[stubbs7]

If there are 15 pairs in a direction, 5 will be A, 5 will be B and 5 will be C. This is how BBO stratifies 1/3, 1/3, 1/3. 11 pairs in a direction will be divided 5 in A, 3 in B, 3 in C. 11 divided by 3 is 3 so A, B & C get 3 and A get the extra 2. I would like to see the extras get assigned to B. Many times in virtual club games I have been in A with 1400 points and also in A are players with 15000+ points. It makes more sense to me for B to be the largest strata. Doesn't seem like that would be difficult to make happen. The calculation is already being done. Just change the extras to go the B instead of A.

[TylerE]

Why does 3/5/3 make more sense than 4/4/3 or 3/4/4?

[Vampyr]

Would it not be better to just do away with stratification?

[mycroft]

For those who expect to win more often than Halley's comet, sure.

The reason stratification came into play was because that 90% of bridge players aren't in that group, and never will. And given the choice between "going out and getting nothing ... again" and "not bothering to show up tonight/this weekend", lots of that 90% will choose option B.

Now that will lead to Really Strong Games. Which is kind of fun. It will, however, lead to 20 table/session congresses, and 4 table/session games which don't pay for their space, and stop running.

Penticton used to run ABC opposite Gold Rush (0-750) on odd days, and AXY vs BCD (0-2000) on even days. We've stopped doing that the last few years, and I complained to one of my full-time TD colleagues about it, because I missed the strong AX game. The answer was that the GR players have made it very clear that if there isn't a GR game to play, they don't show up that day, and GR is getting to be 50% of the pairs field.

Get rid of stratification, and all the people we've convinced to play the big game, knowing they can at least "win C", won't show up either.

[Vampyr]

mycroft, on 2020-August-25, 15:29, said:

For those who expect to win more often than Halley's comet, sure.

The reason stratification came into play was because that 90% of bridge players aren't in that group, and never will. And given the choice between "going out and getting nothing ... again" and "not bothering to show up tonight/this weekend", lots of that 90% will choose option B.

Now that will lead to Really Strong Games. Which is kind of fun. It will, however, lead to 20 table/session congresses, and 4 table/session games which don't pay for their space, and stop running.

Penticton used to run ABC opposite Gold Rush (0-750) on odd days, and AXY vs BCD (0-2000) on even days. We've stopped doing that the last few years, and I complained to one of my full-time TD colleagues about it, because I missed the strong AX game. The answer was that the GR players have made it very clear that if there isn't a GR game to play, they don't show up that day, and GR is getting to be 50% of the pairs field.

Get rid of stratification, and all the people we've convinced to play the big game, knowing they can at least "win C", won't show up either.

Why not have a “Gold Rush” every day and a good game every day? That will at least filter out the C players.

[mycroft]

That's what they do now, yes.

But a 750+ game isn't "good", as you say it just filters out the C players; and if you don't stratify it, it might filter out the B players too, but to the winery tours rather than to a different game, whence see "death of bridge" above.

The ACBL allows three-flight, two strat/flight games, and Penticton is probably big enough to run them (GR will be 3 10s or so, Open will be 3 15s to 4 13s; could turn that into 2 10s, 2 10s, and 3 10s) but it's a 3000 table regional, one of the tops by size in the ACBL, and even then it's on the border. My local regional will be somewhere around 1000 tables, and if we do Open-and-GR, we're getting 2 9s in the GR and a web of 19 or so in the open; three-flighting that would give you a couple double-almost RRs.

It still doesn't deal with "why not just not stratify then", though - the answer is the same. "Because without the no-hopers, there's no bridge at all; and the reason for stratification in the first place is to give the no-hopers something to hope for for their $30."

[Vampyr]

OK...so raise the limit on the GR to, I don’t know, 2500 or so and stratify it, leaving the open game alone? Would that work?

[mycroft]

Nope - that's the original problem, and why the alternating with AXY vs BCD (0-2000) went away - the GR people won't show up. And we need their money.

They already complain that life masters (who don't need the "gold" in the "gold rush" any more) still play in the GR. Imagine if I could play in it (not that I ever would)!

[johnu]

mycroft, on 2020-August-26, 11:46, said:

Nope - that's the original problem, and why the alternating with AXY vs BCD (0-2000) went away - the GR people won't show up. And we need their money.

They already complain that life masters (who don't need the "gold" in the "gold rush" any more) still play in the GR. Imagine if I could play in it (not that I ever would)!

The ACBL keeps raising the masterpoint limits for Gold Rush events. IIRC, it was 300 points, then 500 points. Long time members could become Life Masters at 300 masterpoints (various colors required), but currently at 500 masterpoints for newer members (various colors required). Now it is 750 masterpoints, and there are flights, less then 300, and less than 750. You can easily become a Life Master without playing anybody who has more than 750 masterpoints.

[barmar]

There are no plans to make strats unequal like this.

ACBL recently asked us to change the way strats are assigns so that when the number of pairs isn't a multiple of 3, the excesss goes into C rather than A.

And while implementing this, I discovered that our algorithm for assigning strats was actually not assigning them as evenly as it should, especially in large tourneys. There was recently a speedball with 224 pairs, and the sizes of the strats were A=96, B=64, C=64.

We'll soon be fixing this code so the strats will be as equal as possible, and C will always be largest.

[gbb483]

Of course, masterpoints don't signify how good a player is, just how often they play.

[mycroft]

johnu, on 2020-August-26, 16:10, said:

The ACBL keeps raising the masterpoint limits for Gold Rush events. IIRC, it was 300 points, then 500 points. Long time members could become Life Masters at 300 masterpoints (various colors required), but currently at 500 masterpoints for newer members (various colors required). Now it is 750 masterpoints, and there are flights, less then 300, and less than 750. You can easily become a Life Master without playing anybody who has more than 750 masterpoints.

The ACBL has been raising the masterpoint limits for limited/NLM events, yes. But not for Gold Rush, that has always been 750 (although we ran a "Super GR" to 1250 in the last Regional At Home, and I'm guessing we'll see more of those in future).

I can be so certain about this because the rules have always been that Gold Points are awarded to any flight/strat in a 2-session event where the upper masterpoint limit is 750 or higher (which is why to get Gold in the GR, you have to either make the overalls, or get non-stratified section tops; the lower strat awards are all Red. Which often makes it harder for the 300-odd point players to get Gold in the GR than in an Open Pairs, where they can make the overalls in C (0-1500, sure, but 8 tables paying 4 places)).

[barmar]

gbb483, on 2020-August-27, 04:38, said:

Of course, masterpoints don't signify how good a player is, just how often they play.

True, but it's the only quantification we have.

[hrothgar]

barmar, on 2020-August-31, 15:17, said:

True, but it's the only quantification we have.

It's the only quantification that BBO chooses to have

[barmar]

hrothgar, on 2020-August-31, 15:38, said:

It's the only quantification that BBO chooses to have

Since our stratified games are mostly ACBL, it makes sense to use their approach.