Suggestion for a newer method For Masterpoint

[A2003]

Suggestion for a new method of master point given in a tournament.

Everybody should be given a master point.

Top 50% bracket gets +(Plus) masterpoint.

Bottom 50% bracket gets - (minus) masterpoint.

 

For the ranking of one player cumulative masterpoint score is accounted.

No player can never go below Zero total masterpoint. or 300 or some preset number.

 

By taking away the masterpoint for finishing the below the par limit will make it interesting to the playing level, I think.

 

In order to retain the same level of ranking, it is required to play well.

The current form of the player can be established.

 

Can Fight A player be downgraded to B with this method?

How will it affect the ACBL ranking with this method?

[TylerE]

I think it's a very very bad idea because it completely fails to account for strength of field.

[Hanoi5]

I thought you were asking for a new drug, I read:

 

'Suggestion for a newer meth'

 

Anyway, what you're suggesting might be actually worse.

[mtvesuvius]

I think you might have actually devised a worse system that what is in place... I didn't know there was one.

[Lobowolf]

Something like that could certainly be done, similar to the system that chess organizations use. Strength of the field can be allowed for; e.g. if your rating is X, and the field's average rating is less than X, then you lose points for a 50% game, but if the field's average rating is more than X, then you'd gain points for a 50% game. You'd have to figure out the best way to allow for partnership strength as a whole, though; how do you rate a good player and a bad player against two decent players, etc.

 

The reason it's not done isn't mathematical impracticability OR accuracy. You could, without too much difficulty, design a more accurate system. The downside is, quite simply, the players don't want it. Even if you don't play particularly well, you occasionally get some masterpoints, and that number only goes up...lots of milestones...club master, sectional master, etc. Keeps people coming around, for their .42 here and there, and they don't want to lose the quantifiable status that they've obtained. As long as some new players keep joining, the existing players' 150, or 85, or even 40 masterpoints keep them above some other players... puts them in Strat E, instead of Strat F. They don't want to lose that. I think the ideas been floated, and the conclusion was, they won't stand for it.

 

Chess has a very good model for rating (thank you, Arpad Elo). It gives you a really good idea of the current strength of a player, and it doesn't matter whether the player's been playing 6 months or 30 years. Bridge players don't want any part of something similar.

[Hanoi5]

It took me some time to understand that. What I still don't understand is why can't we have both systems?

[Lobowolf]

I think you can't have 'em in the ACBL, because it would cost membership. Or at least active membership. The masterpoint system as is isn't great, but it's not costing membership. A lot of players who don't have great results can still say they're life masters, and some of them wouldn't play if a system that showed them to be below average came into being. You can always chalk any given 45% game up to bad luck.

 

That happens to some extent in chess, though not too much. But there are players who hit expert level, or master level, and quit playing rated games, because they're one loss away from losing the ranking.

[TimG]

I think you can't have 'em in the ACBL, because it would cost membership.  Or at least active membership.  The masterpoint system as is isn't great, but it's not costing membership.

That seems to be a popular opinion, but I'm not sold.

 

A dynamic rating system could be used in addition to masterpoints. And, other incentives could be used to encourage participation in tournaments. There would surely be a bit of turmoil during any transition, of course.

 

Consider that many players drop out after reaching a certain level and/or play much less often once they are forced into a nigher flight/bracket/strat. A dynamic rating system could benefit these players by keeping them in an appropriate flight for their skill level and end up increasing attendance as a result.

[JoAnneM]

I just think it would be nice to give more weight to current results if that could somehow be figured out.

[1eyedjack]

I think it's a very very bad idea because it completely fails to account for strength of field.

The strength of field could be factored in by simply awarding more master points for a win

[Mbodell]

See power rankings. These are the dynamic ratings you are talking about. An average player is 25. The strength of a partnership is the sum of the players rankings, which is also the expected matchpoint score against an average field. I.e., 2 players ranked 26 would be expected to score 52. Currently the sample is only all section, regional, and national events plus selected club/units that provide their scores. And it only covers matchpointed events, no IMP scores.

 

That said it seems to roughly track what people are looking for in dynamic ratings. The rating probably passes the smell test when Mark Itabashi and Chuck Said are the top rated players who play with a wide variety of partners (33.64 and 33.30 respectively - a few like Meckstroth may have a higher rating[34.70], but hasn't played with enough other partners in the matchpointed events to be eligible for the top players list) and the pair rankings contains most of the names you'd expect in the top 84, including several forum posters and USA national team pairs.

 

This formula does adjust for strength of field and strength of partner. It also only counts the last 2 years of data. I think the worry about something like this if it were officially sanctioned and made more obvious is people would worry about their ratings going down, and may not play. Especially for things like pick up partnerships, you might worry that your rating will go down (because even if the formula is successful in accurately protecting you from a bad partner, it will not protect you from the difference between an established partner and a pick up partner).

 

At the top level platinum points and major championships are reasonable measures of results. For the rest of us, I think the ACBL is quite happy if we all think of ourselves as better than average or the BBO "expert/world class" self labeling.

[movingon]

Thank you for the posting of the Power Ranking/Rating information. I found this interesting.

 

I noted that clubs using ACBL SCORE can also choose to use this system for stratification. I wonder if any clubs are now doing so.

[matmat]

Hi.

Just had a quick read through some of the power rankings stuff.

 

what fraction of clubs actually report these?

[Mbodell]

I noted that clubs using ACBL SCORE can also choose to use this system for stratification.  I wonder if any clubs are now doing so.

I think some are.

 

what fraction of clubs actually report these?

 

A quite small fraction, I'd imagine.

 

If you fish around you can sort of tell based on how many people are rated in each unit. Near me Palo Alto (unit 503) has some 712 partnerships with at least 12 matchpoint sessions, which I think is because they have submitted some club games.

[matmat]

I noted that clubs using ACBL SCORE can also choose to use this system for stratification.  I wonder if any clubs are now doing so.

I think some are.

 

what fraction of clubs actually report these?

 

A quite small fraction, I'd imagine.

 

If you fish around you can sort of tell based on how many people are rated in each unit. Near me Palo Alto (unit 503) has some 712 partnerships with at least 12 matchpoint sessions, which I think is because they have submitted some club games.

I'm just thinking that the power rankings, as they stand, are not worth too much, as not enough clubs are participating.

[Mbodell]

I'm just thinking that the power rankings, as they stand, are not worth too much, as not enough clubs are participating.

Depends what you think of as too much. They include all sectionals, regionals, and nationals. And then they include a small fraction of clubs. If anything, this likely understates people's ratings slightly by making the "average" player a bit too good since sectional, regional, and national fields are likely stronger than club fields. But I think the cross section from all sectionals, regionals, and nationals are good enough. I'd much rather play with a random someone who has a 26 or 27 power ranking then a random someone with 1000 or 1500 MP.

[Apollo81]

Let's keep in mind that the goal of the masterpoint system is not necessarily to indicate a player's skill level. I see it as more of a marketing tool to encourage attendance in non-A flights.