[Zelandakh]

Cthulhu D, on 2012-May-15, 05:32, said:

you corrected me in post #97. So I'm left with

In post #98 you stated that I made an assertion that "a completely random match-up of 4 players around a table is likely to be more enjoyable than 4 match made players for any given player". I am still waiting to know where this assertion was made.

As for the rest of your post, I suspect there may be one or two players on BBO who have a poor idea of their own skill level in comparison with others. Some of these would certainly object to playing in games of players at their real skill level, rather than their perceived one, and may play less as a result. I have no idea if zenko would fall into that category, this was merely used as an example while indirectly objecting to the idea that such players were not of an "adequate skill level". I would personally always prefer to play with weaker opponents that were friendly than equal of better opponents who were unfriendly.

Of course the ideal is friendly opponents who are also as good as us or a little bit better. If you want such a game (and are good enough to judge) then you can achieve this by hosting a table yourself and then controlling who plays at the table. The problem is that many players who take this approach boot their partners from the table for their own mistakes whilst simultaneously creating an unfriendly atmosphere. I would personally choose to avoid such tables although perhaps I am also not of an adequate skill level for you or zenko.

[Cthulhu D]

Zelandakh, on 2012-May-15, 06:11, said:

As for the rest of your post, I suspect there may be one or two players on BBO who have a poor idea of their own skill level in comparison with others. Some of these would certainly object to playing in games of players at their real skill level, rather than their perceived one, and may play less as a result. I have no idea if zenko would fall into that category, this was merely used as an example while indirectly objecting to the idea that such players were not of an "adequate skill level".

Please define 'game of their real skill level'

Quote

If you want such a game (and are good enough to judge) then you can achieve this by hosting a table yourself and then controlling who plays at the table. The problem is that many players who take this approach boot their partners from the table for their own mistakes whilst simultaneously creating an unfriendly atmosphere. I would personally choose to avoid such tables although perhaps I am also not of an adequate skill level for you or zenko.

This framework is unworkable. DOTA is the largest game (22 million players globally) I can think of that used this model. As anyone who has ever played it can testify, it does not function on any level. Indeed, picking up the game, reskinning it and adding matchmaking, ratings and the ability to reconnect was worth $50 dollars a shot to punters and has since spawned two other similar games (League of Legends and DoTA 2) that both offer the same added features. Drawing from experince with other online games it's pretty clear that punters want automated matchmaking not social controls, which as you mention don't even work properly.

Quote

In post #98 you stated that I made an assertion that "a completely random match-up of 4 players around a table is likely to be more enjoyable than 4 match made players for any given player". I am still waiting to know where this assertion was made.

I may have misunderstood you. Please define what you mean by "the rating system will say." I am not clear how a rating system can say anything.

Quote

Of course the ideal is friendly opponents who are also as good as us or a little bit better. If you want such a game (and are good enough to judge)

If this is the ideal, why not institute matchmaking. I am a beginner, I am NOT good enough to judge. I want a system that does it for me.

[Zelandakh]

Cthulhu D, on 2012-May-15, 06:25, said:

Please define 'game of their real skill level'

The quote was: "games of players at their real skill level". Consider Adam. He has a skill level of 1000 (low intermediate on some numerical scale) but thinks he has a rating of 2000 (advanced). Adam thinks he should be playing with others of around skill level 2000, his perceived skill rating, but in a game of players at his real skill rating the opponents would be rated approximately 1000. This phenomena (perceived rating higher than real rating) is not unheard of on BBO.

Cthulhu D, on 2012-May-15, 06:25, said:

This framework is unworkable. DOTA is the largest game

I have never played DotA, nor indeed ever heard of it. If we are talking online games then EverQuest and WoW did not do so badly. Neither had skill levels included. What works for one player base does not necessarily work for another.

Cthulhu D, on 2012-May-15, 06:25, said:

I may have misunderstood you. Please define what you mean by "the rating system will say." I am not clear how a rating system can say anything.

