HighLow21

This was my response to the earlier average of 1.1 IMPs you gave me. The spreadsheet and table I produced, along with discussion, are based on an understanding of your data that matches what you just said.

No, that's correct -- I was assuming that you were drawing from the same pool of results and that all results were random and independent. It helps to assume all pairs are actually of equal skill in this calculation; clearly this isn't the case, but unless the pool contains pairs that are wildly better or worse than the others, it shouldn't matter terribly much. And agreed -- the more rabbits/fools in the pool, the more the standard deviation should increase. The main point of the conversation -- figuring out a rough estimate of how much variation there is, hand-by-hand, seems to stand though. I come to an estimate of 5 IMPs per hand under normal conditions and am fully prepared for the correct answer to be 4 or 6, but not 2 or 10. What do you think?

Yes that's the way I interpreted it.

OK thanks

The short answers are: 1. He lied, repeatedly, and he should just own up to it. Chris Christie gave him great advice on this issue -- stop lawyering it, and just apologize and move on. THEN, if you want, you can try to explain where the disconnect causing this lie came from. People will give you some leeway if you admit an obvious lie and apologize for it. 2. The website has been terrible but the PLAN behind it is a solid step forward. And over time the site WILL be fixed. 3. As a result, public opinion about Obamacare is already starting to uptick, IN SPITE of the problems. And over time, I believe public opinion of it is going to rival that of Medicare. I can provide a link later showing this uptick but I have to run out the door for now. -T

OK so there were between 17 and 22 tables each night, and the standard deviation across all tables varied between 0.94 IMPs and 1.28 IMPs. The average standard deviation per night is 1.07 IMPs and the standard deviation of all the results pooled together is 1.05. Assuming of course that all pairs (teams?) are of equal ability (they aren't) and each hand is independent of one another (they aren't, but they are probably close enough), this would mean that on a per-hand basis, the standard deviation per hand is between 4.80 IMPs and 6.51 IMPs, with the best estimate being 5.36 IMPs. This may be slightly high if we were talking about the expectation for a single partnership, but I can't imagine the haircut would be more than 10% of this. Besides, my own recorded results show a standard deviation of 5.28 IMPs per hand, which would work out to 1.04 IMPs for my results on a random 26-board night. I'd expect it to be less than this for a partnership with a single individual, and indeed, if I look at my 3 most common partnerships, the standard deviations are 4.36, 5.03, and 5.21. Pooled, I get 5.02. So there you have it. On a single board, the standard deviation is around 5 IMPs. On 26 boards, this means a standard deviation of around 1 IMP; on 8 it's around 1.8 IMPs, and on 32 it's around 0.9 IMPs.

These are the nightly average IMPs at each table yes?

And another -- a review of Obamacare, public opinion on it, and the author's take (he's a conservative who has championed Obama from the beginning): http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/11/07/obamacare-isnt-electoral-poision/

Back to the original topic -- here are two EXCELLENT aticles about the Winners vs. Losers of Obamacare -- focusing more on the empirical analysis we were talking about a couple of days ago: http://washingtonexaminer.com/the-question-that-will-determine-obamacares-fate/article/2538650 http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2013_11/running_the_numbers_on_obamaca047702.php

Mike, You're talking about what happened to Ma Bell 50+ years after the fact. If you rewind to the time Winston is talking about, it was indeed the leader and the envy of the world. It ran its course over the long arc of time, and eventually was broken up for a host of other profitable companies like Verizon and Lucent.

Pass, Pass, Pass. You should operate under the assumption that the hand is likely a misfit until proven otherwise. If so you would very much like to defend rather than declare. NT might be an option with certain point counts, but I hate declaring any contract when I know that my best suit is stacked against me.

Excellent analyses guys -- thanks for the insight. Rainer, where can I get a software package that does DD analysis as you described? If there are several, which do you recommend?

