Purpose?

TrashCanCharlie
Active Poster
Posts: 159
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 9:23 am
Location: expert spades
Contact:

re

Post by TrashCanCharlie » Mon Jan 22, 2007 12:30 am

Galt. if for any real reason YOU Really Believe that, tell ya what? I'll play eighty more games on a fresh nic, I will watch very closely who opps me and play the little rating game carefully watching who sits and only play when the game is equal or advantageous.

We shall see if the rating ends up at 1599 Jack ROFL? Now, for further enhancement, if you or anyone else thinks it will be 1600 and or lower now is a great time to support the comment you just made.

I've played years in many sites and had 85% ratings, over 3k ratings, etc, etc, etc, until the entire rating scheme meant nil to me.

Now Jack, let me spell this out for the crew here very clearly.

Son watches me play spades, has beern asking to be taught for years, he is taught. Not only is he taught, he is basically taught while using that nic. Frankly it never occurred to me to make a new nic. See previous postings and you will see I supported using only one nic per household and not changing nics EVERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!

Now Jack, out of the x number of games played, Jay played about fifteen percent, so yes Jack, I whole heartedly support the notion I am a 1599 player, can't get higher and think I am better than my nic suggest LMAO/KNOW?NOT THINK!

But for those that want the actual value of what it would/should be, take the time to check that nic when it parded Joe, Darth, Gary, and Purple becuause those were the only people I have parded in here ever.

One other tidbit Jack.............................I've been known in the zone to take a 2700 nick and play in the 1600 room and accept 1600 rated players in the game...............not caring if I won the first rating point and when losing those games I took a 2700 nick down to about 1800 in a night.

Ratin systems online mean little! If everyone was satisified we would not have all the threads accusing others of cheaitng etc, bad dist, etc, etc, etc.

When I left the zone I had about ten nicks used semi regular and ranging from 1400 to 3300. My rating system would involve "Life" play becuse I know cellphones, instant messaging, dual pcs, etc are not being used during the game lol. I also know the people are not writing down and or using counting tools that I am not privy to.

But for the record let's do this....................let's four of us make four new nics all at the same time, pard the same pard of our choice Jack for eighty games, you opping me and if your theory is correct I should land on 1600 and or below. I bet I won't, Up for the Challenge?

Jay

TrashCanCharlie
Active Poster
Posts: 159
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 9:23 am
Location: expert spades
Contact:

re

Post by TrashCanCharlie » Mon Jan 22, 2007 12:36 am

I guess what I was trying to say Jack was, I've played tons live, tons on the internet. Live games or internet rating reflections, if a bookie was placing odds do you suppose he would use the info provided from live games first, or the info from internet results if he wanted the best source of info LOL?

Jay

abcba123
Active Poster
Posts: 231
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 7:50 pm

Post by abcba123 » Mon Jan 22, 2007 4:44 am

Galt
Baseball players have to play in all sorts of weather conditions, sometimes go against weak pictures, sometimes strong, sometimes get seeing eye hits, and sometimes line out 3 times in one game. Independent of any of that, if they are a 280 hitter they will wind up with a batting average right around 280.

Spades is no different. If someone has a rating that is significantly lower than he or she believes that it should be, it is becuase his or her game is not at the level that he or she thinks that it is.
Let's look at the comparison of Baseball and Spades.

How about this guy from recent press news ? In his first full Major League Baseball season in he hit 49 home runs, a record for most home runs by a rookie. He was named the American League Rookie of the Year. Then in the next three seasons he hit 32, 33 and 39 homers, but his average, .289 as a rookie, plummeted to .260, .231 and .235. In his fourth year, he bottomed out with a .201 average and 22 homers. His Manager, sat him out the last game of the season so his average could not dip below .200. So what type of Baseball player is he ? A Rookie of the Year or a lucky to be .201 hitter ? Mark McGwire (yeah I know Mark pleaded the 5th to Congress).