Take Adam again. He thinks he is advanced. The rating system says he is low intermediate. OK, if you want to be pedantic, the interpretation of the given rating is that Adam is low intermediate. Naturally the rating system itself does not grow a mouth and say it literally.

If the players that Adam is currently playing with were in the 1300-1700 (high intermediate) range and the definition of "adequate skill level" was within 250 rating points then the rating system is saying that Adam is not of an adequate skill level to play with these players even though in his own mind those very same players are not of an adequate skill level to play with him. This kind of result could upset many players. Most likely they would either leave BBO or create a new account to take the test again and get the "correct" result such that they were assigned to the advanced player group.

Cthulhu D, on 2012-May-15, 06:25, said:

If this is the ideal, why not institute matchmaking. I am a beginner, I am NOT good enough to judge. I want a system that does it for me.

You are lucky in that BBO has introduced a couple of mechanisms especially for you. The BIL is available (for a small fee) and contains only players of approximately your level. What is more, the BIL also offers good quality teaching material which will help you to develop your game. If you do not want to pay for the BIL then an alternative is the Relaxed Bridge Club. Although there are exceptions, the majority of players there are also of your level. The situation is actually harder for advanced players.

[Cthulhu D]

Quote

I have never played DotA, nor indeed ever heard of it. If we are talking online games then EverQuest and WoW did not do so badly. Neither had skill levels included. What works for one player base does not necessarily work for another.

When did you stop playing WoW? When they added 2v2, 3v3 and 5v5 Arenas in 2007, they introduced an ELO based system for PvP matchmaking. It's actually a good example showing that even simple ELO ratings are enough in practice. WoW has another matchmaker (the stones for finding groups) that don't use a rating and are much more widely critiqued.

WoW's K factor is 32 btw.

Zelandakh, on 2012-May-15, 07:48, said:

Most likely they would either leave BBO or create a new account to take the test again and get the "correct" result such that they were assigned to the advanced player group.

This is all predicated on the fact you are going to display the matchmaking rating to users. I dispute this a good idea or even a requirement for implementing matchmaking. I'll note that most companies have stopped doing this in online implementations. If Adam cannot see his MMR, he will just sit opposite a bunch of self rated intermediate, advanced and experts and is unlikely to notice the difference. There is probably an argument not to display a users self rating if he is playing via the matchmaker as well.

Edit: Of course, Adam should also be free to start a custom game and those games would have restrictions at all, functioning exactly like the current 'create a table' button.

[RunemPard]

I like the idea of using a simple Elo system...but...there needs to be a formula that can convert both MP and IMP into a rating #...

This also brings into debate team matches and how they would affect this.

Now we must also consider skill level of other players.

I get a headache just thinking about it, but I would enjoy having a rating system.


I am going to use a game that is very popular and often has rated on sites. (Spades)...
You play a full game to a set score until a winner has been determined. Based on the skill of others, ratings are calculated after and adjusted. I feel that if Elo based ratings were to be done, maybe the best route is to do something new?

You agree to play for example 8 hands of MP or IMP scoring and are taken to a table w/ a partner or a random partner. Two suitable opponents are found based on the rating range you wish to play. After 8 hands, whoever has shown the best results wins the round and rating points are adjusted. Of course, this can be adjusted based on how much you have won by or simply by winning overall...

I prefer keeping how much you won by as a factor in the equation. It allows for a more accurate result based on overall performance.


Example...8 board match...almost like 4-man play but using many results.
The results are a 20 IMP victory for team A over team B.
Both teams are of an equal rating.
A formula taking into account victory, skill levels, and win margin is done and a new rating is given.

Assuming a rating level starts at 1500...two 2000 rating players play against two players at the 1400 level. Based on the calculations, a victory of x must be obtained to gain rating, else a victory for the 2000 players results in no change.