EXACTLY. Specifically the decision was given to grant them common carrier status--meaning they have to supply EVERYONE with a phone line. Similar agreements where made between wireless carriers and governments in Asian and Europeans nations, explaining why the overall development of wireless technology in those countries was much more effective and efficient than it was in the US. The same thing goes with universal systems such as the post office. If private corporations were to make the decisions, many homes in remote parts of the country wouldn't get basic access to these systems. Every time we have the government intervening WITH THE COOPERATION of profit-motive corporations--if the system is done right, so that the company can make a handsome profit while all consumers are treated fairly--we end up with a beautiful balance between capitalism and social welfare.

To augment blackshoe's point -- economics is the study of scarcity. It is the study of how scarce goods are allocated in a society. Since nearly all the goods we consume are scarce, decisions have to be made about who gets what goods, why, and how. If that doesn't lend itself to a HOST of moral issues, I don't know what does.

To go from 26 boards to 168 boards you would have to divide everything in the left-hand column by the square root of 7, which is the square root of the ratio of hands played. The variation decreases as a function of the square root of the number of observations. Assuming Trinidad's data is correct, I've included a table here. Each row represents the number of boards, and each column represents the percent of the time you would achieve that score or lower, assuming your expected score is zero. (If your expected score is different, simply add your expected score to ALL of the entries in this table.) As an example -- if your expect score is zero (competition is TOTALLY EVEN), you play 52 boards, and you score a +0.81 IMP average, you've done better than you would have done 85% of the time. If your expected score is 0.5 IMPs per board, you play 8 boards, and get a score of +2.04 IMPs, you have done better than you would have done normally about 75% of the time. (1.04 IMPs plus your expected boost of 1 IMP per board.) Alternatively -- if you have an expected score of 0.8 IMPs and play 128 boards, you will win almost 95% of the time. (This is because the 5% observation for 128 boards is -0.82, and you expect to add +0.8 on average to that total.) I've also attached how it looks in Excel. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-RPGassbceU8/UnwBdTRU7vI/AAAAAAAAAHY/qP_Wsdd34oE/s640/IMPS.png NUMBER OF IMPs/BOARD AVERAGE: NUMBER OF HANDS PLAYED (FIRST COLUMN) VERSUS PERCENTILE ACHIEVEMENT (TOP ROW). 50% = NORMAL/EXPECTED RESULT. H/P 1% 2% 5% 10% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 98% 99% 1 -13.1 -11.5 -9.23 -7.19 -4.72 -3.78 -2.94 -2.16 -1.42 -0.7 0 0.7 1.42 2.16 2.94 3.78 4.72 5.81 7.19 9.23 11.5 13.1 5 -5.84 -5.15 -4.13 -3.21 -2.11 -1.69 -1.32 -0.97 -0.64 -0.32 0 0.32 0.64 0.97 1.32 1.69 2.11 2.6 3.21 4.13 5.15 5.84 8 -4.61 -4.07 -3.26 -2.54 -1.67 -1.34 -1.04 -0.76 -0.5 -0.25 0 0.25 0.5 0.76 1.04 1.34 1.67 2.06 2.54 3.26 4.07 4.61 13 -3.62 -3.19 -2.56 -1.99 -1.31 -1.05 -0.82 -0.6 -0.39 -0.2 0 0.2 0.39 0.6 0.82 1.05 1.31 1.61 1.99 2.56 3.19 3.62 16 -3.26 -2.88 -2.31 -1.8 -1.18 -0.95 -0.74 -0.54 -0.36 -0.18 0 0.18 0.36 0.54 0.74 0.95 1.18 1.45 1.8 2.31 2.88 3.26 26 -2.56 -2.26 -1.81 -1.41 -0.93 -0.74 -0.58 -0.42 -0.28 -0.14 0 0.14 0.28 0.42 0.58 0.74 0.93 1.14 1.41 1.81 2.26 2.56 32 -2.31 -2.04 -1.63 -1.27 -0.83 -0.67 -0.52 -0.38 -0.25 -0.12 0 0.12 0.25 0.38 0.52 0.67 0.83 1.03 1.27 1.63 2.04 2.31 52 -1.81 -1.6 -1.28 -1 -0.65 -0.52 -0.41 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.41 0.52 0.65 0.81 1 1.28 1.6 1.81 64 -1.63 -1.44 -1.15 -0.9 -0.59 -0.47 -0.37 -0.27 -0.18 -0.09 0 0.09 0.18 0.27 0.37 0.47 0.59 0.73 0.9 1.15 1.44 1.63 96 -1.33 -1.18 -0.94 -0.73 -0.48 -0.39 -0.3 -0.22 -0.15 -0.07 0 0.07 0.15 0.22 0.3 0.39 0.48 0.59 0.73 0.94 1.18 1.33 128 -1.15 -1.02 -0.82 -0.64 -0.42 -0.33 -0.26 -0.19 -0.13 -0.06 0 0.06 0.13 0.19 0.26 0.33 0.42 0.51 0.64 0.82 1.02 1.15 168 -1.01 -0.89 -0.71 -0.55 -0.36 -0.29 -0.23 -0.17 -0.11 -0.05 0 0.05 0.11 0.17 0.23 0.29 0.36 0.45 0.55 0.71 0.89 1.01

