@Galak is correct. We only allow one account on the site, which is listed in our Community Playbook.
We aren’t able to openly discuss any information about specific accounts to protect player privacy, but speaking generally, when we learn about multiple accounts, we’ll contact a player privately to discuss permanently closing out one of them.
Now, back to your regularly scheduled ranking discussion. 
not sure what you consider ONE ACCOUNT. I have many times seen one player at multiple tables at one time. Is this still considered one account? I’ve often wondered how they do this…multiple computers?
Players are able to play at more than one table at a time. You should just be able to open up an additional table or register for an overlapping tournament. Multiple accounts refers to separate accounts (unique usernames) operated by the same person. So if I had fizzymint, fizzymint1, and fizzymint2, I’d have to close two of them.
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.
Total hands played: 43,978
Hands folded: 68% (29,734)
for example : if someone goes all-in on the turn and everyone folds before the river , the person betting “mucks” unless they choose to show their hand… maybe i am “old-fashioned” but a win is when you play to the river and not be the only one left to “win” - it is kind of like winning by “default” - not very exciting i have bet high on what would have been a winning hand , only to have everyone fold and therefore i “muck” - i do not show my cards unless there is a showdown and others are still in play…if there were 2K in the pot and i bet 5K and everyone folds , i only win 2K… if i “match” the pot , i stand a better chance of winning more than 2K…
as for people who bluff ? … is it really a winning hand simply because you bet high and everyone else folds ? or if someone calls your bluff and you lose - is that skill on the part of the bluffer ?
Straight Flush, Eight High 47,040 Chips wildrenee over 1 year ago <<< as you can see , this was some time ago… to say that maybe i am not betting enough is not an indication of skill ( or lack of ) - there are a number of factors that come into play on any given table…if i recall correctly , the only reason that i won this pot was because another player had a full house - they counted on me having a flush but not a straight flush…if you are playing against people who have some skill , winning extremely high pots is not going to happen on a regular basis because people are going to weigh the odds - consider the amount of the bet and maybe they know a little something about the people they are playing against it is harder to read “tells” on a computer as opposed to “face to face” play but the tells are there
for me , a winning hand is defeating other players’ hand(s) if it is all about chips and the amount you win ? IDK - everyone plays for their own reasons and enjoys the game in their own way
maybe we should have couple mtts that give player rankings based on how they finished each one…like a ranked circuit…so rankings would only be based by these mtts.
Well i like a lot of these ideas. However as aggressiveness factor, I’m not too sure. As a royal player, going all in pre flop is generally pretty silly at a game where any hand can win at any time, and people who do it all the time tend to be non royal players who are clueless and mess up the games for the real players. Under this system, the obnoxious people who hit all in pre flop over and over again with any hand and make a good game impossible for the real players would seem to benefit from their ridiculous behavior and that does not seem right. Unless I misunderstand what you mean.
Also as someone who tends to prefer the tournaments, I’m not sure how the profit thing fits in. Was that more in line with the ring games, or like if you tend to profit from the tourneys cause you regularly and making it to the final tables, would that factor in as well?
The % of hands won that seems like a great factor. Do you know how the rankings are currently calculated?
I think i am in love
However you want to play is up to you. I only responded because you asked about what your stats meant about the kind of player you are. They don’t show “skill”, but in your case they show, exactly as you said, that you like to show down with the best hand. If you enjoy showing everyone the best hand on the river, then that’s great. I prefer winning tournaments and getting as many chips as I can, but since they are play chips, the most important thing is what makes playing the most fun/entertaining for you.
Personally, I do not understand why it is fun to show up with the best hand. If I make a bet and my opponents fold, then I guess I had the best hand. If I make a bet with the best hand and my opponents call, then even better. And people are opposed to bluffing… Bluffing for play chips is difficult because people do not like to fold, but there are few things more fun and entertaining than bluffing your opponent, and objectively speaking the optimal strategy in poker involves bluffing a certain percentage of the time. It is stupid to bluff all the time, but it certainly is an important part of the game. It’s like saying, I like to play basketball, but I only play offense, not defense. It is a fundamental part of poker that should not be ignored.
