New Tourney Tool - Completion Rate Filter

[Bbradley62]

I expect that they would get the standard message that is sent when any restriction is not met;

"Sorry, this is a private tournament. It is not open to the public. Please contact the tourney host for details"

As the tournament director, are you able to tell them "you have been disallowed because your tournament completion rate is only 65% and we have set an 80% minimum", or do you just have to tell them that they did not meet the posted criteria?

[jillybean]

As the tournament director, are you able to tell them "you have been disallowed because your tournament completion rate is only 65% and we have set an 80% minimum", or do you just have to tell them that they did not meet the posted criteria?

 

When I set a tournament, I use several restrictions. I can't tell why a player is unable to join other than when they appear on my 'enemy list'.

I can't see a players completion rate.

[pooltuna]

yes. Exactly that. Or, possibly, average number of hands played per partner.

so if I volunteer as a sub to finish a tournament I get penalized with a smaller number of hands per partner? Also does not work in individual tournaments or in different size (i.e. number of boards) tournaments.

[nige1]

Matmat's original suggestion was ...

I think this is a great idea. I would like to see something similar implemented for the main bridge club, where the percentage of completed hands is used.

... and that, too, seems like a great idea. I assume that Matmat means

 

100 * (N - L) / N

 

where

 

L = number of hands in the middle of which, the player left the table.

N = Number of hands that he played.

 

And I presume that he wouldn't penalize a player who left

• when he was dummy or
• before he started bidding.

[Bbradley62]

I tried this filter on an indy today using an 80% completion rate. Typically I would sub 15+ players who had quit. Today I subbed 3, a huge improvement. :)

Another director told me that by using 60% his sub needs were cut from 15 to 5. So, it seems that you don't have to be very strict with this filter; just removing the truly bad apples is sufficient to see a huge improvement in the game.

[Bbradley62]

yes. Exactly that. Or, possibly, average number of hands played per partner.

so if I volunteer as a sub to finish a tournament I get penalized with a smaller number of hands per partner? Also does not work in individual tournaments or in different size (i.e. number of boards) tournaments.

matmat's suggestion was clearly about MBC hands, not tournaments. Playing in a 10-round individual tournament would not hit you for playing with each of 10 partners for only one hand.

[fred]

I think this is a great idea. I would like to see something similar implemented for the main bridge club, where the percentage of completed hands is used.

 

The current plan is to implement this in the next version of the web-client which we hope to release before the ACBL Fall NABC starts (ie within a few weeks). There will be a couple of other new features in the upcoming web-client release designed to make it easier for well-behaved members to find an appropriate and civilized game in the Main Bridge Club. Most likely you will continue to see improvements on this front in the months to come.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Bbradley62]

yes. Exactly that. Or, possibly, average number of hands played per partner.

This would actually be a measure of both (i) how long a player stays in his seat, and (ii) how long other people are willing to be his partner. My partner and I regularly establish a table (as N/S) in the MBC; two others will sit E/W... East plays badly, so West leaves... repeatly. East sits there and is pleasant and does his best, but Wests keep leaving. East would get a low score on this proposed scoring. (Some may think this is a good thing, other may think it's a bad thing; I'm not opining, just pointing out the situation.)

 

Conversely, someone who has a regular partner should get a high score. Over the past month, my regular partner and I have played 201 boards together over 13 sessions. Over that same month, when I have ventured into the MBC without her, I've played 39 boards with 9 partners. My composite score of 11 (240/22) would look much better than my actual average of only 4 (39/9) when I'm stag. Again, just pointing out that this score might not be measuring what we hope to be measuring.

[matmat]

This would actually be a measure of both (i) how long a player stays in his seat, and (ii) how long other people are willing to be his partner. My partner and I regularly establish a table (as N/S) in the MBC; two others will sit E/W... East plays badly, so West leaves... repeatly. East sits there and is pleasant and does his best, but Wests keep leaving. East would get a low score on this proposed scoring. (Some may think this is a good thing, other may think it's a bad thing; I'm not opining, just pointing out the situation.)

