Match skill levels better

[Jazzman64]

It would be nice if the "Help Me Find a Game" algorithm matched players of similar skill levels together. Maybe just with the self-identified categories (and if you find yourself mismatched, you can adjust the category), maybe with IMPs. But it's frustrating for all concerned when partnered with or playing against people of vastly different skill levels.

 

I frankly represent myself as a beginner, and I purposely play at the "relaxed" tables. I've been studying the BBO tutorials, and I've learned a lot. But I need practice, and I'm sick of being yelled at by partners for doing something "wrong."

 

Anyway, there should be a safe place for newbies to play with one another and learn. Right now, that doesn't exist on BBO.

[TylerE]

If you want decent partners find some that are agreeable and run far far away from the sludge pit of "help me find a game".

[nige1]

It would be nice if the "Help Me Find a Game" algorithm matched players of similar skill levels together. Maybe just with the self-identified categories (and if you find yourself mismatched, you can adjust the category), maybe with IMPs. But it's frustrating for all concerned when partnered with or playing against people of vastly different skill levels.

Good idea.

I frankly represent myself as a beginner, and I purposely play at the "relaxed" tables. I've been studying the BBO tutorials, and I've learned a lot. But I need practice, and I'm sick of being yelled at by partners for doing something "wrong." Anyway, there should be a safe place for newbies to play with one another and learn. Right now, that doesn't exist on BBO.

Try the BIL (Beginners and Intermediate Lounge).

[ping2827]

BBO has come up with a Compatibility star. However I often found out those 5 stars bid and play in the opposite/different way from what I do. It is more like an incompatibility. Do not know what kind of algorithm they use.

[onoway]

Second the suggestion for the BIL. It's a big club and lots of events and teaching sessions which often involve play at the table, you will improve faster if you take advantage of what BIL offers. It's also almost a sure thing that nobody will yell at you. "A safe place for newbies" is precisely what BIL was designed to be. There are two sections now, paid and unpaid, but even the unpaid has lots of good stuff happening.

[Vampyr]

Also when you play face-to-face, see if there is a group of players who go out to the pub afterwards. One of the best ways to improve your game is to play with/discuss hands with players who are more experienced than you.

 

Also a nearby club may have supervised play.

[barmar]

HMFAG does take your declared skill level into account and compares it with the other players at each table. It's one of several factors that it uses.

[navahak]

One more proof that bridge players are too competitive and impolite. :(

 

But Help me find a game works pretty ok for an experienced player looking to kill some free time. But there is definetly near impossible tasks to make HMFAG work well for beginners.

 

But I agree that BIL is the place that has very high chance to provide enjoyable game for beginners. I suppose that could be advertised more for new members.

[Bbradley62]

But I agree that BIL is the place that has very high chance to provide enjoyable game for beginners. I suppose that could be advertised more for new members.

Maybe every time someone sets (or changes) his/her skill level to either beginner or novice, the system could sent a message to the mailbox advertising BIL?

[Cthulhu D]

Or, you know, we could just have some sort of matchmaking system....

 

matchmaker, matchmaker make me a match.

[Jinksy]

The fundamental inconsistency with this idea is that all bridge players are far superior to their partners ;)

[Jinksy]

But seriously, I think incentivising people to set their status to beginner or novice would be a good idea. At the moment most people who should rank themselves as one seem to put themselves down as 'intermediate' just so they can get partners.

[hourcadett]

With regards to the "Level of Play" which for now each person is free to pick, I suggest that as an alternative Bridge Base implement an Automatic Evaluator which would recurrently update a member's real level, taking into account their performance and the level of their partner, and their opponents. It sounds complicated, but computer programs are capable of this and much more. I know many people at the local university, and could probably interest someone in working on this.

[hrothgar]

With regards to the "Level of Play" which for now each person is free to pick, I suggest that as an alternative Bridge Base implement an Automatic Evaluator which would recurrently update a member's real level, taking into account their performance and the level of their partner, and their opponents. It sounds complicated, but computer programs are capable of this and much more. I know many people at the local university, and could probably interest someone in working on this.

