[eyhung]

It's a rolling average so your quit will be gone in 50 hands, and 1 quit in 50 hands will give you a 2% "drop" rate, which should be enough to satisfy most hosts. I suggest making the ban on drop rate completely customizable by the server, with a default of 5-10%. If you are disconnected a lot, well, I don't think most hosts would like that, so you would have to play in Relaxed Club where there are no restrictions, or find a host who can tolerate your frequent drops.

[Doraem0n]

In another website where they offered ratings, players seldom abandon a hand midway because to default immediately impacts their rating negatively. The most annoying thing I experienced in BBO is people leaving midway through a hand.

[helene_t]

Here is a proposal for people who have Bridge Browser:

Find out which rating system is most accurate, by means of cross-validation. If you remove a single board* from the database, a good rating scheme is one that can predict the IMP or MP score on that board, from a statistical analysis of the remaining boards.

There is an issue with partnership rating vs individual rating. So an alternative project could be: remove all hands played by a particular partnership and try to predict their performance from an analysis of the remaining boards (in particular those that they played with other partners).

Such a study would give clues to how accurate a rating based on total points would be relative to one based on IMP relative to PAR or to IMP relative to the hand played by robots, or to IMP relative to the BBO field.

*by "board" I mean board x played by players a,b,c,d, i.e. not all the times board x was played, just one of them. You do this for many (ideally all) boards in the database, then compute the average prediction error.

[djeast]

BB will never be a truly viable site as long as it is unable to have a regulated and sophisticated system of awarding colored points, at least to the silver level, and combine a rating system with ACBL ofline play. There needs to be a value to the money spent online, and no penalties for playing there. Colored points earned can be calculated very easily with the promotion in value of Gold, Red, and Silver points, and the devaluation of Black and Uncolored online points. The rating system if developed should be in addition to the current online rating. Opting in or out should not exist. BBO doing a terrible job at evaluating the quality of players. For those of us who need colored points, without an ability to enter games with correctly rated players for self improvement, BBO has nothing for me. I'll save my money and take up knitting.

[djeast]

Cheating in BBO speedballs is BBO's fault and no one else's. All Speedball tourneys need to be open seating, no partnerships, and after BBO develops an accurate Player Rating system in conjunction with ACBL, stratified play with players of similar talents playing agaist each other.

[hrothgar]

djeast, on Jul 25 2010, 07:01 PM, said:

BB will never be a truly viable site as long as it is unable to have a regulated and sophisticated system of awarding colored points, at least to the silver level, and combine a rating system with ACBL ofline play. There needs to be a value to the money spent online, and no penalties for playing there. Colored points earned can be calculated very easily with the promotion in value of Gold, Red, and Silver points, and the devaluation of Black and Uncolored online points. The rating system if developed should be in addition to the current online rating. Opting in or out should not exist. BBO doing a terrible job at evaluating the quality of players. For those of us who need colored points, without an ability to enter games with correctly rated players for self improvement, BBO has nothing for me. I'll save my money and take up knitting.

Comment 1: There are 15K people logged in right now. Feels pretty viable to me...

Comment 2: BBO doesn't cost anything, so its hard to understand how knitting is going to save to any money

Comment 3: You seem to be laboring under the belief that there is some relationship between "attendance points" and skill. If this is the case, then you are probably beyond hope.

Comment 4: BBO ain't the ACBL

[nigel_k]

I don't know the answer to the rating issue but one way might be to just outsource it, i.e. make the hand records easier to query externally so people can build their own rating system and make the results available on their own site. Over time, some would become popular and some would disappear. This wouldn't allow a tournament organiser to auto-exclude people based on rating but would be fine if you just want to restrict the people at your table.

[matmat]

djeast, on Jul 25 2010, 12:38 PM, said:

Cheating in BBO speedballs is BBO's fault and no one else's. All Speedball tourneys need to be open seating, no partnerships, and after BBO develops an accurate Player Rating system in conjunction with ACBL, stratified play with players of similar talents playing agaist each other.

LOL

Now, i am not sure about this, but i was under the impression that bridge was a partnership game.

Excluding pairs that play and practice together (THE VAST VAST VAST VAST VAST VAST VAST VAST (that's a lot of VASTs) majority of who DO NOT CHEAT) is ridiculous. it randomizes the field, causes bad and high variance bridge and rewards good luck rather than good actions.

This and your previous post make it pretty clear that you are exactly the sort of person I prefer not to have to meet at a bridge club; someone who loves to result, blame others, and argue. how's that masterpoint attendance award coming along?

[bid_em_up]

djeast, on Jul 25 2010, 12:01 PM, said:

I'll save my money and take up knitting.

Promises, promises.

[jillybean]

bid_em_up, on Jul 26 2010, 07:40 AM, said:

djeast, on Jul 25 2010, 12:01 PM, said:

I'll save my money and take up knitting.

Promises, promises.

