[matmat]

Any chance we could see a histogram of the completion rate for the MBC tables? Or does it just use a tournament values?

[Creeksider]

 diana_eva, on 2010-November-18, 00:49, said:

- Robot tourneys do not count. You can withdraw or quit them - they won't affect your completion %.

Thanks for the response. I was barred from a tournament with a message saying my completion rate is too low. I'm new here, and I've entered fewer than 10 non-robot tournaments (and never bailed on a non-robot tournament, though I may have inadvertently timed out on one before learning the ropes). I don't understand why I would be barred if my robot tournaments aren't being counted and I've entered fewer than 10 of the others. Bug in the software, or is this how it's supposed to work?

[Rain]

 matmat, on 2010-November-18, 01:30, said:

Any chance we could see a histogram of the completion rate for the MBC tables? Or does it just use a tournament values?

MBC one uses MBC value, different from tourneys.
But you must understand the difference - it is much easier to get a high % in MBC than in tourneys because you are measured per board. If I were creating tables, I would put 90% for MBC and not more than 75% for tournaments.

Sidenote: I found myself deliberately trying to get to 100% completion rate when this begun. Hopefully this has the same psychological effect on everyone else!

[jillybean]

There is a problem when it comes to changing the completion rate setting once the tournament has been created.
If I use edit tournament, I can change the completion rate % but the 'update' button is not available. I can work around
it by clicking on one of the radio buttons for the other settings, then the update button is available.

[matmat]

duplicate post -- feel free to nuke.

[matmat]

 Rain, on 2010-November-18, 13:04, said:

MBC one uses MBC value, different from tourneys.
But you must understand the difference - it is much easier to get a high % in MBC than in tourneys because you are measured per board. If I were creating tables, I would put 90% for MBC and not more than 75% for tournaments.

Sidenote: I found myself deliberately trying to get to 100% completion rate when this begun. Hopefully this has the same psychological effect on everyone else!

I think I do understand, which is why I am asking to see a histogram; I suspect that anything below, say, about 85% is uselesss... 75% means that you don't finish one in four boards, 80%, one in five... more or less, which is quite an abysmal ratio. When I looked at the available settings last night when setting up a table, it seemed like the only values available were in 5% steps, down from 100%... I wouldn't be surprised if 95% was the only sensible setting, for instance, in which case it would be better to not confuse the table hosts with percentages and just offer two (or three) options : "no completion control", "moderate completion control", and "tight completion control" (the latter two being two and one sigma cuts...)

Re your second point, that's only true if it is written in big, fat, red letters somewhere, when people log in, and then repeated when they sit at a table -- or if there is a warning as they try to leave in the middle of a hand when they are not dummy.

[uday]

MatMat is probably right


29% of users have a completion rate of 100%

41% of users have a completion rate of 99% or better
54% of users have a completion rate of 98% or better
64% of users have a completion rate of 97% or better
72% of users have a completion rate of 96% or better

78% of users have a completion rate of 95% or better

93% of users have a completion rate of 90% or better

97% of users have a completion rate of 85%

99% of users have a completion rate of 80%


Note, tho: this is about users for whom we have sufficient data to have an opinion. Currently thats something like "....people who have played 10 or more boards over last 30 days " , tho that might change , or might be fewer boards (or more days) than are sensible.


I'll pass this on to FG in case he agrees that the granularity of the spinner is too coarse.

[babalu1997]

 uday, on 2010-November-19, 14:00, said:

MatMat is probably right


29% of users have a completion rate of 100%

41% of users have a completion rate of 99% or better
54% of users have a completion rate of 98% or better
64% of users have a completion rate of 97% or better
72% of users have a completion rate of 96% or better

78% of users have a completion rate of 95% or better

93% of users have a completion rate of 90% or better

97% of users have a completion rate of 85%

99% of users have a completion rate of 80%

i did notice these high numbers but, i did declone one invite with a completion rate of 39% geesh must be the only one at bbo

This post has been edited by Gerardo: 2010-November-20, 02:50
Reason for edit: Added missing [/quota] tag

[hotShot]

Imagine you where new to BBO, what would your experience be?

