When it comes to the ranking #, I take it that the lower the number the better the ranking?
Reason I ask, is that I’ve encountered very good players with an extremely high rank number.
keep breathing…fold to the money…win at the end
2 Likes
yes it’s indeed the lower the number the better it is.
but the reason you might find strong players at weaker numbers (or weak at better numbers) is because ranking is purely based on the persons bankroll. it’s true that in general the more chips you have the better you are, but since it’s not even close to everything that matters in poker, it makes this a speculative number. i have played against some people ranked around 1000000, who played better then someone around 100, of course this are the big exceptions but it happens.
hope this helps, yiazmat.
4 Likes
I disagree…the ranking system on here is 90 percent plus or minus accurate…no good player is going to be sticking around playing the low stakes games…it is much to boring…
Meh, Rank has very little to do with a player’s actual skill.
I have won lots of tourneys of various buy-ins, mostly in the 5k - 15k range, and have had a bankroll just shy of a million on a couple of occasions (then I get drunk, go psycho, and wake up with no chips but a bunch of cease-n-desist emails from the moderators).
Also, how well a player does at any given time is very luck-dependent - and I ain’t talking about the cards, either. I am talking about the other players sitting at the table.
Get a halfway decent player with a so-so bankroll and put them on a table with a bunch of n00bs that think its a good idea to always re-raise all-in with 55 preflop, and before you know it that decent player will (75% of the time or thereabouts) quintuple his buyin or better.
And if it is a $2k buy-in table he might actually break $100k before he gets up and leaves (I have done that a couple of times).
On the other hand, put that same player on a table with a bunch of experienced grinders, and he will struggle just to net double his buy-in.
This is also why you might get a donk/bingo/maniac who suddenly goes from having to reload for $2500 every day to having a $200k bankroll and jumping on the higher buy-ins (which, if his luck holds, might propel that nutcase to amazing chip counts before the inevitable crash-n-burn).
I have done that a few times as well… usually when drunk.
And this does not in anyway take into account those players that buy chips on this site.
So, Ranking is a speculative number that, while it might give you a generalized idea of a player’s bankroll, gives you no reliable information as to how well any given player plays. That you have to figure out yourself during the game.
2 Likes
as i said, lol 
. >>v
but even 90% is speculative. there are things like bad players who buy chips, bad people who got lucky, good people who got bad luck, good people that just lack a few prime skills, or good people who have even better people on the table, or the other way around.
also if someone uses poor BRM (which i often do to be honest, still working on that ), these luck or bad luck swings are even much bigger.
just look at it like variance in poker, when you play AA vs KK once, 20 % of the time you will lose, no matter how good you are, but when you play that hand 1000 times you are sure you will make profit.
same theory applies when you compare one random person ranked in 100k-200k vs someone in 100-200. but if you compare 1000 people with each other, so lets say number 1-1000 with number 101000-102000. you are sure the range of 1-1000 are the better players
which is why i said it does give an idea of it’s skill, but it isn’t even close to stone cold proof
2 Likes
Ideally rank should be based on skill.
Ranking becomes a bit redundant if it’s based on a high bankroll which can be bought rather than won through poker skills.
I think far more accurate assessment of an opposing players skill can be achieved, as with some programs, by indicating the number of hands a player has played along with his/her win percentage.
2 Likes
that is usually reflected in the bankroll…
How is poker skill reflected in a players bankroll if rank can be achieved by buying your bankroll?
1 Like
It can’t, of course, but if a player maintains that rank or improves it, then clearly it was merited. Conversely, if the rank gets worse, that tells the tale, doesn’t it. We’ll always have to “know our customers” by observation and experience; there’s no short cuts. The Player Notes feature is good for that. Good luck.
1 Like
If the player can simply maintain the rank or improve it by continuing to buy more chips, it is clearly not merited.
The ranking system is, therefore, very misleading and could easily be rectified by, as I said, indicating the number of hands a player has played along with his/her win percentage.
This solution, however, may mean a lower bankroll for Replay since a player could no longer buy status.
2 Likes
In my experience neither life nor poker conform to merit…one must work within the system …
1 Like
I assume that there are few players who continually buy enough chips to maintain a rank of 500 or less…and if they do then that small percentage of players does not statistically obviate the ranking system…
1 Like
Perhaps, county, this is true for yourself but for others, like myself, life and poker can indeed conform to merit, causing us, as in this case, to question faulty systems with the aim of improving them.
Furthermore, county, Replay, as you know, is a virtual reality; therefore, making it analogous to real life and real poker is, I’m afraid, a clear fallacy - unless, of course, you are a solipsist, in which case, the analogy is fine.
1 Like
Well, since I do not understand your post; I guess you are right and I am in error…
The lower the number the better the ranking would be correct. Rankings are all based on how many chips a player has. There are obviously many reasons why an excellent player may not have as many chips as a player with less skill.
1 Like
hey
UPDATE
used your tips off my own back and have only just read this response today!!!
I did do the sit n go and heads up for training purposes and I did take about a month out of MTT back in December guess what ive now won 21 MTTs its amazing what playing sit n goes and Heads up teaches you.
have to say my strongest part of my game is Heads up…I hardly ever lose 1 on 1 and make it very hard for players to read me.
hope my ramblings make sense when you read them.
2 Likes
21MTT wins? That is AWESOME! Congratulations!
When I 1st started playing here that seemed to be the case but nowadays I play low stake ring games (5-10, 25-50) with hi ranked solid players regularly.
I believe that’s due to me sending friend requests to all solid players I observe.
If I see 2-4 friends at a table and join, it’s almost always a good game.
2 Likes
I DO make a lot of notes on players. From their betting habits to whether or not they respond to nh and gh comments.
2 Likes