 

Conversely, someone who has a regular partner should get a high score. Over the past month, my regular partner and I have played 201 boards together over 13 sessions. Over that same month, when I have ventured into the MBC without her, I've played 39 boards with 9 partners. My composite score of 11 (240/22) would look much better than my actual average of only 4 (39/9) when I'm stag. Again, just pointing out that this score might not be measuring what we hope to be measuring.

 

Re the first point, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing. It might encourage people to be more honest in their self assessment; If nothing else, it might be worth a try, anticipating that it may need to be disabled.

 

Re the second, your composite ratio would be 240/10 (24), and that's the one you'd have assigned, i'd imagine (ideally, team matches and pair tournaments would get counted in this).

 

Ideally we'd look at the distribution of this number before deciding where to make cuts for various tolerance levels, and the levels would be chosen from a predetermined, limited set of choices rather than allowing table host control the number to a fifth decimal spot ;)

 

 

I am not sure how Uday + co. are going about this, or what, exactly, they're implementing; but I'd have looked at the distribution of whatever index is being considered first, to see if it is viable... I mean, if a reasonable cut removes 1/3 of the BBO population from consideration, perhaps the index isn't really that good.

[jillybean]

I have a question for BBO, does the completion rate filter work on an 'and' or 'or' basis?

For instance, I create a tournament using an include custom list, language setting and completion rate.

Will a player who is on my include list but does not meet the completion rate limit be able to sign up?

 

Thanks.

[Ant590]

Will there be some kind of decay function for less recent tournaments? I.e. Completing tournaments in the most recent year are worth "more" to this metric.

 

Not that I'm in this situation personally, but I can see a situation where someone has been a complete douche until this rule, then wants to turn over a new leaf.

[Bbradley62]

Will there be some kind of decay function for less recent tournaments? I.e. Completing tournaments in the most recent year are worth "more" to this metric.

We compute this number nightly, looking at the last 30 days , for people with 10+ Ts. We might tweak these #s later

[Bbradley62]

Are there many "elimination" type tournaments, where after a few rounds the lowest-ranked players are eliminated before the end of the tournament? I've played a couple of these, though certainly not many. In these events, does being eliminated before the last round constitute a tournament "not completed"?

[Creeksider]

I guess I'm a bad guy, just got barred from a T for inadequate completion rate. I've bailed a couple of times from robot tournaments where I didn't think it would matter to anyone. So now I can't play any "no runners" tournaments for 30 days?

[diana_eva]

I guess I'm a bad guy, just got barred from a T for inadequate completion rate. I've bailed a couple of times from robot tournaments where I didn't think it would matter to anyone. So now I can't play any "no runners" tournaments for 30 days?

 

 

- Robot tourneys do not count. You can withdraw or quit them - they won't affect your completion %.

- The ratio is updated nightly, not monthly.

- You are probably not barred from all no runners tourneys. Some of them have this % set higher, others lower... With a 76% for example you cant enter a 80% restricted tourney, but you can join a 75%.

[matmat]

Any chance we could see a histogram of the completion rate for the MBC tables? Or does it just use a tournament values?

[Creeksider]

- Robot tourneys do not count. You can withdraw or quit them - they won't affect your completion %.

 

Thanks for the response. I was barred from a tournament with a message saying my completion rate is too low. I'm new here, and I've entered fewer than 10 non-robot tournaments (and never bailed on a non-robot tournament, though I may have inadvertently timed out on one before learning the ropes). I don't understand why I would be barred if my robot tournaments aren't being counted and I've entered fewer than 10 of the others. Bug in the software, or is this how it's supposed to work?

[Rain]

Any chance we could see a histogram of the completion rate for the MBC tables? Or does it just use a tournament values?

 

 

MBC one uses MBC value, different from tourneys.

But you must understand the difference - it is much easier to get a high % in MBC than in tourneys because you are measured per board. If I were creating tables, I would put 90% for MBC and not more than 75% for tournaments.

 

Sidenote: I found myself deliberately trying to get to 100% completion rate when this begun. Hopefully this has the same psychological effect on everyone else!

