 5332 distribution (by 0.14). ZAR is more "accurate" on all the other distirubtions, and often by a large margin. This time, bumrap 531 underestimates rather than overestimate in the last post where I followed what I though tysen was doing by ADDING long points too. Since Tysen does add long points (must be with TSP as you suggest), if you use the 4.5 scale for an ACE with TSP, you should be back to the "normal" scale where you can divide by 2.5 again, but that isn't clear...But clearly ZAR is dong a better job here by these method (pseudo TSP if that is what it was in last post by me, or fair BUMRAP 5+3+1 here). Also note, when you actually start really counting distribution (who gets excited about 4432 or 5332), BUMRAP 531 not only loses to ZAR, another feature is that BUMRAP 531 underestimates the value of the distibution for EACH of the distributions

So, it seems to me, as it always has, that ZAR BASIC points give you a good evaluation to start off (demonstratable better here than bumrap 531, or how I think tysen does what i think now he might call TSP). I am not sure what pluses and minuses people take with fits but the hands where ZAR is "low" zar can quickly go high on if a fit is found. The difference between the half a point zar is low on these hands (like 5440) is no doubt the 3 points that is auto matic if a fit is found.

Pattern[space][space][space][space]Trick[space][space][space][space]#NAME?[space][space][space][space]ZAR[space][space][space][space]Ztri[space][space][space][space]Bum[space][space][space][space]Btric
4-3-3-3[space][space][space][space]7.8[space][space][space][space]0[space][space][space][space]8[space][space][space][space]0[space][space][space][space]0[space][space][space][space]0
4-4-3-2[space][space][space][space]8.09[space][space][space][space]0.29[space][space][space][space]10[space][space][space][space]0.4[space][space][space][space]1[space][space][space][space]0.2
5-3-3-2[space][space][space][space]8.14[space][space][space][space]0.34[space][space][space][space]11[space][space][space][space]0.6[space][space][space][space]1[space][space][space][space]0.2
5-4-2-2[space][space][space][space]8.41[space][space][space][space]0.61[space][space][space][space]12[space][space][space][space]0.8[space][space][space][space]2[space][space][space][space]0.4
6-3-2-2[space][space][space][space]8.51[space][space][space][space]0.71[space][space][space][space]13[space][space][space][space]1[space][space][space][space]2[space][space][space][space]0.4
4-4-4-1[space][space][space][space]8.62[space][space][space][space]0.82[space][space][space][space]12[space][space][space][space]0.8[space][space][space][space]3[space][space][space][space]0.6
5-4-3-1[space][space][space][space]8.69[space][space][space][space]0.89[space][space][space][space]13[space][space][space][space]1[space][space][space][space]3[space][space][space][space]0.6
6-3-3-1[space][space][space][space]8.78[space][space][space][space]0.98[space][space][space][space]14[space][space][space][space]1.2[space][space][space][space]3[space][space][space][space]0.6
7-2-2-2[space][space][space][space]8.91[space][space][space][space]1.11[space][space][space][space]14[space][space][space][space]1.2[space][space][space][space]3[space][space][space][space]0.6
6-4-2-1[space][space][space][space]9.02[space][space][space][space]1.22[space][space][space][space]15[space][space][space][space]1.4[space][space][space][space]4[space][space][space][space]0.8
5-5-2-1[space][space][space][space]9.03[space][space][space][space]1.23[space][space][space][space]14[space][space][space][space]1.2[space][space][space][space]3[space][space][space][space]0.6
7-3-2-1[space][space][space][space]9.14[space][space][space][space]1.34[space][space][space][space]16[space][space][space][space]1.6[space][space][space][space]4[space][space][space][space]0.8
5-4-4-0[space][space][space][space]9.38[space][space][space][space]1.58[space][space][space][space]14[space][space][space][space]1.2[space][space][space][space]5[space][space][space][space]1
5-5-3-0[space][space][space][space]9.51[space][space][space][space]1.71[space][space][space][space]15[space][space][space][space]1.4[space][space][space][space]5[space][space][space][space]1
6-4-3-0[space][space][space][space]9.51[space][space][space][space]1.71[space][space][space][space]16[space][space][space][space]1.6[space][space][space][space]5[space][space][space][space]1
8-2-2-1[space][space][space][space]9.57[space][space][space][space]1.77[space][space][space][space]17[space][space][space][space]1.8[space][space][space][space]5[space][space][space][space]1
6-5-1-1[space][space][space][space]9.61[space][space][space][space]1.81[space][space][space][space]16[space][space][space][space]1.6[space][space][space][space]6[space][space][space][space]1.2
7-3-3-0[space][space][space][space]9.65[space][space][space][space]1.85[space][space][space][space]17[space][space][space][space]1.8[space][space][space][space]5[space][space][space][space]1
7-4-1-1[space][space][space][space]9.67[space][space][space][space]1.87[space][space][space][space]17[space][space][space][space]1.8[space][space][space][space]6[space][space][space][space]1.2
8-3-1-1[space][space][space][space]9.83[space][space][space][space]2.03[space][space][space][space]18[space][space][space][space]2[space][space][space][space]6[space][space][space][space]1.2
6-5-2-0[space][space][space][space]9.88[space][space][space][space]2.08[space][space][space][space]17[space][space][space][space]1.8[space][space][space][space]6[space][space][space][space]1.2
7-4-2-0[space][space][space][space]9.89[space][space][space][space]2.09[space][space][space][space]18[space][space][space][space]2[space][space][space][space]6[space][space][space][space]1.2