Do you know how the rankings are currently calculated?
rank is currently based on your bankroll and you bring up a good point marley98
there does need to be different standards for ranking tournament players verses ring table players - you can play a little more “loose” in a ring game because you can replenish your chips from your bank - tournaments require a bit more discipline - one ranking system that has to accommodate for 2 different “styles” of play would be a difficult “blend” - % of pots won takes into account ALL hands played whether ring or tourney - as it stands now , it is the only stat that records any actual “card play” - any form of ranking should leave chip amount out of the calculations.
i think you could easily have a “board” that can show who won the most chips etc…you could win 100,000K today and lose 200,000K tomorrow - it does not reflect skill whereas % of pots won is a steady indicator of how a person actually plays how do you calculate a winning hand on the river ( & showing ) verses winning on a bluff if everyone folds ? ( whether you show or muck ) way too complicated and involving i think ?
i think we have demonstrated here that “millionaires” will still play Freerolls and skilled players who may not have a deep bankroll will “play it safe” and not risk losing all or most of their bankroll in one tournament ( 500,000K buy-in for example ) chips come and go it is in constant flux that is why ranking by chips alone does not accurately define someones’ skill…
what it all seems to boil down to is that people here would like a ranking system that is not based solely on chips in the bank in discussing our stats and thoughts and ideas , it shows how varied we are as individuals and that is a good thing part of the challenge & skill of poker is playing against people & not just the cards but ranking by “people” and chips in “flux” is more difficult and less accurate than coming up with a system that can rank by “solid” card play/stats that can be more easily “defined” and tracked
They don’t show “skill”, but in your case they show,… the results of my “style” of play… as they do for everyone % of pots won does not care if you win by bluff , default or showdown - it can only say that X% was won at showdown & X% was not… but , again , it is the only stat to date that uses “card” play ( not chips ) as an indicator to demonstrate some level of “skill” or a basis for some type of rank…
there has to be a consensus in deciding what factors are “relevant” in determining “skill” - then… how to track it ? - statistics can only reflect information that is gathered - what info & how that info is acquired is the basis of …how do we create/maintain an accurate way of obtaining relevant information in order to apply it to a ranking system ? later questions may include - what statistics should be public or private ? etc…
a simple spreadsheet type ranking will work.
earned chip, = total -free ones-bought ones
but just list
EARNED CHIPS and TOTAL CHIPS.
then allow viewing my name, earned chips and total chips.
and players can look at ranking in which every way they want too. (except bought and free chips are not public)
draw back: players who buy chips may not want others to know they buy chips or how much. if this is the case then I would want to see ranking by earned chips only. Which is probably what we are seeing now, because players who buy are most likely losing them as fast as they can buy them,
Change the way you rank or not is fine with me, just offering my two cents.
Seems like a lot of good valid and crystal clear points in order to validate the ranking system.Ranking in a free chips world is far more difficult than it appears to be.
But we going to do it-the first thing which needs to go out the window is chip buyers ranking going up for buying chips.This may affect the revenue model of the site…
But most definitely if we working on ranking with taking the skill set of the players this definitely cannot be counted as one of the skills.
I also agree with a few who mention who go all in and play total donkey poker in the smaller buy in games where you do get over a 100 players,tobe honest if i see 100 players playing a 15k game i dont even bother entering…its like being blasted with 3 allins ever hand coming from all directions with pathetic hands.
anything less say the 10k,5k,2.5k buy in are a total joke.they are not even playing poker maybe a cross section of banko and rummy.
ive seen quality games from the 50k buy in upwards to the 1 million buy in…although sorry to say even the 50k buy in games are looking somewhat bingo oriented…but other than a few of those the quality of poker and games and hands played out are good and ive seen myself fold AA to be in the money…was a case whern 3 players went all in with large stacks i didnt think my AA were going to make it and after 2 hours could be out of the money and sure enough i folded and was a beaten hand by a flush then a straight.may call it luck or anything else but what im saying is at this level players are thinking and playing and strategy and good reads are on the table for others to see a good game of poker not only playing it.and it does get nerve wrecking
My thought is keep it simple even if it means the ranking isnt 100% accurate. Chip count should not be in the equation. Each player should have two rankings. One for tournament.play and one for SnG.
