macroxue Posted January 11, 2020 Report Share Posted January 11, 2020 The Zar Points are not as accurate as other simpler methods. That's my conclusion from analyzing 700K double dummy deals (downloaded from GIB site a long time ago). Numbers below are for deals with a 9-card fit. (Results are similar for 10/11-card fit.) Columns are: points, average tricks, average error, cumulative percentages of making 8 to 12 tricks, number of deals. Each unprotected honor in a short suit is treated as the next lower-ranked honor. Distributional points are counted for both hands. 4321-531Pts Trks Err 8 9 10 11 12 Deals24 9.1 0.93 96 76 34 5 0 3107625 9.4 0.93 98 86 49 11 1 3037326 9.8 0.93 99 92 64 21 2 28169This is the baseline with Works and 5-3-1 distributional points for void-singleton-doubleton. On average 25 points make 9.4 tricks with an error of 0.93 trick. 49% deals make 10 tricks or more. ZarPts Trks Err 8 9 10 11 12 Deals50 9.1 0.94 96 76 33 05 0 2188251 9.4 0.94 98 84 45 10 1 2173252 9.6 0.93 99 89 56 14 1 2046953 9.8 0.93 99 92 66 21 2 19836On average 52 Zar points make 9.6 tricks with an error of 0.93 trick. 56% deals make 10 tricks or more. The average error is comparable to the baseline. 6421-531Pts Trks Err 8 9 10 11 12 Deals30 9.1 0.89 97 76 31 4 0 2283231 9.3 0.89 98 84 43 7 0 2232832 9.6 0.89 99 90 55 13 1 2160733 9.8 0.87 99 94 67 20 2 20705The plain 5-3-1 evaluation for void-singleton-doubleton is more accurate than Zar's (a+b)+(a-d). The average error drops below 0.9. BUMRAP-531Pts Trks Err 8 9 10 11 12 Deals24 9.0 0.88 96 72 26 3 0 2972425 9.3 0.89 98 84 42 7 0 2938926 9.6 0.88 99 91 58 14 1 27907Now let's turn to BUMRAP with A=4.5, K=3, Q=1.5, J=0.75 and T=0.25. 50% game is between 25 and 26 points. The average error is comparable to 6421-531. Since no bidding systems can communicate fractions of a point, the points in both hands are rounded to the nearest integers before they are added together. 5321-531Pts Trks Err 8 9 10 11 12 Deals26 9.1 0.89 97 76 31 4 0 2725227 9.4 0.88 98 86 46 9 0 2667928 9.7 0.88 99 92 60 16 1 25460If one doesn't like dealing with fractions, a simple way is to count A as 5 points and the accuracy for a game decision is still comparable to BUMRAP. To make the point scale compatible to 4321-531, one can still count A as 4 points but compensate that by subtracting 1 point for an ace-less hand and adding 1/2/3 points for 2/3/4 aces. Results are the same except that the relevant point range for a game decision changes from 26-28 to 24-26. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaxHayden Posted April 29, 2020 Report Share Posted April 29, 2020 The Zar Points are not as accurate as other simpler methods. That's my conclusion from analyzing 700K double dummy deals (downloaded from GIB site a long time ago). Numbers below are for deals with a 9-card fit. (Results are similar for 10/11-card fit.) Columns are: points, average tricks, average error, cumulative percentages of making 8 to 12 tricks, number of deals. Each unprotected honor in a short suit is treated as the next lower-ranked honor. Distributional points are counted for both hands. Apologies for the late reply. Times have been regrettably interesting. I really appreciate you taking the time to post this. It seems like BUMRAP and TSP are about the same and that it's just a matter of calculational ease and preference. Is this an analysis that you can run at will? As-in, could you run this analysis on the additional adjustments from the Darricades book if I posted them or messaged you? His complete list of adjustments takes about 2 pages. I feel like I do most of these in my head anyway though. So I'm curious as to how much error reduction you get with each additional piece using the numbers he's assigned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.