Or what about this guy ? In his first two MLB seasons, he had 450 hits and a batting average of .404. In his thrid season he batted .243. Ichiro. So what type of Baseball player is he ? A .404 hitter or .243 ?

Baseball has SLUMPS where batting averages and other statistics go up and down throughout the year or even from year to year. We can watch them because the statisitics are kept on a daily basis and averaged over a career.

Pick up a newspaper or Baseball magazine: Tejada batted just .245 the first half of the season but is batting .324 in the second half. Giambi batted .204 in April and .260 in May before exploding in June for a .373 average....

Countless examples during the year and from year to year.

Spades however measures ONLY a single point in time. We do NOT have the benefit of how Galt played in June as compared to July or in 2003 as compared to 2007 or if his current rating is anywhere near his career rating.

I'm sure Omni won't mind me using an example he has given many a time. Omni plays one nic. He has been as high as 1800's (not sure Omni if you cracked 1900). He has admitted to being as low as in the 1400's. He has a couple thousand ?? of spades games played. Is Omni a 1400 player or an 1850 player ?

We don't know. Because all we know is Omni's rating on the day that we happen to partner him or remember him from a previous game. Today Omni may be 1400 and he will loudly exclaim that he is "better" than his rating may show. But HOW do we know that by looking at his rating ? We will never know.

Online spades rating is a point in time. To think that it accurately measures one's playing ability is ludicrous.
Image

User avatar
Galt
Grand Master
Posts: 1484
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 10:57 am
Contact:

Post by Galt » Mon Jan 22, 2007 10:08 am

Jay I really have no idea what you are saying. It seems as if you are just supporting my point.

My comments refer to people who do not cheat or manipulate the system, to nicks that are used by only 1 player (as the vast majority must be), to ratings that are compiled on reg spades, to ratings that are far removed from having played provi games.

I don't really care about ratings from mirrors or suicide or whiz or crawl or whatever... of course those will neither translate to reg nor be all that indicative of a player's true overall playing ability... ratings from playing fish would not mean all that much either.

Also, as I have mentioned ad nauseum in my comments about the provi system, if a person plays games with players of very different ratings and abilities (e.g., 2700 players vs. 1600 players, or 1900 players playing 1500 players)... this is not what most players do and would therefore fall into my previous mentioned category of ATYPICAL use and therefore fall outside my comments about the applicability of ratings.

Not directed at you Jay...

Unlike those who simply constantly berate the rating system, I have come in here for years and made suggestions as to how to make the system even more accurate than it is (do away with provi, give more control over table setting, limit nicks, segregate ratings by variant).

Each time that I have done that, a thread of irate posts has followed. Not long thereafter, there will be another thread with posts by many of the same complaining that the rating system is not accurate.

You can either have one or the other, but not both at the same time.

Is the rating system a perfect indicator of playing ability... of course it is not.

Is it a pretty good indicator (excluding those who have cheated the system... and that is a small percentage of players at HW)...of course it is. This is because it can't not be due to the laws of probability. All that I can really suggest is a good course on statistical theory for someone who thinks that ratings on a well-used and appropriately used nick could be anything else.

It is easy to support that position with annecdotes, but it is impossible to support that position with mathematics.

Oh I forgot..... even though this is obvious... just as Spades ability changes over time, especially in the earlier years, so do Baseball abilities to a much greater extent due to physical conditon and other factors. I never said that a 320 hitter should be considered to be a 320 hitter for life, or even into next year... I don't know if you have noticed, but, unlike Spades ratings, batting averages start fresh each year.

The explanation, once again, is not about annecdotes (the first thing that you learn to ignore in a probabilities class), it is about the laws of math... concerning which very few people have training or experience.
Image

Vidurr
Active Poster
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 9:54 am

Post by Vidurr » Mon Jan 22, 2007 11:38 am

GALT:
Unlike those who simply constantly berate the rating system, I have come in here for years and made suggestions as to how to make the system even more accurate than it is (do away with provi, give more control over table setting, limit nicks, segregate ratings by variant).

