player ratings

[cc41139]

It has come to my attention that many of the players in BBO do not have the ability they claim on their profile. Some so called experts play at intermediate or novice level, resulting in a very disappointed partner, and not a pleasant experience.

 

My solution: since BBO keeps track of all hands played, it should be relatively easy for them to determine an individual's success in tournaments as well as bridge rooms.

For matchplay, a person's rating would be the average of all his hands, expressed as a percentage.

IMP players would have a rating expressed as + or - so many IMPS.

 

A new player would be assigned a no-rating until he has played, say, 10 hands. After that, every time he came on to BBO, an instant rating would appear by his name, possibly expressed as (56%/-2.9). This would make it easier to find a partner of suitable ability, and make the game more enjoyable for all concerned.

[655321]

gwnn?

 

 

Edit: never mind, Here is a small selection:-

 

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=875

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=3505

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=6262

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=6535

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=8226

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=16066

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=18854

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=19308

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=19628

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=23749

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=27178

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=27187

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=27445

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=27836

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=27945

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=28280

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=29025

Edited November 19, 2009 by 655321

[Phil]

Like clockwork.

[Jlall]

gwnn?

 

 

Edit: never mind, Here is a small selection:-

 

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=875

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=3505

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=6262

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=6535

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=8226

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=16066

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=18854

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=19308

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=19628

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=23749

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=27178

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=27187

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=27445

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=27836

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=27945

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=28280

http://forums.bridgebase.com/index.php?showtopic=29025

LOL

[mohitz]

LOL. We should probably have a pinned topic about this

[babalu1997]

It has come to my attention that many of the players in BBO do not have the ability they claim on their profile.

The end is near. Repent!!!

[mohitz]

Anyone wanna guess how many % of forum members' first post is about the rating system?

[helene_t]

Dear cc41139,

 

Welcome to the forum, and thanks for your suggestion.

 

As the other posters say, similar ideas have been posted many times before. It seems that most people here don't want objective rating schemes, mostly because of concern for the social impact such a scheme will have.

 

When you have been on BBO for a while and build up a list of friends, it won't be a problem. There will be plenty of people you know to be good (or bad) players. Make use of the player notes, and mark players you like to play with as friends.

[peachy]

Dear cc41139,

 

Welcome to the forum, and thanks for your suggestion.

 

As the other posters say, similar ideas have been posted many times before. It seems that most people here don't want objective rating schemes, mostly because of concern for the social impact such a scheme will have.

 

When you have been on BBO for a while and build up a list of friends, it won't be a problem. There will be plenty of people you know to be good (or bad) players. Make use of the player notes, and mark players you like to play with as friends.

Second all that, plus, BBO owners/administrators do not want a rating system.

[fred]

BBO owners/administrators do not want a rating system.

Not sure that is accurate.

 

What we want is to do what we think is best for BBO and its members. If and when someone figures out how to implement a rating system in such a way that we are confident it will be an improvement over what we have now (which we admit is far from perfect), I suspect we would implement it.

 

I am not holding my breath waiting for this to happen.

 

Note that I am not referring to finding a great method of computing player ratings. This is mostly about policies about when/where/how to display playing ratings.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[kenrexford]

www.askkenrexfordwhosucksatbridge.com

 

The most trusted source in bridge rating news.

 

(Edit: there is no comma. This website is NOT "Ask Ken Rexford, who sucks at bridge." LOL)

[gwnn]

nice catch nameless numerical friend!

[655321]

www.askkenrexfordwhosucksatbridge.com

 

The most trusted source in bridge rating news.

 

(Edit:  there is no comma.  This website is NOT "Ask Ken Rexford, who sucks at bridge."  LOL)

There are posters who take phrases from posts and quote them in their sig. Just saying...

 

B)

[pooltuna]

BBO owners/administrators do not want a rating system.

Not sure that is accurate.

 

What we want is to do what we think is best for BBO and its members. If and when someone figures out how to implement a rating system in such a way that we are confident it will be an improvement over what we have now (which we admit is far from perfect), I suspect we would implement it.

 

I am not holding my breath waiting for this to happen.

 

Note that I am not referring to finding a great method of computing player ratings. This is mostly about policies about when/where/how to display playing ratings.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

Well if you want at least a smattering of a rating system why not set up a series of individual swiss tourneys where you can earn a "star" by total "placing points" in say 10 tournaments a month(well best 10 placements) but to keep it you have to repeat your performance every month

[mink]

BBO owners/administrators do not want a rating system.

Not sure that is accurate.

 

What we want is to do what we think is best for BBO and its members. If and when someone figures out how to implement a rating system in such a way that we are confident it will be an improvement over what we have now (which we admit is far from perfect), I suspect we would implement it.

 

I am not holding my breath waiting for this to happen.

 

Note that I am not referring to finding a great method of computing player ratings. This is mostly about policies about when/where/how to display playing ratings.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

Hi Fred,

 

this is my idea of what could be done:

 

Compute ratings that nobody can ever see, maybe not even publish that they exist.

 

Use them when a player clicks on "Take me to a free seat" to select among the available partners the one with the best fitting rating. Maybe for pair tourneys introduce a new button "suggest a player to invite" located below the partnership desk list: the profile of player with the closest matching rating is displayed along with a button to invite him.

 

Both functions could exclude players if one is in the enemy list of the other.

