lol meck owns everyone

[JLOGIC]

Agree with awm, I don't think the pairs rating is a good predictor on what someone would actually score, this should be obvious since no one will average 69 % in an average filed heh. But if you use it as a ranking system and not a predictor it still has value.

 

The individual one seems better since there are larger samples on people though.

[rogerclee]

Two comments:

 

1) Actually I think the best way to inflate your PR is to have a good partnership with a weaker player. I guess you could extend this to just say "have a good partnership with anyone"; iif the partnership is more than the sum of its parts, then this is obviously good for the PR (and your bridge in general).

 

2) The linearity is quite a problem when you are comparing the finals of the blues (DOD around 14) and a 299er game (DOD around -10). However I think for comparing something like a sectional pair game to the first day of the life master pairs (difference of about 7 DOD), it's reasonably accurate, or at least about as accurate as you're going to get.

[Phil]

Reading the description of how the power rankings are determined, it does not take into account the level of the opponents (like Lehman's do) nor the level of the tournament. It would appear sectionals (or even club games if they are reported) would have the same gravity as NABC's.

Incorrect.

 

From the explanation - "Your game percentage (G%) for each and every game you play is divided into 3 parts. Your contribution/Power Rating (PR). Your partners contribution/Power Rating (Part) Your opponents contribution/ Power Rating (DOD). The sum of the opponents sitting your way, N/S if you are sitting N/S, is averaged and the amount above or below the average pair (50) is your degree of difficulty (DOD).

PR = G% + DOD - Part or PR + Part - DOD = G%"

 

Since the opponents PR at Nationals will be more, the DOD for Nationals will be more.

So a same percentage game at the NABC's will result in a higher PR.

It also says that unrated players in clubs are rated initially at 'dead average'. We all know this isn't the case.

 

It seems a player that wanted to start with a high rating can play in a club without rated players and send the results in.

[JLOGIC]

1) Actually I think the best way to inflate your PR is to have a good partnership with a weaker player. I guess you could extend this to just say "have a good partnership with anyone"; iif the partnership is more than the sum of its parts, then this is obviously good for the PR (and your bridge in general).

Says the guy with a very high avg DOD, and high avg %age, who's rating is only brought down by having very good partners on average :P

[Siegmund]

Re DOD, and it only partially accounting for the different strengths of fields...

 

 

All very well so far. Meckstroth and Rodwell have a rating of around 69. It's quite believable (though impressive) that their average score on the first day of national pairs is in the low 60s. However, I don't believe that their average score in our local club game would be in the low 70s.

 

Yup.

 

There are some odd artifacts in the ratings because of all (or almost all, anyway) tournament games, but very few club games, being included.

 

When I first looked myself up in power ratings, I was rated between 30 and 31, based on my performance in sectionals and regionals (which seems about right - averaging high 50s in stratified open pairs games, DOD ranging from about -1 to +2, with partners of similar or slightly lesser ability.)

When my club started submiting information on all of our games, I plummeted to between 28 and 29 -- because my local club has a DOD of about -5 in the summer and -6 or 7 in the winter... and averaging "only" in the low 60s.

 

DOD might work correctly for strong to very strong fields. For very weak fields, it seems to be quite a problem.

 

Having more clubs submit their data will help some. But there will still be a disparity between people who only play in tournaments vs only play in clubs vs both.

[Siegmund]

1) Actually I think the best way to inflate your PR is to have a good partnership with a weaker player. I guess you could extend this to just say "have a good partnership with anyone"; iif the partnership is more than the sum of its parts, then this is obviously good for the PR (and your bridge in general).

 

I think so too. Especially if you play in less-than-top-notch fields.

 

Among my partnerships, my strongest regular partner and I have a pair rating well below the sum of our power ratings even though we understand each other well; it's easier for us, in a club game, to place above average with a competent beginner as our partners, than to place above 60 with each other.

 

I am less sure that extends to top fields, where having one 'weak link' all of whose mistakes will be punished severely by strong opponents might drag your percentage down farther.

[barmar]

So, those players who always (or virtually always) play with the same partner won't appear on the list.

If you always play with the same partner, how is any system supposed to distinguish your contribution to the partnership's success (or failure) from your partner's?

 

I suppose if your partner is more promiscuous, it might be possible to generate a rating for him, and then "subtract" it out to get your rating (if he does worse or better with you, it's presumably your fault). But this won't be as reliable as looking at all your results with different partners.

[TimG]

So, those players who always (or virtually always) play with the same partner won't appear on the list.

If you always play with the same partner, how is any system supposed to distinguish your contribution to the partnership's success (or failure) from your partner's?

It's not. I did not suggest it should. Just giving a reason some players might not be listed.