IMO, MP is the best way to judge overall skill. To me, IMP tends to reward players who make games rather than those who play contracts to their fullest. A field where...

4S+2 x1
4S+1 x5
4S== x1 (opponents result)
3S+2 x2

Will reward your opponents for playing the contract worse than anybody else. Where in MP they are looking at gaining 4/16 MPs.

[Zelandakh]

RunemPard, on 2012-May-30, 16:08, said:

IMO, MP is the best way to judge overall skill. To me, IMP tends to reward players who make games rather than those who play contracts to their fullest. A field where...

4S+2 x1
4S+1 x5
4S== x1 (opponents result)
3S+2 x2

Will reward your opponents for playing the contract worse than anybody else. Where in MP they are looking at gaining 4/16 MPs.

Or perhaps your opponents found an incredibly clever way to guarantee the contract 100% while the rest of the field all took a line that might have failed. Why do you think strategies that involve risking a contract for overtricks represents a better way to judge skill than actually being able to bid good games and make them? Why is a 100% safety play less skillful than taking every finesse in sight for a 12% chance to go down but a good probability of overtricks?

[RunemPard]

True as well, but risk/chance evaluation in regards to possible reward is a part of every game. Maybe many of the other pairs were able to keep track of points, suit lengths, etc. to give them a better idea of if the finesse is a good risk.

[RunemPard]

I just feel that in regards to overall skill over a long set of hands that MP shows this better than IMPs. But that is just my opinion and I respect your's as well. One problem with MP however is often in regards to slam level bidding. If one pair tries the risky 6NT auction given 1/3 odds of making and manages to make it, the other pairs who bid the statistically better 6S contract get a punch in the face. Of course, some pairs may realize that the 6NT contract is able to be made easily on the information given, but this is not always the case.

[vasss]

Hi
My opinion is that a rating system like BBO skill is a good thing, but unfortunately impracticable in BBO. There will always be people, who will vitiate any such an idea. Regarding that statement I give as an example the person, known by nick name xxxxx - "xxxxxxReal $Online Lessons" lol

In this case we have a total mockery and negation of the workability of the otherwise clever scheme!
What happens - a table of false, fictional players is set, then we don’t see even the slightest effort to make a proper, relevant announcement, all hands are picked and the game is not even started. The only goal is to reach the desired result as an absolute value.


Any rational human being can look at the “hands” of the person in question and make their own conclusions. No comment is needed.

The main idea of BBO is corrupted, where is the fair play, where is the play itself at all? There is no play and if by any chance there is, it resembles a computer game for 10-year-olds. All this done for the sake of getting a high rating by people with psychological problems and mental derangements


Furthermore let’s admit that the programming of a real rating system as ELO in chess is a hard and unrewarding labour. I don’t believe that any good programmer will waste his nerves, time and efforts to realize such a project, especially having in mind that his work won’t be adequately appreciated.
In the end I want to highlight that a user with such shameful behaviour and who is successful by means of base-minded deceptions must be eliminated from this otherwise wonderful site!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No comment

This post has been edited by inquiry: 2012-June-11, 18:19
Reason for edit: edited to remove reference to player by name as it violtes the TOS

[jcwbridge]

What might be useful is if there were some statistics provided to the user that evaluates their own declarer play, defense and bidding.

[onoway]

Was just at a table where someone seriously announced to the kibbers (probably about 40 or so of them) that one of the players, who is a top player in his own country, was a cheater when he claimed to be an expert,and was really only an advanced, whereas the speaker, who has won "multiple BBO tournaments" was an expert. I told him that accusing people of being cheaters was against BBO terms of service and he gleefully claimed that he could prove it and directed me to that site which appears to be BBO ratings.

I told him that according to that site a few months ago when I looked at it; I had been designated an expert, which is so far from reality it might as well be talking about finding living elephants on the moon, but of course that made no impression. He is also advertising lessons on his profile.

