New Player Definitions

[microcap]

I find pigpenz idea the best, as it lets the free market work! But a simpler way is just to add pluses and minuses to the various options, especially the advanced and expert ones. While self rating isnt perfect, more choices should lead to better accuracy.

 

In the meantime, I recommend that you just edit player's notes to mark experts and world class players that are nowhere close.

:P

[uday]

I believe I have a solution for this problem and I'm willing to sell the answer to the highest bidder.

 

I'll bite -- was that a joke, Todd ?

[DJNeill]

Hi all,

 

I believe I have a solution for this problem and I'm willing to sell the answer to the highest bidder.

 

 

I'll bite -- was that a joke, Todd ?

 

I think he is referring slyly to ebay's peer-submitted ratings?

 

Dan

[pigpenz]

all rating systems have their flaws especially ones built up on attendance like the ACBL does. Jlall could quit bridge right now and come back at the age of fifty and probably be ranked as a novice LM and still be better than most ( i hope) that may in 30 yrs have 20,000 masterpoints more than him, accounting for mastpoint inflation :P

[helene_t]

I think he is referring slyly to ebay's peer-submitted ratings?

Hmmmm .... some websites ask users to rate the information they provide. In the same way, BBO might ask players to rate each pick-up partner after the tourney. I wonder if such a system would encourage abuse: it might make sense to rate your favourite p as an moron (to scare off rivals) and to rate the morons as favorites (to mess up potential opponent pairs). Alternatively, an objective rating could be based on how succesful players are in keeping the same unfamiliar partner for a long sesion, or for attracting pick-up partners as selected partners. But it is undesirable if players start selecting the partners that will cause their rating to increase, rather than selecting those they like to play with.

 

Actually, when I went to high school, the teachers experimented with a peer rating system for pupils. The system prooved to promote corruption so it was abandoned.

 

But as for self-rating: I think the terms "beginner", "intermediate" etc are ill-defined. Yes, there are definitions but I'm sure many players don't read them. Besides, the definition of "intermediate" is subjective, and there is no room for non-beginners that are below intermediate (in fact a very large group, imho).

 

So maybe, when you first create your account, you should be asked more concrete questions like what kind of tourneys you have won.

 

Alternatively, the whole self-rating could be abolished. Imho it's rather worthless.

[Al_U_Card]

So maybe, when you first create your account, you should be asked more concrete questions like what kind of tourneys you have won.

Getting interesting. Say 10 questions, each worth 10 points.

 

number of years playing (1 point for every 5 years)

number of hands played per month (1 point for each 100)

avg. monthly imp score ( times 10)

 

then the next 7 questions are about real performance/results

 

Ever won a sectional event (10 points)

Ever won a regional event (10 points)

etc. depending on your area/organization.

 

So most players would be in the 30's to 60's and only top pros and real experts would get above the 60 mark.

[Elianna]

number of years playing (1 point for every 5 years)

 

For many people around me, the number of years playing should be worth MINUS points! ;)

[Al_U_Card]

number of years playing (1 point for every 5 years)

 

For many people around me, the number of years playing should be worth MINUS points! :P

Okay then, how about after 30 years, you get 10 and then you subtract a point for each additional decade? ;)

[DrTodd13]

Hi all,

 

I believe I have a solution for this problem and I'm willing to sell the answer to the highest bidder.

 

 

I'll bite -- was that a joke, Todd ?

 

I think he is referring slyly to ebay's peer-submitted ratings?

 

Dan

I've actually implemented a peer-review system for bridge, like Dan says ala EBay. The system weights recent reviews more highly than older reviews...I'm currently using a pretty complicated piecewise function to do this but the concept is simple. Likewise, the system weights reviews more heavily depending on the number of boards played with the person but only up to some limit. The idea is that you can't make a very good judgement about another person after 3 hands but your opinion of them will likely become more accurate up to some threshold. After that, your opinion can't get that much more accurate. Currently I'm using a linearly increasing weight up to 20 boards and beyond that the weight doesn't increase but I'm currently working on trying to figure out whether 20 is the right number or not...doesn't have to be perfect, just close. The system would also indicate how many reviews each person had so you can see whether their early peer-rating might be influenced by a lack of reviews.

