Winners versus Losers

[Fluffy]

I though the same when I reread this, nothing to do with his coment, but Wayne was a great BIL poster, and he made me laugh many times with water cooler fun stuff.

[32519]

Perhaps it isn't desire to win so much as desire not to lose.

 

It was Jimmy Connors who said "I hate to lose more than I like to win" and that may be the key. That may be what allows you to play your best however badly things are going - knowing how bloody awful you will feel if you lose.

 

Eric

 

Another tennis star once said this, "Show me a good loser and I will show you a consistent loser." (Might have been Chris Evert-Lloyd who said this, can't remember who it was).

[awm]

One thing I've noticed is that there are some whose goal seems primarily to avoid blame. In other words, they don't want to make any bid or play that potentially could cost them the match. This may seem the same as trying to win the match... but it really is not. Some of the habits I'm referring to include:

 

1. Avoiding any "risky" bids or plays, even though they might win, because they could also lead to an embarrassing result.

2. Leaving hard decisions to partner whenever possible (i.e. "do something intelligent doubles"), even if partner's odds of getting it right are not particularly good.

3. Failing to overrule partner even in situations where overruling is percentage (i.e. don't pull partner's penalty doubles ever).

4. Being quick to criticize partner in order to preemptively assign blame whenever any bad result is attained.

 

These sorts of behaviors seem common to lower-echelon professionals (i.e. players who compete in all the big events but never seem to do all that well in them). Arguments can be made that acting in this way helps a professional's job security even if it doesn't help his results. With that said, there are plenty of amateur players who do these things also... but you almost never see this kind of behavior from the Bob Hammans of the world.

 

Certainly there are some top players who are nasty to their opponents and some who are pleasant... but I can't think of any who are nasty to partner, and I think that is one key to success in this game.

[plaur]

Maybe Hamman has the ablity to make his partners play better/make fewer errors? Does this play a role between elite players?

[nigel_k]

No doubt attitude, desire etc are important, but I also think there is a noticeable difference in skill level between people like Hamman or Meckstroth and other top experts. And in a long match that skill difference is enough to decide the result most of the time.

 

Or to put it another way, if it was possible to separate pure bridge skill from all other factors and you could choose between the skill level of Bob Hamman and the 'other factors' of Brad Moss, or the skill level of Moss and the 'other factors' of Hamman, which would you pick?

 

I could be wrong but I would choose the former.

[han]

Certainly there are some top players who are nasty to their opponents and some who are pleasant... but I can't think of any who are nasty to partner.

 

What world do you live in?

[han]

Or to put it another way, if it was possible to separate pure bridge skill from all other factors and you could choose between the skill level of Bob Hamman and the 'other factors' of Brad Moss, or the skill level of Moss and the 'other factors' of Hamman, which would you pick?

 

FWIW I think that naming Brad Moss as the pro with a lower skill level was a poor choice for several reasons.

[phil_20686]

I think that there is one more factor that could be added:

 

The stability of ones personal life away from the table

There are many great sportsmen who seem to have lost their edge after personal trauma, tiger woods is one obvious example. I am certain that this effects people in a less dramatic manner. If you are having trouble with your teenage children then that worry is likely to distract you from the problem at hand. I imagine that those pro's with stable and supportive families have a significant advantage in the long run.

[dave_w]

Are you sure that the bridge ability of Bob Hamman/Jeff Meckstroth isn't more than other top experts who seem to be as good but who haven't won as much?

 

I think there is a reason a lot of the top young bridge players have played poker (and played it very well). Poker is a game where there is immense randomness on each hand. But the important thing is to keep doing +EV things on every hand - regardless of the outcome on previous hands. Only working out what is positive EV and what is losing money is very difficult because of the noise (the random results of each hand of poker). I don't think bridge is that much different. It's very hard to evaluate what the best lead is on a hand (when on the actual deal the contract is cold ... this time ...) or which bids are winning or losing imps in the long term.

 

So, on all the boards that Hamman plays where his play is different from the other table perhaps he's making the right long term play - even if it loses on this layout. How can you really be sure?

