[chun2013]

I am new to bbo and am surprised to see that it is quite tough to find a table to play money bridge. Is the rake too high? Do player worry about cheating? Stake too small? Would love to hear your opinion.

[bschmidt]

Money bridge and tournament bridge are two different worlds, with just a little bit of overlap. So, the first answer is that money bridge players don't know that BBO exists. Another big reason is that, when playing for money, players tend to want every possible advantage, and "table feel" (i.e., being able to look your opponents in the eye, and observe the little nuances of their behavior) is one of the biggest advantages that an experience player can have. Online, you have no idea what your opponents are doing. That could include cheating, of course, but even leaving dishonest behavior out of the question, there is plenty of information that one is entitled to within the laws of bridge, that isn't available online.

[Vampyr]

Also, it may be that for money bridge players, the convenience factor is not so significant. Rubber bridge clubs are typically open from early afternoon until late evening every day; you can drop in and leave at any time, and all you need is three other people there to have a game. So giving up the social aspect in favour of online play is just not worth it.

[Phil]

Or perhaps the robots add an undesirable amount of variance?

[Vampyr]

 Phil, on 2013-January-21, 10:46, said:

Or perhaps the robots add an undesirable amount of variance?

Shouldn't the robots reduce the variance, once you learn how to mastermind them?

[Bbradley62]

 Vampyr, on 2013-January-21, 08:56, said:

Rubber bridge clubs are typically open from early afternoon until late evening every day; you can drop in and leave at any time, and all you need is three other people there to have a game.

All you have to do is move to London first...

[Vampyr]

 Bbradley62, on 2013-January-21, 13:22, said:

All you have to do is move to London first...

Surely New York would do?

[Bbradley62]

 Vampyr, on 2013-January-21, 13:24, said:

Surely New York would do?

Yes, and maybe 8 other cities in the world. The vast majority don't live in those few places.

[mycroft]

Years ago, there was money bridge at the big club in town. Saturday from about 1400-2000. That died about 15 years ago; I'm told there's 4-6 play at somebody's house most Saturdays still, but I have no interest, so I don't know any more.

We're only the largest city for 11 hours drive in any direction.

[mgoetze]

 mycroft, on 2013-January-22, 10:21, said:

We're only the largest city for 11 hours drive in any direction.

OK, I give up, which city is larger than Calgary and only 11 hours away? (Given that Vancouver, Seattle, Portland, Denver and Winnipeg are all smaller.)

[GreenMan]

 mgoetze, on 2013-January-22, 12:59, said:

OK, I give up, which city is larger than Calgary and only 11 hours away? (Given that Vancouver, Seattle, Portland, Denver and Winnipeg are all smaller.)

At least three of those metropolises are double or more the size of Calgary.

[mgoetze]

 GreenMan, on 2013-January-22, 16:01, said:

At least three of those metropolises are double or more the size of Calgary.

Population according to Wikipedia:

Calgary 1,096,833
Winnipeg 663,617
Seattle 620,778
Denver 619,968
Vancouver 603,502
Portland 583,776

Admittedly all of these except for Winnipeg have >2m in their metropolitan areas but as cities per se they are smaller.

[dustinst22]

 mgoetze, on 2013-January-22, 17:11, said:

Population according to Wikipedia:

Calgary 1,096,833
Winnipeg 663,617
Seattle 620,778
Denver 619,968
Vancouver 603,502
Portland 583,776

Admittedly all of these except for Winnipeg have >2m in their metropolitan areas but as cities per se they are smaller.

Yes, most include Seattle/Tacoma as one area. 3.5x larger than Calgary.

[GreenMan]

 mgoetze, on 2013-January-22, 17:11, said:

Population according to Wikipedia:

Calgary 1,096,833
Winnipeg 663,617
Seattle 620,778
Denver 619,968
Vancouver 603,502
Portland 583,776

Admittedly all of these except for Winnipeg have >2m in their metropolitan areas but as cities per se they are smaller.

Are you sure mycroft was talking about individual governmental entities?

[mycroft]

Yeah, I've yet to learn of anybody who means "City of Vancouver" when they say it, except when giving a postal address, even if they live there. Okay, so I lose at official geography, but for the purposes of "having the population to host a money bridge game", I would take Metropolitan population as read, no?

(And Calgary's weird at not being a Metropolitan Area. When we met up with towns, we ate them, rather than surrounded them. I've lived in at least two of the former Not-Calgarys).