Cheats on BBO

[pbleighton]

That's quite an attitude you've got there, Wayne :rolleyes:

 

Peter

[glen]

Every word or phrase is taken out of context

Do you really believe this - that every word is taken out of context?

[hrothgar]

I mentioned a program to flag potential cheaters and some of you go off into how impossible such a program would be to program.  Not true... all would be needed would be to periodically check the average scores for players and look for only 3 things.  1.  Is the average per board > 1 IMP or MP averages > 58% (pick a number) AND 2. does the player play with the same partner over 80% (again pick a number) of the boards.  If the answer to all 3 of those is yes and 3. the player has played over 1000 boards in the past month, I guarantee you that player is cheating in some fashion.

 

How can I make such a statement?

 

The element of luck is so HUGE in the game of bridge that it is impossible for the world's best players to beat any experience partnership (note I did not say worst players or even average players) by such a margin as I stated above over that number of boards.

Gotta love these types of definitive statements.

It gives us something specific that we can test...

 

You might want to take a gander at the Butler rankings that are produced for major teams events (The Bermuda Bowl, the European Championships, that sort of thing). You can find these quite easily by looking through the Daily Bulletins.

 

Its not uncommon to see pairs averaging well over +1 board per match over the course of 300+ boards. I've seen scores as high as +1.65. I'm quite sure that this isn't the record.

 

Admittedly, 300+ boards isn't a thousand. Then again, Asymptotic Normality is pretty powerful. I doubt that increasing your sample size from 300 to 1000 is likely to matter all that much.

 

More important: One would hope that the standard of play at the Bermuda Bowl is a bit more consistent than what you find here on BBO. I'd argue that the best players on BBO are just as skilled as the best players in the Bermuda Bowl. Easy claim to make when you have Versace, Helgemo, Hamman, Martel and the like playing in both environments.

 

The bottom end of the distribution... Thats another story. We all know that the Bermuda Bowl has its share of weak teams. But they're still a hell of a lot better that the rank novices that you find playing on BBO.

 

If Versace and Lauria can average +1.65 IMPs per board over the course of a Bermuda Bowl, I'm quite sure that people are capable of averaging +1 IMP per board here on BBO.

[Guest Jlall]

I used to routinely average over 1 imp a board on BBO over 1000s of boards and played with only a couple of partners so I guarantee you this is not true. Those even included some drunk tilt nights :rolleyes:

[1eyedjack]

I mentioned a program to flag potential cheaters and some of you go off into how impossible such a program would be to program.  Not true... all would be needed would be to periodically check the average scores for players and look for only 3 things.  1.  Is the average per board > 1 IMP or MP averages > 58% (pick a number) AND 2. does the player play with the same partner over 80% (again pick a number) of the boards.  If the answer to all 3 of those is yes and 3. the player has played over 1000 boards in the past month, I guarantee you that player is cheating in some fashion.

 

How can I make such a statement?

 

The element of luck is so HUGE in the game of bridge that it is impossible for the world's best players to beat any experience partnership (note I did not say worst players or even average players) by such a margin as I stated above over that number of boards.

I believe this post to be flawed on many levels, but one critical flaw stands out a mile to me. And I am not a programmer or statistitian, but have played a bit of bridge in my time, online and offline.

 

The element of luck is indeed HUGE on any individual hand. As long as you are not playing Rubber scoring, the element is somewhat lessened by the fact that there are (typically) 15 or so other tables playing the same cards. Even then there remains a considerable contribution of luck to your result on any hand. However, the element of luck over a population of 1000 boards is minute.

 

Consistently to achieve a high average over 1000 boards cannot be ascribed to luck. It must be ascribed either to cheating or skill.

 

If I play with a regular partner I might be more suspect as a cheat, purely on the grounds that the greater the number of conspirators required to be involved in a conspiracy to cheat, so the potential for exposure is increased and the disincentive to embark on it.

 

But if I play with a regular partner I would also expect the benefits of a regular partnership to be reflected in my results. As a (ahem) skillful player myself I would tend to form a regular partnership only with another skillful player, thereby doubling up on the contribtion of skill to the result achieved. A considerable number of my opposing partnerships will not be regular and may well not be so skillful.

 

The entire hypothesis rests on the assumption, expressed in his post, that the tallied scores are achieved AGAINST "experienced partnerships". And yet the quality of the opposition is not stated in the three statistics that are suggested as providing a measure of the likelihood of cheating.

 

Take a skillful, regular partnership who plays 1000 hands together on BBO against randomly selected opponents and I would be surprised if they did NOT achieve and average of more than 1 IMP per board. That is also my observation of offline games where cheating is not the forefront of explanations for the result.