Each time that I have done that, a thread of irate posts has followed. Not long thereafter, there will be another thread with posts by many of the same complaining that the rating system is not accurate.

You can either have one or the other, but not both at the same time.
Many others can make the same claim as you Galt for proposing suggestions. But unlike you, many are very happy with the HW product as is.

But to specifically answer your statement Galt, actually you can have both. Someone can believe the rating system has flaws but disagree with your propsed methods of what you consider "corrections".

Some may be happy to live with the flawed system because your suggestions for improvement infringe upon what they believe to be more important features of HW. Some of the things that you suggest for changes are what brought players to HW and what makes them stay today.

So you can have both; agreement that the rating system is flawed but disagreement with your proposed "corrections".

As for suggestions for improvement. I prefer suggestions that do not limit or take away features that HW players have enjoyed.

I too suggested an idea that was deemed as a good idea by you, Joe and Jay. A LEAGUE.

You can petition HW right now for a LEAGUE ROOM that will allow you to do all those things that you want without affecting a single other player on HW unless they wanted to join your league.

GALT:
(do away with provi, give more control over table setting, limit nicks, segregate ratings by variant).
Those are ALL AVAILABLE TO YOU RIGHT NOW on HW in a LEAGUE ROOM. Create your own rules and regulations. You don't want multiple nics. Ban them. You only want regular games. Ban suicide, mirrors and individual play. You don't want provi. Ban them. You want a different rating system. Create your own !

YOU HAVE CONTROL RIGHT NOW TO DO WHAT YOU WANT WITHOUT AFFECTING A SINGLE OTHER HW PLAYER !

FORM A LEAGUE !

User avatar
grandmaS
Grand Master
Posts: 5705
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 4:23 pm
Location: Washington State
Contact:

Post by grandmaS » Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:30 pm

Yep I agree, many of us like the provie system, many of us like mirrors, sucide, pass etc. and I would venture to say most of us don't want segragation. Some of us are still stinging over the last separation where mirrors and sucide were segragated.
Image

I am woman I am strong

User avatar
Galt
Grand Master
Posts: 1484
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 10:57 am
Contact:

Post by Galt » Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:18 pm

Now I'm even more confused. I'm not the one in here complaining that the rating system doesn't work, I think that it works very well.

It could work better with the changes that I mentioned (not a matter of opinion), but it fine the way that it is.
Image

HEXA
Grand Master
Posts: 2050
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2004 1:19 am
Location: Topeka, Kansas

Post by HEXA » Mon Jan 22, 2007 4:22 pm

All of those things you list are exactly what contribute to making ratings very good representations of a player's playing ability.

Hi Galt, good to see you :)

To answer your question, here are a few examples of how i think ratings are not always a true indication of a person's playing level/ability/skill.
When i made the list, i was also speaking not just of ones-self but the others at the table as well. Especially like number #2 below. Someone else's playing style can have a huge effect on the outcome of the game (ie..nil-setter-setting) and ultimately your rating.


1) Game of choice..

Mirrors..

I like to play mirrors occasionally, when i play it is always a 10 minute rated game with 100-nil. Aside from having the worst luck in the world when it comes to the deals, In mirrors it is worse for myself.
I'll get a 5 bid with the 5 lowest spades possible, and plenty of other suits to go around. Or I'll get a nil bid (no spades) with having only one club in my hand.. the ace of course. you should see how much my ratings drop just from playing a few games of the game of mirrors.. It is my opinion that a lot of the "skill" in mirrors is basically the luck of the deal. (and also some skills required of juggling baggs vs setting others)

Suicide..

I've tried to play suicide a few times with a P. lol This was at least 3 years ago, If that P is reading this, they are probably laughing their head off. I couldnt get a decent hand in that game to save my skin, and if my pard nils before me.. Im toast.

3way vs 4way...