No, the percentiles given only indicate what percent of the time you are likely to receive that score GIVEN THAT you are all equally matched. In other words, if you are evenly matched, 75% of the time you will score +0.76 IMPs average or lower. 25% of the time it would be higher than that. It says nothing about what percent of pairs are better/worse than you.

Rik just to be clear: - To me what this looks like is 1.1 is the standard error of the average of the IMPs, which would make sense if you were playing 20-40 boards. (As you said, 26 boards.) - And if I multiply this by the square root of 26 I get 5.6, which would be the standard deviation of the IMPs score on any individual board. This is very consistent with my math. - Just to be clear -- 1.1 is the standard deviation of the 7 nightly IMPs averages? Can you type in the data so I can see it? :)

I don't know the exact numbers, but the gist is this -- government spending, if done properly, goes into projects where most of the money that is spent gets spent AGAIN by the receiver of the money. That spent money gets spent AGAIN, and so on. Simple example. Say the government spends $1. The recipient spends $0.80 and keeps $0.20. THAT recipient also spents 80% of it, $0.64, and saves $0.16. And so on. That $1 of spending generates $1 + $0.80 + $0.64 + .... = $5 of economic activity n this hypothetical example. This is the expenditure "multiplier." Different types of spending have different multipliers at different ties due to economic conditions at the time. Is the multiplier 5x? No, I am almost positive it's not nearly that high. But in the current situation, we have corporate profits that are VERY high while corporations tend to be hoarding cash due to uncertainty. Thus, the multiplier of $1 additional corporate profit right now is low. But people need eggs and butter and tires, and other basics. So government spending will likely stimulate a lot more spending than generating $1 of additional corporate profit, because the $1 spent by the government is more likely to be re-spent by the recipient.

