[jtfanclub]

How about instead of a ratings system, we have a ratings 'door'?

For example, there are a number of pay tournaments which are used to create the little card symbol in the upper left. You have to get first in section before you're allowed to call yourself 'expert'. You have to do this three times before you'd even have the option to call yourself 'world class'.

Obviously, this means even experienced intermediates could call themselves experts or world class- it's not a ratings system. But it means that people who have just wandered in can't call themselves experts, and the truly bad players will be unlikely to ever be able to call themselves world class. It takes at least a minimal amount of skill to get a section top in these things.

I dunno, it's just a thought.

[awm]

Just to ask a hypothetical question...

Suppose we were able to design a rating system that's extremely accurate (like a chess rating). Further suppose that this rating is not sensitive to partnership or opposition, so it won't hurt your rating to play with a bad partner and get lousy results, nor help your rating to play against bad players and rack up good results.

In other words, the rating captures to a very high degree of accuracy "how good a player you are." However it is likely that the rating will be sensitive to how well you play online (i.e. if you play drunk and screw up a bunch, it will cause your rating to go down).

Would you want to see such a rating?
Would you want other people to be able to see your rating?

I suspect that even with the hyper-accurate rating system as a given, most people would prefer that their rating not be visible to the world...

[qwery_hi]

Designing the hypothetical rating system, perhaps we can break down the ratings into three components -

1. Bidding
2. Declarer Play
3. Defensive play

the rating for (1) could then be decoupled from (2) and (3). It may be easier to come up with ways to calculate each individual rating compared to one single rating which encompasses all three technical aspects of the game.

[mtvesuvius]

qwery_hi, on Jan 13 2009, 07:00 PM, said:

Designing the hypothetical rating system, perhaps we can break down the ratings into three components -

1. Bidding
2. Declarer Play
3. Defensive play

the rating for (1) could then be decoupled from (2) and (3). It may be easier to come up with ways to calculate each individual rating compared to one single rating which encompasses all three technical aspects of the game.

How is a rating like this possible? DD analyis? This is impractical and would put a huge load on the server.

[qwery_hi]

mtvesuvius, on Jan 13 2009, 07:24 PM, said:

qwery_hi, on Jan 13 2009, 07:00 PM, said:

Designing the hypothetical rating system, perhaps we can break down the ratings into three components -

1. Bidding
2. Declarer Play
3. Defensive play

  the rating for (1) could then be decoupled from (2) and (3). It may be easier to come up with ways to calculate each individual rating compared to one single rating which encompasses all three technical aspects of the game.

How is a rating like this possible? DD analyis? This is impractical and would put a huge load on the server.

hence hypothetical.

[mtvesuvius]

qwery_hi, on Jan 13 2009, 07:43 PM, said:

mtvesuvius, on Jan 13 2009, 07:24 PM, said:

qwery_hi, on Jan 13 2009, 07:00 PM, said:

Designing the hypothetical rating system, perhaps we can break down the ratings into three components -

1. Bidding
2. Declarer Play
3. Defensive play

  the rating for (1) could then be decoupled from (2) and (3). It may be easier to come up with ways to calculate each individual rating compared to one single rating which encompasses all three technical aspects of the game.

How is a rating like this possible? DD analyis? This is impractical and would put a huge load on the server.

hence hypothetical.

I missed that, sorry. And yes, quite hypothetical .

[Dean]

Hi

FYI Our local club has just implemented a rating calculator using the ELO model (as used in chess, baseball, american footbal etc).

The rating is then converted to a handicap.

For pairs events you take the average of the partnership. For teams the average of all 4 players. Separate ratings for handicaps and teams.

Not a particulary difficult calculation.

More info if anyone interested.

D./

[MFA]

Dean, on Jan 13 2009, 08:05 PM, said:

Hi

FYI Our local club has just implemented a rating calculator using the ELO model (as used in chess, baseball, american footbal etc).

The rating is then converted to a handicap.

For pairs events you take the average of the partnership. For teams the average of all 4 players. Separate ratings for handicaps and teams.

Not a particulary difficult calculation.

More info if anyone interested.

D./

I would very much like to hear more about your rating system.

[mike777]

I look forward to how many Americans know that ELO is used in baseball and football. How it is used and if it works.

[Trumpace]

mtvesuvius, on Jan 13 2009, 07:52 PM, said:

qwery_hi, on Jan 13 2009, 07:43 PM, said:

mtvesuvius, on Jan 13 2009, 07:24 PM, said:

qwery_hi, on Jan 13 2009, 07:00 PM, said:

Designing the hypothetical rating system, perhaps we can break down the ratings into three components -

1. Bidding
2. Declarer Play
3. Defensive play

  the rating for (1) could then be decoupled from (2) and (3). It may be easier to come up with ways to calculate each individual rating compared to one single rating which encompasses all three technical aspects of the game.

How is a rating like this possible? DD analyis? This is impractical and would put a huge load on the server.

hence hypothetical.

I missed that, sorry. And yes, quite hypothetical .

