[TimG]

inquiry, on Feb 9 2005, 12:35 PM, said:

TimG, on Feb 9 2005, 01:03 PM, said:

What is it about a rating system that will make you more suspicious of this sort of thing?

If players iwth a rating of, say 30 (with 25 lowest, 75 highest), drop the doubleton queen offside.. you say... "stupid novice, got lucky". If a player of 73 drops it, and you look and gold stars have ratings like 57 to 60, and you have never heard of the player with the 73 rating, you might think.. hmmmm... must be cheating.

I've never heard of most of the gold star players and I have witnessed a lot of them playing very bad bridge. Does that lead me to believe they were cheating when they earned their star? No.

When you see a self proclaimed novice execute a squeeze, what do you think? If you see a self proclaimed expert miss an endplay, what do you think?

I really do not understand why ratings change things. I'm not claiming that ratings don't change things, just that I cannot for the life of me understand why.

[TimG]

hotShot, on Feb 9 2005, 12:55 PM, said:

TimG, on Feb 9 2005, 05:03 PM, said:

What is it about a rating system that will make you more suspicious of this sort of thing?

Dear Tim!

If a player with a low rating :

• finds a killing lead
  
• plays a finess for a Jack, wenn all kings are offside
  
• makes any very good action

then he must be cheating.

If players that have a low rating

• bid a close game or slam that makes
  
• don't bid a game or slam with a strong hand, that cannot be made
  
• defend succesfully by "guessing" the right contract

then they must be cheating.

If this is the way people think, it is a sad statement.

[TimG]

inquiry, on Feb 9 2005, 12:35 PM, said:

Ratings lead to lots of such allegations of chearing. Every play at okbridge? I know this happens from experience.

I played a lot at OKbridge -- I was a member for 6 or 7 years and played 2000-3000 hands per year for a 2-3 year stretch. I never had a problem at my table that was the result of me thinking the opponents were cheating. And, to the best of my knowledge, my opponents never made any allegations that I was cheating. (That's not to say that I don't think my opponents were ever cheating. With all that bridge, there was likely some cheating at some point. I will also freely admit that I sometimes cheated -- I often had a set of system notes next to the computer and sometimes referred to them without informing the opponents that I was using a memory aid.)

Yes, there were some people who were obsessed with the idea that their opponents might be cheating. But, I think the extent of the cheating was exaggerated by the vocal few who thought it was rampant.

I also believe that the people who cheat when a rating system is in place will also cheat when there is no rating system in place.

[fred]

TimG, on Feb 9 2005, 08:21 PM, said:

I also believe that the people who cheat when a rating system is in place will also cheat when there is no rating system in place.

I believe that some people are compulsive cheats, but that others will only cheat (or at the very least are much more inclined to cheat) if there is something of perceived value to be gained from cheating.

Having a high rating has perceived value for a lot of people (because it results in other people thinking that they are good players, increases their status in the online community, and makes it easier for them to find quality partners and opponents).

So the introduction of a rating system on BBO would likely increase the number of cheaters on BBO because a rating system gives borderline cases additional incentive for cheating.

However, cheating is only one of the problems that rating systems cause. More serious in my view are:

1) People rufusing to play with and against each other due to concern for their ratings

2) People looking for any possible excuse to blame bad results on their partners and to do so in a rude way because bad results are bad for your rating

To preempt the likely response of "but these things happen without ratings too", yes that is correct, but just like cheating, they tend to happen more when there is a rating system (in my opinion). Some people are just plain rude. Others need an excuse to be rude and a rating system provides that excuse for some of these people.

Fred Gitelman
Bridge Base Inc.
www.bridgebase.com

[mycroft]

On That Other Site (and for three months way, way back in time, I hosted the Lehman Rating Explanation page, so...) I had a rating of about 47%. Why? Because I played with anybody, and I played with my novice students at competitive tables.

My regular partner had a rating of about 49% for pretty much the same reason (only he's better at playing pickup than I am).

When we played together, one of three things happened:

1) we couldn't find a table at our level, because they wouldn't let <50s in. Period.
2) we played in 45-50 tables, and walked over them, because *as a regular pair* we rated about 54.
3) we played against our friends and their friends, who knew how good we were, and ignored the numbers.

That's why people did all the "bad" things to protect their rating - cheat, leave in the middle of the hand if partner made one mistake, accuse opps of cheating... Oh, some of it must have been because their egos were stroked by the number, but most of it was because their rating basically determined who they could play with, and who they could play against.

If I sound like I'm against rating systems...well, then I write well enough.
Now a "Top 10 score of the week" listing, that's kind of fun.

Michael (preferred rating: Experts play with me. I'm quite proud of that one).

[mr1303]

Someone gave me a link to a website which gives you a rating, somehow based (I think) on your recent results.

A complete farce of course, because several gold stars only have intermediate ratings.