--Ben--

#264 Guest_Jlall_*

  • Group: Guests

Posted 2005-September-08, 10:56

Just curious, do any of you actually use these methods at the table, or do you just use your judgement?
0

#265 User is offline   Zar 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 153
  • Joined: 2004-April-03

Posted 2005-September-08, 11:01

>
Okay, then is this 2 or 4 superfit points if there is no opener?

xxxxx
x
xxx
xxxx

xxxxx
xx
xxx
xxx
<

You say 2 or 4 ... well, it is 3 actually. WHY? Because each partner calculates his values INDEPENDENTLY. You don’t have to exchange any information to do that. So N has 1 additional trump on top of the promised 4 for either opening or responding and S has one by himself regardless of opening or responding. N has a singleton so HIS supertrump is valued at 2 and S has a doubleton so HIS value of the supertrump is 1. And 2 + 1 = 3 easily :-)

>
The idea of such a measure is that you can look at your hand and compute some number. Your partner looks at his hand and computes some number.
<

Not every method provides that simplicity though. In Lawrence you have to EXCHANGE information about your shortest suits so the partners can actually be able to calculate the critical value of (13 – d1 – d2) AFTER exchanging these d1 and d2 values with special bids.

That’s why lots of experts consider Lawrence Points to be of theoretical value only. For the purposes of the different comparisons tough, I ignore this issue completely – I just assume that you somehow know.

In Zar Points everything is independent so it is easy for at-the-table use.

>
By combining these two numbers together, without any other information about the hands, we can decide whether we have game, whether we have slam, and so forth with a reasonable degree of accuracy.
<

IF the method provides such independency – see above.

>
The goal in bridge is to find your best contract. The problem is, you don't have enough bidding space to exactly describe every card to partner.
<

Not literally true.

One of my partners has proven mathematically that ALL the 52 cards of the 4 players can be known 100% by the “6 Clubs” bib-pip IF all the 4 players cooperate. That means if they bid via a specially-designed bidding system that cooperates among all the 4 players towards the common goal of revealing ALL the 52 cards.

Unfortunately, in bridge the nature of the game is not cooperation between the opponents, but rather tough battle for capturing the bidding space.

>
Zar has designed a method of hand evaluation which he believes to be good.
<

We all try to believe in what we are doing :-)

>
This method counts as follows: Start with your standard 4-3-2-1 point count. Add two points for each ace and one for each king (controls). Now add the sum of the lengths of your two longest suits. Now add the difference of your longest suit length and shortest suit length. This gives you the "number" described above.
<

Is is actually essential to realize that this (a – d) difference between your longest and your shortest suit does NOT come out of the blue but is rather the SUM of all 3 differences of the 4 ordered-by-length suits (a – :rolleyes: + (b – c) + (c – d). This will make you understand the logic behind easier.

>
Zar claims that you should bid game if your number plus your partner's is 52.
<

Actually it’s Culbertson rather than Zar that makes that claim.

