Hanoi5 Posted March 7, 2015 Report Share Posted March 7, 2015 I have heard and probably read about how the number of bridge deals you've played determines somehow your level of play. Sometimes the difference between a newbie and an intermidiate is 10k hands. Or whatever number. Is there a link to something like this somewhere? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrAce Posted March 7, 2015 Report Share Posted March 7, 2015 I have heard and probably read about how the number of bridge deals you've played determines somehow your level of play. Sometimes the difference between a newbie and an intermidiate is 10k hands. Or whatever number. Is there a link to something like this somewhere? I don't think the quantity of hands is the dominant factor. You can play 100.000 hands, like my grandma did with her friends at home and do the same mistakes on and on again. Another one plays only 10.000 hands but bothers to go through the hands and make some analysis. I bet the latter will be in much better shape. It also depends on who you play against. It may, however, be the more dominant factor from beginning for a while. I do not think it is even a factor when you come to a certain level though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mbodell Posted March 7, 2015 Report Share Posted March 7, 2015 10,000 hours of serious deliberate practice is commonly believed to be the amount of time it takes to become world class in any field. This was popularized by Malcolm Gladwell in the book Outliers. This sort of rule is obviously at best a loose generalization, and at worse outright false (see here for evidence showing it not generally true. The quantity and quality of the hands you play, how well or frequently you discuss and analyze your hands, will have some impact in how good you are. But I don't think there is any easy hard and fast rule (for that matter, there is no real agreement on what makes someone a newbie versus intermediate versus expert anyways). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted March 7, 2015 Report Share Posted March 7, 2015 It's not that simple. Playing many hands against lols won't make you a better player, in fact it might make you a worse player! But against good opposition there is some correlation for sure, up to a certain point. Everyone has a limit of how good he can be, and some people won't ever become world class players, no matter how much they play against expert opps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanoi5 Posted March 8, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 8, 2015 It's not that simple. Playing many hands against lols won't make you a better player, in fact it might make you a worse player! But against good opposition there is some correlation for sure, up to a certain point. Everyone has a limit of how good he can be, and some people won't ever become world class players, no matter how much they play against expert opps. Peter? Really? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barmar Posted March 8, 2015 Report Share Posted March 8, 2015 10,000 hours of serious deliberate practice is commonly believed to be the amount of time it takes to become world class in any field. This was popularized by Malcolm Gladwell in the book Outliers. This sort of rule is obviously at best a loose generalization, and at worse outright false (see here for evidence showing it not generally true.It seems to me that extensive practice is just one of several prerequisites to mastery. So what the study seems to have proved is that you still need those other factors -- just practicing isn't enough. But it seems that except for the occasional natural prodigy, anyone who aspires to become world class in some field will need extensive practice and experience. The study found that in several categories, practice is responsible for between 15 and 20% of the difference in results. That'sa pretty significant contribution, IMHO. If you were taking a class where a particular exam or project contributed to 20% of your grade, you certainly wouldn't blow it off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted March 12, 2015 Report Share Posted March 12, 2015 Peter? Really?What do you mean with "Peter"? :blink: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikestar13 Posted March 13, 2015 Report Share Posted March 13, 2015 What do you mean with "Peter"? :blink: He's referring to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Principle, sometimes expressed as "everyone will be promoted to their level of incompetence". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted March 13, 2015 Report Share Posted March 13, 2015 I don't see the relevance of switching to a new job based on your current job. Reaching your best level is more like staying in your current job and become as good as possible in it. So we're comparing apples and oranges... When you look at any competence or any sport, there's always a certain level you can reach if you put in the effort. But there's a limit to how much effort you can put in to it, so there's a limit to what level you're able to reach, which is called your personal record. And that top depends on tallent: some people are smarter, some are technically superior, some are able to grow more muscles, some have better intuition,... And these things you can't work on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanoi5 Posted March 14, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 some people are smarter, some are technically superior, some are able to grow more muscles, some have better intuition,... And these things you can't work on. Really? And what exactly determines the talent? Is it race, upbringing, how close to the equator you were born? Tell me more of these things I can't work on :huh: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikestar13 Posted March 14, 2015 Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 By citing the Peter Principle, I in no way mean to say that it applies to this situation. Free was genuinely puzzled by the reference and I clarified it because I happened to know it off the top of my head. I also believe what Free says above is correct. <rant>There are limits to what is possible for a given player. This proposition is not motivated by any sort of prejudice, but by the facts of reality. I myself might well be world class by now if I had made a decision 30 some odd years ago to practice and play bridge to the exclusion of everything else meaningful in life. No marriage, no children, no career other than bridge pro .... This is a price I was unwilling to pay, indeed never thought of paying. I love this game, but not that much. Nor do the huge majority of players love the game that much. And if Almighty God promised me to that I would be the best bridge player that's ever been or ever will be, the price still would not be worth paying. If anyone else would do so, have at it--then tell me what you regret on your deathbed.</rant> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted March 14, 2015 Report Share Posted March 14, 2015 Really? And what exactly determines the talent? Is it race, upbringing, how close to the equator you were born? Tell me more of these things I can't work on :huh:Oh dear, we have a racist on board... I don't see what race has to do with it, but it's clearly on your mind... You should be so proud of yourself! Note: apparently I forgot an important one: some people are bigger than others. Not that important in bridge, but you're at quite a disadvantage when you're small and playing basketball. Or is that also linked to race? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.