The link is www.5.waw.pl/~lukasz/bbo/

[Walddk]

I think it's hilarious. fred for example is somewhere in between beginner and advanced. Me? Intermediate, that's quite flattering

Roland

[Flame]

This is a good example of how problematic a rating system can be. I dont think this rating is a complete nonsense, i just think they only check your avarage score , and decide ur level according to it, this is wrong since it will give good rating to someone who play with bad opponents. Now if you think of how you decide someone is a good player in real life, you will see its completely different, you would think the player who get little above avarage in expert turney is much better then the player who won the local club event with 70% score.
normally everyone want to play in a field of his level so naturally such a player wont get accurate rating without considering the field.

[bearmum]

WHY take ANY notice of "rating" system online ? - just play the game and enjoy

[MickyB]

I don't understand what the page is trying to do - it is possible that the method is sound, and it takes into account the rating of opps, partner, etc. The problem would be lack of data, particularly if, for example, a group of 10 stars have only ever played amongst themselves. Some of them would have to have a below average rating, because there is no evidence in their stats that this group as a whole are good players or bad players.

[Brandal]

I'm curious as to how these AKQJ10987654321 numbers
from pay tourneys affect how people "think" when looking
for a partner.

Do they cause "bad social behavior" like a rating system
apparently does?

Do players avoid someone with a "1" and only ask the AKQJ
players?


I honestly believe any rating system is no good.

I honestly believe the only way for me to rate a player is
to play with him,and see if we match,if we do how we're rated
elsewhere does not matter,if we don't how we're rated elsewhere
does not matter.


Frode

[Rain]

Brandal, on Feb 28 2005, 08:25 AM, said:

I'm curious as to how these AKQJ10987654321 numbers
from pay tourneys affect how people "think" when looking
for a partner.

Do they cause "bad social behavior" like a rating system
apparently does?

Do players avoid someone with a "1" and only ask the AKQJ
players?

I should be very surprised if people seek partners based on the BBO Masterpoints (BBOMP) ratings.

The fact is most bbo players have never played in a pay tourney, so the majority will have no opportunity to obtain anything beside their name. Most still don't know what the symbols mean, or how to obtain them.

I believe many pay tourney players will prefer to play these with a favourite partner--why pay to play with random pickups if you have a favourite partner? If so, it will be likely the 2 players have approx. the same no. of BBOMP.

For normal club play, like I mentioned, most players don't have any weird symbol beside their name, and these symbols are only easily visible in lobby--if you are looking for a table to play, you can't see the symbols beside the names, unlike how you can see the stars.

So to answer your question, I will guess confidently that there is no effect.

But do these symbols affect negatively in other ways? I think yes. Sadly, I see an increase in the number of cheating claims when none exist--I don't know the technical term for this, so will just call it the jealousy effect! This is not only a major waste of time for those who investigate cheating claims, its also super irritating and sad. If cheating accus. is true, the BBOMP consideration is probably a very minor factor in the psyche of the cheaters; however, it is probably part of the equation.

So yeah, anyway, no bbo ratings please. There are other ways to tell standard of whoever you're playing with/against. 2 or 3 boards suffice in general. (If you can't tell after 2 or 3 boards what standard of your opponent is, it shouldn't matter as much to you, as one usually can tell if another is of a "lower" standard easily, but not the converse....)

Wonder if I'll get edited for this :-)

Rain

[luke warm]

Rain, on Feb 28 2005, 04:47 PM, said:

I should be very surprised if people seek partners based on the BBO Masterpoints (BBOMP) ratings.

i personally know people who, based on the acbl rating they have, charge to partner... true, usually they only charge their entry fee, but these are intermediate to advanced players

[ellie26]

Quote

Sadly, I see an increase in the number of cheating claims when none exist--I don't know the technical term for this, so will just call it the jealousy effect! This is not only a major waste of time for those who investigate cheating claims, its also super irritating and sad.

I can't resist the temptation to reply to the above comments.

Firstly, we join ACBL because we consider it an institution where " fair play" and " ethics" take high priority. Many of the players choose ACBL tournaments online because they feel these attributes are adjudicated.

Secondly, if a player has a concern about cheating, etc, and if they have taken the time and effort to report their concerns, then they should not be considered as a nuisance or a waste of time. That particular person has a reason to be concerned and I think those concerns have to be addressed. The institution of the ACBL , similiar to the Justice System, as an example, must be perceived as being fair.

It was only a couple of days ago that I suggested to Uday to consider an independent ethics committee to look after allegations of online cheating. This committee would be totally independent from BBO staff and would be made up of qualified ACBL directors, teachers, club owners, managers and only those who have had some years of experience. With 100,000 playing members on BBO, I am sure there are lots of qualified people who would be willing to donate their time for a term on such a committee. Apparently the workload is too great for abuse, as there are too many complaints that are a waste of time, or irritating. Such a committe will free up precious time for abuse to address other issues. Rays Bridge Ladder had an issue with cheating a couple of years ago, and they were able to address it with much fewer members to draw from than BBO.

Sorry my message is so long,, wasn't intended, but I feel cheating needs to be addressed.

ellie

[inquiry]

Hi Ellie,

I think you misunderstood rain's point. She is suggesting that there are more "reports of cheating" when there is NO EVIDENCE of cheating. People report just one hand, which is often not even suspecious. Twice in one week people turned in a pair (different) for cheating in a tournement despite the fact that these two pairs came in DEAD LAST in the events they were suppose to be cheating in.