His rule states that “Two opening hands make a Game” (IF they have a fit). And an opening hand contains 26 Zar Points (now THAT’s the claim of Zar Points :-)

As I mentioned once before, Zar Points encapsulated the COMBINED REQUIREMENTS of WBF for an opening hand:

- The Rule of 18;

- The Rule of the Queen.

That’s something no other method comes close to and that’s the reason why Zar Points constitute the absolute minimum for a “Legally”- opening hand.

>
(1) Zar's method of counting distribution by adding/subtracting suit lengths is actually less accurate than adding points for singletons and voids.
<

You are free to believe that :-) Some people still believe that the Earth is flat :-)

>
(2) Do the additional fit/misfit points Zar adds when distribution is known accurately reflect these sorts of features? Here less seems to be known; Tysen points out that Zar's scheme of adding fit/misfit points seem to weigh things differently depending on who opens (with two identical hands) which seems kind of odd.
<

See above comments for that INDEPENDENCE issue.

As for the accuracy, there are already SEVERAL different approaches that and the results are pretty much in-line.

>
(3) There is also some debate about what is simple to compute at the table, and what is reasonably simple to explain to opponents.
<

I think that what you presented would be a good summary of what this discussion thread is about indeed.

ZAR

P.S I’ll catch-up with the rest of the replies later today.
0

#266 User is offline   awm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 8,249
  • Joined: 2005-February-09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Zurich, Switzerland

Posted 2005-September-08, 11:01

Jlall, on Sep 8 2005, 11:56 AM, said:

Just curious, do any of you actually use these methods at the table, or do you just use your judgement?

Most of the time, nope, don't use them. But occasionally with a "borderline" hand I will evaluate ZAR points, or I will consider some of the other factors from these threads. Some of the things I've learned from this discussion:

(1) I've tried passing more 4333 twelves, particularly those poor in controls. Usually I have obtained good results from this when I do it.

(2) I've been opening more aggressively with length in the majors even on balanced hands. So I open a lot of 11-counts with 4-4-3-2 and not many 11-counts with 3-2-4-4. This has also worked out pretty well.

I should note that a lot of the discussion here actually justifies methods that I've been playing since before I ever read about ZAR points etc.
Adam W. Meyerson
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
0

#267 User is offline   hrothgar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,306
  • Joined: 2003-February-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Natick, MA
  • Interests:Travel
    Cooking
    Brewing
    Hiking

Posted 2005-September-08, 11:11

Jlall, on Sep 8 2005, 07:56 PM, said:

Just curious, do any of you actually use these methods at the table, or do you just use your judgement?

In all honesty, I make the most use of evalutors like this when I am developing scripts to simulate bidding systems. The metric that I use most often for scripting is K+R.

When I am playing at the table or writing system notes I prefer to rely on "judgement". Case in point: The most recent version of my MOSCITO discusses the minimum strength necessary for a "contructive" opening. After going back and forth for a while, I felt that the most accurate way to go was to provide a set of 5 minimum strength unbalanced hands and 5 minimum strength balanced hands that looked to be right on the "edge" of a constructive opening where I'd prefer not to pass...

With this said and done, it is necessary to have some way to communicate judgement to third parties which is where "simple" metrics like BUMRAP + 5/3/1 shine
Alderaan delenda est
0

#268 User is offline   tysen2k 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 406
  • Joined: 2004-March-25

Posted 2005-September-08, 11:13

inquiry, on Sep 8 2005, 08:53 AM, said:

Problem one, where did I get 2.5 I divided by. Fair question. Tysen argues that 25 points is enough for game with goren points, 25 points divided by ten tricks is 2.5 points per trick.

Okay, I can see where you got this, but there is no need for 0 points to equal 0 tricks. Using 2.5 points per trick would also predict that you would need only 30 points for slam and 32.5 for a grand. That's obviously off. The real value should be slightly bigger than 3 I'd say. And the scale for TSP (which uses the length points too) is 5 points per trick.

Also, Ben, you've recreated a table I used way back on page 5 of this super-long thread. Same metrics using tricks.
A bit of blatant self-pimping - I've got a new poker book that's getting good reviews.
0

#269 User is offline   inquiry 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 14,564
  • Joined: 2003-February-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Amelia Island, FL
  • Interests:Bridge, what else?

Posted 2005-September-08, 11:36

Classifying a distribution by ZAR points as "14" and then classify as to the % chance random hands make game is an interesting exercise, but not for the reason tysen supposes. Let's take the four ZAR 14 point distrubutions that tysen quoted as an example.

