[Leo LaSota]

In speedball tournaments, the award for the section tops does not vary much at all for mid to large sized tournaments. In the system currently used for ACBL robot tournaments, you have a section top = 0.9 for 30 tables and a section top for 31 tables only equal to 0.60 for 2 of 3 sections (0.66 for the 3rd). Why should the section award increase by 50% when you decrease the entries by 1????? (0.6 award for 31 tables; 1 entry removed = 0.9 for section top (50% increase over 0.6!!). Get this corrected BBO.

[ArtK78]

To demonstrate how the addition of sections in the Robot games adds to the randomness of the awards.

Last night, I played in a Robot ACBL MP game. There were 35 players, divided into sections of 12, 12 and 11. We all play the same hands against the same Robots and the matchpoint scores are scored across the field. So, in a sense, it is about as fair a competition as can be devised.

I was second overall with a score of about 67.7%. But, because the winner (68.1%) was in my section, I got a section 2nd. Not only that, but I was in the 11 player section, so not only did I get a smaller award than the two other section tops (64.7% and 57.7%!) who scored less than I did, but I also got a slighly smaller award than the two other section 2nds (56.3% and 53.8%!) who were far behind me.

Obviously, this system can benefit many players. For example, the player who scored 57.7% and got a section top would have finished well down the list if the game were scored as one section. Even the 64.7% score earned by the other player with a section top would have finished 4th if the field were scored as one section (the player who finished section 3rd behind me had 66.5%!) and earned a smaller award.

I have benefitted from the division into sections a couple of times. I had a few games with small scores which got awards for section 3rds that I probably would have received little if anything if the game were scored as one section.

It all seems rather random.

I like Leo's idea of increasing the section sizes in the Robot games. Lift the restriction on entries (currently 48) and divide the field into sections no smaller than 15 players each. That, along with stratification, should please everyone (well, almost everyone).

[itryhardr]

Go back to the old way. Seeing a person with a 57% game get no award and then seeing many with percentages below 50% in the same event getting points because they were arbitrarily in a different section is frustrating, and, if it happens frequently, lessons enthusiasm to play on BBO at all (except for the weaker players who benefit from sections).

[Zelandakh]

 ArtK78, on 2013-June-19, 07:56, said:

I like Leo's idea of increasing the section sizes in the Robot games. Lift the restriction on entries (currently 48) and divide the field into sections no smaller than 15 players each. That, along with stratification, should please everyone (well, almost everyone).

I do not personally play in these but that would give a division of:

1-29 tables: 1 section (ie 1-29)
30-44 tables: 2 section (ie 15-22)
45-59 tables: 3 sections (ie 15-20)

Another possibility would be a compromise between that and the current system, giving a maximum of 20 tables in a section. That gives:

1-20 tables: 1 section (ie 1-20)
21-40: 2 sections (ie 10-20)
41-60: 3 sections (ie 13-20)

Or you could fine tune the critical boundary before the first split, say

1-25 tables: 1 section (1-25)
26-40 tables: 2 sections (13-20)
42-60 tables 3 sections (13-20)

...which gives a minimum of 13 per section. Lots of possibilities. It is just a matter of working out the largest tournament size that is wanted and, perhaps more importantly, the smallest.

[boni58]

I just played a tournament on June, 20th, number 4719, where I got a 3rd position of section 1, with 63,7 %.
I noticed that the winner of section 2, had only 58,59%, but got double points of mine!
I got .22 points and he got .44.
I do not find that is ok or even regular, because I investigated and we played exactly the same boards, the sames hands and the same NS direction.
The sections only make sense if the players play on opposite hands, isn't it?
Like this, I only can say that it is unfair and I do hope you reconsider this change of the rules.
My best regards

[boni58]

I ve read Artk78 and I can only agree!

[uday]

OK, I'm convinced.

I'm going to change the way it works as follows

1. Ensure that no section is less than 15 tables ( this is the point at which section award max out at 0.90 )

This won't address all the issues I've been hearing about but it will address most of them.
This isn't ideal from the perspective of maximizing total masterpoints but I've come to believe that this is what we want as a group. And it isn't so bad.


2. Stratify the sections. This is unrelated but was always in the works. Along the way we'll balance the sections by masterpoint holdings.


The upshot will be that it will be no worse than before most of the time, and will sometimes be better.

Sound good? We'll be done with the development in a day or so. I don't like fiddling with the system on weekends, so I'll probably push the change out early next week.

3. We'll continue to seek the ability to issue overalls. When we achieve that, I still think we should go back to smaller sections + overalls, but history suggests that this won't happen for a while, so let's not worry about that.


Thanks to everyone who twisted my arm with equal amounts of passion and logic to effect this change. It is nice to be reminded that my wife is wrong, and that I occasionally need to make a U-turn once in a while.

U
uday@

[ArtK78]

Is there any reason to keep the limit on the number of players in a Robot tournament at 48?

[uday]

No reason at all. We dont usually hit more than that. I'll bump it up along the way.

