Talk:Neuberg formula

Basis

What is the basis for this formula? In what respect is it "fairer" than e.g. not adding nor subtracting 1? Why should boards which are played a different number of times be given equal weight in a match anyway.. if a board is played fewer times, then its results are less significant, so it deserves to contribute less to the rankings, surely? 129.31.219.117 Zargulon (talk) 18:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surely not. Neither a board (nor its results) are less significant as a result of the sometimes-accidental circumstances that cause it to be played fewer times. A primary goal of duplicate bridge matches is to equalize the weight of a variety of hands. Superior (or inferior) performance on one hand should get an equivalent payout as that same performance on any other.

This formula seems to trade off between the alternatives of:

pro-rating the payout for direct comparison with boards that had been played the correct number of times, and
assuming that the missing result is a tie, which would drag all payouts toward the mean

As a compromise formula, we get payouts that generally reflect the relative quality of the bridge results achieved, while regressing scores "a little" towards the mean, thus partially accounting for the possibility that the missing result(s) would have been tie(s). 2602:306:83C8:4F0:45B3:EC7D:A4DD:2987 (talk) 05:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC) Miles[reply]

On the contrary, a 60% result on a board that has been played twice is vastly less statistically significant than a 60% result result on a board that has been played ten times. The former is much more likely to have arisen by chance and there is no good reason to attach equal weight to it. I am afraid your doesn't address this fundamental point other than by contradicting it. Zargulon (talk) 23:17, 29 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 54.162.23.61 (talk) [reply]