 

I think this system allows the rating to adapt over time as previous reviews will age and count less and less. It also prevents a small handful of steady partners from arbitrarily increasing or decreasing your rating by limiting their influence by the fact that their opinion counts as much as someone who has played only 20 boards with you. The obvious approach would have been to weight their judgement based on total number of boards without any sort of cutoff but that enables the sort of abuses discussed elsewhere in this thread. If the purpose of these ratings is to allow others to decide who to play with, then in a sense, only the opinions of pickup parnters should matter. Your regular partners will continue to play with you if they like you and they'll stop if they don't so the only issue is whether the first 10 or 20 boards with a new partner are likely to be enjoyable.

 

Also, my idea was to have separate ratings for bridge ability and amiability. You may have a great player who is a jerk or vice versa. The same system would be used for amiability. After each session with a player, you get a chance to rate them on a scale of 1 to 10 on ability and amiability. The ratings effect of vicious people who leave a table after a short number of hands with a pick-up partnership will be minimized by the fact that the weight of their rating will be low due to the fact that they haven't played many hands with the person. If you've played a lot of hands with the person then presumably you like them and in this case you'll probably see them more favorably than others might. So, I think these two characteristics may cancel each other out and give you something close to an accurate rating.

 

Todd

[Gerben42]

May work for American players but I would have no idea where to rate myself in this point system. What's a Regional or a Sectional (don't answer that, the point is that on this side of the pond, no one knows and no one cares...)

 

Here there are "national championships" (of which I have won none) and other tournaments, of which I have won many... The level of the tournaments depend on location, if there is prize money or only other prizes, and who happens to have time.

[pigpenz]

I think on BBO they have the ratings from 1-10 and jack to ace, but to accumulate points you have to play in $$$ events. Why not give the same type of points for people who play in anytype of tourney wether $$$ or free. I remember at first I used to want to kib some of these people who had qeeuns kings etc cause i thought they would be good to kib, but what i have found out some of these people are ones who play like 8-11 games a day in acbl events. So in these cases points are more for attendance( not really) ;)

[Winstonm]

Maybe best is self rating on interest level:

 

Friendly Don't Care.

Friendly Kind of Care.

Serious But Friendly

Serious and a Jerk

Jerk and Really Serious

A Serious Jerk.

 

;)

Winston

[awm]

You could probably go with a series of questions something like this:

 

1. Have you ever won an open tournament event which included 50 or more competing pairs (or 50 or more teams if a team event)? If no, then go to question 2. If yes, go to question 4.

 

2. Do you often (say around half the time or better) finish above average in open games at local clubs or tournaments? If yes, then rating is "Intermediate." If no, then go to question 3.

 

3. Have you ever played in a duplicate bridge game with open participation? If yes, then rating is "Novice." If no, then "Beginner."

 

4. Have you done consistently well in national-level events, excluding those that restrict entry based upon bridge level, age, or experience (several top ten finishes for example, or one national win)? If no, then "Advanced." If yes, then go to question 5.

 

5. Have you won more than one national championship, or won a zonal championship (this includes events like the Spingold and Vanderbilt in the NABCs in north america, and European Bridge Championship events, etc)? If yes, then "World Class." If no, then go to question 6.

 

6. Have you ever played in a world championship event with teams determined by the various zones, excluding those with age restrictions (for example the Bermuda Bowl, Venice Cup, or Olympiad), or ever won an open world championship (for example World Open Pairs, World Mixed Pairs, Transnational Teams)? If yes, then "World Class." If no then "Expert."

 

Of course, these questions are somewhat biased by my own view of the world (in particular I don't think playing on your national junior team automatically qualifies you for world class status, I know some disagree). But likely some series of such questions could be designed to better figure a level than just asking people who often don't look up what the terms are "supposed" to mean.