LOL

[sallyd]

I was just ready to give up this whole project, when I came across these forums. Hopefully, this is the correct one in which to post my dilemma (sic). I have not played bridge since '92. Before that I became an LM quite quickly, played in regional and national events. Now, even though I belonged to OK since 94 and BBO for years, never played, just kibitzed on occasion. I am now trying to return and am frustrated. Need to brush up (to put it mildly) on bidding and play; however, the radom players with whom I am paired, usually play only the most basic system and I cannot get a chance to brush up on 2/1 or conventions---I forget alot of things and need practice. I have been playing with GIB 'cause he plays 2/1; but would really like to move along to real play. I am ready to give up the whole thing here on BBO--OK's no better. Perhaps if players were more honest about how they rated themselves, that would be a big step. I have played with "advanced" and "expers" that only played Stayman. I don't think I am too picky--if anyone has a suggestion or critical comment, please let me know. Thanks for listening.

[TimG]

sallyd, on Jul 28 2010, 09:39 AM, said:

I was just ready to give up this whole project, when I came across these forums. Hopefully, this is the correct one in which to post my dilemma (sic). I have not played bridge since '92. Before that I became an LM quite quickly, played in regional and national events. Now, even though I belonged to OK since 94 and BBO for years, never played, just kibitzed on occasion. I am now trying to return and am frustrated. Need to brush up (to put it mildly) on bidding and play; however, the radom players with whom I am paired, usually play only the most basic system and I cannot get a chance to brush up on 2/1 or conventions---I forget alot of things and need practice. I have been playing with GIB 'cause he plays 2/1; but would really like to move along to real play. I am ready to give up the whole thing here on BBO--OK's no better. Perhaps if players were more honest about how they rated themselves, that would be a big step. I have played with "advanced" and "expers" that only played Stayman. I don't think I am too picky--if anyone has a suggestion or critical comment, please let me know. Thanks for listening.

Play with people you know.

[sallyd]

If I knew someone, I would.

[RichMor]

sallyd, on Jul 28 2010, 03:00 PM, said:

If I knew someone, I would.

Sally,

Yup, it's a jungle out there. The response from TimG is correct I think. You either have to make a list of 'friends' on BBO or take your chances in the Main Bridge Club.

When I drop in the Main Bridge Club, I look at pard's profile first. If no information, or no system profile, or pard is -50 IMPS, I leave.

Good luck.

[awm]

I have a non-BBO question about rating systems.

Suppose that I have access to a large number of results from matchpoint events at a local club. I would like to apply some semblance of a sensible rating system to this data. I've seen a number of rating systems proposed (the Lehman system being prominent, but I'm aware of others).

Where can I get software which will, given the event results in some reasonable format, compute the ratings for each player according to some system? Or do I need to write this software from scratch?

[P_Marlowe]

awm, on Jul 28 2010, 04:28 PM, said:

I have a non-BBO question about rating systems.

Suppose that I have access to a large number of results from matchpoint events at a local club. I would like to apply some semblance of a sensible rating system to this data. I've seen a number of rating systems proposed (the Lehman system being prominent, but I'm aware of others).

Where can I get software which will, given the event results in some reasonable format, compute the ratings for each player according to some system? Or do I need to write this software from scratch?

Hi,

not sure, if this answers your question, and is helpful at all, but the scoring
program ruderyv has a rating module for club tournments:

http://www.rudersyv.de

It seemed to be reasonaable, our club uses the program, but we did not activate
the rating option.
=> Other similar programs may also have such a feature.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[P_Marlowe]

sallyd, on Jul 28 2010, 03:00 PM, said:

If I knew someone, I would.

Hi,

one possible option is to join the IAC club tournaments.
http://pigpen.org.uk/IAC/iac.php

In general, if you play in tournaments with a fairly well defined player set,
the niveau will be better than the niveau in the MC.
You will also have a better chance to find the same people, and if you start
a tournament you will play with your p the whole tournment (most of the time),
i.e. you will have a chance to get to know each other.

With kind regards
Marlowe

[hotShot]

Thinking about ratings you should read about the Dunning–Kruger effect.

[qwery_hi]

awm, on Jul 28 2010, 01:28 PM, said:

I have a non-BBO question about rating systems.

Suppose that I have access to a large number of results from matchpoint events at a local club. I would like to apply some semblance of a sensible rating system to this data. I've seen a number of rating systems proposed (the Lehman system being prominent, but I'm aware of others).

Where can I get software which will, given the event results in some reasonable format, compute the ratings for each player according to some system? Or do I need to write this software from scratch?

Doesn't answer your question directly but you may want to contact Chris Champion -
http://www.colorados...idge.com/pr.htm

[Wayne_LV]

I don't think a rating system that is accurate and fair is possible given the number of variables in the game of bridge.

I do think, however, that bridge knowledge is at least an indicator of performance at the table.

What if a standardized test(s) were developed that could be taken online and scored automatically? Such a test could cover the basic bidding of various common systems ..... in my opinion to be rated an expert, a player should have at least a rudimentary knowledge of Standard American, SAYC, Acol, 2/1, and Precision.

Such a test should also include a section on play of the hand including basic leads, defensive signals and carding, how to play basic card combinations, etc.

Also the test should cover the more common conventions.

Rating would then be based on overall score acheived on the test.

The test should be available to be taken online and players should be allowed to retake it as often as they wish.