BBO Skill - How often updated?

[lycier]

Most people in any group are either beginners or intermediate. The mere fact that most people on BBO rate themselves otherwise is a telling point in itself. The only thing that has some real merit is the star rating, which is at least an objective real-world measure. Some people with stars may not be very good, but it does show some experience in bridge out of the online context.

 

Not very helpful, I understand. Personal experience will count for much more than any rating system (self-rated or otherwise).

 

 

Here I suggest to close bbo self-rating system due to uselessness.

Every day you usually see a phenomenon at bbo, too many people as a table host only select "expert" to join the table in the MBC. I had made some investigation on it, some of my friends told me that they were forced to use "expert" self-rating online on the different usernames, if they didn't do such, they will have no way to play normally with others online because most of table hosts thought only both of expert and world class are decent players, otherwise the rest are weak and bad players. If they use "expert" self-rating ,of course,they can do as they like.

Even those opinions are one-sided, it is a fact. So I guess you would meet some strange things at bbo,some "world class" often play worse than beginners. Of course, this is a joker. Actually "World Class" don't be claimed because we know who is,who not.

At BBO, if self rating "World Class" without star symbol, "World Class" = W.C. in the most situations, I believe many people think so.

[billw55]

Here I suggest to close bbo self-rating system due to uselessness.

Every day you usually see a phenomenon at bbo, too many people as a table host only select "expert" to join the table in the MBC. I had made some investigation on it, some of my friends told me that they were forced to use "expert" self-rating online on the different usernames, if they didn't do such, they will have no way to play normally with others online because most of table hosts thought only both of expert and world class are decent players, otherwise the rest are weak and bad players. If they use "expert" self-rating ,of course,they can do as they like.

Even those opinions are one-sided, it is a fact. So I guess you would meet some strange things at bbo,some "world class" often play worse than beginners. Of course, this is a joker. Actually "World Class" don't be claimed because we know who is,who not.

At BBO, if self rating "World Class" without star symbol, "World Class" = W.C. in the most situations, I believe many people think so.

I don't think it is entirely useless. Although there are obviously many exceptions, my own observation based on frequent play in MBC is that there is a statistical correlation between self-rating and actual skill. After adjusting for certain nationalities, I find that self rated "experts" are at least competent on basics maybe two thirds of the time. I may have to adjust some expectations (rebidding of 5 card suits, 4NT always keycard, etc), but often I can manage. Whereas self rated "intermediates" are almost always very weak, usually not knowing fundamentals like basic ranges for bids, simple attitude signals, etc. "Advanced" is a middle ground, and seems to have the widest range. So despite the variance, there is utility to this, it definitely works better than picking partners totally at random.

[mgoetze]

"Advanced" is a middle ground

Back when I used to play with randoms, the average "advanced" player was better than the average "expert" player.

[barmar]

I suspect the self-ratings are generally more accurate at the low end. Players rarely underrate themselves intentionally, so if someone says they're a beginner or intermediate, they probably really are.

[billw55]

Back when I used to play with randoms, the average "advanced" player was better than the average "expert" player.

I don't find this true anymore. Perhaps the "advanced" who were actually good caught on and promoted themselves. These days "advanced" players seem to have about a 2/3 chance of knowing what a negative double is. Almost all of them routinely rebid 5 card suits, and many pass and then back into auctions later with 5 card suits, often bad ones. "World class" on the other hand, are worse than "expert".

 

Flags/nationalities can be significant. One odd thing I have noticed: Canadian flags with "expert" are the most reliable strong players I have found. They are almost always pretty good (probably stronger than I am - it gets hard to evaluate near or beyond one's own level). Strangely though, Canadian "advanced" tend to be duffers.

[billw55]

I suspect the self-ratings are generally more accurate at the low end. Players rarely underrate themselves intentionally, so if someone says they're a beginner or intermediate, they probably really are.

Partly agree. "Intermediate" does seem to be the most reliable self rating of all. However it almost always indicates a life novice.

[nige1]

Here I suggest to close bbo self-rating system due to uselessness.

Every day you usually see a phenomenon at bbo, too many people as a table host only select "expert" to join the table in the MBC. I had made some investigation on it, some of my friends told me that they were forced to use "expert" self-rating online on the different usernames, if they didn't do such, they will have no way to play normally with others online because most of table hosts thought only both of expert and world class are decent players, otherwise the rest are weak and bad players. If they use "expert" self-rating ,of course,they can do as they like.

Even those opinions are one-sided, it is a fact. So I guess you would meet some strange things at bbo,some "world class" often play worse than beginners. Of course, this is a joker. Actually "World Class" don't be claimed because we know who is,who not.

At BBO, if self rating "World Class" without star symbol, "World Class" = W.C. in the most situations, I believe many people think so.

