We know that the ranking system is inaccurate, since it’s based solely on how many chips each player has. And to come up with a formula to measure skill is very difficult and almost impossible.
But how about a rating system, where players can rate each other? Like when you play against a player, you get to rate them between 1 and 5 or 10 (stars, grades, whatever), and they get to rate you. Rating remains anonymous and on your profile only your average rating by others shows, with how many have rated you. Only one rating of a certain player per person.
Example: Maya has 4 out of 10 as rated by 50 players.
Regardless of how many players give you a good rating or a bad rating because they like or dislike you, when you’ve been rated by at least 100 players, your average will reflect how skilled others think you are. The majority would have rated you objectively.
It’s definitely not the most accurate system but I would surely trust it more than the current ranking that only shows how many chips you are worth.
This could also encourage players to play with skill and avoid bingo and recklessness, because they know that everyone else at their table is about to rate them based on how they play.
I’m curious to know what others think of this, and if it’s possible to implement it in the future, even if just as a side rating/ranking for players along with the chip count ranking already in place.
Thats what leader boards are for, weekly boards and monthly boards. they show what place u are in compared to all others playing the same type of game. for example on sitngos there are 120 games a month for low, 90 games for medium, and 60 games for high, this shows a good deal ur skill over that many games. they have the same boards for MTT tourneys as well. i think that is the best ranking ur gonna get, it shows all the players placing for the week and month. dont think players rating players would work because u dont know someons skill in 1 game or 2, you would have to play that person over 50 games at least, and the like/dislike factor comes into play too which wont give accurate rating either. chips and leader boards is all we have to go by for now as far as i am concerned. Good idea that u thought of that, just dont think it would work.
This has nothing to do with leader boards. Your place on leader boards goes by how many points you get, and this is affected highly by how many tourneys you play. There are no leader boards for ring games, and you have to commit to either SnG’s or MTT’s and play a lot to get a place there. Monthly boards are affected by how many games you play on a specific month, and yearly ones just about your overall performance during that year.
And what about those who don’t appear on the leader boards? What about those who rank above the top 50 or top 100 etc…? How do they rank? How do others see them? Leader boards are great for those who compete for top places, but there are over 1 million players on this site, and only 100 or 200 appear on the boards. What about others?
The rating system I’m talking about gives you the opportunity to be rated according to how others see you play, in general, at all times. Most people here see others more than a few times and can make a decision based on that. It’s not based on just 1 or 2 games at all. And do you really need to play someone over 50 games to get an idea of how good or bad they are? I think a few times are more than enough.
If I want to get an idea about how good a player @floridajetski is, I won’t have to go to each leader board and look him up, and even if he’s not on any of them, I can still see how others have rated him.
None of the ranking or rating systems in place is accurate and there are always many factors involved. This one is the same, but it will give a new perspective to how players are rated.
Though the idea has some merit, I do believe it’s flawed. If you’re on a ring table, you’ll have to track five to eight players at one time. Since players shift in tourneys, the number is much higher. Hard enough watching YOUR play without paying attention to everyone else just to rate them.
I know what you mean. But it’s not like you HAVE to rate each and every player you come across, and based on one or two hands. You also don’t have to rate all 5 or 8 players at your table. Just those you’ve seen enough of the way they play to rate them.
There are many regular players that I play against almost daily, and I can give them 2, 3 or 5 stars based on how I’ve seen them play over many months and many games. I won’t be rushing to rate a player I’ve seen for the first time play 1 or 2 hands.
You’re right though, there are flaws to this system, but it’s just like all the other rating systems, which are also flawed. But once you have received ratings from over 100 players, the accuracy and objectivity of the rating will increase.
Every passenger can rate their Uber driver. Of course some of them will have subjective opinions, but when the driver has been rated excellent or terrible by more than 1000 passengers, I think it’s safe to say that it’s closer to the truth than when he’s rated by 5 passengers. So are ratings for anything you buy, any hotel you stay in, any movie you watch, or any person working anywhere. The more people rate you, the more accurate your rating is. That’s why I suggested that the number of players who ranked you be displayed as well.