6331
7222
5521
5440

Each of these represent 14 ZAR distributional point. But the potential of these hands are quite markedly different using ZAR points. With 6331, your potenial upside once fit is found is fairly low. If partner fits your six card suit, and you might get +2 more ZARs for 16 with fit. If either of your three card suits fit a long suit with partner, you will get +2 as well. It is fairly likely you will find a fit of sorts, so this is 14 with fair chance of 16.

Take the second one, here partner needs just one in your seven card suit to have eight card fit, and there is good chance he will have two. So you can in theory take a point for each doubleton in this case. So this is 14 with a reasonable chance to go up to 17.

That the third one. Now, if you find a fit, in either 5-5 suit, it might be a superfit (if it is partners suit), or regular fit. For your singleton you get two points, for your doubleton you get one point, but with five in the fit suit, there is a chance you could get two points for the doubleteon and four points for the singleton. So this hand is 14 and can be as high as 20. Note also, now if you DONT fit for either of the five-five suits, this can become a misfit, and the 14 will actually plummet in value (say partner is 5521 but doesn't match). Now instead of being worth 14, this is worth only 5 pts or so. The odds favor, obviously you will find an acceptible fit, but the range here is from (5)14-20.

The last one is 14, but you have wonderful chances of finding a fit. Now the void can be worth from 3 points to 9 points. There is much less chance you can have a total misfit, but if you do, it is a whooper, and can drop your DP to ZERO. The rareness of the huge misfit, makes this (0)14-21.

At this point someone good as distributions and stats could, if they are able, calculate the probabilities of fits, no fits, superfit facing each of these and stastically figure out how much better is the last hand (14 points with small chance of downside misfit and huge pluses when fit is found) is than the other hands. But with ZAR, these 14 points are not created equally. There is an upside to each distribution as given above, an upside that is obvious in both there "trick taking potential" when opened and in their potential to make game.

HAND   +TR      Game%
6331    0.98     34%
7222    1.11     34%
5521    1.23     38%
5440    1.58     45%


To use ZAR (or any evaluation method) without "re-evaluating" as the auction develops is simply not a good idea. My arguement agaist tysen's approach was and always has been, he didn't do the re-evalution (Fit and Misfit). As you can see from this illustration, the "potential" of these hands are quite different, and that potential is realized if a fit is found. And finding a fit increase the ZAR count, which not surprising increases the tricks and games.

The mistake tysen, and many people make, in evaluating ZAR is not realizing this potential, and investigate the accuracy of the adjustments. They look as say "14" next please. You can do the same with other ZAR hands.. which hand would you think has more "potential" to find a fit and if so be upgrade among these 15 point ZAR hands? 6-4-2-1 or 5-5-3-0

How about among these 12 point ZAR hands? 4-4-4-1 or 5-4-2-2?

Zar says somewhere something like "it is the difference that creates the potential". Bridge is a game of statistics and chance.. like what are the odds you find a missing honor when it finessee, and in these cases, what are the odds you will find a fit with these patterns, and finding one, how much does your hand up-evaluate. I never had a problem determine if a hand was an opening bid.. I did that very well before I ever heard of ZAR. Where I hope ZAR helps is by how much to re-evaluate the hand as the bidding continues. Any method that says, this is what a hand is worth before the bidding starts and that is it, will not work for me.

My assumption is that TSP takes a randomization approach to the evaluation of hands assuming a fit will be found (more or less). Thus it was better than straight ZAR because Tysen added an "fit points" (counting long and short suits from the beginning). Zar counts long suits (531 does it by short suits), but upon finding fit, ZAR then adds points for short suits (albeit with some fancy count the short suits points if...xyz). Now ZAR has furhter refined this calculation by a method that is often not practical (use unrefined when not practical). This is what needs to be evaluated, the static evalaution of bum531, of tsp, of goren, and the fluid one of ZAR. Maybe some zar=type ideas can be added to some other methods making them less static, maybe we can find more features that are worth pluses and minuses. That seems to be a hard concept for some to grasp....
--Ben--

#270 User is offline   tysen2k 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 406
  • Joined: 2004-March-25

Posted 2005-September-08, 11:42

Jlall, on Sep 8 2005, 08:56 AM, said:

Just curious, do any of you actually use these methods at the table, or do you just use your judgement?