 

What kind of edge do you think it's possible that Hamman and Meckstroth have over other top experts? maybe 0.1-0.2 imp per board? That's only about 6-12 imps per match in the Spingold or Vandy, and the variance is going to be higher than that. But because of that edge they are going to end up winning a lot more often than others over long careers.

 

And that sort of an edge is so small (a few overtricks, a game contract every 5 matches a partscore battle every 2 matches or so). It really would be hard to say "they aren't that much better, maybe it's something else". But maybe they just do play better than the other experts and that's why they win. It's just the edge is so small that it's very hard to notice it amongst all the noise.

 

Moral of the story: just play better than everyone else - EVERY TRICK of EVERY HAND.

[JLOGIC]

Are you sure that the bridge ability of Bob Hamman/Jeff Meckstroth isn't more than other top experts who seem to be as good but who haven't won as much?

 

No, I am not. I think I was wrong about that. I did start this thread 7 years ago or so so you can cut me some slack on that one :P

[JLOGIC]

I think that there is one more factor that could be added:

 

The stability of ones personal life away from the table

 

 

I dunno, this makes sense but the opposite has been true in my life and a couple of my friends who have had a lot of success during some of the worst times in their life. Probably we are the exceptions, but I think you could argue that some people play their best when their back is against the wall in terms of their life.

[Fluffy]

I remember playing an incredile tournament when I was in total anger/rage with someone. But that is the exception, when my mother was dying I "played" a tournament and I as on zombie-mode all day playing totally auto. Last european championship a player of our team had his corporation under heavy financial crisis and he dumped like 2 IMPs/board. That kid of things matter.

[Phil]

I've had both.

 

Many bridge players are natural introverts, so when there are personal issues to deal with, its a great way to check out and immerse yourself in the game. The more the player focuses, the more the externalities that they deal with fade into the background. I am not implying this is a good thing, although sometimes the issues are temporary and just ignoring them and not stressing is the best thing.

 

When I'm having issues (financial / family / too busy with work), it usually means that I can't attend tournaments, which obviously has a negative affect on my results, since I'm not playing. On the occasional times where I've attended when i shouldn't have, my results usually suck anyway.

[Cyberyeti]

I remember playing an incredile tournament when I was in total anger/rage with someone. But that is the exception, when my mother was dying I "played" a tournament and I as on zombie-mode all day playing totally auto. Last european championship a player of our team had his corporation under heavy financial crisis and he dumped like 2 IMPs/board. That kid of things matter.

I think that depends on the personality of the player involved, I have played some very good bridge while extremely unhappy.

 

I believe Rixi Markus (who tragedy tended to follow around) basically made her fortune at the rubber bridge table playing for high stakes against good players in the wake of Lord Lever deciding to marry somebody else.

 

I actually tend to play better if somebody has a go at me for my mistakes (which can be a lot of fun if I find somebody else like that to play with), but I have also had partners who go to pieces if I do. Personality can make a huge difference in these things.

[rduran1216]

I think of this in the way I think of top level people in any kind of professional competition. Bowling is a sport where you would probably say that the difference between the elite level guys is non-existent, yet there are players who are much more successful. Thats because there are intangibles that go beyond skill and ability. I have limited experience in high end bridge competition, but temperment and confidence IMO are the two most important factors to any kind of competition.

 

That isn't to say the temperment has to be the same. Itabashi is a world class crackpot at the bridge table, constantly berating his partners, and he does it well/it keeps him comfortable and on his game. Then you have guys like Mitch who are constantly pleasant and friendly throughout the session.

 

I think what makes justin so successsful especially lately is the level of confidence and having the skill to back it up.

[nigel_k]

FWIW I think that naming Brad Moss as the pro with a lower skill level was a poor choice for several reasons.

You may be right. I don't know much about these guys apart from what I have seen watching them play. But I wanted a concrete example and I tend to think Hamman and Meckstroth are ahead of everyone else so I tried to choose one of the two most highly skilled members of the Diamond team so it would be comparing like with like. I didn't intend it as an insult to anyone, though I agree it could easily be taken that way.

