The Dog, the Frog, and possibly a few Hogs
Tenretnigy
I have been reading a few of the posts, and it is going to be a very long year
for all of the individual posters that are out in left-field with their
continuous saga.
Why is it that the most of you continue to surmise what has been happening with
the high stats scenario? There is personal chaton the posting board between
two individuals about why and how stats are manipulated. All kinds of
comparisons are given, however, not ONE of you has considered the pertinent
fact, that if you play four experts against each other, they will not break
even, as it was given by by these two individuals. Their results are scored
against THE ENTIRE FIELD in play. That includes: novices, intermediates,
advances (various pluses), and experts in the OKB room. All melted together to
make one very interesting vegetable soup.
So many speaking here have had the audacity to crucify and curse those with
high stats, including Farfel and longpips, as manipulators. I have kibitzed
their games often, and many times they ASK for expert and advanced players,
sitting and waiting, and after no experts and advanced players appear, they
open up the table to anyone who cares to play, I have never seen a novice, and
many of the intermediates have been told that they may be "in over their heads"
at the table, before proceeding to play. It seems that all of the adverse
publicity, has made them pariahs as the negative aspersions are cast, whether
inadvertent or not, their names have been continuously tossed around, and their
"virtues" have been questioned and distorted, casting doubt by potential
opponents, looking for a game.
I have witnessed supposedly "good" players self-destruct against them. So, it
appears that they bring their bushel baskets and set them on the table. It
doesn't take long for these players to fill them to capacity.
I, and many others in the OKB room, have not seen any manipulation as quoted in
previous posts, by anyone whatsoever. They may exist, however, they are very
rare. Most just want to play bridge ___ that's all.
Tenretnigy
Neil Prebble
against regular pairings particularly those that play from the same base.
When my wife and I first joined OK we fairly naturally started playing
together and based on a thirty year partnership not surprisingly found our
Lehman's rising to a level (c. 65) which was not justified by our individual
skill level. At this point we began to receive comments which spoiled the
game for us to the point where we had our Lehman's reset to 50 and stopped
playing together on a regular basis. As a result we have now settled about
55 which is a fair reflection of our skill level. Given that regular
partnerships understand their defensive signals very well and are also most
unlikely to go for big penalties it seems reasonable to suggest that they
will over time enjoy an advantage equivalent to about 10 points on the
Lehman scale. The pair in question are of the standard that would probably
justify 65 if they played individually with other players in the 55-75 range
so there seems nothing particularly odd in them achieving 75 if they only
play together, particularly if they play all comers.
As a separate point there is much to be said for the recent suggestion of a
new pivot game where the software allocates pairings at random for (say) 4
boards at a time. Even if players left before 12 boards were up this would
still introduce more balanced competition for those who want there
individual skill measured more accurately. A separate leader table based on
this approach would also be more meaningful.
Gold.
Tenretnigy <tenre...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990614010251...@ng35.aol.com...
Jim Fox
attention that the distribution of Lehman ratings is not *uniform*, but much
closer to *truncated normal*. In other words if individual 55-rated players
can gain 10 points by *understanding their defensive signals very well and
are also most unlikely to go for big penalties it seems reasonable to
suggest that they will over time enjoy an advantage equivalent to about 10
65-rated players would also gain 10 points due to these factors.
mbridger
Neil Prebble <preb...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:qza93.1797$Tf6....@newreader.ukcore.bt.net...
Ken Rodgers
For the sake of myself, and any other mental retards who struggle to
follow these flights into higher mathematics, could you or somebody
else give a VERY simple explanation of this bit? I'm afraid it's
simply "beyond our ken" as it stands:(:(
Ken Rodgers <kismet>
Bruce McIntyre
Neil Prebble <preb...@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:qza93.1797$Tf6....@newreader.ukcore.bt.net...
|
a
| new pivot game where the software allocates pairings at random for (say) 4
| boards at a time. Even if players left before 12 boards were up this
would
| still introduce more balanced competition for those who want there
| individual skill measured more accurately. A separate leader table based
on
| this approach would also be more meaningful.
|
Just a thought (and quite fictitious too):
THE SUPER LEHMAN SYSTEM
BEGINNING JUNE 31 ON OKBRIDGE
Starting June 31 on OKBridge, players may choose to play non-competitive,
competitive, or, a new method of play, Super-Competitive (SC). SC players
will be placed at tables at random and will be switched to a new table after
each board. Players will be designated as North, South, East and West: you
will not know who you are playing with or against, and each deal will get
you different partners, so there can be minimal possibility of Internet
cheating. When you join the SC table, you will be informed of the bidding
system and defensive carding methods being used that day. Most of the time
it will be simple sayc, but depending on the success of the format, we will
also consider other basic systems in future.
