[awm]

What if we replaced "skill level" with "best result"? We might get some interesting answers. Of course people could lie but I think the current situation is more a result of inaccurate self evaluation than outright lying.

[HeavyDluxe]

jillybean2, on Dec 23 2008, 03:26 PM, said:

Replace skill level with something fun.  'Favorite ice-cream flavor', 'color of socks you’re wearing today' or something that could put a smile on someone’s face rather than have them storm off in a huff after enduring 12 boards with a self-rated expert.

Or just do away with it all together.

FWIW, I think that there's a good reason to have self-ratings. After all, they don't hurt anyone unless you agree to play a friend for money with a pickup 'expert' pard.

The only thing that gets hurt with self-rated lies are people's pride. Look, I'm not claiming that it isn't frustrating to sit down with someone who drives you batty... But, it's still just an online game.

To Adam's point - I think people do often see themselves in *cough* the best possible light. I think there are probably polite way to let folks know they're a little optimistic re: their skillz.

Finally, dcvetkov pointed out that if you want to play with better people, it seems that telling a white lie re: your skills is the only way to get a seat with 'better' players. While that may be true, it's an awful selfish perspective to have aside from whatever ethical implications there are. While I'd love to get a chance to play more often with folks better than I am, I can't imagine how concocting a faux rating accomplishes much.

[Rain]

Ideas from before and whatever:

Make everyone take some BM2k deals at registration and assess that way?

Make everyone answer randomly chosen bridge questions from a pop up survey and tabulate scores and assign skill level that way?

Let everyone assign feedback rating to everyone else if they played enough boards, like ebay.

Actually just a simple check of myhands will do, unless that player is completely new. Maybe have myhands average automatically adjust skill level, but let users still overwrite the myhands average.

[peachy]

HeavyDluxe, on Dec 23 2008, 03:40 PM, said:

I think there are probably polite way to let folks know they're a little optimistic re: their skillz.

IMO, there is no polite way to tell someone he is a fake expert. First, you would be essentially accusing the "inflated one" of lying about his skill level [well, he probably did lie...]. Second, you would be criticizing his playing ability [probably for good reason]. If you try to phrase this politely, you will yourself come across as a patronizing jerk. I think better to be silent, leave, and never play with that person again. What is the success rate of trying to cure or to inform or to expose someone who obviously is either
a) clueless,
delusional about his own skill, or
c) liar.

Let it go

[qwery_hi]

han, on Dec 23 2008, 02:52 PM, said:

dcvetkov, on Dec 23 2008, 01:14 PM, said:

There is time maybe BBO to revisit Lehman rating policy, or at least give it a try. If members dont welcome it, its easy to go back to old.

I think there is no time for any kind of rating, it is a bad idea.

It seems to me that some sort of community based collective intelligence approach to ranking players would be our best shot at ranking players.

The technical solution would be to let players rank other players - kind of like the google page rank algorithm. Here's how it would work -

Every player has an option of 'linking to' (think validating) the other players. How much this validation counts would depend on how many other players, in turn, have 'linked to' (validated) me. Note there are no negatives in this, just like in the internet where there are no negative weights associated with a link.

To kick off this recursive validation, perhaps we could have all the stars auto validated.

I think that this solution is purely academic, as in the real world, it can be gamed without much difficulty.

[jillybean]

HeavyDluxe, on Dec 23 2008, 01:40 PM, said:

Finally, dcvetkov pointed out that if you want to play with better people, it seems that telling a white lie re: your skills is the only way to get a seat with 'better' players. 

Who's fooling who? Maybe the pyramid is turning upside down and we are now getting a high number of "experts" playing together while best games are among established pairs and those with realistic ratings.
Over stating your skill level may get you a few hands with better players before they either ask you to leave or find another table themselves, putting you on their ban list on the way out.
I think being a great partner, being open to what your partner is telling you and working on your game is your best chance of ‘playing up’.


And what is the good reason you mention for self ratings?