 

These functions could be enhanced the following way: Extend the players profile with a set of check boxes for the most common systems, conventions and carding methods. (This should be displayed on request only, maybe a button in the profile.) For each item, one can check "I do not know this", "I know this" or "I like to play this". When matching players, take this information into account together with the rating. When a pair is established, compile a convention card from the methods common in both profiles.

 

The whole thing could be extended for team games: Create a function "I like to join a team game", where a player can say how many boards he likes to play and optionally who shall be his partner and teammates. When 8 matching players are found, an automatic invitation occurs.

 

Karl

[babalu1997]

Is there a lack of sites where play is rated?

 

AFAIK there is at least one rated site where one can play for free and two where there are annual fees.

 

You can always log on to find a 3 digit figure of players in the rated tables. Why not play there?

 

Obviously the majority does not wish a rating system and make bbo the largest and most successful playing site.

 

 

Play in the main bridge club is not that hard:

 

Once you discover the guy does not play stayman you can leave, no feelings hurt.

Sometimes I chance to play with players who are more advanced than i am and they leave on me, however sometimes i gain from some smart thing they did. If they leave without calling me a moron i am even happier.

[peachy]

BBO owners/administrators do not want a rating system.

Not sure that is accurate.

Sorry, Fred. My understanding from your past posts was that the likelihood of BBO implementing a rating system was approximately zero. Thanks for the correction.

[TimG]

You can always log on to find a 3 digit figure of players in the rated tables. Why not play there?

 

Obviously the majority does not wish a rating system and make bbo the largest and most successful playing site.

Because the only difference is one has a rating system and one does not?

[babalu1997]

You can always log on to find a 3 digit figure of players in the rated tables.  Why not play there?

 

Obviously the majority does not wish a rating system and make bbo the largest and most successful playing site.

Because the only difference is one has a rating system and one does not?

Hi Tim, what I was trying to say is that folks who like rating should opt to paly in online bridge places that offer rating.

 

I was a member of such a club for a year, I did not like it because first, I was raided for my ratings upon arrival and then I had a hard time finding partners-- the better ones were protective of their ratings.

 

Tho i took a partner there, he had the strange belief that in the long run the rating would self-correct, an i did not think so because the people who played us were in the same bracket. And even if that rating were to self correct, it would have to be that both partners come to the table ready to play veyr seriously which you might not want to do all the time in an online situation.

 

While I was there, I met a man who was a highly-ranked player in the late 60s. He got there and played with evryone, his rating went down terribly. Towards the end, he would only play with me (who had only played for about 2 years at the time) and a norwegian expert player who was fully aware of this guys real playing ability (apparently he was the only one to realize that because others only looked at his rating).

 

Anyway, he no longer plays online bridge, he became so despondent that he stopped playing online. I tried calling him at home a few times to bring him over to bbo-- he keeps saying he like rating and would not play non-rated games.

 

So to people who want rating, I say, go and seek places where you can be rated according to a system of your liking.

 

It matters not to me why bbo offers no rating, but i want it that way.

 

If that were to change, I would just go and maybe take up scrabble.

[fred]

BBO owners/administrators do not want a rating system.

Not sure that is accurate.

Sorry, Fred. My understanding from your past posts was that the likelihood of BBO implementing a rating system was approximately zero. Thanks for the correction.

I am not hopeful that there will ever be a system devised that I would want to implement so, from that point of view, the odds may well be close to zero.

 

The fundamental problem in my view is that just about everyone wants to know how well other people play, but many people do not want other people to know how well they play. There are also plenty of people who really don't want to know how well (or more likely how badly) they themselves actually play.

 

It is hard for me to imagine solving these problems with software.

 

But some other things could happen:

 

- I am not the only one who would be involved in such a decision. If the rest of my business partners wanted to implement some kind of rating system, even if I hated it, I would not (and could not) stand in their way.

 

- Peoples' attitudes toward this may shift dramatically one day.

 

- Maybe one day we will make a new site (or part of the existing site) with ratings.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[eyhung]

[The fundamental problem in my view is that just about everyone wants to know how well other people play, but many people do not want other people to know how well they play. There are also plenty of people who really don't want to know how well (or more likely how badly) they themselves actually play.

I actually think, if you had a system, it seems simple enough to have a policy that would satisfy all of the constraints you mentioned. Show people ratings for potential partners/opponents when joining a table with an empty seat, but don't show people ratings for themselves. Allow people to "opt out" of broadcasting their rating, but make the default option to show the rating. And if a player really wants to know how they're rated, they don't opt out, and can ask their friends -- or they can "opt in" by clicking on "show me my rating" somewhere in an options menu. I think the majority of users don't bother to change options, so that way you can cater to the desires of the majority without hurting the desires of the minority.

 

You can claim that the vast majority will just turn off broadcasting their ratings, but I don't think so. From my experiences on okbridge with the Lehman rating in its infancy, a lot of people did not, and turning it off also sends an important data point -- that the owner is not happy to broadcast his rating. :lol:

[kfay]

A better solution, I think, would be to have a hidden rating system which would pair you up at a table with a partner of similar talents when you click the 'Help me find a Game' button.

 

Of course, when you realize your partner plays like a babboon.... but then again players of this quality may be unlikely to know that such a function has been implemented.

[TimG]

A better solution, I think, would be to have a hidden rating system which would pair you up at a table with a partner of similar talents when you click the 'Help me find a Game' button.

 

Of course, when you realize your partner plays like a babboon.... but then again players of this quality may be unlikely to know that such a function has been implemented.

Maybe it already has been implemented...