[hotShot]

Sadie3, on Feb 8 2010, 09:06 PM, said:

I've never seen a Regional or National event that did not cut the tables down to a maximum of 18 tables per section, so I do not think that the complaint is a valid complaint.  Granted, overall results use all the entries, but a 65% game in one section could be a 58% result in another section depending on how tough the section pairs actually were.

I'm sure that at regionals and nationals the play is much more serious than in the MBC of BBO. If such a nonsense like 7NTXX-13 would happen, the TD could disqualify a pair and adjust the score.

Sadie3, on Feb 8 2010, 09:06 PM, said:

As for a fix...  I understand that there are restraints due to original system design, but does that mean that the web version ( aka, the new version) could not design an alternate scoring system option perhaps at a small cost to the users that wish to look at their results differently from the rest of us? 

If a board is played at a table where one player uses the Windows client, the results need to fit the limits of the Windows client. Anything but a complete change would unnecessary complicated, and could lead to system faults.

[jjbrr]

Alternatively, the system should be fixed so that everyone gets positive imps. That way everyone is a winner!

[jdonn]

Why do people care so much about their scores online?

What's the big deal about there being high variance in the results?

What if I made some brilliant psych that tricked my oppoonents into going for a huge number, or I have some awesome relay system that found a cold 7NT with the field in game, or my opponents had an honest misunderstanding when they opened flannery and redoubled, why should my score not count?

If online bridge is not "serious bridge" then why should it be scored as though it is?

[hotShot]

It may surprise you, but for some people playing on BBO is serious bridge.
Usually they play among their peers, but they like to have scores to compare their results to.

[Sadie3]

hotShot, on Feb 8 2010, 03:21 PM, said:

Sadie3, on Feb 8 2010, 09:06 PM, said:

As for a fix...  I understand that there are restraints due to original system design, but does that mean that the web version ( aka, the new version) could not design an alternate scoring system option perhaps at a small cost to the users that wish to look at their results differently from the rest of us? 

If a board is played at a table where one player uses the Windows client, the results need to fit the limits of the Windows client. Anything but a complete change would unnecessary complicated, and could lead to system faults.

That is a good point, Hotshot. You must be a systems person to think about that. Quick fix for that is to have the option available only at tables where the players are all web client players. Or maybe it is easier than that. The option could be available only on the web client results screen. Fred et al make those kinds of decisions. But I regress. Is this really a viable wish list item? Does anyone other than Martin want it?

[jdonn]

hotShot, on Feb 8 2010, 04:17 PM, said:

It may surprise you, but for some people playing on BBO is serious bridge.
Usually they play among their peers, but they like to have scores to compare their results to.

Something is not 'serious bridge' unless it is serious for everyone playing. If they want to play 'serious bridge' on BBO then they have plenty of options, such as private games or team games, ACBL tourneys, etc. But they shouldn't be trying to change what the main bridge club is.

[helene_t]

jdonn, on Feb 8 2010, 09:41 PM, said:

What's the big deal about there being high variance in the results?

Well at butler the idea is that it is less robust than XIMPs so you prune outliers to compensate for that.

[NOosAnCE]

Gerardo, on Feb 8 2010, 02:08 PM, said:

So, according to you, OKB uses a way to calculate the score for a set of tables(the extremes), and other way to calculate the score for everybody else?

Are you authoritative on this, or can provide documentation?

And there you go again, not answering the question not sticking to the subject, I asked you, if you just want to be a pain, then I prefer not to have your reply here, it is not leading anywhere. The point was that on a flat board you may have a 6 IMP plus or minus (for all 14 pairs that "scored normal") on 50+% of the boards. That would never happen in a serious scoring system, ever. This is the last time I respond to any post or reply from Gerardo.

[NOosAnCE]

Sadie3, on Feb 8 2010, 04:17 PM, said:

That is a good point, Hotshot. You must be a systems person to think about that. Quick fix for that is to have the option available only at tables where the players are all web client players. Or maybe it is easier than that. The option could be available only on the web client results screen. Fred et al make those kinds of decisions. But I regress. Is this really a viable wish list item? Does anyone other than Martin want it?

LOL, you gotta be kidding. I heard complaints about the scores from countless players, else I would not have posted this.