[Elianna]

... all would be needed would be to periodically check the average scores for players and look for only 3 things.  1.  Is the average per board > 1 IMP or MP averages > 58% (pick a number) AND 2. does the player play with the same partner over 80% (again pick a number) of the boards.  If the answer to all 3 of those is yes and 3. the player has played over 1000 boards in the past month, I guarantee you that player is cheating in some fashion.

This is patently untrue. I mainly play with one partner, and it's usually against partnerships that are less practiced than ours is, or with beginners that we're helping out, and thus we average over 1 imp a board. We haven't played thousands of boards in the last month, though, mainly because of vacations, but I still take exception to this characterization of yours. And further, I bet it's not just Adam and I, but many established partnerships have the same experience.

 

Also, you seem to not understand the difference between kibbitzing a live match, and discussing it with your fellow kibbitzers, and looking over hands in hand records. The first is lively and exciting. The second is rather stale, boring, and frankly rather lonely. It's the difference of seeing a movie in a theater, and seeing it on DVD.

 

ETA: 1eyedjack seemed to say the same thing as I did, but I missed it. Sorry.

[Wayne_LV]

   

[matmat]

I was gonna do some work or play some bridge, but this might just be more entertaining :P

 

I get a real insight into bridge player's mentality everytime I ever post to one of these threads.

 

Implied insult #1. what "insight" is this, exactly? I'm curious.

 

Every word or phrase is taken out of context and so many of you take whatever anyone says as a personal attack.

 

Okay. what was taken out of context? and note that your first sentence wasn't a personal attack at all, it just appears to be an attack on "bridge player mentality" Lo and behold, most of us here are bridge players. Coincidence?

 

Let me try to clairfy what I was trying to say, please.

 

cups face in hand a-la John Stuart - "go on!"

 

 

Is there cheating on BBO and all online gaming sites?  Of course, if there is an opportunity, some will always take advantage.

 

Are the majority of players cheating?  Of course not, but it only takes a small percentage to spoil the game and the site.  A mere 6.25% cheating would mean that on the average at least one score of the nomal 16 plays of EVERY board is skewed due to cheating.  If there is a really big swing, that one cheating pair can cost everyone sitting their direction 2-3 or more IMP.  Over a large number of boards that is SIGNIFICANT.

 

Accusing, or implying 1/16th of the population to be cheats is quite a position, don't you think. do you have any data at all to back this up? And as I mentioned before, there are many, many, many, many other factors that will contribute to someone's imp wins or losses much more than a simple incident of cheating. So, to that end, let's eliminate all the comparisons where someone playing was a novice, was distracted, was drunk. hmmm... wonder how we could do that. Ben -- do you think we could install breathalizers and/or IQ testing software on people's PCs?

 

Can cheating be stopped?  Not as long as humans are involved.  Why do you think BBO only offers money games with GiBs as partners?  Why did BBO ban kibbing at ACBL tournaments?

 

Fair enough, but that doesn't mean we need to be paranoid about things either. if you see someone cheating -- report them. Screening everyone is a terribly unsavory attitude to take.

 

But a few simple measures can be taken to REDUCE (NOT ELIMINATE) cheating.

 

...

 

The other is to prohibit all kibbing. Again that should not be a big deal to serious players.  The game is about playing well, not about impressing the peanut gallery. And for those that want to watch to learn, there are millions of hands on file at BBO MyHands that can be played out at your own pace.  For the social animals that cannot play without playmates in the sandbox, allow kibbing for rubber bridge and total points games.

 

yes. good. good. while we're at it, let's eliminate all fun as well. and goodness forbid anyone should actually crack a smile while playing. why, that would surely be an insult to the opponents and should be punished under zero tolerance. While we're at it, if someone smiles we could probably call the director and accuse them of cheating by tilting their lips upwards.

 

I mentioned a program to flag potential cheaters and some of you go off into how impossible such a program would be to program.  Not true... all would be needed would be to periodically check the average scores for players and look for only 3 things.  1.  Is the average per board > 1 IMP or MP averages > 58% (pick a number) AND 2. does the player play with the same partner over 80% (again pick a number) of the boards.  If the answer to all 3 of those is yes and 3. the player has played over 1000 boards in the past month, I guarantee you that player is cheating in some fashion.

 

of course three coincidences remove reasonable doubt. I'm sure that would stand up in court real well.

 

 

How can I make such a statement?

 

The element of luck is so HUGE in the game of bridge that it is impossible for the world's best players to beat any experience partnership (note I did not say worst players or even average players) by such a margin as I stated above over that number of boards.

