Errr…durrr…wurt?!
What difference does ranking in this game make.You have idiots going all in on nothing on a regular basic and another group of idiots that have to chase the river no matter what…As its a fee game not involving real money, just enjoy the challenge of being frustated…If you want to play the real Texas hold em, then go to a Casino or your local…Hugs All…
1 Like
My hope for a new ranking system for Tournament players would be to rank the player based on their ‘success rate’ in a specific type of poker game… In my world players would have a ranking for each of the various types of tournaments in which they participate based on how well they have done in past tourneys of that specific type…
I know it would be a major hassle to get such a system going, but I’d be willing to pay for it…
You have to have a real ranking system that will NOT reward unusually high participation, and will not punish a casual player either. Any system with unintended consequences that only benifits 1 group of ppl will be no more usefull than the current (Bankroll) Rank. I also tried to use exsisting data that all tables create for ease of adding the code to accomodate this. Sure, I think more variables come into play and possibly the holy grail would be to make a interface page so a player could “check off” any of a list of criteria, then in real time it would generate a rank for all based on that criteria only.
I do think a basic rank, other than bankroll, would help the community and at the same time incentivise players to earn thier way up the ladder. The perfect place to add basic ranks are in the popup when you click a player at a table. Just a simple … Bankroll: , Ring: , SnG: , MTT: … only takes up 4 lines. The RPP/Badges seemed like a diversion.
1 Like
Sassy - it is obvious that you have spent a great deal of time thinking about this and IMO you are moving in a really good direction with it. Coming up with a system that is as free from as much input bias as possible is a rough task but probably can be done with enough brainstorming.
The concept of an interface page is also very interesting. While I am not sure I’d want all my stats available to everyone as line items, allowing others to see the results of any search/screen would probably be fine. If I’m reading you correctly, this would basically function like a stock screening program - enter the variables that you find most important and sort a particular universe for results ranked by best results based on those criteria. I like it a lot.
I may be a bit biased in favor of an approach like this since the root of your idea is similar to what I did my doctoral disertation on in finance and statistical analysis. In finance, coming up with the system to identify a series of variables to improve upon the standard 42% r-squared beta formula was a challenge and a half. Achieving a higher coefficient of determination was valuable enough to be worth the effort though. Here you have a smaller set of possible inputs and could easily come up with formulas to rank players in an objective and statistically significant order.
I hope you and others go ahead with this project. As someone who simply cannot play enough to compete on leaderboards, a ranking system not overly influenced by volume of play (above a baseline to get a decent sample size) would be great. For example, I play a few SnG’s but cant get 120 games a month in to place high on the leaderboard. My average score would put me in the top 5 but I simply do not have the volume of games to accumulate enough total points. Is my actual rank based on strength of play and consistency of results in the 100’s or is it in the top 5 or somewhere in between? I’d think it was closer to the top than to where it stands on the leaderboard now but the current system is not set up to see it that way.
BTW, I am not advocating for a change simply because I cannot play enough for the leaderboards. I think a merit based system is the best way to go universally so players can achieve a rank based on skill and consistency alone, not volume. I’ll wager that there are many more players of high skill and low volume out there than anyone currently knows about. Lets find a way to include everyone in a ranking system and not just the high volume players.
Just to add a bit to previous thoughts - I do not have any issue with the current system of ranking players based on chips or on the leaderboards that reward players for volume of play. The bonus system is very much like rewards programs at casinos and I understand the reasoning behind them. It only makes sense to reward players who contribute the most to your rake/fees. That’s just good business practice.
What I think Sassy and others are going for is a merit-based ranking system, unrelated to the rewards programs currently in place. They are not at odds with each other in any way and could exist side by side easily, IMO. The biggest hurdles will be in determining the factors and time parameters that go into the formulas. If RP has the necessary historical data though, it is entirely possible to implement this new ranking system pretty easily I’d think.
To Replay Poker - what do you think about these ideas? Would you be open to including a system such as the one being discussed? If so, would you be interested in having an open discussion with the players to determine which factors should go into the calculations? Sarah has something here that I believe would compliment your business model quite nicely.