[mike777]

May work for American players but I would have no idea where to rate myself in this point system. What's a Regional or a Sectional (don't answer that, the point is that on this side of the pond, no one knows and no one cares...)

 

Here there are "national championships" (of which I have won none) and other tournaments, of which I have won many... The level of the tournaments depend on location, if there is prize money or only other prizes, and who happens to have time.

Wow this seems like very wierd criteria to base level of tourneys on. Very wierd.

 

Location determines level? Who has time determines level of tourney?

 

Based on my reading of British and Aussie bridge magazines over decades this does not seem to be the criteria at all. I would guess the very elite tourneys have been elite for years and while the sponsor's name may or may not change over the years the level of the tourney is the same.

[Bon_An]

IMO,there are 3 parts on bridge playing,bidding,defence & declarer playing.To most players other than true world class,they should be evaluated by at least 3 corresponding committee consisted of certified teachers.

Any member would apply for a test(match) on bidding,defence or declarer playing,then their grades are definite.

 

That's for BBO on-line ranking system.

Edited January 18, 2006 by Bon_An

[Gerben42]

Location determines level? Who has time determines level of tourney?

 

Naturally. A tourney is as strong as it is. If you organize a tourney in a strong bridge area it will be stronger than if it is in a weak bridge area.

 

Also 2-day events will draw a different public than 1-day events.

 

Then higher prize money will attract strong players.

 

And there is the time issue. A tournament 1 week before a national championship is bound to be stronger than one 1 week after a national championship.

 

In my experience, the "masterpoint scale" has little to no effect on the level of the tournament. OTOH all the effects mentioned above do.

[tooncestdc]

One possible U.S.-centric rule that has some merit:

 

What are the largest number of ACBL masterpoints you've won in a single event (lean toward the weaker option if you were the weaker player in the partnership)?

 

0-1: Beginner

1-3: Beginner/Novice

3-6: Novice/Intermediate

6-10: Intermediate

10-20: Intermediate/Advanced

20-40: Advanced/Expert

40+: Expert/World Class

[Elianna]

If you REALLY want something US-centric you could do it by Platinum points:

 

Beginner: "Points have colors?"

Novice: "What are platinum points?"

Intermediate: "The Red Ribbons give Platinum points, right?"

Advanced: "I'm so good, I have 4.15 platinum points!"

Expert: "I'm too busy playing in KOs with clients to bother with NABC+ events"

World Class: "Points have colors? :angry:"

 

Anyway, on a more serious note, I like the idea of a series of questions, but it would be better if it were run by the program, rather than make a user follow which number they should go to (considering the level of intelligence of many people...).

[DrTodd13]

1. No online ratings scheme should use anything based on tournament attendance.

2. Any good online ratings scheme should have the ability for the rating to go up and down over time just as a consequence of playing online. Something like "you're an expert if you've won such and such kind of a tournament event" is no good because people get senile and lose ability over time.

3. Initially, rating people on a 1 to 10 scale would be tough. What is a 7? Converging on a number for each player and converging on a community understanding of what a 7 is is an iterative process and in the beginning will be subject to a lot of variance. It is the kind of system where the community will evolve to understand roughly what each value means.

[pigpenz]

if we were to do an oline rating we could eithe ruse avg +/-imps per hand or %rating at matchpoints. Bridge Browser does a real nice job of this already.

 

Another option would be for those who play in pay games online is avg amt of points won per event....that is why i think bbo should give points to people who play in any event, right now points are only available to those who pay$$$ ;)

[Winstonm]

Seeing how I started this thread, I think I'd better chime in about ratings - the last thing I'd want to see is anything other than "self" ratings. OKBridge uses their Lehman system and all it causes IMO is problems because everyone is concerned with their rating. No rating is better than this type.

 

For me, if given the chance, I'd rather sit and play every night against Soloway and Hamman, knowing I'm going to get my brains beat in and end up with a zero rating than to pick on weaker players just to assuage my ego. So for me, ratings based on results are a poor idea.