One MP board and one IMP board will be started every five minutes. Scoring
for Super-Lehmans shall be by the same formula as the Lehman rating used in
competitive play on OKBridge, based on players' Super Lehman ratings. All
player's Super Lehman ratings will start at 50.00. Super-Lehmans will NOT
be allowed to be hidden or reset--no player is forced to participate in SC
play. If you lose your connection you have three minutes to return or you
will be replaced by a substitute, whose actions will affect your rating. If
one minute passes waiting for a bid or play from you, you will be
disconnected.
At the conclusion of a hand, a dialog box will pop up asking you if you want
to continue. If you choose to quit, you may opt to have the board results
e-mailed to you once all tables playing the boards you played have finished.
This summary will show you, for each board you played, the results at each
table, who you played with/against, and the effect of the result upon your
Super Lehman rating.
If you feel a partner during SC has clearly played with utter disregard for
the competitive nature of the format, you may send a protest no more than
three days after the incident. If the evidence clearly shows that this is
the case, your partner will assume your Super Lehman debt and your loss on
that hand will be cancelled. If the protest is deemed frivolous, you will
assume your partner's Super Lehman debt.
--
.-------------.----------------------------------------.
| McBruce | Note new email: mcbr...@home.com |
| ICQ 6797517 | Now surfing UseNet via cable modem! |
}-------------^----------------------------------------{
| Bruce McIntyre, 6636 Dow Ave., #203 |
| 604/438-9735 Burnaby BC, Canada V5H 3C9 |
`------------------------------------------------------'
Jim Fox
> >even, as it was given by by these two individuals. Their results are
scored
> >against THE ENTIRE FIELD in play.
There is no explanation for this because it isn't true of the normalized
Lehman results.
It could frequently be true of the "raw" scores before they are normalized
via Lehman's much-loved, much-discussed, and frequently-misundersood
formulas.
In other words, they are guaranteed to break even *only after
normalization*.
Cheers,
mbridger
Ken Rodgers <k...@dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:37656a48...@news.dial.pipex.com...
Ken Rodgers
OK Bruce - so you were jesting:)
However. I've made some very minimal changes to what you wrote.
I wonder if you'd care to read it now. and tell me if you think it
would work????:):):)
Ken Rodgers <kismet>
(quite serious, btw!!!)
--------------------------------------
On Mon, 14 Jun 1999 23:14:11 GMT, "Bruce McIntyre" <mcbr...@home.com>
wrote:
>Just a thought (and quite fictitious too):
>
>THE SUPER LEHMAN SYSTEM
>BEGINNING JUNE 31 ON OKBRIDGE
>
>Starting June 31 on OKBridge, players may choose to play non-competitive,
>competitive, or, a new method of play, Super-Competitive (SC). SC [partners]
>will be placed at tables at random and will be switched to a new table after
>[****TWO?] board[s]. Players will be designated as North, South, East and West: [***SNIP]
> When you [and partner] join the SC table, you will be informed of the bidding
>system and defensive carding methods being used that day.
>
>One MP board and one IMP board will be started every five [7.5]??? minutes. Scoring
>for Super-Lehmans shall be by [***SOME???] formula, [e.g.] the Lehman rating used in
>competitive play on OKBridge, based on players' Super Lehman ratings.
>[SNIP] Super-Lehmans will NOT
>be allowed to be hidden or reset--no player is forced to participate in SC
>play. If you lose your connection you have three minutes to return or you
>will be replaced by a substitute, whose actions will [COMPLETE THE HAND?]
>If one minute passes waiting for a bid or play from you, you will be
>disconnected.
>
>At the conclusion of a hand, a dialog box will pop up asking you if you want
>to continue. If you choose to quit, you may opt to have the board results
>e-mailed to you once all tables playing the boards you played have finished.
>This summary will show you, for each board you played, the results at each
>table, who you played with/against, and the effect of the result upon your
>Super Lehman rating.
----<snipped>
Bruce McIntyre
|
| OK Bruce - so you were jesting:)
| However. I've made some very minimal changes to what you wrote.
|
| I wonder if you'd care to read it now. and tell me if you think it
| would work????:):):)
I never thought it wouldn't work, nor that it would. I think it might work,
and is worth trying. I made it clear that it was fictitious in order to not
be accused of misleading anyone not really reading thoroughly.