You go to the MBC and try to sit at a table, but since you don't have a completion rate, the first BBO members you meet are the notorious table hoppers.
Since you don't know that there is something like a completion rate and how it works, you will probably not play 10 boards in a row to get one. Even if you play 10 boards in a row, you won't get a completion rate at once, because they are calculated at someplaces night whatever time of day that is in the users local time.

You go to test the tourney area, but you can't join, because of your tourney completion rate.
How do you know that you need to play 10 tourneys and wait another day to get a completion rate?

I understand why you want a minimum number of boards / tourneys to define a completion rate, but I think that setting the completion rates to 100% for new members updating after each board/tourney will give real new members a better experience and still ruin the runners rate as soon as they run. Of cause that will only work if the number of new members is small.

[mgoetze]

 hotShot, on 2010-November-23, 06:51, said:

I understand why you want a minimum number of boards / tourneys to define a completion rate, but I think that setting the completion rates to 100% for new members updating after each board/tourney will give real new members a better experience and still ruin the runners rate as soon as they run.

...until the runner creates another new account.

Set the completion rate to 100% for new members who have a BB$ account, that would be fine.

[pottsca]

I'm a long time member. I play at tables quite often. I play some robot tourneys, but because I don't know too many people or often cannot play for a long time, as of yesterday I had played I think only seven tournaments in the last 7 months that involved people. But, I finished all of them. I should be able to play if I want to.

This policy is presuming me guilty until proven innocent. I'm a serious player, 325 MP in the ACBL, a qualified director, and I NEVER leave in the middle of a hand or tournament, even a robot one. I've been a mentor in the BIL.

However, I am almost NEVER going to be playing 10 tournaments a month to keep up my "qualification". So as of now I get refused on a lot of your tourneys. This is just morally wrong. And, you're losing money.

You need to rethink the formula, using more data than just tournaments in a month. For example, I've been a member a long time and my table completion rate is 100%, and I have 20+ BBO points -- surely that is presumptive evidence that I'm not a runner. And if I had the moral character not to run last year, is that not something?

[barmar]

Hear, hear! I probably spend $30-40 a week entering various robotic tourneys, and I'm an [8] in BBO's masterpoint rating system. But I only play in human tourneys occasionally, so I have no tourney completion rate.

[Bbradley62]

How's this: keep both the "human" tournament completion rate and the rate including GIB tourneys. For each player, publish the higher rate, stipulating that players without enough "human" results cannot have that rate published. This allows players who play both types but sometimes quits GIB tournaments to not get dinged by quitting those, but allows those who only/primarily play GIB events to have a rating.

[jillybean]

If I sub into a tournament and subsequently get replaced, does this effect my completion rate %?

[barmar]

 jillybean, on 2010-December-23, 17:53, said:

If I sub into a tournament and subsequently get replaced, does this effect my completion rate %?

Rain answered that above, in post #15.

[jillybean]

 Rain, on 2010-November-03, 11:33, said:

If sub finishes tourney, it counts as a completed tourney.

If sub bails from tourney, it counts as a bailed tourney.

If sub is subbed out from tourney, it doesn't count for or against them.

I don't believe point 1 is working. Since I'm laid up, I have been subbing into
a lot of tournaments over the last few days. My completion rate % has not increased.
I bailed after subbing into 1 unbearable game and my completion rate did decrease.

[Rain]

Jilly, did you finish the tourney as a sub?

[jillybean]

 Rain, on 2010-December-29, 10:07, said:

Jilly, did you finish the tourney as a sub?

Yes, I have subbed into several in the last few days, and completed all but 1.

[jillybean]

I would be interested to know how many TD's/tournaments are using this filter?

[matmat]

Karma.

I've not played for a bit and noticed some odd looking "no parking" signs on open seats.
Sure enough, i no longer have a completion rate, despite having played thousands (?) of hands on BBO and completed close to 100% of them. I guess you guys recalculate for the last month or so?