BBO Discussion Forums: Robot Rebate 55% tournaments - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Robot Rebate 55% tournaments

#1 User is offline   philo999 

  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1
  • Joined: 2021-September-07

Posted 2021-September-07, 08:38

I'm curious whether Bridgebase adjusts entry dependent on people's track-record in these tournaments. My experience has been:
- go through a sequence of relatively easy tournaments where I can often 'win' with more than 55%, and then...
- seemingly get pushed into a much harder pool of opposition where it's a lot harder.
- After say 5 tournaments of failure, I get dropped back down and start making the easy money again.

Has anyone else noticed this? It would make business sense from BBO's pov to keep dangling carrots and then snatching them away... so that everyone gets at least some joy in these tournaments and very few can rely on milking them for BBO$. But if that's going on, it would be nicer if it were transparent.
0

#2 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 20,826
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2021-September-12, 20:23

I'm not sure what you mean by "adjusting entries". The entries are just whatever players decide to enter at that particular time. There aren't multiple games with players of different abilities.

#3 User is offline   pilowsky 

  • pilowsky
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,544
  • Joined: 2019-October-04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia
  • Interests:Writing, Learning, History, Politics

Posted 2021-September-14, 00:12

Regarding the OP's point, I find that the outcome usually depends on the 'quality of the candidature' - if I'm up against a large field of higher-ranked players, my impression is that I do less well.
That's my excuse, and I'm sticking to it.


On a related matter:
I've been playing a lot of $0.29 BBO robot IMP tourneys lately.
If the entries are large in number, then stratification occurs.

When these tourneys are stratified, is this done based on rank?
Similarly, stratification occurs in ACBL tourneys.

I assume these are also stratified based on rank.
Are all the masterpoints obtained applied during stratification or (in ACBL specifically) only those MP's from the host organisation?
non est deus ex machina; även maskiner behöver lite kärlek, J'ai toujours misé sur l'étrange gentillesse des robots.
0

#4 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 20,826
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2021-September-18, 20:50

View Postpilowsky, on 2021-September-14, 00:12, said:

Regarding the OP's point, I find that the outcome usually depends on the 'quality of the candidature' - if I'm up against a large field of higher-ranked players, my impression is that I do less well.
That's my excuse, and I'm sticking to it.


On a related matter:
I've been playing a lot of $0.29 BBO robot IMP tourneys lately.
If the entries are large in number, then stratification occurs.

When these tourneys are stratified, is this done based on rank?
Similarly, stratification occurs in ACBL tourneys.

I assume these are also stratified based on rank.
Are all the masterpoints obtained applied during stratification or (in ACBL specifically) only those MP's from the host organisation?


ACBL tourneys are stratified based on ACBL Masterpoints. If you're not an ACBL member, you're automatically forced into stratum A. You get both BBO points and ACBL masterpoints as a result of these.

BBO tourneys are stratified based on BBO points, and you just get BBO points.

#5 User is offline   pilowsky 

  • pilowsky
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 2,544
  • Joined: 2019-October-04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia
  • Interests:Writing, Learning, History, Politics

Posted 2021-September-18, 21:21

That's kind of what I thought.
Doesn't this mean that there is a structural disincentive for non-ACBL members to play in ACBL tourneys?


It also suggests that the pool of players in ACBL tourneys is smaller than any other tourney and therefore, the average quality of candidature is weaker in ACBL tourneys.
Assuming that on average ACBL players are just as good or bad as any other player and that distribution of their skill around the mean is roughly the same.


The implication is that the ACBL (unlike other tourneys) is trying to 'protect' its members even though it taxes all entrants equally.
Does the ACBL do the same thing in FTF bridge or is it a BBO-specific phenomenon?
non est deus ex machina; även maskiner behöver lite kärlek, J'ai toujours misé sur l'étrange gentillesse des robots.
0

#6 User is offline   barmar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Admin
  • Posts: 20,826
  • Joined: 2004-August-21
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2021-September-18, 22:35

ACBL has large enough membership that it's not a significant limitation. The ACBL tourneys get plenty of entries. And if the quality of ACBL players is comparable to non-ACBL players, I don't see why this would make the quality of players in ACBL tourneys weaker. Maybe what you're saying is that the quality of stratum A is weaker, since it includes players who wouldn't be in A if we based it on their actual ability.

The reason we do this is not that there's anything special about being an ACBL member. The purpose is to prevent experts from competing in C just by creating a new account with no ACBL number and few BBO points. We also do a similar thing in the BBO tourneys -- if you joined BBO recently, you're forced into A.

For FTF tournaments, I think ACBL has some process for assigning masterpoints to foreigners. But anyone who plays in a significant number of our tournaments joins ACBL (all the NABC+ events are restricted to ACBL members), and when they do their foreign points are converted to ACBL points.

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users