[Phil]

You may be right. I don't know much about these guys apart from what I have seen watching them play. But I wanted a concrete example and I tend to think Hamman and Meckstroth are ahead of everyone else so I tried to choose one of the two most highly skilled members of the Diamond team so it would be comparing like with like. I didn't intend it as an insult to anyone, though I agree it could easily be taken that way.

 

What a flaccid response.

 

To be clear:

 

1) Han is right and you are wrong.

 

2) You insulted anyone with the reading ability over a 3rd grader.

[JLOGIC]

I think what makes justin so successsful especially lately is the level of confidence and having the skill to back it up.

 

Well, I never lacked the confidence lol. If I lacked one it was always the skill not the confidence.

[mike777]

Interesting question.

 

I guess I would first ask does Bob win more than random would say?

 

To put it another way does Warren Buffet win more at investing than random says he should?

 

If the answer is yes, and I dont know what the correct answer is, then what does he do differently from say meckwell or Bobby Wolff or you add your fav player from Italy.

[dave_w]

No, I am not. I think I was wrong about that. I did start this thread 7 years ago or so so you can cut me some slack on that one :P

 

lol. I didn't notice that someone bumped a really old thread. I don't expect I'll agree with everything I've written 7 years from now.

[MrAce]

lol. I didn't notice that someone bumped a really old thread. I don't expect I'll agree with everything I've written 7 years from now.

 

I dont take responsibility for the things i said 7 hours ago :P

[y66]

re: mental toughness, I think the most amazing story I ever heard in sports was the one about Paul Soloway shuttling back and forth between the hospital and the bridge table during the 2000 Vanderbilt, which he, Hamman and the rest of the Nickell team won by 1 IMP. Talk about pard being there.

[CSGibson]

Winners have the bigger final score at the end.

[y66]

good replies so far... let's look at some things suggested:

 

-Strong desire to win

-Ability to stay focused

-Mental toughness, ability to move on to the next board

-Good (competitive) attitude

-Ability to find the essence of a problem

-Ability to compete while under intense pressure

-Self belief

 

Things that helped in specifically Hamman's case:

 

-Having a real captain

-Not playing pro.

 

I think this is a great list! Everything in the first list can be found in ALL of the top players that consistently win. Obviously a high level of skill is needed as well, but these qualities are what seperate the true champions from the others.

 

I also was thinking (before this post) that the desire to win was the single most important factor. Hunger, as I call it, often seems to be the fine line between winning and losing. Whoever wants it deep down inside of themselves the most seems to come out on top when the skill level is pretty equal. I have played with and on teams with Hamman in sectionals. He was always aching to win, which really amazed me. I always thought that's what seperated people like him, Versace, Meckstroth etc. Thanks for your responses.

 

I don't personally know any top bridge players. But I'll bet a lot that winners are more honest with themselves about their strengths and weaknesses and smarter about making good use of time to work on weaker parts of their games. Hamman sort of makes this point in the chapter about Joe Musemeci in At The Table. Maybe that's just a generalization of "the ability to find the essence of a problem" to other types of problems, including thought process problems and communication problems.

[Zelandakh]

Well, I never lacked the confidence lol. If I lacked one it was always the skill not the confidence.

I could be wrong but I think confidence (or self-belief as you wrote 7 years ago) is incredibly important in bridge. Much higher on the list than the bottom rung. It is so easy to go conservative when playing against great opponents, playing "safe", even when your experience has shown that this is not the winning bridge style for a partnership. It can be rationalised as "these guys are good enough that it is not the right play" when it is really an inner voice saying "if I do this and it is wrong I will feel like a sardine in a sharkpool".

 

OK, perhaps that is going too far but you see it time and time again in a variety of sports that a team changes its winning ways when competing against a top opponent. That even makes sense in some sports, football (soccer) for example, but I think the nature of bridge argues against doing this too much. I am convinced that this natural confidence you mention, naturally in combination with a lot of talent and hard work(!), has been a major factor in your quick rise to the highest level. Oh yes, and I disagree with you strongly about the lack of skill - a lack of experience sometimes perhaps (with a new partner for example) but no deficit of skill.