Results of poll about evaluating ego

[dellache]

If you look at the results of the 2 polls : POLL-1 and POLL-2 you may think it's not very consistent.

 

At least, two possible interpretations :

1- bridge players indeed really have a big ego ;

2- people contributing to this poll cannot be considered as representing a meaningful sample of the bridge players community. "people who answered this poll know what they do but the majority of *others* don't" ;

 

Your opinion ?

[awm]

I've already commented on this in one of the threads.

 

In general I think that it depends on who you ask. In particular:

 

(1) People who play mostly locally tend to overrate the best local players and underrate out of town players. This sometimes includes overrating themselves (i.e. they usually win at the local club).

 

(2) People have trouble rating those with very different skill level than themselves. For example, weaker players can't usually catch the mistakes that experts make, and thus will distinguish one expert from another more on the game they talk than the game they play. Similarly expert players sometimes have trouble rating "promising beginner" versus "hopeless beginner" because either category makes so many seemingly basic (at the expert level) mistakes.

 

(3) People who routinely play against and/or discuss hands with good competition usually have a more accurate self-rating than people who don't.

 

Notice that the people posting on BBF are usually better equipped to self-evaluate than people at clubs etc. And one of the polls also depends a lot on who "other people" are. For example I'd say that:

 

(1) I'm mostly underrated by the local club players. This is because I don't play in a lot of club games, and sometimes when I do play it's with a beginner. While I do win consistently when I play with a decent partner, that's less than one club game a week. There are people who play almost every day and win regularly, who have twice as many masterpoints as me, and who are paid money to direct or teach beginners. Most club regulars rate these people above me! Yet our results in regional and national tournaments do not support that conclusion.

 

(2) I'm rated fairly accurately by most of the better players in my area. They've had plenty of chances to play against me and sometimes on teams with me. There is obviously some variance (I can name one who thinks I'm better than I really am and one who thinks I'm worse) but usually this is because of views about bidding theory or because I happened to play particularly well or badly on some occasion with/against that person.

 

(3) I'm overrated by a few individuals, typically those I played with very early in their bridge careers when I was substantially better than they were. Typically these people seem to assume that I have continued improving rapidly and am still better than them by the same order of magnitude as when they were beginners, which (since some of them are really quite good now) would probably make me the best bridge player in the world. Obviously not the case.

[Phil]

(3) I'm overrated by a few individuals, typically those I played with very early in their bridge careers when I was substantially better than they were. Typically these people seem to assume that I have continued improving rapidly and am still better than them by the same order of magnitude as when they were beginners, which (since some of them are really quite good now) would probably make me the best bridge player in the world. Obviously not the case.

This is an interesting point. I think our opinion about people in general tends to stay rather static.

 

Early in my career, a perceptive attorney we used told me that most companies will have the same impression about you the day that you walk through door as the day you leave, in spite of the all of the growth you will experience while you are there. Therefore, it can be difficult to climb a lot of rungs on the ladder at a company you start at early in your career, but you can take your sum experience somewhere else and wow them.

[eyhung]

I think this is why the work on better rating systems like the one at http://www.coloradospringsbridge.com/pr.htm deserves wider recognition. It is not perfect, but it does generate conclusions that feel far more representative of recent performance than other systems. (Unfortunately, although it has full access to the ACBL tournament database, it does not have access to many club game results, so data that would help rate more top players is missing -- but it does do a good job of measuring top partnerships.) From my experience in analyzing baseball players for fantasy baseball, it's easy to misrate people based on a limited sample of experience -- going to an objective ratings system smooths out observer bias.

 

Edit: link didn't work right, hope this fixes it.

Edited November 10, 2009 by eyhung

[Codo]

I think that nearly all players belive that they are better then they are. But obviously and your polls shows this, this is just the problem from the "others", not mine.

 

I think they are wrong. I guess most of us rate themself after their abilities, after there theoretical possible performance not for the performance at the table.

 

I had been part of more then one dicussion after a tournement where the players had been satsfied with their game. They did not win because unluckily the evil opps just produce their best bridge in the round playing against them. The TD decided always against them. And on board 52 the opps bid a 5 % game which made. This is why they wrote 46 % despite being one of the leading pairs.

 

Then you asked them about the laydown 7 Spade in Board 55. Oh, they played it in game, the hand did not fit into their system, really bad luck.

 

Bridge is a game of mistakes. YOu do not win because you can exercise a squeeze without the count, you win because you make less mistakes and force the opponents to make some. Every player I know (nearly every player) makes mistakes which are way below his level of play. (Just a few days I had a 5-1 side suit and tried to make 4 tricks as long as the suit breaks 4-2. Was no success...)

As most of us think that these mistakes are not part of their game, but just bad luck, most of us think that they are better then they are.

 

But this is total human. Most soccer palyers rate themself better then they are and do not understand if they are not nominated for the national squad. Many chess players do despite the fact that their rating system is really great.

[whereagles]

The poll's too generalizing, I think.

 

One's image of his own game is a reflection of his view of himself, which can range from zero self-esteem to absolute narcisism...

[CamHenry]

One of the better players at my local club, in a teams event, doubled our freely-bid game with the comment "Henry never has his bid". Partner sent it back, and it was cold because I did have my bid. She's not doubled me since!

 

There have been players who met me when I was a beginner, and I was nervous and played especially badly. They probably think I'm worse than I am. On the other hand, a nervous beginner I played with recently probably thinks I'm some kind of amazing expert, largely because I was calm and unflapped even when he went for 1700 after taking my weak 2 as a transfer. Quite a lot of people have assumed I must be "really good" because I play a complicated system; the truth is I'm just enthusiastic.

 

I'd say people underestimate my ability to scramble tricks in a 4-3 fit at the 2-level; far too few of them draw trumps. Apart from that, I reckon they've got it about right.