 

Element of luck is HUGE?

if that were the case you'd have different people reach the semis and finals of all major events every time. not quite the case is it? and it seems much more so in poker. new random champ every year?

 

Now before you strart pounding your keyboards in rage as what I am saying let me tell you how I know this to be true.  I am ( or was ) a computer programmer (I wrote the original World Series of Poker Simulation) and have a lot of experience doing monte carlo simulations and odds calculations for casinos and gaming companies.  I have run simulations of millions and millions of trails to test the probablilites of all kinds of propositions.  So when I say I detect a pattern of  bidding, leads, and plays that go against the odds, I know of what I speak.

 

Cheating has plagued the world of bridge at ALL levels, up to and including World Championship events,  since brdge was first played.  Why do you think they now employ screens and use bidding boxes?  Not to hide player's ugly faces or to allow handicapped players to play that cannot hear or speak.  These measures were taken to REDUCE cheating.  If you think otherwise, you are INCREDIBLY naiive.

 

A more direct insult (#2) this time. Forgive me, but i thought screens were there to protect ethical players from certain UI situations that might come up if they happen to, say, forget system or some such...

 

I need to find that link about on-line arguments -- especially that part about "holier than thou" method of writing posts :P

 

 

And there is also the element of joke bids and suicide claims.  Between that and cheating, I suspect the game of online bridge will become totally unplayable within the foreseeable future.  If you enjoy a social crap shoot where the outcome is totally meaningless, HAVE AT IT.  I, for one, would prefer a better climate to play the game I love so well, and would  like to see measures taken to give serious and HONEST players a fair shake at enjoying the best game ever devised by mankind.

 

then start your own club, as was suggested above. Trying to "clean" up the MBC is pointless, firstly because you'll never catch all the cheats, secondly b/c the ones you do catch will figure out a way to come back and thirdly b/c it isn't the cheats that are spoiling the game.

 

IMO what will make the game unplayable are all the grumpy folk whose purpose seems to be to eliminate any sort of fun from the game and turn it into a deadly serious, closed, secret room affair.

[uday]

1. Cheating does occur in bridge .. all bridge (not all players cheat)

2. Cheating can be reduced

3. Efforts should be made to reduce cheating wherever possible

 

We could (relatively easily) compute and post the (say, weekly IMP) averages.

 

I buy the logic that this will force the dumber perps up to the top, along with some innocent players. Ben (Inquiry) seems to use Pickett's BRBR program for this sort of analysis all the time.

 

I don't think the numbnuts who bid 7NXX and concede on opening lead are cheating. Usually, they're "just" being rude to their partner or occasionally the opponents.

 

The TD could & should, IMO protect the field from results like 7NXX in tourneys (I concede that some/many disagree). I dont think results like 7NXX matter in the MBC (they go both ways in the long run) but I concede that others may disagree.

 

What I'm mostly curious about is whether the IMP average could profitably be used to improve the game experience for us. Here are ways:

 

 

(assume every user's profile now contains either the imp average or "unknown" (insufficient data")

 

1. Just post it in each users profile

 

2. Table option to force people with a specific imp average type (too high, too low, unknown) to require permission , or to be blocked

 

3. Tourney hosting option to filter in/out people like this

 

Would this sort of thing achieve a better playing environment for the majority?

[matmat]

(assume every user's profile now contains either the imp average or "unknown" (insufficient data")

 

1. Just post it in each users profile

 

2. Table option to force people with a specific imp average type (too high, too low, unknown) to require permission , or to be blocked

 

3. Tourney hosting option to filter in/out people like this

 

Would this sort of thing achieve a better playing environment for the majority?

 

I don't think so.

 

If anything it might drive the people outside the set lower bound to try to cheat to bring up their average, it might punish people who sometimes just play for the fun of it and not seriously and at other times watch every spot card, it would punish people who actually ARE good enough to get above the upper cutoff threshold without any shenanigans. The more scoring systems you introduce, the more incentive for cheating.

[hrothgar]

And yet again you know-it-alls have missed the point entirely.

 

My main point is cheating is a problem that could be reduced. That is my ONLY point.

And you seem to be missing our point:

 

You are proposing an extremely draconian set of changes to stamp out cheating:

 

Eliminate kibitzers.

Create software to monitor all of the boards that get played.

Don't let dummy see any of the hands at the table.

yada, yada, yada

 

Many of us recognize the existence of cheating. However, we don't believe that the costs associated with trying to decrease the incidence of cheating justifies ruining kibitzing and all the rest...