Your idea seems to be to rate partnerships. Mine is to run an individual
where you know not who you are playing with until later when you get the
results. Obviously it is easier to do the black internet magic type things
often discussed here if you know who you are playing with. Keeping it to
unknown individuals makes this far more difficult. Also, the individual
format using sayc and occasionally other systems (a "Britain Day" for acol
perhaps) eliminates the advantages of systems. I guess it all comes down to
what you prefer as a bridge player. I admire people who can win with any
partner against any opponents using a minimum of systems. Many on okb these
days seem to have the delusion (my opinion, anyhow) that conventions are
required to win. Last night I played with someone whose stats said "sayc
2/1, like weak [presumably weak NT?] too." I asked for a cc, he said "see
stats." Disaster soon followed.
So let me be blunt: the drawbacks of Lehmans and normal comp OKB play
discussed here are:
--established partnerships have advantages (systemic, familiarity) over
pick-up partnerships
--knowing who your partner is allows easy transfer of UI
--being able to choose your opponents as server allows you to restrict
anyone whose skill level or system you do not like or cannot cope with
--quitting before the bidding ends, or faking a crash as server, gets you
out of trouble
--to counter this, players may hide/reset their stats so as to appear
better or worse than they are
Under the original version of Super-Lehmans, all of these are addressed
--no advantage for established partnerships
--can't transfer UI if you don't know who your partner is
--forced to play a random mix of opponents
--no servers, quitting does not cancel hand, a sub plays for you without
risk
--nobody opposing the way Super-Lehmans work need play (or pay for this if
OKB decides, after a trial run, that it is worth a fee); those who do will
have more meaningful stats than Lehmans posted for viewing when they play
for normal Lehman ratings
Finally, it seems that we already have a partnership-testing scheme: the
daily tournaments.
Brian Koontz
k...@dial.pipex.com (Ken Rodgers) wrote:
> On 14 Jun 1999 05:02:51 GMT, tenre...@aol.com (Tenretnigy) wrote:
>
> For the sake of myself, and any other mental retards who struggle to
> follow these flights into higher mathematics, could you or somebody
> else give a VERY simple explanation of this bit? I'm afraid it's
> simply "beyond our ken" as it stands:(:(
The below quote is from someone who perhaps misunderstood what
was being said (by Brian Meadows I believe).
Brian's point was that when any 4 players play against each other
on OKB their total LRs (the 4 LRs of the players) remains the
same. If one partnership has more success than their relative LR
(relative to the other partnership) indicates they "should", then
that partnership gains and the other loses, but the NET effect of
every game played on OKB is a ZERO change with respect to the LRs
of all 4 players in a game totalled together. Thus when experts
play *solely* against each and these experts are equal in quality,
there will be no change in their LRs whatsoever beyond the simple
effects of luck.
>
> Ken Rodgers <kismet>
>
> > All kinds of
> >comparisons are given, however, not ONE of you has considered the
pertinent
> >fact, that if you play four experts against each other, they will not
break
> >even, as it was given by by these two individuals. Their results are
scored
> >against THE ENTIRE FIELD in play. That includes: novices,
intermediates,
> >advances (various pluses), and experts in the OKB room. All melted
together to
> >make one very interesting vegetable soup.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Carl J. Hudecek
partner's Lehman - not his name or nickname- until the hand is
finished. OKB could have "daily tourneys" using this method.
To discourage "shooting" the Tourney scores would also be included
in the permanent, running, Super-Lehman rating.
This system also solves the problem of game-arranging. I vote for
ONE HAND then teleporting to another table.
Of course, "hand scrambling" and a 2-minute time delay for posting
info to specs would make it near-cheatproof.
Carl
In <kxz93.2980$LQ4...@news.rdc1.bc.wave.home.com> "Bruce McIntyre"
Otto
> Of course, "hand scrambling" and a 2-minute time delay for posting
> info to specs would make it near-cheatproof.
Carl has been advocating this for years now, and there is not a hint that it
will happen anywhere in the near future.
Online bridge will never be credible for real competition until the subject
of cheating is properly handled.
Carl's methods are only the beginning.
It is so easy to communicate with partner these days that anyone can do it.
Knowing partner's hand will bring even very poor players
results/ratings/rankings that rival those of a world champion. So
communicating with partner must be addressed as well.
Otto
Carl J. Hudecek <chud...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:7kj7ti$m...@dfw-ixnews13.ix.netcom.com...