I don't really either (is that sacrilegious?) :rolleyes:

Believe it or not, I'm not really interested in finding the perfect evaluator. What I am interested in is how evaluations change as you gather information from the bidding. So I need an accurate evaluator as a beginning so that I can measure changes.

I've found lots of interesting stuff in my studies and I've posted some of it here and on RGB. Stuff like:
  • How much better is Qxx in partner's suit better than Qxx in a side suit? Does Axx improve by the same amount or different?
  • How much should we adjust the value of Kxx if RHO opens the suit? If LHO opens it?
  • How the relative weight of high cards to shape changes. If partner is balanced, high cards gain more weight and shape loses importance. If partner is unbalanced, high cards lose weight and shape gains. The same is true if the opps are balanced/unbalanced, and to a different extent.

Tysen
A bit of blatant self-pimping - I've got a new poker book that's getting good reviews.
0

#271 User is offline   tysen2k 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 406
  • Joined: 2004-March-25

Posted 2005-September-08, 11:52

inquiry, on Sep 8 2005, 09:36 AM, said:

My assumption is that TSP takes a randomization approach to the evaluation of hands assuming a fit will be found (more or less).

No, it just evaluates the average value opposite all the potential hands partner could have.

Here's the problem I have with your argument that my comparison doesn't take into account the potential of adjusting once a fit is found/not found. You can use the same adjusting principle with any evaluation scheme, not just Zar. No matter what system you use, you can adjust up and down the same way in order to improve it once you have more information.

The point of judging the initial values to get as close as you can to begin with so that the amount you have to adjust is kept to a minimum. Sometimes the opps interfere and you can't exchange all the info you'd like. So try to make the best guess you can now instead of relying on info you might never get.

Tysen
A bit of blatant self-pimping - I've got a new poker book that's getting good reviews.
0

#272 User is offline   inquiry 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 14,564
  • Joined: 2003-February-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Amelia Island, FL
  • Interests:Bridge, what else?

Posted 2005-September-08, 12:00

tysen2k, on Sep 8 2005, 01:13 PM, said:

inquiry, on Sep 8 2005, 08:53 AM, said:

Problem one, where did I get 2.5 I divided by. Fair question. Tysen argues that 25 points is enough for game with goren points, 25 points divided by ten tricks is 2.5 points per trick.

Okay, I can see where you got this, but there is no need for 0 points to equal 0 tricks. Using 2.5 points per trick would also predict that you would need only 30 points for slam and 32.5 for a grand. That's obviously off. The real value should be slightly bigger than 3 I'd say. And the scale for TSP (which uses the length points too) is 5 points per trick.

Also, Ben, you've recreated a table I used way back on page 5 of this super-long thread. Same metrics using tricks.

Well.. you took ZAR to task not once, but several times for using 26 points for game. You suggested he use 25 or maybe even 24 points for game. Now you are suggesting 3 points per trick, that would mean for 10 tricks 30 points (4 more than ZAR used and you complained about).

Now tell me, are you really being serious? BTW, BUMrap 531 already suffers badly using 2.5 points per trick by underestimating the distributional stregnth, if I divide by 3, the number of tricks taken would plummet, so this would be even worse, clearly for that metric.
--Ben--

#273 User is offline   hrothgar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,306
  • Joined: 2003-February-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Natick, MA
  • Interests:Travel
    Cooking
    Brewing
    Hiking

Posted 2005-September-08, 12:04

inquiry, on Sep 8 2005, 08:36 PM, said:

The mistake tysen, and many people make, in evaluating ZAR is not realizing this potential, and investigate the accuracy of the adjustments. They look as say "14" next please.  You can do the same with other ZAR hands.. which hand would you think has more "potential" to find a fit and if so be upgrade among these 15 point ZAR hands?  6-4-2-1 or 5-5-3-0

Maybe some zar=type ideas can be added to some other methods making them less static, maybe we can find more features that are worth pluses and minuses. That seems to be a hard concept for some to grasp....

Ben, the problem is not that your "point" is in any way difficult to grasp. Unfortunately you're wrong and you have a really annoying blind spot about it

Fit points, super fit points and the like are all well and good. However, NONE of this can be applied before the partnership learns whether or not they have a fit. Last I checked, Zar points were used to determine whether or not a pair should open...

