More proof masterpoints are silly

[awm]

It's not so much that I care, more a comment that using "dollars per masterpoint" to measure skill is perhaps even more flawed than using masterpoints themselves.

 

I do think it's funny that the points are structured in such a way that finishing below average in a weak field can win you more points than winning in a strong field. This is a combination of stratification and the fact that points are awarded based on "number of tables" and not "strength of competition."

 

In terms of masterpoints "mattering," the one thing that really bothers me is the skew of point awards in favor of teams and against pairs events. If the points are primarily an incentive to get people to play, which certainly seems true, then why is this incentive trying to get people to play one form of competition over another? The total points awarded for teams are almost double those for pairs.

 

Of course, perhaps this reflects the ideas of a subset of players who think that "IMPs is real bridge and MPs is not." But it's shrinking MP fields at most regional tournaments, and I think the eventual dichotomy (local club games are all pairs, regional tournaments is closing in on all teams) will be bad for the game in the long run.

 

Another sort of sad result of all this... one of the great things about bridge is that you can play against the very best without being the best yourself. This opportunity doesn't exist in (for example) chess, where you're not likely to enjoy a serious game against Kasparov without being a top-level grand master yourself, or paying him a lot of money. But this is kind of going by the wayside these days: when's the last time you saw two really great players paired up in a regional pairs? Most of the time it's at best one great player with a client (and honestly you rarely see the upper echelon of pros playing with clients in the pairs). The only way to really "play against the best" is to travel across the country for nationals, or to somehow get into the top bracket of a knockout (which can be tough because you have to accumulate a lot of those participation points).

[joshs]

There are many silly things about how masterpoints are awarded. For instance, in the albuquerque sectional we allways have a 3 session KO.

 

Typical MPS awarded for each win:

Round 1: 1

Round 2: 8

Round 3: 3

 

This is also typical for regional KO's where you often see the following pattern:

Round 1: 1

Round 2: 17

Round 3: 9

Round 4: 9

 

Somehow, points do not correlate with the "increasing difficulty". At least statistically, the team you face in the final is stronger than the team you face in round 2...

 

Whatever...

[Al_U_Card]

The ACBL seems to have "schedules" to calculate masterpoint awards based on attendance as well as MP limits. So if 12 teams of 4 are in a KO, then the total MP awarded are the same as the same number of boards played by 24 pairs in the pairs game. In fact, while in the pairs game you can "get" to weak pairs throughout the session, in the KO's, the weak teams have lost out before they get to the semis so you end up playing against stronger teams......

[awm]

The ACBL seems to have "schedules" to calculate masterpoint awards based on attendance as well as MP limits. So if 12 teams of 4 are in a KO, then the total MP awarded are the same as the same number of boards played by 24 pairs in the pairs game. In fact, while in the pairs game you can "get" to weak pairs throughout the session, in the KO's, the weak teams have lost out before they get to the semis so you end up playing against stronger teams......

The schedules calculate the award to the winner. Then some percentage of this is awarded to second place, and so on. So the winner of a pair event with 24 pairs gets the same as the winner of a team event with 12 teams. But if you add up the awards, the first place award goes to four players in the team event with 12 teams, and only to two players in the pairs event with 24 pairs. So the total points awarded are a lot more for the teams. If you assumed the winner was just random, your expected winnings would be a lot more in teams.

 

There's also an additional effect because the losers of a KO event often play only one or two of the four sessions and therefore have more opportunity to play in other events. It's pretty widely known that the easiest way to win large numbers of points is to play KOs exclusively, and if you look at the top point winners in regionals it bears this out (and in fact this would be true even if participation was equal in pairs and teams).

 

Of course, you can ask why anyone would care. Here's why I think it matters:

 

(1) It's harder to make the transition from club player to tournament player if the form of scoring is different. In the long run having club games almost exclusively pairs and tournaments mostly teams will probably reduce the number of tournament players.

 

(2) You don't get to play against the best players in open regional pairs anymore. The top players play mostly teams, because those with clients (who want to win masterpoints) are paid to play teams, and those without clients (who want to play against the best possible competition) play teams so they can encounter those with clients. Since KO teams are normally broken up by masterpoint totals (and most directors won't let you play up, regardless of the official policy), this means that most of us don't get a lot of opportunities to challenge the best players at regionals.