 

All I'd like to see is self rating that doesn't bruise egos yet allows a little better description of ability/interest level. I still don't know what an "expert" player would be - to me, expert is someone who is acknowledged to be of that class, not a self-explanation.

 

Or maybe this is better: if every day for a month straight you can cut into a game with Mike Passel, Mark Lair, and Grant Baze for a quarter a point and not go broke you are an expert. If you are the underdog, you aren't an expert although you might be darned good, even super-advanced.

 

That's where I am. I've played each of these guys many, many times and have had my share of wins - but day in and day out they are going to beat me because they are better and they are true experts.

 

When you look at my profile, you see it marked advanced - because in my mind that is what I am - when the likes of Mark and Mike and Grant start calling me to be an add-on on their teams, I'll change that to expert - and I'm still waiting. ;)

 

Winston

[DrTodd13]

We all know that self-ratings suck. We also know that if you do ratings based on computer-calculated bridge results then people become nasty and the impetus to cheat increases. Therefore, to me it is pretty clear...if you want any form of a ratings system then it should be one where you rate others. This human factor allows people to factor out results over which the player essentially had no control and to differentiate between who is the better player in a particular partnership. Under this system, if you were nasty then your amiability rating would go down. The amiability ratings provides incentive to be nice. Opps can review hands and if you take a weird line of play that happens to work that the opps know isn't the best line then they won't give you as high an ability rating. This is something a system based purely on results could never do.

So, maybe this approach is the least of all evils...one evil including not having a ratings system at all. Lots of sites provide them and people are always trying to invent better ones. They are useful but you need just to find a way to provide as much benefit as possible without the negatives.

[Guest Jlall]

Minority view.

 

I don't see anything wrong with the number of "BBO experts." Who cares? The goal is to have fun and play some bridge, and in their eyes theyre experts. I don't think a rating system where these people get offended because their peers think theyre intermediate (which they likely are) is good for BBO or for the goal of having fun. If you are an expert you figure out who the real experts are pretty quickly. If you enjoy playing with randoms, just leave if you're playing with a partner who sucks yet has expert written and move on to another table. I do think the ACBL and WBF need rating systems, but I don't think they're for online bridge.

[pbleighton]

"Minority view.

 

I don't see anything wrong with the number of "BBO experts." Who cares? The goal is to have fun and play some bridge, and in their eyes theyre experts. I don't think a rating system where these people get offended because their peers think theyre intermediate (which they likely are) is good for BBO or for the goal of having fun. If you are an expert you figure out who the real experts are pretty quickly. If you enjoy playing with randoms, just leave if you're playing with a partner who sucks yet has expert written and move on to another table."

 

Agree.

 

"I do think the ACBL and WBF need rating systems, but I don't think they're for online bridge."

 

Disagree. The rating system for the ACBL is a fundraising mechanism. As far as the top players go, people know who won and placed in the big events.

 

I don't fell strongly about this, however. If people like it, they can have it.

 

Peter

[DrTodd13]

Minority view.

 

I don't see anything wrong with the number of "BBO experts." Who cares? The goal is to have fun and play some bridge, and in their eyes theyre experts. I don't think a rating system where these people get offended because their peers think theyre intermediate (which they likely are) is good for BBO or for the goal of having fun. If you are an expert you figure out who the real experts are pretty quickly. If you enjoy playing with randoms, just leave if you're playing with a partner who sucks yet has expert written and move on to another table. I do think the ACBL and WBF need rating systems, but I don't think they're for online bridge.

If we just want to have fun then do away with ratings altogether. If we are going to have a rating then presumably it is going to be used for something. It is going to be used to find partners and opponents with which we hope to maximize our fun. I'll tell you that my personal experience has been that if you really want to partner with or play against experts you'll be hopping from table to table constantly. This isn't my idea of fun. It is just my view that the fun of more accurately selecting who to play with and against would be greater than the hurt feelings caused by people who aren't rated the way they would like.