[HeavyDluxe]

jillybean2, on Dec 24 2008, 12:08 PM, said:

HeavyDluxe, on Dec 23 2008, 01:40 PM, said:

Finally, dcvetkov pointed out that if you want to play with better people, it seems that telling a white lie re: your skills is the only way to get a seat with 'better' players. 

Over stating your skill level may get you a few hands with better players before they either ask you to leave or find another table themselves, putting you on their ban list on the way out.
I think being a great partner, being open to what your partner is telling you and working on your game is your best chance of ‘playing up’.

Hi Jilly. I was trying to say the same thing as you. While sticking "Expert" in my profile might score me a seat at a strong table, it's not going to last long anyway. I just acknowledge that dcvetkov's point is reflective of the way some people think. I think it's an immature and skewed perspective, but a real one nonetheless.

Quote

And what is the good reason you mention for self ratings?

I think the big one is that any other system introduces equal, albeit different, challenges and complications to the existing model. If you want to compete for status, go win a tournament with a known partner of equal or greater skill. Otherwise, have a seat in the MBC and leave politely if your partner is a dunce (like I am).

You know... I'm interested to know if we actually have numbers on how the self-ratings are distributed on BBO. What % of people list themselves in each category? Sure, there are admittedly people inflating their status, but how big of an issue is it REALLY?

[vuroth]

I'm always amused by the star novices.

[matmat]

qwery_hi, on Dec 24 2008, 06:21 AM, said:

The technical solution would be to let players rank other players - kind of like the google page rank algorithm. Here's how it would work -

hmmm...
why wouldn't this work... oh. right.

i think Cherdano is an @$$hat. I hate his guts. I don't care that he finished high in the LMP or BRP or whatever. I think he's a RANK BEGINNER.

:/

[vuroth]

matmat, you're just miffed that there's no slot to rate your kibitzing skills.

[Winstonm]

You forgot the I Suck category, which would hold most of us I fear.

[ArtK78]

qwery_hi, on Dec 24 2008, 06:21 AM, said:

It seems to me that some sort of community based collective intelligence approach to ranking players would be our best shot at ranking players.

Considering that most players think every other player is an idiot, perhaps a "community based collective intelligence approach" isn't the right way to phrase it.

How about a "community based collective stupidity approach?"



Actually, there is quite a bit of merit to this idea, matmat's response notwithstanding.

[Trumpace]

ArtK78, on Dec 24 2008, 03:25 PM, said:

qwery_hi, on Dec 24 2008, 06:21 AM, said:

It seems to me that some sort of community based collective intelligence approach to ranking players would be our best shot at ranking players.

...
Actually, there is quite a bit of merit to this idea, matmat's response notwithstanding.

I agree. This is probably a good statistical/machine learning problem. It might even be possible to come up with a model which can withstand a few malicious ratings. Maybe helene_t or hrothgar have some ideas about this.

But, having a rating system will open a worse can of worms, IMO.

[hotShot]

If there were a working rating system, than some 90% of the bridge player would find out, that their level is much lower than they think.
Once they learn how bad they really are, they might loose the interest to play at all.

All the "local heros" would loose their local admirers once they get to know that their local hero is far from good. They would want not play in an environment that exposes their true skill.

Real experts would like to have some peace and quiet time on BBO, with their skill exposed they will be bombarded with invitations to team games and the like from total strangers.

So how many player would really want to know their rating or would want it published. And is it good for the game or BBO?

Who would play with weaker friends, use the "Help me find a game" button or leave the table open for strangers if this would lower the rating?
What will be the climate among the players is someone makes a stupid mistake because his phone rang or what if opps won't allow an undo?
Player are already rude to TD's to get an adjustment, what if the result would ruin their rating. Just imagine someone would get a bad score because of a psyche ....

[CSGibson]

ArtK78, on Dec 24 2008, 01:25 PM, said:

qwery_hi, on Dec 24 2008, 06:21 AM, said:

It seems to me that some sort of community based collective intelligence approach to ranking players would be our best shot at ranking players.

Considering that most players think every other player is an idiot, perhaps a "community based collective intelligence approach" isn't the right way to phrase it.

How about a "community based collective stupidity approach?"



Actually, there is quite a bit of merit to this idea, matmat's response notwithstanding.