 

Furthermore, most of us have found much easier ways to deal with the problem. The simplest system is to self select: Play team games with people you know and trust. Alternatively, create a pairs tournament for a group of friends.

 

As a side benefit, the standard of play is a lot better.

[pbleighton]

"Let me summarize my opinions on the subject ONE MORE TIME.

 

1. Cheating does occur in bridge .. all bridge (not all players cheat)

2. Cheating can be reduced

3. Efforts should be made to reduce cheating wherever possible

 

That is all I am saying, that is all I have ever said. If that is an attitude, then color me sour."

 

Let me quote you:

"I get a real insight into bridge player's mentality everytime I ever post to one of these threads"

"For the social animals that cannot play without playmates in the sandbox, allow kibbing for rubber bridge and total points games."

"If the answer to all 3 of those is yes and 3. the player has played over 1000 boards in the past month, I guarantee you that player is cheating in some fashion."

"Now before you strart pounding your keyboards in rage as what I am saying let me tell you how I know this to be true. I am ( or was ) a computer programmer (I wrote the original World Series of Poker Simulation) and have a lot of experience doing monte carlo simulations and odds calculations for casinos and gaming companies. I have run simulations of millions and millions of trails to test the probablilites of all kinds of propositions. So when I say I detect a pattern of bidding, leads, and plays that go against the odds, I know of what I speak."

"These measures were taken to REDUCE cheating. If you think otherwise, you are INCREDIBLY naiive."

"If you enjoy a social crap shoot where the outcome is totally meaningless, HAVE AT IT."

 

Consider yourself colored. The attitude I will color you with is "rude, insulting, and arrogant" rather than "sour", but you may color yourself with that as well, if you like :P

 

Peter

[pbleighton]

"Play team games with people you know and trust. Alternatively, create a pairs tournament for a group of friends."

 

Richard: these may not be options for Wayne :P

 

Peter

[matmat]

Consider yourself colored. The attitude I will color you with is "rude, insulting, and arrogant" rather than "sour", but you may color yourself with that as well, if you like :P

 

Peter

:D :P

[inquiry]

Well since uday has leaked that BrBr can be used, we catch every single frivilous 7NTxx and similar things that happen in mbc, team games, and tournaments. The people doing this then are turned into abuse. This takes just a few minutes. As some forum members who have done this know, you will be caught if you do this. This isn't instantanous, because Bridgebrowser data is for the most part an average of one or two week behind live data, but everyone of them are found. Doing this in tournaments, gets you banned from tournaments for a while at a minimum.

 

For the record, out of 3,482,384 hand plays in tournaments/team games since oct 1, 2006 there has been 443 7NTxx contracts, that is 0.01%. Seventh one of thes made, another 208 of them was down onlyu one or two (indicating they were probably bid to make).

 

In addition, BrBr will do everything Wayne asked for, and much more. List all players sorted by average imps, by average mp, by partnership averages, by estimated lehman ratings, etc. We can find every player averaging so many imps or so many mp or more over any minimum number of boards. We do not use these features to catch cheaters, because, as i said, average imps is not useful if the players self-select or play in mismatched team games. We can do the same looking for just average scores on defense (or offense) or in doubled contracts, or in slams, etc.

 

Instead we continue a user-reported or TD-reported scheme for investigating possible cheaters. This seems to work, and if we simply checked the top performers, there would be no end to the searches.. and i can tell you that most of the top performers are not cheating... as many of them have been turned in by players who can't recongnize good/normal play from cheating.... and of course, a lot of the cheaters that have been caught were in the top group as well.

[Wayne_LV]

   

[glen]

Claiming that every word is taken out of context is not a reasonable discussion - also to "spell cat" and "disussion" can be tricky.

 

As to the idea, it would be a reasonable option for the table host or TD to be able to click on a "dummy can't see defenders' hands" feature.

[inquiry]

There is evidently no cheating going on. LOL

Not a single poster has suggested that there is no cheating on BBO. In fact, cheating occurs. The problem people have is punishing the innocent to obstnesively stop what you worry about.

 

Punish the guilty, by catching them, don;t punish the innocent by taking away their rights, which is what you have suggested. Note, you said All I know is those I have reported to BBO have eventually vanished from the scene, And this is true of all true cheaters who are reported to abuse (but many reported are not cheaters)

[hrothgar]

Am I totally off base here? Is there a sane person reading this thread that would agree that cheating does occur?  Does anyone else realize the impact thet even a small amount of cheating has on the scores?  And am I imagining things when I predict I will be ruthelessly attacked simply for expressing my opinions .... again?

Wayne, you don't attacked for “simply” expressing your opinion. Lots of people express their opinion on the forum.