When I asked him what LIVE national or international events he had won, he had nothing to offer, just continued to slander the player at the table. It infuriates me that such comments are supported, however flimsy the support, by anything that casually could be construed as having some validity.

He also made these comments just as the table closed, so he couldn't be publicly called on them.

I know nothing can be done about it but wanted to vent as I found it very upsetting..and it wasn't even me or anyone I know personally that he was accusing.

[lycier]

I think rating precondition/goal is to promote BBO prosperity,and can attract the more and more people to come to BBO playing online effectly.
There are some factors to be considered at below:

1- BBO benefits first:
What's the best benefits?of course,degree of playing participation.So boards played in total at BBO is very
important.without boards played,without BBO!
e.g:a real players with world class skill,if rarely log in to BBO,it will make no sense for rating ! Here is BBO, network world has its own rules .

2- ACBL benefts:
ACBL maybe help BBO rating,and can decide who is or not.BBO own Masterpoints which will be good for the players rating.


3- BBF benefits:
Without BBF,without properity of BBO.Liveness depand on the amount of posts at BBF.

4- BBO club ( at private/public clubs list) benefits:
BBO can grant the managers of these club right to rating his members (only for beginner and intermediate skill)

[lycier]

Perhaps rating is a requirement of the market.

[Antrax]

So's eternal youth. Doesn't mean you can deliver it.

[1eyedjack]

"Requirement" is a strong term, and as well preceded by "perhaps", allowing as it does also for "perhaps not".
I have no access to BBO’s financial records but from where I am sitting it does not appear to me to have adopted a suicidal business model with its current setup, which as we know does not involve a rating system.
There are other bridge sites, some older than BBO, some with rating systems. There are a lot of variables besides the presence of (and quality of, where present) a rating system that distinguishes one competing site from another, one of which being for example a membership fee. So isolating the influence of one variable (ie rating system) over the relative success of competing sites may be difficult. Nevertheless the continued growth of BBO without such a system places an onerous burden of justification those who suggest that a rating system is a "requirement of the market".

[helene_t]

RunemPard, on 2012-May-31, 04:00, said:

I just feel that in regards to overall skill over a long set of hands that MP shows this better than IMPs.

Over a long set of hands I think they just reward different skills. In particular, MP rewards the skill to judge whether the field will be in the same contract (play for overtricks/downtricks) or whether they will be in different contracts (play to make/set). I suppose proponents of IMP scoring think that judging the field contract is not a "real" bridge skill.

But over a short sesion I believe MP are statistically more stable/reproducible than IMP. The reason why I think this can be illustrated with a simple example:

Consider a 10-board event, consisting of
- 9 boards where everyone will bid 3♣ in NS which will make either 9 or 10 tricks depending on some decision declarer has to make
- 1 board where a vulnerable 7NT will be bid by every NS and which will make 12 or 13 tricks, again depending on a decision the declarer has to make

In an IMP event, the NS winner will be one who gets the 7NT board right. In an MP event, the winner will be the one who gets most decisions right - someone who got 8 of the 10 right might win the event, even if one of the wrong decisions happened to be the 7NT board. So unless the 7NT decision happens to be highly skill-dependent while the 3♣ decision are largely luck, the MP scoring will show a stronger correlation with skill level.

Of course I might be wrong about this but for someone with access to bridge browser or a similar database it should not be so difficult to test: take two pairs that have sometimes competed against each other in XIMP tourneys and sometimes in MP tourneys. If my hypethesis is right, the relative ranking of such two pairs in MP events will be more consistent (closer to "A wins 100%" or "B wins 100%") than the relative ranking in IMP events (closer to 50/50).

[helene_t]

RunemPard, on 2012-May-30, 16:08, said:

I like the idea of using a simple Elo system...but...there needs to be a formula that can convert both MP and IMP into a rating #...

This also brings into debate team matches and how they would affect this.

Now we must also consider skill level of other players.

I get a headache just thinking about it, but I would enjoy having a rating system.