Ken, I value your posts here, and I think you're one of the most astute contributors to the BBO Forums. However, I have to protest to this line of thinking. I've heard this for decades now--I have a degree from Wharton and have worked in Corporate America/Wall St for 15 years now. I've heard this all before and I wholeheartedly think the premise is overblown if not false, even though you can find a dozen professors at my alma mater who would say something very similar. To be sure, taxation of the well-to-do and offering subsidization to individuals have limits and create problems if overdone. If we offer everyone enough services, courtesy of Uncle Sam, then the incentive to work declines substantially. I can offer several excellent examples off-hand of subsidization that created much worse problems than the ones it attempted to fix. Similarly, if we overtax profits and income, the incentive to generate those drops substantially. But wait. We had top marginal tax rates of over 90% in the 1950s thru 1970s, and overall the country did incredibly well then. And then we sharply dropped top tax rates and deregulated the hell out of industry... and we found financial prosperity for a while before all hell broke loose. And meanwhile, the Gini coefficient started soaring again around 30 years ago. This is no coincidence. So what gives? Where's the right balance? I honestly don't know a single person who chooses to take the subsidizes we currently over having a decent job with a decent wage and at least some degree of self-sufficiency. I am sure there are a few out there--Reagan used the term "Welfare Queens" to conjure the image of an indolent woman who simply takes welfare checks from the government and has more children so she can receive more welfare. (He was also race-baiting, successfully, with this comment.) Somehow, this has turned into the idea that ANY form of government assistance or subsidization is bad. The problem is, Welfare Queens virtually do not exist. There many be some microscopic percentage of people like this out there, but it's exactly that--microscopic. Meanwhile, we have tens of millions of children in this country living in poverty in the US, and we are cutting programs like SNAP and fighting against the ACA because of subsidization. What??? We're trying to save money by taking away, or threatening to take away, basic programs that give people a modicum of food and health care coverage? While the top 20% are making gangbusters lately? (Look at a time series of Corporate Profits as a percentage of GDP and you'll see what I'm talking about.) And meanwhile, we are subsidizing tons of companies out there. (Corn subsidies are one glaring example--another is how many companies receive tax-preferred treatment. The list is huge and the sum is in the hundreds of billions of dollars every year.) And we are spending more hundreds of billions of dollars every year on defense programs we don't need and that the people and even the armed services do not want. This is so that the defense industry lobby can be satisfied. And we have Scalia and others voting in favor of the wealthy in Citizens United--rich people can now give as much as they want to political campaigns. Meanwhile, key components of the Voting Rights Act were overturned. And with the current attitude of the Supreme Court, it's likely to get worse in the voting and political sphere. What we have is a CORPORATE welfare state. No, the problem in this country is income inequality. It is severe and only getting worse. Our middle class is evaporating and we are doing little to nothing to curb the momentum of this problem. And trust me, it is a huge, huge problem. Probably the biggest we currently face politically. If you don't think that subsidization is the answer to the problem (it probably isn't, long-term) then I respect that point. But in the short-term, people are suffering. Health care-related costs are the number one cause of bankruptcy in the US. As many people die from lack of access to health care in the US as die in car accidents. And yet fighting to get the national minimum wage up to $9 per hour is meeting SERIOUS blowback, just as the ACA is. (I understand the economic arguments against a minimum wage, but those arguments make assumptions about information and power symmetry that are laughable in real life. I also understand many of the criticisms of ACA, but to me the best criticism of it is that IT IS NOT single-payer.) What we need in the short term is some basic help for people so that they can have an at least somewhat-improved lifestyle while we sort through this income inequality issue. In the long run, I do not believe the collapse of the US middle class is sustainable, and at the present moment, corporations are in bed with BOTH parties to a very high degree. My view is that in the short-term, we need to do SOMETHING to help the tens of millions of Americans who are just exhausted financially, while we work out improvements to our capitalist economic system to make it more prosperous for the 99%.

What Mike is referring to has nothing to do with Communism specifically. Systems get overthrown all the time. It doesn't have to mean overthrowing the government entirely. Take for example: (1) The abolition of slavery (2) The Glass-Steagall Act (very unfortunately reversed with dire consequences) (3) The Civil Rights Act (4) National Labor Relations Act and Fair Labor Standards Act All of these are destructions of old systems. All of these happened within our democracy. There are countless additional examples.

The difference here is that driving is a privilege (you can avoid driving) but health is not a privilege. You cannot avoid health matters if you want to stay alive and/or havea decent quality of life. That and the fact that anyone lucky enough to have avoided pre-existing conditions up to this point can thank their lucky stars--for now. You can't do anything about diabetes, for example, but you CAN do something about poor driving. And you could wake up tomorrow with a new health problem that changes things. Besides--the ACA has a separate, high-risk pool as part of the whole package.

Here's an excellent article on the policy cancellations now that Obamacare/ACA is rolling out. In essence -- the plans are going away because they are terrible. http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2013/11/obamacare-canceled-health-insurance

Ya my vote is 80% South and 20% North. (North only has one bid in my view, and he knows there is a heart fit, so 2♠ is a bad choice in my view, though I can see his reasoning. Weak freaks are difficult and scary to bid, but when you do, bid the long one first.) But if what Fluffy says is true and South later blamed North for a bad result on this board, I would switch my opinion to 150% South and -50% to North. (The -50% blame is a tip of the hat to him for being able to play with this person.) North might not have bid perfectly but he had a tough hand and all of his bids at least semi-correctly described his shape and possible playing strength. South, on the other hand, made 3 progressively worse calls: bad, worse, and completely awful. That's some nerve.

There's no need for this.

And it's the only bid I agree with.