The jury is still out on this one, i never got a reply :)



2) Style of play


Have you ever been in a game and there is a nil at the table, and even if that niller is in 4th place one or two others at the table will beat themselves up trying to set that pitiful nil, AND then hand the "nil-setter" his bid of 6 for the win of the game? Dont ya just wanna slap em?
Who came up with this ettiquete rule of NOT setting nil-setters??
There is nothing I can do if others are going to hand someone their bid because a nil is on the table.

There is also the lovely BagFest games.. Ever played in those? It sure can be upsetting to sit in one of those all game long and play with 1 or 2 deliberately bagg-bidding players. Bags are a part of the game, Ive always agreed with that, if you have a bagger learn to limbo. But if someone else isnt bidding their hand the entire game, Then it throws the whole game into whacko-playing.

3) happenings beyond your control

If the game has started and everyone has bid once, then someone quits.. his chair can be botted by the host and the game remains a rated game. Ive been forced to finish with a bot as a P.



Image

Let me also add that I like the rating system the way it is.. I dont want the rating system changed.. Its certain players that ruin a fabulous game with their nil-setter-setting whine, and their joining a game to bid one all game long that id like to throw out the window :)

What i am trying to say is, the rating on a profile is not accurate unless a person has played all regular games (not mirrors), with players who bid their hand, and play their hand. You also have to factor in LUCK


xox
Hexa
Last edited by HEXA on Mon Jan 22, 2007 10:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
The beauty of a woman grows with the passing years.

User avatar
Dust In The Wind
Guide
Posts: 5343
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:29 pm
Location: North Ga Mts

Post by Dust In The Wind » Mon Jan 22, 2007 8:28 pm

I still in answer to the original question say that the purpose of the rating system to give our competitive minds something to play for. HOW it is used is a completely different question.

Is it a comparative value of someones ability? Yes it can be, does it work in all cases? No, we have those that find away around the system... we also have those, that in Jay's situation "share" a nic.... we have those things that Hexa mentioned, luck of the cards, type of game played (I think you would find a better comparision of rating if for each type of game a separate rating was kept), the what I'll call the "Crazy Ivan" player that makes your normal play useless and the every so often cosmic partical that hits your mouse while trying to select the Ace of spades and picks the 2 instead.

In the case of changing the rating system.... I don't think you will ever come up with one that will take all factors into consideration and make it right and give the desired results and there will ALWAYS be someone that will find a way around the system as in the Radar/radar detector/radar detector detector/anti radar detector radar/stealth mode/unknown stealth radar detector/etc....... I know worked with radars amoung many other things in the Navy.... don't ask!!!

I take rating with a grain of salt and watch the play, adjust mine, watch the play adjust mine. That's how I truely judge a player by their play. Ratings are a number and should reflect ability but just like that 5* hotel, you might still get a bad steak......

JUST DUST

PS - I have played many 1500 and less that were excellent players, should I still judge them as poor players after experiencing their play first hand??
TO BE OR NOT TO BE..... NOW WHAT KIND OF QUESTION IS THAT??? TO BE OF COURSE!!!!!

Vidurr
Active Poster
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 9:54 am

Post by Vidurr » Tue Jan 23, 2007 7:35 am

GALT:
Galt wrote:Now I'm even more confused. I'm not the one in here complaining that the rating system doesn't work, I think that it works very well.

It could work better with the changes that I mentioned (not a matter of opinion), but it fine the way that it is.
And your changes...
(do away with provi, give more control over table setting, limit nicks, segregate ratings by variant).
are unacceptable to many on HW especially when you can have all those items by simply requesting a LEAGUE room from HW.

Which does not affect a single player on HW unless they want to join your LEAGUE.

User avatar
Galt
Grand Master
Posts: 1484
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 10:57 am
Contact:

Post by Galt » Tue Jan 23, 2007 10:32 am

Hexa, all of those things that you mention can affect the outcome of a game. What I have been trying to communicate is that the actual outcome of any given game is irrelevant to whether the rating system is accurate or not.