Yes, it is far from trivial. But I believe EBU made a very serious effort and their rating system could probably be implemented on BBO also.

Anyway, Fred and Uday seem to have made the (in my opinion right) decision not to implement a rating scheme for the time being. But it could be a consideration for clubs on BBO.

[ping2827]

RunemPard, on 2012-May-30, 16:08, said:

I like the idea of using a simple Elo system...but...there needs to be a formula that can convert both MP and IMP into a rating #...

This also brings into debate team matches and how they would affect this.

Now we must also consider skill level of other players.

I get a headache just thinking about it, but I would enjoy having a rating system.


I am going to use a game that is very popular and often has rated on sites. (Spades)...
You play a full game to a set score until a winner has been determined. Based on the skill of others, ratings are calculated after and adjusted. I feel that if Elo based ratings were to be done, maybe the best route is to do something new?

You agree to play for example 8 hands of MP or IMP scoring and are taken to a table w/ a partner or a random partner. Two suitable opponents are found based on the rating range you wish to play. After 8 hands, whoever has shown the best results wins the round and rating points are adjusted. Of course, this can be adjusted based on how much you have won by or simply by winning overall...

I prefer keeping how much you won by as a factor in the equation. It allows for a more accurate result based on overall performance.


Example...8 board match...almost like 4-man play but using many results.
The results are a 20 IMP victory for team A over team B.
Both teams are of an equal rating.
A formula taking into account victory, skill levels, and win margin is done and a new rating is given.

Assuming a rating level starts at 1500...two 2000 rating players play against two players at the 1400 level. Based on the calculations, a victory of x must be obtained to gain rating, else a victory for the 2000 players results in no change.

IMO, MP is the best way to judge overall skill. To me, IMP tends to reward players who make games rather than those who play contracts to their fullest. A field where...

4S+2 x1
4S+1 x5
4S== x1 (opponents result)
3S+2 x2

Will reward your opponents for playing the contract worse than anybody else. Where in MP they are looking at gaining 4/16 MPs.

I have developed an Elo rating system for bridge. It has the following features.
1. The rating is based on partnership, not individual players.
2. MP game and IMP game are rated separately using different formula. So one could have an IMP rating and a MP rating. This is just like chess where you could have a regular rating and a quick rating.
3. The rating is based on per board result and it does not matter it is from pair game or team game. Both opponents' strength and field strength are considered in rating calculation. So every board counts.

If someone is interested, I could share more details about this rating system. If someone could organize a rated club on BBO, I could make this program available to it.

[Dinarius]

I usually enter BBO via List Interesting Tables, coz the Take Me To The First Available wrecks my head more often than not.

I only became aware of http://bboskill.com/ on this thread.

I've just done a random test of names from List Interesting Tables.

Someone who calls himself/herself [redacted] rates themselves as World Class. BBO Skill rates them as Intermediate, admittedly provisionally over the last month.

It's the same story for many of those currently in that room.

You can only laugh...!

D.

Ps. And nice to see one of my regular club and BBO partners listed as Expert on BBOSkill, even though he lists himself as Advanced.

This post has been edited by diana_eva: 2017-August-10, 12:50

[diana_eva]

Dinarius, on 2015-February-13, 03:18, said:

I usually enter BBO via List Interesting Tables, coz the Take Me To The First Available wrecks my head more often than not.

I only became aware of http://bboskill.com/ on this thread.

I've just done a random test of names from List Interesting Tables.

Someone who calls himself/herself [redacted] rates themselves as World Class. BBO Skill rates them as Intermediate, admittedly provisionally over the last month.

It's the same story for many of those currently in that room.

You can only laugh...!

D.

Ps. And nice to see one of my regular club and BBO partners listed as Expert on BBOSkill, even though he lists himself as Advanced.

BBO Skill is not a BBO page, and not part of BBO.

This post has been edited by diana_eva: 2017-August-10, 12:51