acbl robot tournaments

[edward5958]

I'm wondering if anyone other than me thinks that these tournaments have gotten rather quirky lately. I used to do pretty well a lot of he time but lately it seems harder and harder to do. I find that it's not uncommon to bid and play a hand just right only to see a score of 30% or something come up. I make plenty of mistakes to be sure, and I expect to get a bad result when I do. But when hands are bid and played correctly one would expect to get a higher score and that is not at all a given these days. I'm wondering if it has anything to do with some of these people who play virtually every tournament and finish in about 10 minutes or something. I mean, are the robots sensitive to their playing style and do they adjust their expectations and play accordingly?

[barmar]

There are players who have become good at judging the style of the robots, and know how to get good scores playing with/against them.

 

For instance, last night I played in a robot tourney where on 2 boards I stayed out of a bad 3NT and played in a suit game. The players who played in 3NT mostly won all the matchpoints, because the bots misdefended grossly -- the opening lead was in 3rd hand's 5-card suit, but it didn't continue attacking the suit even though it had a side entry.

[edward5958]

I've noticed that sort of thing too. Yet the robots often are not consistent. They may fail to keep attacking the vulnerable suit at most tables but at some tables they defend correctly, giving those players very low scores. I can't really figure out their criteria for determining who gets what treatment but I believe it has to do with how and what a given player is perceived to have been doing up to that point in that game, especially when compared to faster players who have already played the board.

[barmar]

It often depends on the auction, I guess because it changes the types of hands that go into the simulations. I very much doubt that the bots look at the player's history.