My main point (and I suspect that Tysen would agree) is that we should start by using as accurate an evaluator as possible. Once this has been identified you can start adding complexity and evaluating different types of plastic evaluation.
Alderaan delenda est
0

#274 User is offline   inquiry 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 14,564
  • Joined: 2003-February-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Amelia Island, FL
  • Interests:Bridge, what else?

Posted 2005-September-08, 12:08

tysen2k, on Sep 8 2005, 01:52 PM, said:

inquiry, on Sep 8 2005, 09:36 AM, said:

My assumption is that TSP takes a randomization approach to the evaluation of hands assuming a fit will be found (more or less).

No, it just evaluates the average value opposite all the potential hands partner could have.

Here's the problem I have with your argument that my comparison doesn't take into account the potential of adjusting once a fit is found/not found. You can use the same adjusting principle with any evaluation scheme, not just Zar. No matter what system you use, you can adjust up and down the same way in order to improve it once you have more information.

The point of judging the initial values to get as close as you can to begin with so that the amount you have to adjust is kept to a minimum. Sometimes the opps interfere and you can't exchange all the info you'd like. So try to make the best guess you can now instead of relying on info you might never get.

Tysen

Oh, I complete agree that hands should be adjusted. What I like about ZAR is he tries to stick a quantification on his. We all do adjustments. We discount stiff honors somewhat, we devaluate honors in a suit bid behind us, we get excited with big fits and "bid one more for the road". What justin calls "judgement". Judgement comes from experience. But sometimes there is an ususual collection of several small pluses, or some pluses and some minuses on a hand. How do you judge which is better or by how much the pluses push you forward. We all know a collection of Tens will help with opening 1NT maybe shaded a point. We all know we like our hcp in our long suits.

The question is can someone tell by how much extra these small pluses are? I am fully aware that applying judgement (or ZAR or anyone esles) correction factors can be done on any hand. Here is the problem yet again.. ZAR tells us how to do this, yet when running similations, you don't and then you tell us how much better some other methiod is. Apply the rules fairly (Anyone) and I will believe the data (As long as you make it publically available so I can spot test it).

Can you apply ZAR correction factors to your methods? Sure. Might Bumrap 531 with zar corrections beat ZAR base points with zar correct? Maybe. But someone,anyone (this includes ZAR), do the darn test with the corrections applied. I lack the computer skills to do this... but it must be doable (Zar has never subtracted misfit points in his large analysis for example).

Ben
--Ben--

#275 User is offline   Al_U_Card 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,080
  • Joined: 2005-May-16
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2005-September-08, 12:31

Jlall, on Sep 8 2005, 11:56 AM, said:

Just curious, do any of you actually use these methods at the table, or do you just use your judgement?

If they do, you have to wonder about slow play penalties.....lol
The Grand Design, reflected in the face of Chaos...it's a fluke!
0

#276 User is offline   tysen2k 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 406
  • Joined: 2004-March-25

Posted 2005-September-08, 12:35

inquiry, on Sep 8 2005, 10:08 AM, said:

The question is can someone tell by how much extra these small pluses are?

Yes! Right here:

[Improving Hand Evaluation Part 1]
http://tinyurl.com/25huc

[Improving Hand Evaluation Part 2]
http://tinyurl.com/383e6

Everything is in terms of tricks, so there is no discussion of Zar, TSP, BUMRAP, or anything else.

Tysen
A bit of blatant self-pimping - I've got a new poker book that's getting good reviews.
0

#277 User is offline   Zar 

  • PipPipPipPip
  • Group: Full Members
  • Posts: 153
  • Joined: 2004-April-03

Posted 2005-September-08, 12:35

>
He proposes his own evaluation method for NT (A=4, K=2.8, Q=1.8, J=1, T=0.4)
<

That’s the problem with all these Binki, Kinki, Rum etc. stuff that some people think that they are great and “PRECISE” because they use “PRECISE” numbers like 0.75, 0.15, 1.8 etc.

If using such tiny fractions is what constitutes “precision” for you, hey – go ahead :-)

>
The first set of arrows shows hands that a 5-3-1 system counts as "equivalent." The second set of arrows shows some hands that Zar counts as equivalent. Which set looks more tightly clustered to you?
<

Here is what’s tightly clustered, so you understand once and forever.