If a movie gets 5 stars from 1 viewer, it’s probably not very reliable. But when a movie gets 5 stars from 1000 viewers, you know it has to be a good one.
maya u would be wrong on leader boards, for sitngo monthly board its not who plays the most, its who has the highest points and average over their 120,90,or 60 games u play, whichever stake u play. years ago it was how many games u have played, they have changed that for sitngos so the player that wins the most games and place the best out of all monthly games wins 1st, u are right on MTT, i think they take ur best games out of 30 so the more games u have played over 30 the better ur chances are to go up on leader board, this is true for best 20 on weekly sitngos too, but im talking monthly sitngos its truly on who played the best 90 games in medium for example, i won 1st for the month 3 months in a row on 90 games each month, meaning i had the most points and highest game average for all that played the same 90. are u saying that doesnt show anything? and that has nothing to do with who played the most games, its who played and placed the best for 90 games. and if u think u can just know someones game in 1 or 2 games ur wrong, they could be card dead or on a losing streak or they could get the best cards and be on a winning streak, they could be in a bad mood or half asleep, people play different at different times and different types of games and different stakes, so its impossible to rank someone so fast, play 270 games in a row in 3 months on sitngos like i did and that shows how consistent a player is at winning and placing the most games, that leader board shows your skill, they just need to incorporate that board into all the other games instead of best 20 or best 30 in MTT where u can play as many as u want, those boards dont show anything as far as skill, only if players play the exact number of games such as 1st 20 weekly or monthly sitngos
Assuming you’re right, what about those who don’t play any SitnGo’s at all? And what about those who don’t place anywhere on any leaderboard?
Wouldn’t it be easier to see someone’s rate right on their profile, than to go look for them in leader boards to see if they have placed or not?
Placing on leader boards means you’re a good player but not being on any boards doesn’t mean you’re not.
Unfortunately, it looks like the whole point of my suggestion has been lost and the subject is being diverted to unrelated issues.
I’m not trying to discuss the validity of leaderboard ranks and chip counts or any other ranking system, I’m just proposing an additional one that could be useful. I believe that it would be flawed just like the others, but probably less, and as useful as the other ones, if not more. That’s all.
I would love to hear everyone’s thoughts on the suggested rating system itself. Would it be useful? Fair? Interesting? Useless?
i agree that ranking is flawed and u cant rate everything on chips, however i do believe with my experience playing all stakes and all games that the higher ranked players meaning 1,000 or less and more so 500 or less for the most part are more skilled players in general. if u play low and watch how people bet and play, watch medium when u play, and high, i would have to say better players in high generally speaking. the higher ranked players that never bought chips and earned them worked hard to get the chip count that they have, a lot of very low ranked players dont understand that and think all the high ranked players bought their chips and rank and even get remarks from people on that. its an insult to the higher ranked player that earned all of them over time. if u play with very high ranked players or if they did, they would see the difference in play very fast, generraly speaking. i do agree may that for rings there is no ratings except for your rank, so would be nice to have that in rings too like the other leader boards, so ur idea might be good for rings more so than tourneys
I’m on this site for social reasons…I don’t understand the obsession some people have here about rank.
These are play chips lol and most people here do not play the way they would in a real money game…
I think ranking should be for tournament play only and not for ring tables and while you are at it,i would like to keep my bankroll info private too,no ones business how many chips I have or don’t have…just sayin.
It would be interesting, but difficult to implement. For example, how would you stop people from gaming the system by giving ratings that have no relation to actual skill?
well i dont know where ur playin but u dont have to go to elite to have skill, some of those players play worse than many other tables and stakes, many of those players do not know how to play tourneys well at all, just because they have the chips to bet huge doesnt make them a more skilled player, it just looks like it because of the huge bets and huge pots, most players that know how to play tourneys well can play rings well too, but not all ring players that play well know how to or play tourneys well, just my experience playing both of them
SO how do you feel about the suggestion of a player ranking system?
NOTE: The discussion isn’t about whether there is or isn’t skill in free poker, it’s about the idea of a player ranking system where players rank each other.
Yes, ham sandwiches are better with cheese, the milk left after you eat the cereal is yummy. the mob probably killed Kennedy, and blah blah blah yadda yadda. Focus people, focus.