Yeah, but then you get into the "worldclass/expert/advanced when I'm paying attention and 1-3 levels lower when I'm drunk/high/watching the game while playing" thing. Someone might be very much an expert and play very badly in the right (wrong?) circumstances.

[babalu1997]

hotShot, on Dec 23 2008, 03:22 AM, said:

There are about 200 nations, lets say each has sent 10 teams with 6 members to events to represent them over the last 40 years. So there could be 12000 player that fit the description of WC.

I will soon apply for citizenship in tuvalo, pop. 11,640, then i will be world class.

[cherdano]

matmat, on Dec 24 2008, 01:38 PM, said:

qwery_hi, on Dec 24 2008, 06:21 AM, said:

The technical solution would be to let players rank other players - kind of like the google page rank algorithm. Here's how it would work -

hmmm...
why wouldn't this work... oh. right.

i think Cherdano is an @$$hat. I hate his guts. I don't care that he finished high in the LMP or BRP or whatever. I think he's a RANK BEGINNER.

:/

Seems like a good start, maybe the system makes sense after all.

Oh, btw, qwery was talking about players ranking players, not kibitzers ranking players...

[matmat]

cherdano, on Dec 25 2008, 03:31 AM, said:

Oh, btw, qwery was talking about players ranking players, not kibitzers ranking players...

it might be more objective if the kibitzers do the ranking

[babalu1997]

dcvetkov, on Dec 23 2008, 01:14 PM, said:

There is time maybe BBO to revisit Lehman rating policy, or at least give it a try. If members dont welcome it, its easy to go back to old.

One of the reasons for the success of BBO is the lack of ratings.



Those who care about lehmans`s can play at okbridge or get some king of assessment software some talk about here.

I am a member at okbridge. I mistakenly played ONE, ONE rated imps game there, and , my imps rating is 49.87, below 50, i became a pariah. Players will play with you as long as they get the rating, the first 30 percent that get they leave the table, taking your rating points along with them.

Want to try an even more torturous experience? Try the rating system at the swans site.
you get rated against the cards dealt to you, and declarer gets the rating so you make a jacoby transfer and partner gets the rating, your partner forgets the transfer and you end up in silly contract.

Do you think people are happy with rating there ? No way, they complain of rating raiders who leave game because of bad cards, or ask for redeals evryt time they do not get an opening hand.

Experts can have privacy at bbo. Shut off the chat!!! Make table invisible !!! have team matches by invitations only!!! disallow kibbitzers!!!

Just leave the ratings alone.

Leave bbo as is.

[qwery_hi]

babalu1997, on Dec 25 2008, 11:57 AM, said:

dcvetkov, on Dec 23 2008, 01:14 PM, said:

There is time maybe BBO to revisit Lehman rating policy, or at least give it a try. If members dont welcome it, its easy to go back to old.

One of the reasons for the success of BBO is the lack of ratings.



Those who care about lehmans`s can play at okbridge or get some king of assessment software some talk about here.

I am a member at okbridge. I mistakenly played ONE, ONE rated imps game there, and , my imps rating is 49.87, below 50, i became a pariah. Players will play with you as long as they get the rating, the first 30 percent that get they leave the table, taking your rating points along with them.

Want to try an even more torturous experience? Try the rating system at the swans site.
you get rated against the cards dealt to you, and declarer gets the rating so you make a jacoby transfer and partner gets the rating, your partner forgets the transfer and you end up in silly contract.

Do you think people are happy with rating there ? No way, they complain of rating raiders who leave game because of bad cards, or ask for redeals evryt time they do not get an opening hand.

Experts can have privacy at bbo. Shut off the chat!!! Make table invisible !!! have team matches by invitations only!!! disallow kibbitzers!!!

Just leave the ratings alone.

Leave bbo as is.

I agree. This is precisely why I let my okb membership expire.

However, lack of ratings is a minor factor in the success of BBO. The fact that it is a great software and free to boot are the major factors.

For example, even today there are thousands of "experts" on BBO who refuse to let an advanced play at the table. Having ratings would not change their behaviour, although it might change their rating.