EDITED TO ADD CONTENT - Since one of the primary functions of this site is training and players learn most from other players, why not have a 3-tiered system for ranking/data? Some players want to be totally open about it so have all their data available to see. Some would like to participate in rankings but not have all the line items of their play made public so have a semi-private option for them. The last group doesn’t want to disclose anything about their play so give them an opt-out and just let them play. I think this should satisfy the entire community and does not require a lot of extra programming. Its all the same data but what gets done with it is the part that changes. Not a huge technical hurdle and provides a ton of flexibility.
it would be nice to be ranked on skill , not just chips in the bank - you can buy chips/rank 
So While I applaud the creation of a new ranking system based on skill .
I also believe that it should be an ongoing process. For example will people try and game the
new ranking system by only playing players of lesser rank.
Will players try and game the system
by over aggressive and or harassing behavior… My point that by being an ongoing process is you can fix challenges as they arise.
. One can never guess how people or going to try and game the rankings so it may have to change from time to time to keep it as an accurate reflection of skills versus players go similar or greater skill.
1 Like
More really good factors to consider. In MTT and SnG play, you could break them into divisions by buy-in, as they do now for leaderboards. That would help but would not stop higher-ranked players from playing in the low buy-in events. However, if no bonuses were offered, maybe the incentive for that type of thing would go away?
No system is going to be perfect. I think that the point was to see if we could create something/anything to start with and see where it goes. I myself go back and forth about any ranking system. Sure, it would be nice to compete on a field where casual play isn’t overly penalized but most of the time it isn’t even something I think about. RP poker is pretty big but chances are that the niches we each play in aren’t so large that we don’t get a sense of who the better players are in each of them.
I think this is one thing that skews all the rankings for sure but there is one that is, I want to say insidious, but it isn’t quite that.
When I arrived here three years ago, the SnGs had only one level that was functioning regularly, low. There were occasional games in medium, and there were absolutely zero games in high. With an increase in the population medium started to fill up. Rarely, however, were any games played in high. The reason was that the step up from the highest medium game to the lowest high game was something like 3 times. I lobbied management to redistribute the buy-ins in the three levels so that natural gradation would occur. They did and it worked out well.
But in the last year or so a new variation on the growth phenomenon occurred. Management added new, higher, buy-ins, which is fine, but they do not fall under the high level. They are a super category, which is unnamed and has no leaderboard. Its high game is 5M to buy in. The highest high buy-in is 500K.
I think what motivated this anomaly were a number of requests for “much” higher buy-ins. I don’t know who the requesters were or how many chips they had when asking. What I can’t understand, and believe it would skew any new ranking system, is why not just redistribute the buy-ins in each of the three categories, and allow for natural growth?
Scratch
Or add a 4th category for 500K+ games?
You have a good amount of chips Scratch so maybe this isn’t apparent from where you sit but even the jump from low to medium is pretty daunting for people without a very deep bankroll. Going from a maximum 5K game to a 50K game is a big leap.
Any system is going to have a bunch of wrinkles to work out. Since I’ve only been here for about 2 1/2 minutes, I’m going to miss a lot of issues that others, such as yourself, will pick up on. That why I was hoping RP would open a discussion like this up to players of all stripes to be sorted through and worked out. This could be something really good, both as a feature and as an exercise to see how players think.
What do buy-in amounts to do with a new ranking calculation?
I thought the idea was to base a new system solely on skill.
If the size of the buy-in is included in the calculation we are right back to favoring high chip bankrolls that could include purchased chips and free chips.