Just as often as a player has his or her rating "inappropriately lowered" as the result of some perceived anomolous situation, another's rating will be raised for just the same reason. For any given player, these will balance out over time. If this was not the case, as I mentioned earlier, EVERYONE would have a rating lower than he or she deserves. That, by definition, is impossible.

The rating system, within the constraints that I have outlined, measures nothing but a player's playing ability.

The system is designed to rank order players on what is called an ordinal scale. In theory it ranks players, at any given time, from the least skilled to the most skilled. The scale is neither interval or ratio, which means that the distance between 1500 and 1600 is not necessarly the same as the distance between 1700 and 1800, nor does it mean that a 2200 rating is twice as good as an 1100 rating (in reality, a 2200 player would be magnitudes different in ability than an 1100 player) What does this all mean pragmatically?

If we could look at today's ranking, of only players who do not cheat, what could we conclude?

Can we be confident that the lowest rated player is not as skilled as the higher rated player? Of course we can, and I doubt that anyone would argue with that conclusion. How about the 2nd lowest vs. the 2nd highest? Again, a very high level of confidence.

If we look at a player who's rating jumps around between 1400 and 1600, but is usually around 1500, and another player whos rating jumps around between 1600 and 1800, but usually sits around 1700, can we conclude that the 2nd player is more skilled than the first? Again, yes, if we were privy to that information. If, however, we happend to come in on a day when the first player is at the high end of his range, and the 2nd player is near the low end of his range, we have to conclude that those two players are of about equal playing ability.

This conclusion would be grossly incorrect, but that would not mean that the system is not accurate. The system is not designed to provide precise measurement of rank, but a very good sense of about where on that ranking any given player lies.

The closer that two player's ratings are, the less you can conclude about their relative playing abilities. The more games that a player has on a nice, the more reflective of his or her playing ability will be the rating.

Have you ever noticed that when you get to certain rating level you find it hard to get past that level, or when you sink to a certain level you almost always bounce back from that low? That would not happen if the system did not provide a decent measure of playing ability.

You don't see players bouncing around between 1500 and 1800, unless they are somehow using their different nics in different ways. The difference betwen a true 1500 player and a true 1800 player is very large.

I cannot tell you how many times I have lost a game, because my pard made a blunder inconsistent with his or her rating. I have also caused pards to lose games when I made a blunder, or got distracted, or failed to see a card properly, or whatever. Same goes for my opps. I have won games that I should never have won, and I have lost games that I should never have lost.

No matter, all of that has no effect on where my rating goes, other than in the very short term. I play how I play (I wish that I could play better), and no matter how hard I try, I can't beat the laws of probability.
Image

abcba123
Active Poster
Posts: 231
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 7:50 pm

Post by abcba123 » Tue Jan 23, 2007 10:58 pm

Galt
You don't see players bouncing around between 1500 and 1800, unless they are somehow using their different nics in different ways.
I see it all the time. Omni was (when he played spades) a great example here in the forum. He bounced from 1400 to 1800.

Oh well that's because he used his nic in different ways ? Like what ? Playing the highest available game available to him ? Like playing lobby lotto ? Players do that every day on the internet. And their ratings will fluctuate.

On the other extreme, and I only see it at the high ranks, those who refuse to play nics rated less than theirs. Because they want an honest reflection of their rating and ability ? They want only a competitive game ? Heck no, they are manipulating the system to avoid losing ratings points.

So let's change the game table settings for ratings also ? Heck yes, because if I'm at 1800; I don't want no daggone 1799 player at my table !!! It's ludicrous.

Others on HW have nics at 1900 and higher but also have nics in the 1600's. Some play a few nics and bounce up and down the rating scale.

1400 or 1600 ? 1600 or 1800 ? I played 6 games and lost 5 and won 1. The cards were terrible. My partner was lobby lotto. I had a phone call. Whatever the reason. And equally if I won 5 and lost 1. We got all the cards. I had a good partner. I stayed focused.