[NOosAnCE]

jjbrr, on Feb 8 2010, 03:38 PM, said:

Alternatively, the system should be fixed so that everyone gets positive imps. That way everyone is a winner!

you are really awesome!

[babalu1997]

For me BBO=bridge.

The score is not important, i play to learn.

There must be some reason why BBI has thousands logged on where you are lucky ti find 100 tables at rated bridge sites.

People cannot afford to sacrifice their rating because they want to try a new system, for example.

The effect on the score for 7ntxx might be the same as the novice who mangled a sound contract.

So just ignore the score and move on.

I really believe that the thousands of users just ignore the score.

[jjbrr]

thanks! happy to help!

[NOosAnCE]

jdonn, on Feb 8 2010, 03:41 PM, said:

Why do people care so much about their scores online?

What's the big deal about there being high variance in the results?

What if I made some brilliant psych that tricked my oppoonents into going for a huge number, or I have some awesome relay system that found a cold 7NT with the field in game, or my opponents had an honest misunderstanding when they opened flannery and redoubled, why should my score not count?

If online bridge is not "serious bridge" then why should it be scored as though it is?

If you think there are 2 kinds of bridge: serious bridge and non serious bridge, then this club should change the name: Non serious bridge base online, www.nonseriousbriggebase.com
But non serious bridge is a joke, there is only 1 game and it's called bridge. If you like to play a non serious game, there are plenty of kids games you can play on the net, where you don't have to use your brain, and cheating and score don't mean a thing.

[jdonn]

NOosAnCE, on Feb 8 2010, 05:00 PM, said:

But non serious bridge is a joke, there is only 1 game and it's called bridge.

And in that game all the scores count and none are thrown out. So it looks like you are the one who wants to play some game that isn't bridge.

But no matter, I'll just inform the hundreds of thousands of players on bbo who play 'non-serious' bridge just for fun that they should quit immediately because they don't reach the noosance standards of seriousness.

[babalu1997]

this should move to the hijack thread

here, we make suggestions, then we listen to the bosses and they answer in earnest, thank them.

lest of course, they are a nuisance.

[NOosAnCE]

babalu1997, on Feb 8 2010, 05:15 PM, said:

this should move to the hijack thread

here, we make suggestions, then we listen to the bosses and they answer in earnest, thank them.

lest of course, they are a nuisance.

You obviously haven't read my original post:
=====================================================
I have been playing here quite some years now, compared to OKB, where I played before, I see advantages and disadvantages. Of course I won't complain about the advantages. I do have some suggestions to improve BBO though. This is not only my opinion but many players with me think alike.

I have been complaining about these matters at my table for a long time, and then every now and then a yellow friend encourages me to post it here, but then I always say that I am not the only one here thinking this way and telling BBO about it and it never changed, so what is the point? Well this time I took the time to do it, please do not disappoint me.
=====================================================
You think different, up to you, but there are many out there annoyed by these scores that do not even come here. Here only a few players visit compared to the thousands I played with and against. I listen to the boss. I do not listen to someone ignoring the subject and just repeating himself.

If you want to kill this post, I would not be surprised, I knew it was useless before I posted. There have been bookburners throughout history sinds forever.

[Gerardo]

NOosAnCE, on Feb 8 2010, 11:28 AM, said:

Gerardo, on Feb 6 2010, 02:22 PM, said:

What average? There is no average.

. On OKB they USE (see, I do not use the word AVERAGE) the scores of 52 pairs to make results for everyone else, and the top 2 and bottom 2 are not counted for the calculation of the results of the other 48 pairs, but they are for the 4 extremes, see I didnt use AVERAGE again.

You had two points in the initial post:
[list=a]
[*] The number of boards for comparison, which I didn't touch. I agree, I think I higher number could be better, though Helene comments about first impressions may be relevant.
[*] Why not eliminate top and bottoms, which I explained it is just not applicable to the way scores are calculated.

As far as I know, I stuck to this subject.
Also, XIMP vs Butler is completely relevant to this argument, no matter how much you claim otherwise.

On the quoted post, You either claim they use Butler, as you claimed in the initial post (then, no matter how much you avoid the WORD average, the CONCEPT average is implied in its process), or they use two different ways (one for extremes, other for the rest), as you claimed later.

You claim you know about this, however you were so far unable to provide a coherent answer when called upon it.

