New Rating System

[HeartA]

I think the "real" question is, can those selfrated "Experts" deal with a rating system that rates them as "Non-Experts".

I like this question.

[Flame]

why is every expert so wild about getting a rating system ? surely you should all be able to judge who you want to play with and who not

here we have a free bridge site where we can all go search for friends and partners, play and enjoy....and still so many choose to complain

if you want a rating system, why not go somewhere else...can only mention OK, e-bridge and swan....but guess better stay on the free site and wimper !!!!

 

think stars and true experts have an obligation to make this game of ours known to as many people as possible. think they should all be ambassadors of bridge, make their contribution to make this game of ours known to people who have not yet found out how fun it is.....after all - could we have all events where stars meet and compete if a large majority of ordinary players were not paying to their national bridge assosiations.....

stars and experts should inspire us ordinary players, represent their countries in big tournaments, inspire us and urge us to study the game and get better.

new approaches should be published and discussed and club members invited to test and try...be active and work against the ACBL approach that everything new is to be feared and forbidden....

 

so be happy that Fred and his friends made this site for us, go find friends who are out there waiting for you and work actively to make bridge a game for us all

What are you talking about ?

Rating system is something that make sense which a logical birdge player might think is needed, thats why you have it at other online and offline bridge organizations.

There is nothing bad about wanting a rating system, BUT expirence taught that rating system leads to bad beheviours and other bad things that make it not worth it, I accept it and think its right not to implement a rating system, but i dont think ppl arent allowed to ask for it, its not complaining, it suggesting, and no need to send those "BAD" ppl away.

[TimG]

It has always struck me as odd that people who play a game don't want to be rated. Next thing you know there will be a push for not keeping score at all -- no need to have any winners and losers.

[Rebound]

Speaking only for myself, I'm happy with the current self-rating system; I just wish a whole bunch of the so-called experts would take a reality check and adjust their ratings downward. Being no where near an expert myself, I certainly don't mind an error on the part of my partner, (as someone has said here, we're both trying to win) but if one calls himself an expert, I expect him to play like one.

[TimG]

Speaking only for myself, I'm happy with the current self-rating system; I just wish a whole bunch of the so-called experts would take a reality check and adjust their ratings downward.

I'm curious: what about the misrepresentation of skill level is it that you don't like?

[Free]

It has always struck me as odd that people who play a game don't want to be rated. Next thing you know there will be a push for not keeping score at all -- no need to have any winners and losers.

Ok, so you want to be nr 1373 out of 5000? Congratulations, you're with the better half! Actually, I don't know why some people want to be rated in a system where cheaters WILL BE rated highest... :P Perhaps some of you can just explain it to me, but the real top players will be pushed back by cheaters, the huge losers won't be encouraged to play, and everyone in the middle just already knows what he/she can do... I only have 1 simple question: WHY??? :blink:

[the hog]

OK here is my unpopular opinion. I see nothing wrong with a rating system similar to that of OKB's Lehmans. So people cheat; if they are so pathetic, so what?

[helene_t]

There will be 0.0001% of players actually cheating. No problem

There will be 50% of players accusing some (partially overlapping) 50% of cheating. Reason enough not to implement it.

An even better reason not to implement it: see Richard's comment.

[slothy]

OK here is my unpopular opinion. I see nothing wrong with a rating system similar to that of OKB's Lehmans. So people cheat; if they are so pathetic, so what?

 

Quite right Ron..why get out of the habit of being unpopular :P

 

Anonymous

[inquiry]

What a rating system will do is start "witch hunts" for cheaters. You sit down in tourney against a pair with a rating of 73 (with 75 max possible).. you are already wondering, are these cheaters. They drop doubleton queen off-side, now you are convinced... you write a letter to abuse.. .multiply that by a thousand. No thank you.

 

There is no doubt that EVEN without rating some people cheat.. who knows, with ratings, they might cheat less (because impossibly high rating is a sure tipoff). But the extra "incentive" to catch the cheaters (come on, how can "the hog' have a higher rating than "me' you might think...

 

You want to find out how good you are ? My opinion is to challenge a good pair, enter some tournments. Simple enough. however, I edited an earlier post in which RAIN told you how to see ratings based upon your your results as corrected for the skill of opponents you play. Since there is so much interest, I have changed my mind and will let you know that this option does exist. A commercial product for hands played on bbo and okbridge does this type of calculations. The product is named "bridgebrowser" from http://www.microtopia.net. It is not cheap and I don't htink paying for it to see ratings is a good idea at all... now if you are interested in the hands.. then ok..

[mila85]

I don't have problems with self-rating of other players.

-I make notes to each player. So I don't play twice with the same 'expert.'