Even if it wasn't hypothetical, you don't need to run the rating system on the BBO servers. Just access to the myhands page might be sufficient for someone other than BBO to implement a rating system.

I remember, a few years back someone had a page which told you (or anyone else who knew your id) your rating based of your results on BBO. Not sure if it exists anymore.

[kaydea]

I searched this topic after recently playing in an Indy tourney with a "World Class" partner who lead a singleton against a NT contract. Also I occasionallly play with someone who graduated from intermediate to expert within a matter of weeks. When I asked about the change in skill level the player told me he did it for a joke and had forgotten to change the rating, however, he is still advertising himself as an expert.

I have also played in numerous tourneys where players rating themselves as advanced, world class or experts have been berated by their partners as being idiots (as well as a few other choice descriptions) for the wrong lead, bid or play

As far as duplicate or rubber bridge is concerned one has a choice when it comes to choosing a partner or opps for that matter so, I try to play with others at my own level or advanced at the very highest but this is not possible in Tourneys.

Until last year I played on the OK Bridge site where players are rated weekly on a Lehman's system and while players constantly griped about the system, at least it keept everyone honest.

So is such a system possible on BBO? Perhaps this question could be answered by the programmers.

[awm]

Rating system possible? Sure. Probably not even hard to implement.

But such a system is not desirable because of the social effects. From my time on OKB, we saw many people who would refuse to play with/against people with Lehman rating not within one point of their own (even though Lehman clearly not accurate to that degree). We saw even more people bailing on bad partners than we see here (didn't want their rating to go down). We saw good pairs intentionally "bunny bashing" to try to make their ratings go up. And there was the whole thing about "hiding your rating" and people being ridiculed because of it.

Even if ratings could be super-accurate, it's not clear we would want them. And a rating scheme that is less than super-accurate is clearly worse than having no ratings at all. With that said, if you want to compute ratings you can get a copy of BridgeBrowser and it will compute Lehman for you. Or you can just take a look at MyHands and judge for yourself (you can view other people's hands easily enough).

[pooltuna]

Trumpace, on Dec 22 2008, 08:16 PM, said:

Just curious, a question to people who play money bridge: Do you consider the skill level of the opp in your bids and plays?

If you have to ask....BTW where do you pigeons fly for the winter?

[mtvesuvius]

This again?

[mtvesuvius]

Quote

I searched this topic after recently playing in an Indy tourney with a "World Class" partner who lead a singleton against a NT contract. Also I occasionallly play with someone who graduated from intermediate to expert within a matter of weeks. When I asked about the change in skill level the player told me he did it for a joke and had forgotten to change the rating, however, he is still advertising himself as an expert.

Oh, the horror, how dare he ever lead a singleton?

Quote

I have also played in numerous tourneys where players rating themselves as advanced,  world class or experts have been berated by their partners as being idiots (as well as a few other choice descriptions) for the wrong lead, bid or play

Everybody makes mistakes, being an expert or WC by no means exempts you.

Quote

As far as duplicate or rubber bridge is concerned one has a choice when it comes to choosing a partner or opps for that matter so, I try to play with others at my own level or advanced at the very highest but this is not possible in Tourneys.

In individual tournaments you have no choice who your partner is anyway, so it is completely irrelevant what partner's posted skill level is, you have to play with them anyway. In a pairs tournament, you do have a choice who your partner is, so this is irrelevant.

Quote

Until last year I played on the OK Bridge site where players are rated weekly on a Lehman's system and while players constantly griped about the system, at least it keept everyone honest.

If it's not popular with the public, BBO won't implement it. In general, if the public doesn't like something, it won't be used or done.

Quote

So is such a system possible on BBO? Perhaps this question could be answered by the programmers.

I am not a programmer, and I think such a system is possible... But is certainly not one of BBO's biggest worries right now, if ever. Although possible, it really wouldn't be popular, and then the trouble of what to base the rating upon etc comes about. It's just plain illogical for them to implement it currently.

[MattieShoe]

I think one way to avoid people attempting to game a rating system is to have it update infrequently - say, once a month. The deferred reward/penalty in terms of rating eases some of the pressure people feel I think. It also tends to make ratings more accurate as you're using a large collection of games rather than updating after every game. Another thing would be to hide actual numbers, just show broad categorizations for people -- you know, novice, beginner, intermediate, etc. Finally, don't release the formula used for calculating it. Hard to know whether your rating is going up or down when you don't know the exact ratings of the players you're playing with/against and you don't know how that's folded into the calculations of your own rating (which you don't know anyway).

Sure people could still screw up the system, but most of the rewards for doing so have been removed with the main benefit intact.

I'd be interested in the results simply because I'm a huge statistics weenie. I have a spreadsheet of all my games on BBO with graphs of total IMPs, etc.

I gain massive IMPs defending
I lose IMPs as declarer in trump contracts
I gain IMPs as declarer in notrump contracts
I lose massive IMPs as dummy

So what does that make me? :-P

[kaydea]

mtvesuvius, on Sep 26 2009, 07:56 PM, said:

Quote

I searched this topic after recently playing in an Indy tourney with a "World Class" partner who lead a singleton against a NT contract. Also I occasionallly play with someone who graduated from intermediate to expert within a matter of weeks. When I asked about the change in skill level the player told me he did it for a joke and had forgotten to change the rating, however, he is still advertising himself as an expert.

