New player ranking calculation

Suggestions & Feedback
1

After giving this thought, I am gonna take a stab at this one.

Without reinventing the wheel, or creating some super statistics nightmare… I came up with the following criteria to base a ranking on, and by the actual formulas it becomes “weighted”. How aggresive is a player, hand win %, how much his “won” bankroll is, and Profit %. ( SnG/MTT only - win % & cash % ).
I believe players could be ranked ( Overall, Yearly, Monthly, Weekly … as well as Ring, SnG, MTT ). I think when you click on a player at a table, more info can be shown and would include 4 ranks… Overall ( Bank Rank, Ring Rank, SnG Rank, MTT Rank )

1: (SnG-MTT only) - Win % * 200 ( 0 - 100, and is based on #Wins / #Entered
2: (SnG-MTT only) - Cash % * 40 ( 0 - 100, and is based on #Cashes / #Entered
3: Profit % * 40 ( 0 - 100, and is based on ( boolian ) #profited in / #Entered
4: ( Bankroll - chips bought - daily bonuses ) / 1000
5: ( HW% + FW% ) / 2 * 200 … (hands won / hands played) (flops seen / of these hands won)
6: Aggressiveness factor : ( A-pts / hands played ) * 1000
… A pts accumulated for raising (1) and all-ins (5) as described in the following 4 formulas.
… Pre flop - Raise - ( 1 )( 1 - ( 1 / ( Bet size / BigBlind ) ) - .1 )(1.3)
… Pre flop - All–In - ( 5 )( 1 - ( 1 / ( Bet size / BigBlind ) ) - .1 )(1.3)
… Post flop - Raise - ( 1 )( 1 - ( 1 / ( Bet size / BigBlind ) ) - .1 )
… Post flop - All–In - ( 5 )( 1 - ( 1 / ( Bet size / BigBlind ) ) - .1 )

A sample MTT players’ calcs might go like this :
500+1500+1250+5000+4000+2500 = 14,750

Now, of all of these, only #6 is a new calc, the rest are all things I can go see right now. Where shown, a % needs to be between 0-100. Not sure if #6 can be retroactively calc’d but the rest certainly could. So the agression modifier would be accum after implemented.

I am eager to hear what criteria other people think are important, and thier opinion of this formula.

3 Likes
2

Can you see the % of tournaments that you win somehow?

I like your approach; it is similar to what I have come up with previously. I think they should implement it. I just have two issues/tweaks:

  1. The winning percentage from tournaments needs to factor in the buy-in of those tournaments and the number of players (similar to current tournament points) because it different to beat 19 players for 1m chip buy-in than to beat 100 players for 1.5k.

  2. Is being aggressive a positive thing? I think that playing well involves being aggressive sometimes and letting your opponents do the betting other times. It might encourage people to be too aggressive. I do like the idea of rewarding preflop raises though, because it would lead to more “realistic” play. I could get behind the aggressiveness part if you only include pots that the player won.

3

Other than the points previously raised, I think I see a small issue with the aggression factor, because as Joe said [quote=“JoeDirk, post:2, topic:5490”]
Is being aggressive a positive thing?
[/quote]
For example, take the 500BR+ tourney where i have seen people play bingo every hand (regardless of any cards) and i’m not quite convinced that such aggression should be rewarded (even if they win, because I’ve seen 72o crack bullets).
However the idea of such a point system does seem very interesting and would be awesome if Replay could pull it off.
JJ

4

I for one don’t obsess over someones rank or my own for that matter. I come to Replay to meet people from all over the globe and to have FUN! This is something i think most players here come for,winning chips is fun too don’t get me wrong …after all no one wants to lose but lets not become obsessed with someone elses rank.

5

Changing the way the ranking system works is sure to upset a lot of people. That’s the cost.

What, exactly, is the benefit?

6

Fair point. The intended benefit would be to add a competitive element beyond accumulating chips that could add long-term enjoyment to retain more players. Is the risk worth the reward? I’m honestly not sure, but because many people refuse to use correct bankroll management with play chips, adding more factors to rank could make it more robust and give players something else to pursue.