I have to admit the BBO is probably not likely to institute a panel of community cheater catchers for a variety of reasons. I am not saying this as a system administrator on this board or a yellow host on the BBO. I am saying this as am individual as it relates to privacy issues. But I want you to rest assured that every cheating allegation is examined (this is why frivolious ones are such a waste of time). Also, rest assured that cheaters have been caught "punished". Sometimes there is not enough evidence to be certain a player or pair is cheating, in which case they are put on a watch list for additional examination as more hands are played.

While it is not possible to catch all cheaters, cheaters should tihink twice about cheating in pay tournments. The limited staff we do have to look into cheating allegations, are most interested in making sure cheatng does not occur in those events. If you cheat in them you will get caught, and many of the expelled cheaters ahve been caught playing in those events, and some where not even turned in by users, but whose activity caught the attention of yellow host.

You want to help catch cheaters? When you suspect someone is cheating, send an email to abuse and include links to the hand swhere you feel strongly that cheating occurred. We find that allegations of cheating accompained by 3 or 4 hands are much more often correct than an email naming someone or email iwht only one hand offerened in proof that cheating was occruing.

Ben

[TimG]

inquiry, on Mar 1 2005, 02:26 PM, said:

You want to help catch cheaters? When you suspect someone is cheating, send an email to abuse and include links to the hand swhere you feel strongly that cheating occurred. We find that allegations of cheating accompained by 3 or 4 hands are much more often correct than an email naming someone or email iwht only one hand offerened in proof that cheating was occruing.

It shouldn't be the job of those reporting to gather multiple hand records. I might feel an action is suspicious, but not end up playing against this pair (or individual) again for weeks (or ever). There should be a central depository of reports and when a certain name keeps popping up a closer examination of events should take place.

[rona_]

Quote

despite the fact that these two pairs came in DEAD LAST in the events they were suppose to be cheating in.

You will find that people who feel the need to cheat aren't very bright, so fortunately for everyone else, some cannot take advantage of their cheating. Coming first or last should not even be a subject of discussion, nor the concern of abuse, in my view.

[TimG]

ellie26, on Mar 1 2005, 01:56 PM, said:

This committee would be totally independent from BBO staff and would be made up of qualified ACBL directors, teachers, club owners, managers and only those who have had some years of experience. With 100,000 playing members on BBO, I am sure there are lots of qualified people who would be willing to donate their time for a term on such a committee.

I'm not sure why you want to limit the committee members to ACBL Directors (managers, teachers and owners). Passing a club director test (opening a club or teaching a lesson) does not make one qualified to investigate cheating allegations.

[ellie26]

Glad I caught someone's attention.. Tks Inquiry,, was afraid no one would read my post.

I am very opinionated when it comes to cheating. Even though cheating cannot be eliminated, it at least has to have the perception of being "under control". It is not easy, but allegations of cheating cannot be taken lightly. And as you indicated, I'm sure there are many non-valid complaints, that comes with the territority. To make players feel more confident, these concerns have to addressed, or they will just lose interest.

BBO is a great playing site. The programmers have done a terrific job.
I will never be a World Class player, not even close. But I do enjoy the principles of the game and BBO can boast about the marvellous people with such intense interest in the betterment of the game as being players on this site. I think it is wonderful.

I have a couple of concerns about your posting and I will speak to you in private.

I have a little incident to tell you that is of reading interest. I played in a NABC game and the caddie got the boards mixed up in a swiss team event. Mistakes happen, but at the National level, I felt this mistake shouldn't go unnoticed, so I went to the office to report it. The ACBL at the office showed no interest at all. And guess what ? I boycotted the ACBL National games for a year. Nobody cared, and I was the one to suffer, but at least I found a way to vent my frustrations. All the office had to do was to show some concern, give me a free entry to the next Swiss event and I would have gone away happy and would have been buying entries to the NABC for the next year. Get my point?

ellie

[inquiry]

TimG, on Mar 1 2005, 03:44 PM, said:

inquiry, on Mar 1 2005, 02:26 PM, said:

You want to help catch cheaters? When you suspect someone is cheating, send an email to abuse and include links to the hand swhere you feel strongly that cheating occurred. We find that allegations of cheating accompained by 3 or 4 hands are much more often correct than an email naming  someone or email iwht only one hand offerened in proof that cheating was occruing.

It shouldn't be the job of those reporting to gather multiple hand records. I might feel an action is suspicious, but not end up playing against this pair (or individual) again for weeks (or ever). There should be a central depository of reports and when a certain name keeps popping up a closer examination of events should take place.

We already keep a log of reported cheaters. One report is enough to get someone looked at, but if they are cheating only occassionally or only with certain partners it is harder to catch them. Obviously if you send in two or three or four hands, that would help. You may be surprised how active some members are in this regard. They feel burned by someone and they go to the myhand site and send in a lot of hands.

But even a report that pair x and y are cheating, is enough to have at least a cursory look but unless it is so flaggarnt and repeated, such a single report will probably not get them caught. Six such reports, on the other hand might get them found out.

Ben