Opinion poll - Robot Rebate 55%

[shyams]

I thought I'll run a poll on one of the game formats on BBO. Please feel free to click (it's anonymous, after all)

[Vampyr]

What is it?

[shyams]

What is it?

 

It's a MP game format on BBO which costs 1 BB$ to enter.

[nullve]

Robot rebate 55% is NOT "real bridge"

I don't know whether I really (strongly) agree or (strongly) disagree with this, but I voted 'Strongly disagree' since I strongly disagree with those who say that robot bridge requires little or no bridge skill (and therefore cannot be real bridge).

[shyams]

I don't know whether I really (strongly) agree or (strongly) disagree with this, but I voted 'Strongly disagree' since I strongly disagree with those who say that robot bridge requires little or no bridge skill (and therefore cannot be real bridge).

 

Agree with you. The skill set needed for scoring 55% may be widely divergent from what is needed for a standard IMPs / MPs tournament. Nonetheless, I find that it is often hard to score 55% when playing with regular/skilled 55% players so there definitely is an element of skill involved.

[Vampyr]

I just tried one. Now I have my first example of the robot’s abysmal bidding — I opened a minor, and with 4-4 majors it responded 1♠. Surely something as simple as that should never have slipped by the programmers. Also the robot lied in its descriptions; after an overcall and change of suit it claimed to have 5+ cards but only had 4. After that I lost interest and did wild things. So no, it is definitely not bridge. Interestingly, on the one hand (might have been two) that I defended the robot defended OK. When the two robots were defending, they were awful, even though they should understand each other very well.

 

By “rebate” I assume that if you get above 55% you get your dollar back? Why risk it? You can play solitaire with three robots for free.

[nullve]

By “rebate” I assume that if you get above 55% you get your dollar back?

You get 1.50 BB$ back.

[Vampyr]

You get 1.50 BB$ back.

 

This is interesting; it indicates that over time it will become increasingly difficult to score over 55%. The players who are showing a gain will continue to play, while the others give it up. The process repeats until the format dies out. This may already be happening; in the game I played there were only 2 or three other people.

[diana_eva]

It's difficult to win.

 

It doesn't look like it's about to die, it's just not for everybody.

 

Vast majority of BBOers, especially nowadays are intermediate players who would get killed by the experienced robot players so of course they would not enjoy it unless they are the compeititve type anyway.

 

But there is a market for people looking for a strong game, and this is one of the games they enjoy.

 

I suppose if we had the equivalent with humans it would be tiny. Most people like to win, not to challenge the strongest :)

[gordontd]

This is interesting; it indicates that over time it will become increasingly difficult to score over 55%. The players who are showing a gain will continue to play, while the others give it up. The process repeats until the format dies out. This may already be happening; in the game I played there were only 2 or three other people.

There are often only small numbers playing because they are so frequent, which makes them very convenient. I doubt people only play who show a long-term gain. The money is just a measure of how successful you are, so the longer it takes to use up your pot of money the better you have played.

[shyams]

My random/personal thoughts on the subject:

 

1. There is one Robot Rebate 55% every 9 minutes. Due to the high frequency, many games don't get enough subscribers --- some even have zero or one. The games during prime-time Europe (typically 17h00 to 21h00 GMT) and on weekends have more numbers joining. I have also observed that once a specific number (say 3 people) join early enough (i.e. 3 min before start), the number of participants jumps rapidly. I have played in games with 16-20 other players --- most of whom are expert 55% players (btw, I am not very good at it)

 

2. As a personal preference, I rarely join a game unless there are 8 participants (including myself). I find that it reduces the volatility of the results and gives higher weight to skills. I also like to join games when I see fellow BBFers already subscribed; it just is an added element of competition.

 

3. I have noticed that I become more aware of squeezes, endplays, ambushes and anti-percentage actions at this format than at any other game. To me, a very gratifying occurrence is when I take a gamble to squeeze/endplay a bot and then score very well on the board. Curiously, if there are many regular/skilled 55%ers in the same tournament, at least one other player emulates my gamble/squeeze/endplay to match my score (i.e. I have very rarely scored a perfect top on a board based on skills alone).

[Vampyr]

There are often only small numbers playing because they are so frequent, which makes them very convenient. I doubt people only play who show a long-term gain. The money is just a measure of how successful you are, so the longer it takes to use up your pot of money the better you have played.

 

Yes, but you can play with robots for free, which is why I don’t see the appeal.

[gordontd]

Yes, but you can play with robots for free, which is why I don’t see the appeal.

The standard in this game is higher. And it gives you a financial measure of your success.