We just don't know. Players go up and down the rating scale EVERY DAY. And we do not know on any given day whether they were on a winnning streak or a losing streak. Or have any idea what the reasons for those streaks were.

So to look today at a 1400 player and say, that's where they belong and it is a reflection of their playing ability is not necessarily accurate.

That's the reality of the internet. Without even throwing in use of telephones, IM's, card counting, multiple computers AND multiple accounts !

But I'm with Vidurr, I'm happy with the rating system as is !!! Despite it's inaccuracy !!! And the changes you propose Galt are unacceptable to many on HW.

More accurate Ratings just aren't that important too me in comparison to enjoying HW for what it was designed to provide, FAMILY FUN !
Image

User avatar
Galt
Grand Master
Posts: 1484
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 10:57 am
Contact:

Post by Galt » Tue Jan 23, 2007 11:41 pm

You're right, I give.

There really is no difference between a 1400 player and an 1800 player. I have no idea why this site, or any other site for that matter, has a rating system.

Players with high ratings just have them by luck or cheating or manipulation, and players with low ratings have all just been unlucky or taken advantage of.
Image

abcba123
Active Poster
Posts: 231
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2003 7:50 pm

Post by abcba123 » Wed Jan 24, 2007 12:28 am

Galt wrote:You're right, I give.

There really is no difference between a 1400 player and an 1800 player. I have no idea why this site, or any other site for that matter, has a rating system.

Players with high ratings just have them by luck or cheating or manipulation, and players with low ratings have all just been unlucky or taken advantage of.
You're obviously frustrated Galt, but not everybody believes the way that you believe. But more to the point what you say above is not exactly what was said by others.

Nobody said do away with the rating system.

People made the point that it is just not always accurate. Players do go up and down the rating system. Also even though some recognize the inaccuracies in the rating system, your suggestions for changing the rating system were not acceptable to some of them. Take a look at some of these comments from this thread:

Omni: IMHO, a rating system serves basically the same purpose as does a scoring system.

And just like the score of an individual game doesn't always indicate definitively which team/player is better than the other(s), so the rating system doesn't always indicate definitively where a player stands in comparison to others.


Hexa: Do i believe these rankings to be accurate? Not at all. Let me elaborate..

Different things have impact on what a person will rank and then also maintain in rank


Joe Andrews: ...HW or other sites Rating systems is better than no Ratings system. There has to be a way to guage a players ability and strength, Perhaps, in time, a sound Ratings formula can be worked out. However, on line play is replete with problems, some of which have been discussed. And that does not include cheating and the use of card counters and multiple computers. And let's not forget that you can enhance your rating by playing "cut" or DN, or any variation.

TrashCan: Basically all a rating system is online is a tool that measures activity and or progress from which the body controlling the ip addy delegates.

The rating system cannot see what body, human, and or otherwise is controlling the play. Instead, all the rating system can measure is actions and results that occurred under that nic and or ip addy.

Basically what I am getting at is this..........................The rating system that any org uses for online activity can at best be, "Sub-Average."


abc: Online ratings are a mystery at best. You have no idea who it is or what they played to obtain their rating.

So as far as online ratings being "accurate"; I don't buy it. I've seen too many examples, across the internet of players with rankings up and down the scale dependent upon who they play and what game they may be playing.


vidurr: But to specifically answer your statement Galt, actually you can have both. Someone can believe the rating system has flaws but disagree with your propsed methods of what you consider "corrections".

GrandmaS: Yep I agree, many of us like the provie system, many of us like mirrors, sucide, pass etc. and I would venture to say most of us don't want segragation. Some of us are still stinging over the last separation where mirrors and sucide were segragated.

Dust: Is it a comparative value of someones ability? Yes it can be, does it work in all cases? No...

I hope that helps you understand what was actually said Galt.