[bkenner]

2. Stratify the sections. Along the way we'll balance the sections by masterpoint holdings.

Based upon BBO MP or ACBL MP?

[glaurie]

I hadn't made up my mind about the new scoring, however after reading all these comments, I now see both side of the issue. However, I do feel that there are now too many types of ACBL tournaments. 12 board, 18 board, human declare, no human declare, match point, IMP. I just signed in and saw each of these six options offered in the next half hour, and there were between zero and five people registered for each. I don't want to play without a field of opponents!
Glaurie

[johnu]

Since the only reason for sections seems to be to award more masterpoints, the fairest method would be to just sort the players by their final scores, and then for 2 sections, place every other player into a different section. For 3 sections, place each group of 3 consecutive players into different sections (ie the top 3 finishers would go into 3 different sections, the next 3 finishers would go into 3 different sections). Adjustments could be made for flights A, B and C to go into different sections for additional balancing.

If you are going to determine section placement before play starts, total ACBL points seems like a bad method to seed players. Maybe total ACBL points could be used for provisional placing for newbies, but I think some kind of seeding based on average IMP game, average MP per game, or overall average placing would be best

[GreenMan]

The changes uday describes seem to go in the right direction.

The problem with the old-new system was that although the inequities would in theory balance out in the long run, we don't play tournaments in the long run. We play them one at a time. If we see inequities in the standings every time, they don't seem to balance out, they seem to go on forever. Hopefully the new-new system will lessen the downside considerably.

[barmar]

 johnu, on 2013-July-09, 23:20, said:

Since the only reason for sections seems to be to award more masterpoints, the fairest method would be to just sort the players by their final scores, and then for 2 sections, place every other player into a different section. For 3 sections, place each group of 3 consecutive players into different sections (ie the top 3 finishers would go into 3 different sections, the next 3 finishers would go into 3 different sections). Adjustments could be made for flights A, B and C to go into different sections for additional balancing.

Hmm, this makes sense to me. In the pair games we need to assign sections ahead of time, because it's used for the movement. But there's no movement of players in robot games, so sections are pretty arbitrary.

But I wonder if the ACBL would see it that way.

 johnu, on 2013-July-09, 23:20, said:

If you are going to determine section placement before play starts, total ACBL points seems like a bad method to seed players. Maybe total ACBL points could be used for provisional placing for newbies, but I think some kind of seeding based on average IMP game, average MP per game, or overall average placing would be best

We don't currently keep statistics like that, although we obviously could. But the problem with this is that it only reflects your play on BBO, not the rest of your ACBL playing experience. If you have 10,000 ACBL masterpoints, but only recently joined BBO, should we really ignore the masterpoints?

[TylerE]

 johnu, on 2013-July-09, 23:20, said:

Since the only reason for sections seems to be to award more masterpoints, the fairest method would be to just sort the players by their final scores, and then for 2 sections, place every other player into a different section.

That's not sections, that's printing masterpoints.

[johnu]

 TylerE, on 2013-July-10, 13:57, said:

That's not sections, that's printing masterpoints.

I see you understand the problem Without overall awards, the skewed results in section awards because almost all the top scores end up being in the same section brings a randomness and fairness perception problem to the awards.

[johnu]

 barmar, on 2013-July-10, 09:39, said:

Hmm, this makes sense to me. In the pair games we need to assign sections ahead of time, because it's used for the movement. But there's no movement of players in robot games, so sections are pretty arbitrary.

But I wonder if the ACBL would see it that way.


We don't currently keep statistics like that, although we obviously could. But the problem with this is that it only reflects your play on BBO, not the rest of your ACBL playing experience. If you have 10,000 ACBL masterpoints, but only recently joined BBO, should we really ignore the masterpoints?

In my defense, I did suggest using ACBL masterpoints as a temporary measure for BBO newbies. On reflection, you can't eliminate the randomness of section awards if you predetermine sections before play begins, no matter how sophisticated your seeding method may be, but having maximum overall awards and smaller section awards would go a long way on the perceived fairness issue.

[itryhardr]

Again, same thing most times I play.. I was 9th out of 42 or 43 players, got no masterpoints, but three people in another section got points, with percentages far less than mine. If this cotinues, I will no longer support BBO. It's no fun.

As stated above.. why not just pull out of a hat those who get masterpoints.

[dobiefan1]

I am finding that my percentages have sometimes been higher than those in the other section, yet I am getting a lesser award. I do not really want to hear that it will balance out in the long run. Also, I thought through the discussion that there would only be sections if there were no less than 16 per section. I played in one last night with 12 in one section and 14 in another. I am starting to prefer the smaller tournaments where I know there will only be one section. I may not get points, but at least I know that it has been fair. I agree that there should be overall awards.

[ArtK78]

I have this to say to those complaining about the randomness of the awarding of minor section awards. Grow up!

This kind of thing happens all of the time in tournaments. In fact, if it didn't happen, it would be statistically improbable (approching impossible as the number of events approaches infinity).

That is not to say that it is not right to point out the randomness of section awards. That has been accomplished. Now live with the result.