1 Like
7

If you do feel you have to change it, why not base it on ROI? That would even thigs out between ring and tournament, and across all stakes.

1 Like
8

I think that would be the best approach.

It would need to be robust enough to include the stakes (it’s easier to get 300% roi at low vs high) and possibly the number of players, although # of players is reflected in chips won from a tournament.

The other weird thing about ranking is that I wouldn’t want it to be directly influenced by volume of play, but it would also be bad to have a rank that you could earn and then have no incentive to keep playing (e.g., if you win 3 tournaments in a row, playing a 4th is likely to bring down your roi).

9

They’ve been talking about going to a HTML5 version for well over a year. I have no idea why they keep throwing dev resources at a system they intend to scrap.

OK, maybe straight ROI is too simple, but it would be a good place to start.

1 Like
10

Before the new badges, I used to look at when a player joined, total chips, and how many awards they had, which roughly translates to how active they are. This provided a fair estimate of their skill.

By now, most players are level 50, so level is worthless in determining skill.

The number of awards also doesn’t mean as much as it used to.

They seem to be going backwards.

1 Like
11

There is good thinking in these last few posts and it seems that it is earnest. My humble offering is that to get a higher ranking system we first need to make sure we can increased value to some marked degree. What I am also concluding is that value will insure ranking but ranking does not insure value.

Scratch

2 Likes
12

I keep coming back to the idea that the ranking system is pretty good the way it is. If you play and win chips, your ranking will improve, and if you don’t, your ranking will decrease. Every other system would introduce more problems. I would suggest more high stakes MTTs between 100k and 750k buy-in to balance out tournaments vs ring (plus there just need to be more options between 50k and 1m in general).

13

Agreed. I don’t see any valid reason to change it.

14

I agree… with the exception that if you buy chips they shouldn’t count towards rankings. Nothing against players who buy , I think its great that they help support a free site but I worked hard to get the chips I have.

2 Likes
15

JJ , you see #5 and #6 usually even each other out, except for the more skilled players who could raise both… I play the 500 B&R , and I have spent alot… its gonna kill #5 if I go all in 30 hands in a row and only win 3-4 of them, and would skew it so bad, even playing awesome in all other MTTs wouldn’t allow you to really get both back up easily… so its a built in check for that.

JoeDirk, as to your #1, well no… I was reminded of the Olympic promotion that only tracked wins/top 3s… I see your objection, but currently the player overnight is screwed due to thier MTTs being 1/2 of what they are in the daytime… so I was just looking @ wins/cashes/profit to swing it more to the middle, so to speak…

SunPowerGuru, #4 is a modified ROI… If I rebuy enuff sometimes I won’t profit, therefore this only looks at ROI as boolian… did I profit or didn’t I… and in the activity or bank pages… it shows easily… green or red… (boolian)

Right now… other than RPP rank ( which is brand new ), bankroll is no ranking system… its just bankroll ( with or without bought chips ) … You can try looking at the TopLists, but they only show top 10, and won’t even show each person where they are… like the leaderboard lists do… So there is no ranking system really…

So tell me… how do each of you rank other players ??? Does the fact I have 5 million and SPG has 10 million … tell you anything about how good we are or aren’t ( I say no ) ???

I think we need a ranking system, and was trying to start the conversation about what criteria I and others feel goes into making that all important calculation…

16

They should keep the current system, but rename it “chip rank.” This should prevent those who like the current system from, being upset.

They should replace the RPP Level with a link to that player’s stats. Every active player is already at RPP Level 50, so what’s the point?

Letting us see a player’s stats would be much more useful than any single number. Add some MTT and SnG stats like number played, cashes, final tables, and wins. Instead of trying to find a “one size fits all” solution, give us the raw data and let us decide what’s important in assessing a player’s skill…

17

I’m only level 44 :cry:

But seriously, it would be great to see more stats like winning % or ROI at various game types

18

Include everyones win %.

19

nothing better to do with your time?

20

Agree 100%, Sharon.

1 Like