Dist. 531 Zar

4441 3 11
5431 3 13
6331 3 14

All of these are the SAME in 531 as they are in 321 and 741. Are they tightly clustered enough when they are ALL equal to 3? Is it just fine with you to pull-out 2 CARDS from your longest suit and say “Sorry, your longest suit will be 2-carsds shorter, but I know it’s OK with you since for you it doesn’t matter if you have a 6-card-suit as your longest or a 4-card-suit as your longest suit”.

Dist. 531 Zar

5440 5 13
6430 5 16
7330 5 17

All of these are the SAME in 531 as they are in 321 and 741. Are they tightly clustered enough when they are ALL equal to 5? Is it just fine with you to pull-out 2 CARDS from your longest suit and say “Sorry, your longest suit will be 2-carsds shorter, but I know it’s OK with you since for you it doesn’t matter if you have a 7-card-suit as your longest or a 5-card-suit as your longest suit”.

I know your “logic” that it doesn’t matter since “when I am short my partner will be long” but ... how to tell you ... I guess you just bid 4S when the bidding comes to you since “your partner will cover for your shortness in Spades” :-)

>
I'm still a bit confused regarding the accuracy of the Goren 4/3/2/1 point count...
When Tysen provided standard error calculations for a variety of hand evaluation metrics he posted the following data:

R2 Standard Error
Zar + fit 0.74 1.05
HCP 0.65 1.21

It might be worthwhile to try to reconcile the difference...
<

I have posted the FORMULAS I am using, took you by the hand and walked you through, right? And all the data is available on the site. Nobody has a clue what Tysen and you are doing, so I just cannot judge. And you see from his previous posting that he doesn’t even know how fit is calculated so ... PLUS I use only contracts in Major, as you well know.

ZAR
0

#278 User is offline   awm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 8,249
  • Joined: 2005-February-09
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Zurich, Switzerland

Posted 2005-September-08, 12:57

Zar points seem to place a lot of emphasis on having long suits, with the idea that "if you have a long suit, you're likely to take more tricks." For example, according to Zar points before you know partner's distribution:

6331 (14 zar) is much better than 4441 (11 zar)

7222 (14 zar) is roughly equivalent to 5440 (14 zar)

Now obviously these will be adjusted up or down when you find (or fail to find) a fit. But it seems like the initial evaluation should roughly measure the average or expected value of the hands. If some particular pattern almost always finds a fit and always gets huge upgrades after the fit is found, it seems reasonable to assume that the initial valuation of that hand is probably too low.

The funny thing is, 5440 distribution seems to be very powerful. From Tysen's data, it seems like 5440 is much more likely to find a game than 7222 or 6331. Shouldn't the initial evaluation reflect this?
Adam W. Meyerson
a.k.a. Appeal Without Merit
0

#279 User is offline   inquiry 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 14,564
  • Joined: 2003-February-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Amelia Island, FL
  • Interests:Bridge, what else?

Posted 2005-September-08, 13:01

awm, on Sep 8 2005, 02:57 PM, said:

The funny thing is, 5440 distribution seems to be very powerful. From Tysen's data, it seems like 5440 is much more likely to find a game than 7222 or 6331. Shouldn't the initial evaluation reflect this?

Thank you... exactly...

Do you know I open 5440 hands with five controls 2 (forcing). This is in part because of presumed fit provides me with a lot of safety and playing stregth provides a lot of up=potential.
--Ben--

#280 User is offline   cherdano 

  • 5555
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 9,503
  • Joined: 2003-September-04
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2005-September-08, 13:06

Ben, sorry, but you have gotten it wrong another time. And that after mikestar already gave a correct table.

If you use TSP distribution points (531 + length points), divide by 5, and stop calling it BUMRAP. If you use 531, divide by 3 (and remember it is only about differences, the absolute value has no meaning). And even though it combines well with BUMRAP, you shouldn't call this BUMRAP either.

If you do this, you will realize that TSP distribution points and Zar points are extremely close, maybe that TSP distribution points are slightly more accurate, and possibly you might also realize that mikestar has already done exactly this. Look on page 18 of this thread.

One thing of interest in that table confirms what I thought, namely that Zar points undervalue 4-3-3-3 distributions.

Arend
The easiest way to count losers is to line up the people who talk about loser count, and count them. -Kieran Dyke
0

  • 19 Pages +
  • « First
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users