Tournament= monthly rankings only- rankings based on finish position ONLY on a set number of tourneys entered- say 25 for example–no less no more-- if a player only plays in 24 tourneys in one month the player is not ranked for that month—if that player plays in more than 25 tourneys he/she will be ranked onlyon their best finishes in 25 tourneys—not 100% accurate but its simple.
SnG=players ranked every 3 months(4 times per year) Rankings based solely on the number of hands won.
a minimum of (for example) 3000 hands played required in a three month period-. if a player. only plays 2999 hands in that time period that player doesnt qualify for ranking for that period — We must take chip count out of the ranking process. I know these ideas are primitive and probably too simple-- but simple is always more appealing to the masses… Lets remember REPLAY is a play for fun site --lets not get lost in the weeds…just my thoughts
oops.when I said “SnG” in the above message I meant to say “Ring”…
all good points…I agree with most but im not sure of your feelings on “the Art of betting”. If I can defeat a winning hand b/4 the river is thrown because of aggressive betting thats called “poker” and if I defeat a winning hand because of my"chip count"…that too is called “poker”— in this case perhaps the “would be winning hand” should be sitting at a limited stakes table.---- just my opinion
should be sitting at a limited stakes table
i will never understand the appeal of “limited” betting Poker is comprised of numerous styles , strategies & ideologies - that is Poker
i like your summary on how to keep ranking simple a number of us who are commenting on this thread seem to be thinking along the same lines - keep it simple & keep chip count out of it
Why do we need a ranking system at all is the real question. It’s like visiting a casino where the owner greets players at the door with a list of performance statistics for every patron that ever played there. When you choose a table the owner is back with a game specific breakdown of each player seated at the table. He even tells you how much money each player has in their bank account.
Now if we must have a new ranking system it need not be complex or complicated. A simple return on investment percentage linked to stakes level played would give an easy and accurate picture of a players performance. Replay already have stakes levels so it stands that players should be ranked at the stakes they usually play. Predominately Low stakes players get measured against low stakes players and ranked as L+/- % (Low stakes+/- ROI%.) Medium stakes get M+/-%. High stakes get H+/-%. Elite get E+/-%. The same for SnG and MTT players. This way players ranking is relevant to where they play.
“Aggressiveness factor” should have no bearing whatsoever. When you are playing good, controlled aggression such as raising and 3 betting will be part of your game already and your ROI will show that so why add bonus points which will only encourage some players to keep bingo chucking chips at the table. Bingo players win a high percentage of hands by shoving all-in time after time but are not the best players here so why bias any ranking system in their favour.
Curiosity question: How can two players have the same ranking? Never noticed it before. In this game both Vlad and Max are ranked 32… hand #292025434
Well, ranking by lack of chips will not work I think…Perhaps we should all vote on who are the best players or nominate a blue ribbon panel to rank players…i
Joe - I gave a little thought to this and it may have something to do with the fact that you are playing against people who are good enough to fold. In many games at lower stakes, people will call 3 streets of bets on a K-high so a lot more hands will go to showdown. Therefore, even this statistic may not say as much about the style of play as I originally thought. It may in fact say more about the types of opponents you are facing.
Curious to see what you think of this speculation since you are the one actually playing against higher ranked players. Would it be fair to say that the better players will release hands more frequently and limit losses rather than chase? I’d be curious to see the percentage of pots overall that go to showdown broken down by stakes. I’d bet that there is a strong relationship of %pots taken without showdown to increased stakes.