[joshs]

Well its also that clients are typically on a 6-person team. So they can "win" while playing only half the time, and while playing being only 1/4 of the team. Hence, they have a 1/8 effect on the result. In pairs, a client is half the result. Hence, if you have money to hire good pros, you are:

7/8 pro at teams

1/2 pro at pairs

 

Of course, its also much more expensive to hire a team of pros than just 1 pro...

[Al_U_Card]

Well its also that clients are typically on a 6-person team. So they can "win" while playing only half the time, and while playing being only 1/4 of the team. Hence, they have a 1/8 effect on the result. In pairs, a client is half the result. Hence, if you have money to hire good pros, you are:

7/8 pro at teams

1/2 pro at pairs

 

Of course, its also much more expensive to hire a team of pros than just 1 pro...

So we're back to $cost for attendance?(masterpoints) :lol:

[joshs]

Well it all depends on what you care about. Personally, my biggest thrills in bridge didn't involve winning many masterpoints, and actually didn't involve a high national finish (although if/when I actually win a national event I will be excited).

 

My biggest thrills were back when I was first starting to play competative bridge in DC.

 

DC had a team league which consisted of a 4-5 league round robin, followed by 2 teams from each league advancing to the KO stage. I was trying to form a team with my two regular partners (Bob Kerchner and Ken Katzner) and asked Hugh Grosvenor, who had just moved to DC from australia, to play on our team (I knew who he was since I used to read Ron Klinger's bridge columns). Hugh agreed, and then Steve Robinson tried to talk him out of playing with us, being a bunch of palukas! Anyway, Hugh played anyway, we had a mediocre regular season but did well enough to advance to the KO's. We beat an excellent team (Earl Glickstein, Jeff Roman, etc.) in the quarterfinals. And then beat Stevie's team of national and world champions in the semis. Now that was a great moment. But don't ask me about our melt down in the finals... :lol:

 

My other great thrill was day 2 of the reisinger in boston. We did very badly that day, but it was my first time playing in such a great event. We did have our moments that day. I will never forget bidding to a 7H contract on a 4-4 fit and only 29 high where the main issue was diagnosising the spade position of Jxxxx opposite a stiff A after Bob had opened 1S. We bid up to 7H against Hammon and Soloway and scored it up in front of 20 kibbutzers. That meckwell pair only got to 7C. (7C was close to 90% and 7H was only about 65% so its hard to say where you wanted to be at BAM considering you only had 29 high). Now that was fun!

 

It was those two events where I discovered that I really could play with the big boys. That meant so much more to me than masterpoints.

[pigpenz]

Having gone to college with a physics and chemistry background I have always believe in the concept of Free Energy Entropy theories...in otherwords there is only so much energy in the total sytem.....so i have at times proposed that for ACBL tournaments.

 

 

if you come in last in a tournament you lose whatever first is, next to last whatever is second....get the picture :lol:

 

just being plus would be good, in the Blue Ribbon Pairs there is always someone who has to come in last, unfortuanetly.

[joshs]

Having gone to college with a physics and chemistry background I have always believe in the concept of Free Energy Entropy theories...in otherwords there is only so much energy in the total sytem.....so i have at times proposed that for ACBL tournaments.

 

 

if you come in last in a tournament you lose whatever first is, next to last whatever is second....get the picture <_<

 

just being plus would be good, in the Blue Ribbon Pairs there is always someone who has to come in last, unfortuanetly.

Yeah but if you instead form the partition function and compute EXP[-rank] and use that as a players score. Then 1'st place is only 1/e and last is still a little bit better than 0 (the guy who didn't even come out to play). Now that doesn't feel as bad!

 

Physics geeks rule!

[benlessard]

Mp are fun for people who like them so we should keep them.

 

Just that having a rating system on the side would be cool. A chess rating is basically the result of your 8 to 12 last game not that big a deal for the computer era.

 

 

For example strong rating could be indicated while low or medium rating could be hidden so almost no prejudice for weaker player and a cool indication for someone being on a winning streak.

 

 

Mp as a marketing tools and a rating of 10 last session rating or IMPs per deals indicator.

 

How can this be wrong ?

[pigpenz]

but presently masterpoints are no more than an attendance rating and willingness to pay money to travel.

 

You just dont see very many regional rated pairs events where there are 400+ pairs and it rewards 50masterpoints for winning anymore, what we do see is a pairs event where there are 39 tables competing againts afternoon and evening ko events that are flighted where even the middle flights win 15-25 masterpoints. So its either marketing for masterpoints or there has been a change in tournament bridge where players arent interested in MATCHPOINT Events anymore. Which one do you think it is??? :D