-Player's info can tell you a lot. When someone's info is full of convections it's not an expert.

-It's not problem to say: "Thanks partner, I must go.. Bye"

-I can play with weak players but I can't play with rude people. New rating system doesn't solve this problem..

 

I have a problem with my self-rating. I think I'm something between intermidiate and advanced. But I play better than most of the experts:) If I wrote 'Intermidiate' to my info I would never play with good partner/opps (because it means begginer here). When I put 'Advanced' to the info I feel bad when I do novice mistakes...

[Rebound]

Speaking only for myself, I'm happy with the current self-rating system; I just wish a whole bunch of the so-called experts would take a reality check and adjust their ratings downward.

I'm curious: what about the misrepresentation of skill level is it that you don't like?

I think it is self-evident. Perhaps not. It is a matter of expectations. I like to win as much as the next guy. If an expert agrees to play with me, I see it as an opportunity to do well. Speaking to the issue of a lesser player recognizing the difference between a perceived error and an advanced play that just happened to not work, I point to a slam in which the "expert" I played with fired off 2 unnecessary finesses right off the crack and down he went in a makeable contract.

 

It's just a shame when a person is unable to be honest with himself and others about his skill level. But it's better than the mayhem that would ensue if BBO instituted some sort of rating system. I'm with the others who said it was the ruination of OKBridge as far as having an enjoyable game there was concerned.

 

Incidentally, my sentiments agree almost completely with those in Mila85's post.

[TimG]

What a rating system will do is start "witch hunts" for cheaters. You sit down in tourney against a pair with a rating of 73 (with 75 max possible).. you are already wondering, are these cheaters. They drop doubleton queen off-side, now you are convinced... you write a letter to abuse.. .multiply that by a thousand. No thank you.

What is it about a rating system that will make you more suspicious of this sort of thing?

[inquiry]

What is it about a rating system that will make you more suspicious of this sort of thing?

If players iwth a rating of, say 30 (with 25 lowest, 75 highest), drop the doubleton queen offside.. you say... "stupid novice, got lucky". If a player of 73 drops it, and you look and gold stars have ratings like 57 to 60, and you have never heard of the player with the 73 rating, you might think.. hmmmm... must be cheating.

 

As a bbo yellow, we don't want people accusing others of cheating lighlty, and even then only by turning evidence of their cheating over to abuse to investigate. I can tell you if you submit just one hand as evidence, odds are not good it will be investigated at all (oh the exeptional hand that is so blatant will get the person investigated, but it has to be a whopper).

 

Ratings lead to lots of such allegations of chearing. Every play at okbridge? I know this happens from experience. Other users look at rating, and assume that if when fred plays, he has a rating of 62 (made this number up for illustrative purposes), someone with a rating of 73 just has to be cheating... after all how can they be that much better than Fred? Truth is, many very good players have lower than expect ratings for a variety of reasons... maybe they play with beginners as a reward or encouragement... who knows. Also some good players have outstanding ratings, without cheating. Maybe they play in a practice partnership exclusively and always do well becasue of it. Ratings will not be coming here, and I am very glad of that.

 

Ben

[hotShot]

What is it about a rating system that will make you more suspicious of this sort of thing?

Dear Tim!

 

If a player with a low rating :

• finds a killing lead
  
• plays a finess for a Jack, wenn all kings are offside
  
• makes any very good action
  

then he must be cheating.

 

If players that have a low rating

• bid a close game or slam that makes
  
• don't bid a game or slam with a strong hand, that cannot be made
  
• defend succesfully by "guessing" the right contract
  

then they must be cheating.

 

And since opps where cheating my own rating should not drop.

 

If some player has a better rating than I think he/she should have,

he/she could only have gotten it by cheating.

 

Because bad players have to play bad, every single board,

they may never improve at least not when they play against me.

 

Got the idea?

 

hotShot

[TimG]

What is it about a rating system that will make you more suspicious of this sort of thing?

If players iwth a rating of, say 30 (with 25 lowest, 75 highest), drop the doubleton queen offside.. you say... "stupid novice, got lucky". If a player of 73 drops it, and you look and gold stars have ratings like 57 to 60, and you have never heard of the player with the 73 rating, you might think.. hmmmm... must be cheating.

I've never heard of most of the gold star players and I have witnessed a lot of them playing very bad bridge. Does that lead me to believe they were cheating when they earned their star? No.

 

When you see a self proclaimed novice execute a squeeze, what do you think? If you see a self proclaimed expert miss an endplay, what do you think?

 

I really do not understand why ratings change things. I'm not claiming that ratings don't change things, just that I cannot for the life of me understand why.

[TimG]

What is it about a rating system that will make you more suspicious of this sort of thing?

Dear Tim!

