For those who may perhaps have interest: This is the text from the Word Document I opened in an effort to make my decision. May be a little silly or may be not too bad. Warning - a bit long:
Dan - A rank in the top 50 means you must have over half a billion chips. Even if he bought most of that bankroll, it would mean he’s had to invest a relatively significant amount of money to obtain that bankroll. It is likely someone investing that amount of money into a play chip social poker site is probably pretty serious about his game. Someone investing that relatively significant amount of money likely doesn’t have the intention of quickly losing it. He’s serious enough about his game that he’s aware of his ability and is not likely going to get in over his head. He may come from a cash game background and do well at low stakes, but may not be willing to risk real cash in higher stakes. If he were really wealthy with disposable income, then he would likely try real cash poker; there would not be much sense in him wasting time on social poker. He either loves poker, particularly social poker, or is just that serious about rounding out his game - or attempting to. It’s all relative. The elite stakes here are a lot lower calibre poker than the relative stakes in real cash poker. Dan might also be one of those rare players who can earn such a high rank in a very short amount of time. If that is the case, Dan is no doubt a serious online poker player. He is probably interested in ring games and short handed or heads up games. It’s hard to say, but I would not take Dan lightly. He could be good enough to incorporate solid GTO, balance and exploitative play into his game.
Emily - Rank and experience indicates that she is an experienced, solid player. Her profile likely indicates solid bankroll management. The arrows do lead to competency and success at Replay Poker. Rank in relation to time indicates reasonable consistency and appropriate improvement. I would expect a competent, conservative player who understands the basics of the game very well. There are always exceptions, but it’s likely this would be the case. My take: Emily is MUCH better than me, but is still not an exceptional online poker player, just one who is solid and continuously improving. I may often not have a good idea of what Emily is doing because her game could be much more advanced than mine.
Ben - To me, 5 years and that rank indicates a player who is certainly capable of being a solid, competent player. I have observed players with similar descriptions play a game which seems beyond their description and others a game that seems worse than their description indicates. To me, this person understands the basics fairly well, and with me being a novice beginner, is likely a fair bit better than me - but possibly not. Their description indicates that they’ve plateaued and aren’t actively doing anything differently to improve their game, just enjoying the social aspects and the success they’re having at their relative stakes. Ben is possibly beatable through basic solid, exploitative play. I feel I would have a chance against Ben if I stuck to a consistent and (as much as possible for me) somewhat balanced approach, playing to the best of my potential. In a lot of cases, I quite possibly have somewhat of an idea of what Ben is doing most of the time.
Jessica - A few options. Someone who has been inactive on the site for quite some time or plays very infrequently. Someone who just plain sucks - not progressing. A potentially great player with horrible bankroll management. A very risky player who may have made a run in elite stakes and taken some bad beats and not yet recovered. Jessica may be very bad or potentially quite good - just risky and undisciplined or unlucky. Because Jessica carries unpredictability, I would avoid her in favor of Ben.