 

The issue is social/political, not technical.

[barmar]

Sounds like OKbridge's infamous Lehman ratings.

[navahak]

Rating bridge players is very hard. Specially when skill levels are far from each other. There is huge variation in results and errors dominate the score. Basically one doesn't have to be very good player to score well in mbc. One only has to avoid making costly errors. While playing in table with only good players then skill starts to dominate the results if field is good too (which it isn't in mbc).

 

Of course something like chess engines rating different games might work better. But we don't have strong enough AI to analyze quality of play or enough knowledge about meaning of bids and signals.

 

In end any rating system is going to be very inaccurate and most likely cause more problems than not.

 

On top of that many players with similar skills simply won't form good partnerships because differences in biding and signaling methods. To improve partnership matching for help me find game it might help to have someway to match people based on systems they know about.

[Vampyr]

Sounds like OKbridge's infamous Lehman ratings.

 

Infamous? They are OK.

[mycroft]

They're okay, provided all the issues with them (check my history, and I'm sure I don't have all issues reported) are taken into account.

 

Now, I did like the idea from some previous thread of keeping these kinds of records, and using them as part of the skill match, *hidden behind the server wall* and *only used when random skill match is required* and *never visible to the user* - in fact, best if the users don't even know it's happening.

 

And, of course, that may already be the case. If it were, it's not like the BBOAdmins would be saying anything here...

[Vampyr]

They're okay, provided all the issues with them (check my history, and I'm sure I don't have all issues reported) are taken into account.

 

And now that the EBU have started a grading scheme it is obvious how inaccurate rating systems can be.

[uday]

And why is *skill* a primary determinant, anyway? Sure, some people want it, others don't care.

 

Not that there are any good ways out there to measure skill.

 

It is my belief that what makes someone compatible is blah ( you may have a diff blah and in a perfect world, we'd use your blah for you, mine for me ) where blah is at least a function of niceness, language, willingness to stick around at the table, etc.

 

When I play at a real club, pard's skill isn't of great importance. Just as my (in)ability to produce a decent backhand doesn't detract from my pard's willingness to play tennis with me.

[broze]

And now that the EBU have started a grading scheme it is obvious how inaccurate rating systems can be.

 

What about the EBU scheme has demonstrated this?

[mycroft]

uday, the reason is that everyone wants to play pickup with someone slightly better than they are. Which of course is possible to do for everyone, every time :-)

 

I'm reminded of one of my locals' (on another site) discussion of "levels of 'can't play'" - truly, what I want is someone within one 'can't play' level of me either way, who doesn't think (or at least, won't act like) he's more than one 'can't play' level away from me (again, either way).

[Cthulhu D]

And why is *skill* a primary determinant, anyway? Sure, some people want it, others don't care.

 

Not that there are any good ways out there to measure skill.

Valve have a very good approach for a 5v5 team game that works well. Skill is best measured from bresults obviously.

 

 

It is my belief that what makes someone compatible is blah ( you may have a diff blah and in a perfect world, we'd use your blah for you, mine for me ) where blah is at least a function of niceness, language, willingness to stick around at the table, etc.

 

When I play at a real club, pard's skill isn't of great importance. Just as my (in)ability to produce a decent backhand doesn't detract from my pard's willingness to play tennis with me.

 

Indeed, and DOTA2 offers a good template of an approach that streams the userbaser into team rager and team normal people and puts the ragers with each other, meeting this objective.

 

Its a mostly solved problem - the issue for BBO is the language and system barriers which have not been resolved

[Vampyr]

What about the EBU scheme has demonstrated this?

 

Just looking up people and seeing that their grade relative to another player's grade does not match with how well they play relative to each other.

[broze]

Just looking up people and seeing that their grade relative to another player's grade does not match with how well they play relative to each other.

 

Fair enough - but I would not expect my own impressions of how well people play to be better than that of a rating algorithm. Where I do agree with you is that fluctuations in people's grades seem so large that it is difficult to attach much meaning to them at any one moment.