Normalising PRís in Matches
Posted By: Rick Janowski In Response To: Normalising PRís in Matches (Bob Koca)
Date: Monday, 1 July 2013, at 3:51 p.m.
In Response To: Normalising PRís in Matches (Bob Koca)
I agree that there are many ways a player could have easier decisions, and I can understand that it is desirable to improve the way the three PRs are measured by finding a way of measuring number of effective decisions. I had thought of having some system where you weight each decision by residual equity at stake so that play decisions where the winning chances are less than 2% (or 98%) weigh far less than a decision where both players are closer to 50%. To me it seems like the latter case should have perhaps 12 times the weight of the former. Itís not clear where you would stop with this approach though. Using normalised equities is probably best for training purposes. However, in reality play or cube decisions have greater value and significance when the cube is higher. Moreover, match score values have widely different values, e.g. at DMP the players are playing for 100% of the match, but at 15 away a5away they might only be playing for 15-20% of the match on average. A true measure of practical performance would give greater credit to resource management of the player in focussing maximum effort when itís needed the most. Perhaps both PR approaches are valid.
However, even if the means of measuring the number of effective decision is optimised, there would still remain a significant source of variance because the cube PR is still likely to be substantially higher than checker PR, making overall PR sensitive to actual proportion of cube decisions made. It seems to me that the only way for this effect to be negated, without some normalisation process, would be to try to modify/relax the criteria for determining number of cube decisions to the point where they would be a about twice the size they are now. To me this seems unrealistic/false, resulting in everyone having a much reduced PR, but with a lot less reliability, and consequentially undesirable.
Your idea of adjusting for Crawford scores or when DMP is reached seems very sensible. With some tweaking it may also apply to other post-Crawford scores and perhaps 2 away 2 away.
Messages In This Thread
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.