 

You get attacked because you act like an asshole.

 

Your postings are extremely pretentious and you talk down to your audience. This is annoying at the best of times. Its especially bad when your posts contain basic factual mistakes like your guarantee that anyone who averages better than +1 IMP over a large number of boards is cheating.

 

Worse yet, you don't even try to listen to the points that other people are making. Most of us agree about your basic point. Yes, Virginia, there is cheating going on. It just doesn't bother us that much.

 

Finally, acting as if we're too dense to understand your point is a very poor way to endear yourself to an audience.

[matmat]

OK, I guess you guys live in a different universe, so I will stop trying to spell cat to you.  There is evidently no cheating going on. LOL

is it spelled cat? hmmm... Wow. way to start a civilized post in a civilized discussion. Good job!

So I suppose eliminating kibbers is a somewhat necessary step after all.

Great idea. Let's then eliminate all the Turks, and Poles and... oh... oh... I know canadians! those sneaky canadians, you never know what it is that they are contemplating... with their beady eyes and detached jaws!!!!

Now I will anxiously await the barrage of cutting remarks about how stupid I am to think of wanting the dummy to not see the ops cards during the play of the hand.

I've refrained from criticizing this suggestion as i find it mildly worthwhile. On the other hand, when you have four friends playing at a table, trying to learn the game, or at least improve, removing that option makes it virtually impossible to get better by discussing the hands post facto. It is much more annoying to have to go back to movie and click through everything.

Am I totally off base here? Is there a sane person reading this thread that would agree that cheating does occur?  Does anyone else realize the impact thet even a small amount of cheating has on the scores?  And am I imagining things when I predict I will be ruthelessly attacked simply for expressing my opinions .... again?

Oh yes. RUTHLESS attacks.

damn. thanks for telling me how to spell "CAT"... thanks for making it clear to me that i have some sort of "mentality"

I apologize, clearly you're the one getting attacked. yup. no doubt about it. none whatsoever. Did you even read any of the responses above? seems to me all your posts are identical except for the level of condescension and insults which seem to get worse and worse.

This has been my experience EVERY time I have ever attempted to post an opinion in this forum and is the reason for my sour attitude.  I think we would all be better served if we could have a reasonable disussion of topics without all the personal attacks.  Notice I have not made reference to any single individual, yet there is no reluctance to attack me personally for no good reason.

 

Wayne

Have you, perhaps, considered that it isn't your opinion that has met with an unwelcome response, but rather your totally debasing attitude and insulting overtones? hmmmmmmmmmmm????

 

Suggestion, stop thinking so highly of yourself and maybe others will actually be willing to listen to what you have to say and feel like having a civilized discussion with you.

 

I think Richard got it right, though i do find that namecalling is typically not befitting a forum like this.

[Wayne_LV]

   

[pbleighton]

"The # 1 reason for losing boards is obvious bidding and play errors. Not judgment errors in close situations, just plain doing things that are obviously wrong. No matter what the field or who the ops are, if I play with few errors I usually (not always) win. If my partner or I make a number of obvious errors we lose (almost always). I find a definite correlation between how well or how poorly partner and I play and my win/loss averages. You have to play pretty damn well and you have to have a lot of gifts to average 1 IMP per board in any venue of bridge. Maybe there are players that can consistently do that, but I have yet to see one.

 

Perhaps you might give me the names of several so I can study their bidding and play?"

 

Justin Lall (jlall) stated that he had done it. He is a world champion, I believe him.

 

Peter

[Wayne_LV]

   

[Robert]

Hi everyone

 

I was asked by a former bridge student of mine to get some of my group to play in her home team league. Teams that she had played on had been the doormats of the league for some time. I asked two other bridge players to join us on her team and we won the first evening 123-3 a little over 4 IMPs per board. We were not cheating, they were simply outclassed.

 

Several decades ago, I played with another group against the local best team(some of which have world championships to their credit) We lost by 76 Imps during that session. They were not cheating, they were just that much better.

 

I also played a number of times with an out of town partner and we normally scored 70+% whenever he came into town. We were not cheating, he was simply the best player that I have ever had as a partner.

 

On OK Bridge I played several hundred hours and rarely felt that 'something' was amiss. I happened to be winning almost an IMP a board while trying to learn a new system. I had a good partner and decent methods. If we continued to improve would that be proof that we were cheating or simply getting our partnership in tune?

 

Regards,

Robert

[uday]

While we're on the subject - the best way to report a suspected you-know-what is to drop us a line at abuse@you-know-where.com and supply at least a couple of hands (references into myhands are fine)