Going from a maximum 5K game to a 50K game is a big leap.
exactly i am a fairly decent player , i suppose , but if i were to buy-in at 50K and not place , i would lose ranking simply because i have 50K less in my bank. if i had 5 million chips in my bank , i could go onto any table ( ring game or tournament ) and bet all-in or play like an idiot because i have chips to burn - and have a higher ranking simply because i have more chips in my bank ?
people with actual “skills” generally enjoy playing against others of like mind to find the balance between ranking according to skill + bankroll + playing time +++ all the other factors that come into play and that are being discussed here , is a bit tricky to be sure but ranking by skill needs to be a top factor.
as Scratch has outlined , tournament buy-ins need to be uniform from low to high - and having a category for “misc” type tournaments might not be a bad idea. people with skill may not always have a high bankroll and people with a high bankroll may not always have skill no ranking system will change that - but if we can have a ranking system that can balance all of the relevant factors , skilled people will still be able to progress to a higher ranking. maybe we can focus on hands won at showdown - people who go all-in pre-flop and “win” simply because all others fold , will will not count as a “skilled” win…or something along those lines…
Pots Won: 16% (7,016)
At showdown: 92% (6,479)
Without showdown: 8% (537)
i am curious… what should/could my rank be according to the above info ?
Chip 1,129,412 Rank: 5,479 <<< current chips and rank
i do play tournaments but not so many as to place on any leader boards - it would help if i placed more often…lol…
Tournament Points
Weekly (Top 10) 19,679
Monthly (Top 20) 31,475
Yearly (Top 100) 100,042
i am sure that RP will be able to implement a ranking system that will rank players on a more “overall” average - or be able to better “streamline” what is already in place either way , it is trial & error - either way , this remains a good site play on
thanks for “listening” <<< ruinous3
sigh… i just realized that this post has me at wildrenee - the above stats are from my other profile ruinous3 - my stats for wildrenee , however , are pretty similar - just FYI
Pots Won: 17% (7,310)
At showdown: 91% (6,653)
Without showdown: 9% (657)
Chip 1,028,917 Rank: 5,900
Tournament Points
Weekly (Top 10) 0
Monthly (Top 20) 0
Yearly (Top 100) 175,296
if nothing else , i guess this comparison shows that i pretty much play the same “style” on either profile…lol…
Seems the easiest way to rank poker play is simply the winning Percent if calculated over all venues…my winning percent is 20.0% in other words I win 1 hand in every 5 regardless of where I play or in what tournament or at what stakes…my chips fall where they may since I could have only a 1000 in the bank since I may have lost everything on one hand…since I can purchase chips the obvious is they should have no bearing on my ranking…to separate players with like percentage simply show the number of awards attained in total…I am a 20% player with 50 awards…If I entered a tournament with these credentials I should be rated as keen competition for any of the other players…
Uh oh, multi accounting is a big no no.
Isn’t it?
Uh oh, multi accounting is a big no no.
in the beginning , i needed ways to get chips i “invited” myself and created a second profile it did not work , however…lol… same computer , same IP address no extra chips i do not buy chips often but when i do , i buy for both accounts as wildrenee i can let my feminine side show as ruinous3 i can play a bit more anonymously , stay to myself a bit more people have more than 1 email or more than 1 FB account etc… i would think that i would have been notified in some way by now if having 2 profiles is not acceptable… have been here 2 yrs…
I am a 20% player with 50 awards.
i agree with ranking by percentage but i think the achievements are more about “fun” i have lost some good chips trying to get that 4th 2 ( Mighty Ducks ) KKQQ ( Mommas & Poppas ) etc… i also need to friend request more i need 25 for Wolf Pack and waiting at an empty table for it to fill up ? ( Lone Wolf ) that badge was a hassle…lol… but , again , all in fun
its such a rigged site.youll never see theses kind of flops…these hands look like the rare ones on TV…favors the winners
Most of the stats provided on Replay do not say much about how well somebody is playing . For example, it doesn’t mean much to win a lot of pots if they are all small pots.
However, 90% of pots won at showdown seems extremely high to me.
Mine are: 73% of hands folded, 14% of pots won, 46% won at showdown, 54% without showdown, 81,269,726 chips, rank 173.
If you are seeing showdown on most of the hands you are winning, you may be betting too small or not betting enough. I thinks the percentage of pots won at showdown should be somewhere between 40% and 60% depending on your style of play. I do not have evidence to back that up, but 50% seems like a good breakeven point between trying to get value out of goods hands, showdown medium hands, and run a few bluffs while betting enough to get value for your good hands.
Let players buy “rank” if they want…and see if they can maintain the purchased rank
It is no skin off my teeth…(Or yours either)
1 Like