[jillybean]

There is a problem when it comes to changing the completion rate setting once the tournament has been created.

If I use edit tournament, I can change the completion rate % but the 'update' button is not available. I can work around

it by clicking on one of the radio buttons for the other settings, then the update button is available.

[matmat]

duplicate post -- feel free to nuke.

[matmat]

MBC one uses MBC value, different from tourneys.

But you must understand the difference - it is much easier to get a high % in MBC than in tourneys because you are measured per board. If I were creating tables, I would put 90% for MBC and not more than 75% for tournaments.

 

Sidenote: I found myself deliberately trying to get to 100% completion rate when this begun. Hopefully this has the same psychological effect on everyone else!

I think I do understand, which is why I am asking to see a histogram; I suspect that anything below, say, about 85% is uselesss... 75% means that you don't finish one in four boards, 80%, one in five... more or less, which is quite an abysmal ratio. When I looked at the available settings last night when setting up a table, it seemed like the only values available were in 5% steps, down from 100%... I wouldn't be surprised if 95% was the only sensible setting, for instance, in which case it would be better to not confuse the table hosts with percentages and just offer two (or three) options : "no completion control", "moderate completion control", and "tight completion control" (the latter two being two and one sigma cuts...)

 

Re your second point, that's only true if it is written in big, fat, red letters somewhere, when people log in, and then repeated when they sit at a table -- or if there is a warning as they try to leave in the middle of a hand when they are not dummy.

[uday]

MatMat is probably right

 

 

29% of users have a completion rate of 100%

 

41% of users have a completion rate of 99% or better

54% of users have a completion rate of 98% or better

64% of users have a completion rate of 97% or better

72% of users have a completion rate of 96% or better

 

78% of users have a completion rate of 95% or better

 

93% of users have a completion rate of 90% or better

 

97% of users have a completion rate of 85%

 

99% of users have a completion rate of 80%

 

 

Note, tho: this is about users for whom we have sufficient data to have an opinion. Currently thats something like "....people who have played 10 or more boards over last 30 days " , tho that might change , or might be fewer boards (or more days) than are sensible.

 

 

I'll pass this on to FG in case he agrees that the granularity of the spinner is too coarse.

[babalu1997]

MatMat is probably right

 

 

29% of users have a completion rate of 100%

 

41% of users have a completion rate of 99% or better

54% of users have a completion rate of 98% or better

64% of users have a completion rate of 97% or better

72% of users have a completion rate of 96% or better

 

78% of users have a completion rate of 95% or better

 

93% of users have a completion rate of 90% or better

 

97% of users have a completion rate of 85%

 

99% of users have a completion rate of 80%

 

 

 

i did notice these high numbers but, i did declone one invite with a completion rate of 39% geesh must be the only one at bbo

Edited November 20, 2010 by Gerardo
Added missing [/quota] tag

[hotShot]

Imagine you where new to BBO, what would your experience be?

 

You go to the MBC and try to sit at a table, but since you don't have a completion rate, the first BBO members you meet are the notorious table hoppers.

Since you don't know that there is something like a completion rate and how it works, you will probably not play 10 boards in a row to get one. Even if you play 10 boards in a row, you won't get a completion rate at once, because they are calculated at someplaces night whatever time of day that is in the users local time.

 

You go to test the tourney area, but you can't join, because of your tourney completion rate.

How do you know that you need to play 10 tourneys and wait another day to get a completion rate?

 

I understand why you want a minimum number of boards / tourneys to define a completion rate, but I think that setting the completion rates to 100% for new members updating after each board/tourney will give real new members a better experience and still ruin the runners rate as soon as they run. Of cause that will only work if the number of new members is small.

[mgoetze]

I understand why you want a minimum number of boards / tourneys to define a completion rate, but I think that setting the completion rates to 100% for new members updating after each board/tourney will give real new members a better experience and still ruin the runners rate as soon as they run.

 

...until the runner creates another new account.

 

Set the completion rate to 100% for new members who have a BB$ account, that would be fine.