Lycier makes excellent points. Nevertheless, IMO, self-ratings (slightly) are a slight improvement on nothing, although objective ratings would be better.

[Zelandakh]

However it almost always indicates a life novice.

Careful Bill, some of us intermediates might take that personally.

[lycier]

I suspect the self-ratings are generally more accurate at the low end. Players rarely underrate themselves intentionally, so if someone says they're a beginner or intermediate, they probably really are.

 

It is wrong for what you said " Players rarely underrate themselves intentionally, so if someone says they're a beginner or intermediate, they probably really are."

On the contrary, I absolutely believe that many of novice and beginners from my country at bbo never be worse than you since our chinese traditional culture is " modesty is a virtue ". And even some teammates of nation team ,their self-rating are only intermediate or private.

So do many excellent American players at BBO!

 

 

What is the nature of self-rating?

After the observation and thinking for many years, I found actually this is a psychological problem which are related with mentality, psychological balance, cognition content and cognition degree,etc.

Confident people believe in themselves, their self-rating are usually something like intermediate. People who are not self-confident usually want to keep the dignity and self-confidence ! Even some BBO star players,their self-rating are beginner,intermediate or advanced. So I strongly think the nature of self-rating is only a FIG leaf !

 

I don't think it is entirely useless. Although there are obviously many exceptions, my own observation based on frequent play in MBC is that there is a statistical correlation between self-rating and actual skill. After adjusting for certain nationalities, I find that self rated "experts" are at least competent on basics maybe two thirds of the time. I may have to adjust some expectations (rebidding of 5 card suits, 4NT always keycard, etc), but often I can manage. Whereas self rated "intermediates" are almost always very weak, usually not knowing fundamentals like basic ranges for bids, simple attitude signals, etc. "Advanced" is a middle ground, and seems to have the widest range. So despite the variance, there is utility to this, it definitely works better than picking partners totally at random.

You mean a bit in the morning is better than nothing all day? taste like chicken ribs, it may be just time for BBO to delete the option on self-rating at present.

[lycier]

Flags/nationalities can be significant. One odd thing I have noticed: Canadian flags with "expert" are the most reliable strong players I have found. They are almost always pretty good (probably stronger than I am - it gets hard to evaluate near or beyond one's own level). Strangely though, Canadian "advanced" tend to be duffers.

 

I don't find this true anymore. Perhaps Canadian flags with "expert" are from decent players in the other country, just like too many players with American flag, they are not American in fact. There is nothing to be strange, the statue of liberty only stands in New York harbor.

[nullve]

What is the nature of self-rating?

After the observation and thinking for many years, I found actually this is a psychological problem which are related with mentality, psychological balance, cognition content and cognition degree,etc.

Confident people believe in themselves, their self-rating are usually something like intermediate. People who are not self-confident usually want to keep the dignity and self-confidence ! Even some BBO star players,their self-rating are beginner,intermediate or advanced. So I strongly think the nature of self-rating is only a FIG leaf !

You might have rediscovered the Dunning-Kruger effect:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

 

It is wrong for what you said " Players rarely underrate themselves intentionally, so if someone says they're a beginner or intermediate, they probably really are."

 

On the contrary, I absolutely believe that many of novice and beginners from my country at bbo never be worse than you since our chinese traditional culture is " modesty is a virtue ". And even some teammates of nation team ,their self-rating are only intermediate or secret.

Interestingly,

 

Studies on the Dunning–Kruger effect tend to focus on American test subjects. A number of studies on East Asian subjects suggest that different social forces are at play in different cultures. For example, East Asians tend to underestimate their abilities and see underachievement as a chance to improve themselves and to get along with others. [from the above article]

[steve2005]

I don't think it is entirely useless.

It's data is over 2 years old, is useless.

 

 

 

[1eyedjack]

It's data is over 2 years old, is useless.

 

 

 

His post that you quoted referred to self rating, not bboskill. There has been some thread drift latterly.

[1eyedjack]

I suspect the self-ratings are generally more accurate at the low end. Players rarely underrate themselves intentionally, so if someone says they're a beginner or intermediate, they probably really are.

On the other hand, a beginner can hardly underrate himself, and if he accurately 'fesses up he never gets a game. Or so he perceives it.

[nullve]

I did a little experiment today, to see how long it would take me to get a MP game when I chose different self-ratings. I had decided to give up if the table wasn't full after 10 minutes, though.

 

Result:

 

* I didn't manage to get a game as Private, Novice, Beginner, Intermediate or Advanced. In fact, noone turned up except after 9 minutes when I was Private.

* I got a game as Expert after 3 minutes.

 

I didn't try to self-rate as World Class after I got a game as Expert.