Oh, the horror, how dare he ever lead a singleton?

Quote

I have also played in numerous tourneys where players rating themselves as advanced,  world class or experts have been berated by their partners as being idiots (as well as a few other choice descriptions) for the wrong lead, bid or play

Everybody makes mistakes, being an expert or WC by no means exempts you.

Quote

As far as duplicate or rubber bridge is concerned one has a choice when it comes to choosing a partner or opps for that matter so, I try to play with others at my own level or advanced at the very highest but this is not possible in Tourneys.

In individual tournaments you have no choice who your partner is anyway, so it is completely irrelevant what partner's posted skill level is, you have to play with them anyway. In a pairs tournament, you do have a choice who your partner is, so this is irrelevant.

Quote

Until last year I played on the OK Bridge site where players are rated weekly on a Lehman's system and while players constantly griped about the system, at least it keept everyone honest.

If it's not popular with the public, BBO won't implement it. In general, if the public doesn't like something, it won't be used or done.

Quote

So is such a system possible on BBO? Perhaps this question could be answered by the programmers.

I am not a programmer, and I think such a system is possible... But is certainly not one of BBO's biggest worries right now, if ever. Although possible, it really wouldn't be popular, and then the trouble of what to base the rating upon etc comes about. It's just plain illogical for them to implement it currently.

The sarcastic comments are unnecessary and If you don't have anything more constructive to add why bother? Furthermore, if you are sick of the subject why read it or reply?

[georgeac]

kaydea, on Sep 27 2009, 01:36 AM, said:

mtvesuvius, on Sep 26 2009, 07:56 PM, said:

Quote

I searched this topic after recently playing in an Indy tourney with a "World Class" partner who lead a singleton against a NT contract. Also I occasionallly play with someone who graduated from intermediate to expert within a matter of weeks. When I asked about the change in skill level the player told me he did it for a joke and had forgotten to change the rating, however, he is still advertising himself as an expert.

Oh, the horror, how dare he ever lead a singleton?

Quote

I have also played in numerous tourneys where players rating themselves as advanced,  world class or experts have been berated by their partners as being idiots (as well as a few other choice descriptions) for the wrong lead, bid or play

Everybody makes mistakes, being an expert or WC by no means exempts you.

Quote

As far as duplicate or rubber bridge is concerned one has a choice when it comes to choosing a partner or opps for that matter so, I try to play with others at my own level or advanced at the very highest but this is not possible in Tourneys.

In individual tournaments you have no choice who your partner is anyway, so it is completely irrelevant what partner's posted skill level is, you have to play with them anyway. In a pairs tournament, you do have a choice who your partner is, so this is irrelevant.

Quote

Until last year I played on the OK Bridge site where players are rated weekly on a Lehman's system and while players constantly griped about the system, at least it keept everyone honest.

If it's not popular with the public, BBO won't implement it. In general, if the public doesn't like something, it won't be used or done.

Quote

So is such a system possible on BBO? Perhaps this question could be answered by the programmers.

I am not a programmer, and I think such a system is possible... But is certainly not one of BBO's biggest worries right now, if ever. Although possible, it really wouldn't be popular, and then the trouble of what to base the rating upon etc comes about. It's just plain illogical for them to implement it currently.

The sarcastic comments are unnecessary and If you don't have anything more constructive to add why bother? Furthermore, if you are sick of the subject why read it or reply?

While he gave sometimes sarcastic answers they are very valid answers. This thread happened to be bumped after a year later to the front page, that is probably why he responded.

[Fluffy]

Rating systems are not good, people don't like to fight for a %. I won't like beginners being hunted down by advanced plaers to improve their rating.


That being said. I would not mind if BBO had a record system that said that if an expert has EV- playing against 2 players of advanced or less self rating with an expert or more as partner. They cannot put themselves as expert for a month or so.

[the hog]

kaydea, on Sep 26 2009, 11:50 PM, said:

I searched this topic after recently playing in an Indy tourney with a "World Class" partner who lead a singleton against a NT contract. Also I occasionallly play with someone who graduated from intermediate to expert within a matter of weeks. When I asked about the change in skill level the player told me he did it for a joke and had forgotten to change the rating, however, he is still advertising himself as an expert.

I have also played in numerous tourneys where players rating themselves as advanced, world class or experts have been berated by their partners as being idiots (as well as a few other choice descriptions) for the wrong lead, bid or play

As far as duplicate or rubber bridge is concerned one has a choice when it comes to choosing a partner or opps for that matter so, I try to play with others at my own level or advanced at the very highest but this is not possible in Tourneys.

Until last year I played on the OK Bridge site where players are rated weekly on a Lehman's system and while players constantly griped about the system, at least it keept everyone honest.

So is such a system possible on BBO? Perhaps this question could be answered by the programmers.

(1NT) P (3NT) P

x
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx

Obvious S lead; yes it is a singleton!