Agree with you, this is leading nowhere. Also, I'm bored of pointing flaws in your logic, and it is pointless if you are unable to acknowledge them.

Interesting how you assumed Luisa was talking about you when she said nuisance.

[barmar]

If players considered BBO to be "serious bridge", they wouldn't be bidding 7NT at random. It's not BBO that's the issue, it's online bridge in general -- people behave differently online than they do in person. They talk differently in forums, they play games differently. It's a well known sociological problem.

Regarding your suggestion, I don't see the point. If there's an extreme score, it affects everyone else pretty equally. It changes their absolute scores, but not the relative scores, and that's all that matters. And if there are extremes at both ends, they'll cancel each other out.

I played on OKB for many years (I was one of the early players, before it went commercial), and I'm pretty sure they have always used cross-imps, and I don't recall them throwing out the extremes.

If you throw out the extremes, the scores won't balance out. You need to include the extremes when you calculate the IMPs for those pairs, but ignore them when calculating the IMPs for everyone else. That doesn't seem right.

Comparing with 16 tables doesn't seem so bad. When you play in a club game or most tournaments, there are usually only 11-12 comparisons. The exception is large tournaments with scoring across multiple sections.

[NOosAnCE]

barmar, on Feb 9 2010, 12:20 AM, said:

If players considered BBO to be "serious bridge", they wouldn't be bidding 7NT at random. It's not BBO that's the issue, it's online bridge in general -- people behave differently online than they do in person. They talk differently in forums, they play games differently. It's a well known sociological problem.

Regarding your suggestion, I don't see the point. If there's an extreme score, it affects everyone else pretty equally. It changes their absolute scores, but not the relative scores, and that's all that matters. And if there are extremes at both ends, they'll cancel each other out.

I played on OKB for many years (I was one of the early players, before it went commercial), and I'm pretty sure they have always used cross-imps, and I don't recall them throwing out the extremes.

If you throw out the extremes, the scores won't balance out. You need to include the extremes when you calculate the IMPs for those pairs, but ignore them when calculating the IMPs for everyone else. That doesn't seem right.

Comparing with 16 tables doesn't seem so bad. When you play in a club game or most tournaments, there are usually only 11-12 comparisons. The exception is large tournaments with scoring across multiple sections.

As I expected, to bring up this subject was completely useless because the people responding other than Fred have no clue, you all did not see what he wrote? Or what I wrote? I am sure you are used to comparing 10 scores at your local club, but for a field this large it is a joke. It can't be changed so I will live with it, but it is not a good scoring method, see Fred's replies. Everybody ignores that OKB uses 52 scores, WHATEVER scoring method they use, and any large tourney uses much more data. You all want to compare BBO with scoring at your local club, thats fine, you just miss the point. I will never ever in my life post something here again, it is a total waste of time, (except Fred's reply that is). All comments are about details which do not matter very much.

[jjbrr]

NOosAnCE, telling a group of people that we have no clue and that you and the admins are the only ones who understand the issue at hand is a great way to continue to get flamed for your proposals. I can say with a great degree of confidence that the other posters in this thread not only have a clue but are also making perfectly legitimate points that you seem too stubborn to acknowledge for whatever reason.

But since I enjoy arguing with trolls, I'll give it another go.

You seem pretty upset that sometimes you make +400 in your cold game and lose imps because some bozo went for -1700 and screwed up the results. But have you ever gained from such a situation? Moreover, is there any indication that you're more likely to lose imps from the bozos than you are to win imps? The answer is no.

So in the short run, you're right. Sometimes the scores are skewed. The good news is the scores of your pick-up game in the MBC were already completely meaningless anyway and therefore it doesn't matter that they're skewed. But for the sake of argument, let's agree that one skewed score is somehow bad.

With that said, as we approach the long run, it should be clear to see that the effects of bozos completely evens out and the expected imp advantage to both you and your opponents due to bozos is exactly 0. That's right, the bozo that made you lose imps when you made your cold game will be completely neutralized by the bozo who passes a 2♣ opener when you have a cold grand, thus allowing you to win imps you otherwise didn't deserve.

Rest assured you're not getting screwed by the bozos. It'll all even out in the long run.

Finally, you keep saying that you're not the only one who wants to see these changes made, and you seem to imply that there are lots of people who agree with you. Could you please provide some rational reasons of why these changes are so important to you? Why do you even let it bother you?