Great, Yelp reviews on poker players. Sounds like a winner.
Poker is a game of constant adjustments when dealing with exploitable behaviors. Every player here should observe the players they commonly face and make notes on what they have observed. This information is yours and you should want to keep it to yourself so that you can exploit what you have seen. If you aren’t doing some form of this (even from memory), then you are still on level 0 thinking and only focused on your own cards and the board. Your notes are as close as you can get to having a HUD here. Make them and use them.
The fixation with ranks strikes me as odd. Not only do I think its odd but I also think its a futile pursuit. Sure, you could have stats that show players’ cashing % or winrates per 100 or something like that but even then you wouldn’t have much more than raw numbers without context. Some players may be great at SnG’s but not great in deep-field events or cash. Some players are heads-up specialists. Some people like donking around for no apparent reason whatsoever. Some people like playing above or below their bankrolls. Some like playing in whatever game their friends are in and aren’t concerned at all about the number of chips they bank in the end. Heck, I’ve seen better play at the Duck Pond in certain regular games than in the elite stakes most of the time. The point is that there is no way to accurately rank players en-masse, here or anywhere else. Get over it.
I think everyone who has played and who is honest with themselves knows the other players they have difficulty with. Would putting a number by that player’s name make them any easier to play against? What would that number really tell you about anything? So instead of trying to organize everything into some neat format that achieves exactly nothing, I suggest people spend more time on their own games and just having fun.
It seems most players don’t have the inclination to rate others, though we all do have such a system in place. Those players we take notes on are in effect being rated. It isn’t a system that could be program-wide but for each individual player who rates another, it has meaning.
On another site, we got to color code our opponents. That type of note system I found easy for me to use. Problem was, I used red to denote one type of player while others deemed red something else.
I fully agree with 1 Warlock. I don’t particularly want to be rated by anybody. I certainly wouldn’t enjoy the new forum topic ‘I was rated unfairly on Replay Poker’ or ‘Funny Replay Poker Ratings’. While I do agree the present rating system leaves something to be desired, I have no interest in another distraction. Just my thoughts here, no offense meant to anybody.
You can’t. But how many out of at least 100 raters would be doing that? If you’ve been rated by 10 players, you know there’s a chance it’s not really accurate, but when you’ve been rated by 1000, it becomes much more accurate. Just like any rating system.
But anyway it looks like the idea has many more attackers than fans. The forums and the table chats have always been flooded by opinions about ranks and how they matter to everyone, but now suddenly nobody cares about ranks anymore and they are meaningless, and “worrying about someone else’s rank is silly”
I haven’t seen much chat, but I don’t play every day. The topic is prevalent on the forums though for sure.
Here you go trying to do something about it and you get a few ‘you go girls’ and a bunch of 'that won’t works". Welcome to politics.
For what it’s worth, You Go Girl. :
I like the idea to some extent. Participation would be voluntary and subjective, of course. That said, once a player’s rated by over 100 and has rated over 100 then the ratings start to take on some actual meaning. On the other hand, criteria is going to be rather “loose” so I don’t know that the ratings would be any more reflective of skill than the current chip balance is. Good thought though, IMHO.
They wouldn’t. They would just offer a new perspective. “How skilled other players think you are” vs “how skilled your chip balance shows you are”. Just an additional system, not to replace any existing ones.
I do agree with the that the current ranking system can be inaccurate, however I think letting people rate your “skill” wouldnt be the optimal solution. A lot of thought can go into a hand, for eg. i might shove 10BB with 97o from the cutoff into two shortstacks on the bubble. I have no doubt that people would say this kinda play and rate it as “bad”. Which wouldnt be true if you see what I mean.
@NoBluf you’re absolutely right. However, nobody should rate anyone judging by how they played 1 hand. If there was such a system in place, I would only rate another player after seeing enough of how they play to be able to do so. Wouldn’t you?
NoBluff u are exactly right, the system would be flawed by players not liking 1 of ur bets, or raises, or what u chat on the table, heck they might not like ur name or the friends u have here, then theres the jealousy factor too, many players get jealousy of ur rank or chip count in bank. all these and so many more things can cause a player to rate u bad because of just 1 of those things. and the very nice polite player on the table that is new to poker with little to no skill could get rated high because hes such a nice guy. someone might not like the way u joke around on table or talk to much, so they get a bad rating, the person that doesnt say ty back when someone says nh will get a bad rating, and the list goes on and on and the now players are not rating skill, they are rating all those things, so no way would it work.
@maya I would not, but I have been called out for bad plays so many times playing high stakes by ppls who just dont really understand the plays. They would have given bad rating forsure.
@floridajetski and @NoBluf out of 1000 players who would rate you, how many would give you a bad rating just because you have played 1 hand in a way they don’t understand, or because of jealousy or because they don’t like your hair or the color of your eyes?
Every rating system has the same flaw: it all depends on the number of raters. The higher the number, the more accurate the rating.
If you’re a good player, surely you won’t get 50 000 players rating you as bad just because they’re all jealous, or just because you played 1 hand that is beyond their mediocre comprehension of the game. If 10 000 players rate you as bad, surely you’re not the best poker player in the world and the victim of a conspiracy. That’s how rating systems work everywhere. As @vtpcwizard pointed earlier, once someone is rated by 100 players or more, it starts to take an actual meaning. Unfortunately, you are stuck with how statistically very few players might rate others, and missing the bigger picture.
If you were going to see a movie and you have to choose between 1 movie that 3 people found excellent, 1 movie that 3 million people found terrible, and 1 movie that 10 million people found amazing, which one would you choose?
That is why under the current system players need to earn thier rank. If they can win tournaments. Win in the ring games or sng’s to build their bank roll.
Ive been playing on this site for 4 years now, I had a lot of ups and downs. I also never bought one chip. Please don’t think
Everyone bought thier rank there are some very skillfull players in our world that plays on this site. I will say that yes we do need a new invented way to rank replay poker players.
I don’t know when but someone will come up with the right ranking system for replay poker site.I like all of the ideas
Comming in. keep it going thats how we find a great idea to solve the problem.
so u are saying that all the new to poker and unskilled players are capable of accurately comprehending all the dynamics of the game and therefore have an accurate rating not understanding so many aspects of the game? one person might rate u bad because they were mad they lost to u or got knocked out of the game by u, where as another player that lost to u or got knocked out by u might rate u good cause your skills to beat him were great, so hope u see my point that different players will react and rate that same player differently because one saw u lose and one saw u win.
I understand your point very well. But you’re still missing mine. The things that you are saying disappear when there are 1000 raters or more. These are small percentages. The vast majority will not rate you based on these things.
im not missing ur point at all, i clearly understand the law of large numbers in every aspect of life, including hands in poker and what u are saying. keep in mind that most players are focused on the game, their cards, cards on board, and other players, i think most players wont want to add the work of analyzing every hand and every player so they can give them a rating, they are analyzing all of that to win every hand they are in and win the game, i think most could care less about rating someone. they play their table or game and move on to the next one while trying to have fun too.
