mike777 Posted June 7, 2007 Report Share Posted June 7, 2007 Accurate rankings for individuals in a partnership game are actually a hard mathematical problem. A number of career mathematicians are working on this sort of thing; my dad (a mathematician) went to a talk about this a while back. There are arguments that a system which actually rated accurately might be less objectionable than a system like the Lehman ratings used by OKB. The problem is that it's fairly easy to manipulate your Lehman rating by carefully selecting your partner and opponents -- this creates an environment where people who care about the rating are encouraged to do this sort of selection, which makes for a rather unpleasant site. Basically, if you want to raise your Lehman rating all you have to do is play exclusively in established partnerships against pickup opposition. One thing that might be interesting is to rate partnerships instead of individuals. Of course, this doesn't satisfy the goal that most rating proponents seem to have of "being able to pick my partner as someone good." Nonetheless, rating pairs accurately should be easier, and it might be interesting to see how some of us rate in our favorite partnerships. Along the same lines. The debate over picking a team, in whole, as compared to picking the 3 best pairs. Rose Meltzer and partner as one case in point. Transnationals teams encourage pairs and partnerships from across the world. You are free to choose 2 or 3 pairs to form a team in whatever manner you wish. Rose won at the table. She has played under other methods of choosing teams. Rose won at the table.Other multimillionaires have won or lost but today she is winning. I think this shows some level of a very very important skill at winning bridge. Rose for Hall of Fame in bridge?How and where do you rank Rose? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the hog Posted June 7, 2007 Report Share Posted June 7, 2007 Mike, you can't have "3 best pairs." Best is the superlative; you surely mean the "best 3 pairs." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted June 7, 2007 Report Share Posted June 7, 2007 Mike, you can't have "3 best pairs." Best is the superlative; you surely mean the "best 3 pairs." Dont call me shirley ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geller Posted June 8, 2007 Report Share Posted June 8, 2007 The problem of how to rate individuals in a team sport is faced by coaches and general managers of professional and serious amateur sports. They use a combination of subjective and objective data. If their team loses they get fired. If their team wins they still get fired, but it takes longer. The reason you need coaches and general managers in bridge is that perfect objective ranking is impossible. In bridge when you have a sponsor he/she puts together what he/she thinks is the best roster available (but he/she may have poor judgement of who's worth it). In putting together teams and pairs for F2F tourneys those of us who are neither sponsors nor pros try to put together the strongest available team/pair of compatible players. Do we always get it right? You all already know the answer to that. On BBO, where you have constantly forming/dissolving pairs the rating problem is even harder. Why worry about it? Just chill, play bridge, and have fun. -Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorK Posted July 2, 2007 Report Share Posted July 2, 2007 only my position in some words:I think it's necessary to get a rating system; but it should be a extensive one so it scores other when you play with a player which rating is very good against 2 players with a very bad rating, etc. Concerning to the words someone wrote earlier:The BBO system is ok, is based in trusting people which is good, if you find a player that you think is better or worst than his level just add a comment to him and you won't have the same problem twice.The BBO system is NOT ok, because you can't trust more than 50 % of the players in BBO if they entered something in their skill. I'm not a racist, but 90 % of the turkish experts e.g. play like beginners/intermediates. If you want to play good bridge and write "experts pls" i mostly don't accept those "turkish experts" (often you can doubt it reading their profil... they play transfers and all this difficult stuff) but I often get opponents, who are not approximately expert and that's frustrating me. I don't want to kick them later (it's impolite, too) but I don't want to play against those beginners and I don't want to change the table every 10 minutes. If I don't want to play against experts it doesn't mind, but if I want, it does mind. And if I play an individual tournament and my partner wrote expert and can't even lead the Q from QJT it is not much fun - cause you EXPECT something other. If there would be a beginner in profile, it would be all fine. And for the rating: I'd not do individuals in the rating; it's only gambling. Sincerely Yours,Felix Zimmermann. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nige1 Posted July 2, 2007 Report Share Posted July 2, 2007 There are arguments for and against rating systems; Fred, however, definitely appears not to want an official rating system on his site; and thatwould seem to be the end of the matter.... .....But..... inquiry tells us that BBO maintains a sophisticated rating system unofficially. And inquiry wrote that he will consider divulging your own rating on request. Hence there seem to be two avenues open that would satisfy most people and embarrass nobody...1. Enable the option to insert rating field(s) into your profile that are visible only to you. I reckon this would be of interest and use to most BBO members who would appreciate objective feed-bake on their current form. 2. If you enjoy competition then join a private club within BBO, which implements a rating system confined to its members-only tournaments. Does anybody know of such a club with free membership? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrTodd13 Posted July 2, 2007 Report Share Posted July 2, 2007 BBO does not maintain a ratings system. BBO hand records are available for download and it is an external site that downloads these records and can compute a rating. If I recall correctly, the OKB lehman system stated that its intent was to be used to determine if you were improving or not and was not to be used for comparison between players. Why did they make it publicly visible then? I don't know but the pressure to do so would be immense. There are two needs here. Am I getting better and how do I find people I want to play with. These are two different problems with potentially two different solutions. An objective ratings system that is only viewable by the person involved could let people know if they are getting better or worse. You could even give each person their own unique multiplication factor. Compute someone's rating from 0 to 100 and then multiply by their multiplication factor. People wouldn't know their own multiplication factor and so these ratings would only be useful for tracking your own progress but would be truly useless for comparison against other players. If any system for finding partners is going to work and keep a civil environment, it is going to be a subjective "rate other people" (reputation-based) system. We don't know how this would work in practice because no one has tried it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted July 5, 2007 Report Share Posted July 5, 2007 Hence there seem to be two avenues open that would satisfy most people and embarrass nobody... 1. Enable the option to insert rating field(s) into your profile that are visible only to you. I reckon this would be of interest and use to most BBO members who would appreciate objective feed-bake on their current form. 2. If you enjoy competition then join a private club within BBO, which implements a rating system confined to its members-only tournaments. Does anybody know of such a club with free membership? I like and support this idea (it would save me a few keystrokes) and players could "publish" it on their profile (an option) should they so desire. I am referring to the myhands numbers for the last month of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jtfanclub Posted July 5, 2007 Report Share Posted July 5, 2007 Pardon me for talking out of my butt here.... Why not have an Advanced private club? So, on my fourth anniversary of posting here, the thread I first posted on is *still going*. I don't know what it means, but it must mean something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted July 5, 2007 Report Share Posted July 5, 2007 If you advance your privates.....you may get them chopped off.... :) 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.