Nobody said get rid of the rating system. It's a tool. It can be accurate. It can also have errors.
Image

User avatar
omni_555
Grand Master
Posts: 2946
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 11:32 pm
Location: South Carolina

Post by omni_555 » Fri Jan 26, 2007 12:33 am

Wow! GREAT quotes there abcba123!!! ...I especially liked the one from that Omni guy!!! :D

Let me toss in another way of viewing the rating system used in online Spades and just how accurate it may be...

Galt, you say that a player WILL gravitate to his "true" rating with enough games played. Well, let me first of all concede that you are a much better Spades player than am I. Given that, let's say that we compare our ratings after each of us playing 100 games. Further, let's say that our approach to playing online is not quite the same. Understand that we both start off with new nicks rated at 1500.

Now, I am going to set a few parameters for each of our marathon playing sessions.

I will ONLY play in games where NO player has a rating more than 5 points below whatever mine is at the time of the game. Further, I will partner ONLY with players I am familiar with.

You on the other hand will sit at any table that is waiting for a player to join, or conversely will set open-rating tables and accept any player who wants to sit. Also, you will accept ANY player who is logged on to the site as your partner.

Over the course of the 100 games, we each win and lose some of our games. At the end, how do you think that our ratings will compare???

If, after following the restrictions laid out, MY rating is not WAYYYY above YOURS, then I would be more than willing to agree never again to touch a computer for the rest of my natural life!!! And there would be no difference in this result whether we played 100 games or 10,000!!!

BUT I have already conceded that you are a MUCH better player than am I.

The solution to resolving this situation with the rating system does NOT, as some have already pointed out, rest with restricting game access. What is needed (if it is even POSSIBLE) is a formula that can take into account the probability factor that is inherently built into the game, as well as not overly penalizing a player for losing against lower rated players, or overly reward a player for winning against higher rated players.

But for now we just have to live with a rating system that was designed with NO thoughts of chance factored in, that works for a game where higher rated players ARE better than lower rated players, a system that was designed for (and works EXTREMELY well for) a game such as chess.

Bottom line here, we NEED a rating system for an online game such as Spades to WORK, even if it does have a multitude of flaws built in.

I would also like to address a point here about the relevance of playing other variants of the game and how that affects the rating of the player.

I DO agree that a player MAY be able to get higher ratings playing "regular" Spades than in a variant such as Mirrors, however NOT for the reasons given. It would ALSO be true that SOME players would be able to get better ratings playing Mirrors than by playing "regular" Spades!!!

What we have to realize here is that even though luck can be blamed for some of the losses in Mirrors, luck is also a factor in other Spades variations as well. Not only that, but if one plays Mirrors exclusively against the same level of opponents that he would encounter in regular Spades, his rating would STILL reflect his relative ability at the game.

WHATEVER variant of the game you are playing, the edge will ALWAYS eventually go to the more skilled player (I agree with you on that point, galt!). I would suggest that what is giving games like Mirrors such a bad name among some people is the simple fact that they played a few games against people who were more skilled or adept at that game than they were, lost those games, and decided that they lost NOT because of skill but because of luck.

Remember, no matter WHAT game variant you are playing, there ALWAYS has to be a WINNER and a LOSER. For every game that YOU LOSE, someone ELSE has a WIN to put in their profile!!!

...I would wonder just how many people playing Spades FOR THE FIRST TIME had their first few games online and got their butts SOLIDLY KICKED by rank amateur players?!!! Or how many people learning to play initially were able to chalk up an impressive winning streak against those teaching them to play?!!!

Everything has to be taken in context - the rating system that many of us have learned to love to hate, and the luck factor/skill factor that constantly harangues us as we play.

Well, there's a whole bunch MORE I wanted to say here, but my fingers are gettin' a little tired now, so I'll just sign off and leave the rest for another day!!! 8)
Playing games should be FUN - seek out your own level! Don't frustrate others unnecessarily. 8)

Post Reply