 

If a player with a low rating :

• finds a killing lead
  
• plays a finess for a Jack, wenn all kings are offside
  
• makes any very good action
  

then he must be cheating.

 

If players that have a low rating

• bid a close game or slam that makes
  
• don't bid a game or slam with a strong hand, that cannot be made
  
• defend succesfully by "guessing" the right contract
  

then they must be cheating.

If this is the way people think, it is a sad statement.

[TimG]

Ratings lead to lots of such allegations of chearing. Every play at okbridge? I know this happens from experience.

I played a lot at OKbridge -- I was a member for 6 or 7 years and played 2000-3000 hands per year for a 2-3 year stretch. I never had a problem at my table that was the result of me thinking the opponents were cheating. And, to the best of my knowledge, my opponents never made any allegations that I was cheating. (That's not to say that I don't think my opponents were ever cheating. With all that bridge, there was likely some cheating at some point. I will also freely admit that I sometimes cheated -- I often had a set of system notes next to the computer and sometimes referred to them without informing the opponents that I was using a memory aid.)

 

Yes, there were some people who were obsessed with the idea that their opponents might be cheating. But, I think the extent of the cheating was exaggerated by the vocal few who thought it was rampant.

 

I also believe that the people who cheat when a rating system is in place will also cheat when there is no rating system in place.

[fred]

I also believe that the people who cheat when a rating system is in place will also cheat when there is no rating system in place.

I believe that some people are compulsive cheats, but that others will only cheat (or at the very least are much more inclined to cheat) if there is something of perceived value to be gained from cheating.

 

Having a high rating has perceived value for a lot of people (because it results in other people thinking that they are good players, increases their status in the online community, and makes it easier for them to find quality partners and opponents).

 

So the introduction of a rating system on BBO would likely increase the number of cheaters on BBO because a rating system gives borderline cases additional incentive for cheating.

 

However, cheating is only one of the problems that rating systems cause. More serious in my view are:

 

1) People rufusing to play with and against each other due to concern for their ratings

 

2) People looking for any possible excuse to blame bad results on their partners and to do so in a rude way because bad results are bad for your rating

 

To preempt the likely response of "but these things happen without ratings too", yes that is correct, but just like cheating, they tend to happen more when there is a rating system (in my opinion). Some people are just plain rude. Others need an excuse to be rude and a rating system provides that excuse for some of these people.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[mycroft]

On That Other Site (and for three months way, way back in time, I hosted the Lehman Rating Explanation page, so...) I had a rating of about 47%. Why? Because I played with anybody, and I played with my novice students at competitive tables.

 

My regular partner had a rating of about 49% for pretty much the same reason (only he's better at playing pickup than I am).

 

When we played together, one of three things happened:

 

1) we couldn't find a table at our level, because they wouldn't let <50s in. Period.

2) we played in 45-50 tables, and walked over them, because *as a regular pair* we rated about 54.

3) we played against our friends and their friends, who knew how good we were, and ignored the numbers.

 

That's why people did all the "bad" things to protect their rating - cheat, leave in the middle of the hand if partner made one mistake, accuse opps of cheating... Oh, some of it must have been because their egos were stroked by the number, but most of it was because their rating basically determined who they could play with, and who they could play against.

 

If I sound like I'm against rating systems...well, then I write well enough.

Now a "Top 10 score of the week" listing, that's kind of fun.

 

Michael (preferred rating: Experts play with me. I'm quite proud of that one).

[mr1303]

Someone gave me a link to a website which gives you a rating, somehow based (I think) on your recent results.

 

A complete farce of course, because several gold stars only have intermediate ratings.

 

The link is www.5.waw.pl/~lukasz/bbo/

[Walddk]

I think it's hilarious. fred for example is somewhere in between beginner and advanced. Me? Intermediate, that's quite flattering :)

 

Roland

[Flame]

This is a good example of how problematic a rating system can be. I dont think this rating is a complete nonsense, i just think they only check your avarage score , and decide ur level according to it, this is wrong since it will give good rating to someone who play with bad opponents. Now if you think of how you decide someone is a good player in real life, you will see its completely different, you would think the player who get little above avarage in expert turney is much better then the player who won the local club event with 70% score.

normally everyone want to play in a field of his level so naturally such a player wont get accurate rating without considering the field.

[bearmum]

WHY take ANY notice of "rating" system online ? - just play the game and enjoy :D

[MickyB]

I don't understand what the page is trying to do - it is possible that the method is sound, and it takes into account the rating of opps, partner, etc. The problem would be lack of data, particularly if, for example, a group of 10 stars have only ever played amongst themselves. Some of them would have to have a below average rating, because there is no evidence in their stats that this group as a whole are good players or bad players.