[1eyedjack]

I did a little experiment today, to see how long it would take me to get a MP game when I chose different self-ratings. I had decided to give up if the table wasn't full after 10 minutes, though.

 

Result:

 

* I didn't manage to get a game as Private, Novice, Beginner, Intermediate or Advanced. In fact, noone turned up except after 9 minutes when I was Private.

* I got a game as Expert after 3 minutes.

 

I didn't try to self-rate as World Class after I got a game as Expert.

You can always search for an existing open table which is not set for "permission required to play", and hope you don't get booted when you sit.

 

But anyway, I find this unsurprising.

[mgoetze]

I did a little experiment today, to see how long it would take me to get a MP game

Yeah because that's what all the randoms on BBO are playing, obviously.

[nullve]

Yeah because that's what all the randoms on BBO are playing, obviously.

I never thought they did. Just look around the the Main Bridge Club and see if you can spot a MP table. There won't be many.

[mgoetze]

I never thought they did. Just look around the the Main Bridge Club and see if you can spot a MP table. There won't be many.

And then the point of your experiment was... what?

[lycier]

I did a little experiment today, to see how long it would take me to get a MP game when I chose different self-ratings. I had decided to give up if the table wasn't full after 10 minutes, though.

 

Result:

 

* I didn't manage to get a game as Private, Novice, Beginner, Intermediate or Advanced. In fact, noone turned up except after 9 minutes when I was Private.

* I got a game as Expert after 3 minutes.

 

I didn't try to self-rate as World Class after I got a game as Expert.

 

Very good reply.

 

 

 

I did a little experiment in the past, to see how long it would take me to get a IMP/MP game when I chose different self-ratings with different short messages on Public Chat. Of course,no one couldn't give up if the table wasn't full after 10 minutes, though.

 

Result:

 

* I didn't manage to get a game as Novice, Beginner or Intermediate.

 

* As Advanced or Private,when I typed " Nice players needed" or " need strong players " on Public Chat,I'm often lucky to get a game slowly.

 

* As Expert, when I typed " Expert+++" on Public Chat,usually I could get a game quickly.

 

* As World Class, here I can tell everyone a successful experience that you first find a good partner,then while you can type " Expert or Star+++", humm...,do you know what will happen next? Just it is as if all the Experts in the world are are flocking to your table, you have to refuse them at once due to full of your table ! How interesting Expert ! How humorous W.C. !

 

Here,may I ask everyone a question?

While you would open a table at BBO, if you type " Nice players needed ", usually you might get several random players with " intemediate or advanced " self rating,generally speaking, some of them are beginners actually. However if you type " Strong players needed", then many "Advanced " often come to you table at once,of course,they play so better. So I have been wondering who is stronger between " Expert" and "Strong player", my English is poor, would you tell me?

[Zelandakh]

Here,may I ask everyone a question?

While you would open a table at BBO, if you type " Nice players needed ", usually you might get several random players with " intemediate or advanced " self rating,generally speaking, some of them are beginners actually. However if you type " Strong players needed", then many "Advanced " often come to you table at once,of course,they play so better. So I have been wondering who is stronger between " Expert" and "Strong player", my English is poor, would you tell me?

First of all, beginner has a specific meaning on BBO - it means someone that has been playing bridge between 6 and 12 months. It is much more likely that those intermediates you think of as beginners really are intermediates. Expert also has a specific meaning on BBO, someone that has enjoyed success at national level. "Strong player" on the other hand is a relative term. An intermediate is a strong player in a novice game whereas an expert is a weak player in a world championship. On BBO, where the vast majority of players are intermediates, any advanced, expert and world class players might be considered strong players.

[billw55]

Careful Bill, some of us intermediates might take that personally.

Well that is what "almost all" is for :)

 

If you are one of the bare few who actually follows the BBO definitions, good for you. But my own routine experience is that you are a vanishingly small minority in the "intermediate" self-rank.

 

It's data is over 2 years old, is useless.

I was talking about the self ratings, not bboskill.

 

 

[pescetom]

Those who were frightened of BBO Skill will be content, the domain name expired on 4/12/2018 and is pending renewal or deletion.

[Phil]

Those who were frightened of BBO Skill will be content, the domain name expired on 4/12/2018 and is pending renewal or deletion.

 

 

oooh let's start a Gofundme and develop a little java app that looks like a Magic 8 Ball and 'returns' skill level to the user.like here

[johnu]

For those who seemed to enjoy beating up on BBOSkill.com, there's always

 

http://www.coloradospringsbridge.com/PR_FILES/PR.HTM

 

for those in ACBL territory for people to work out their hostility. And there are always the masterpoint/rating systems of the various national bridge organizations that need a few more haters.