Why buy chips when this happens all the time

Hi miri123, thanks for suggesting this, which is a popular idea and has already been under consideration, since other players have asked about it too. It is too early to say if or when this could get implemented, but should it get the go ahead, possibly as soon as in 2017, the Community will be given full details of the functionality…

1 Like

The current system determines rank simply by the size of your bank roll. A new system we wish to develop in the future, will base it on your actual performance against other opponents, ie. it’ll be performance based rather than monetary based.

1 Like

the last message from Mr. Replay makes the most sense to me
“bought chips” should have zero effect on your ranking, if bought
chips aren`t involved in rank then whats left? how often you win lose
right ? that’s an average that can easily be counted and ranked,

Will this new system take chips into account that have already been purchased in the past?

Any new system would probably only rank based on performance at the tables from the date we implement it and onwards. It also won’t have anything to do with purchases, as it’ll all be based on your hand performance only.

extra chips always worth the money. lets you play bigger tables and if you mess up you don’t have to go back to the low ones

I know this is old, but I have to say. There is a statute of limitations on most “crimes” and you cannot open them 20 years later. Also, if you can buy chips for someone else then there’s literally NO DIFFERENCE!!!

Buy them as a gift or lose them to a friend in a hand, same thing. Stop crying like a little baby.

I’ll wash your car for a few chips :slight_smile:

Hi,
Very happy to hear that you are considering ranking players on skill rather than chip amount.
I would enjoy knowing how well the players were that I was playing against to judge my ability.
How about having a general rank under say 30,000. So that players not so skilful don’t get discouraged.
You could also allow those lower players to see their own rank but not others.

I really do not see how it makes a difference where somebody got their chips…at least from a players point of view…best I can tell bought chips look just like chips I won and anyway if somebody is giving chps to a guy then that guy is losing…:slight_smile:

That’s an excellent idea…it would be pretty discouraging to come back when one is rated below a certain point and everyone could see just how low the rating is.

The idea of a tournament only for players of a higher rank already exists, though “rank” is never specifically mentioned. It’s the price paid to enter the event. If a player is very low ranked, she/he hasn’t got the necessary chips to buy entry. Will some players put their whole bankroll on the table to enter such an event? Certainly. They do it in ring games, too*. Why would tournament play be treated any differently by the skill-less? So, the answer is to enter only those tournaments not easily accessible to those low-ranked players. This is already within your control as a player.
(* Yesterday, I was watching a ring game with a minimum buy-in of $10K. I noticed one player had a very large rank number. I checked his profile. He had 230 chips left in his bank. None of us are so good we can enter a game on “empty” expecting to win enough to justify the risk of being broke. That’s the first lesson in Bank Roll Management 101. This player was forced by his choice of games to take wild chances–which eventually, he lost.)

I suspect EVERY player at this site, and at every other site around the world, dreams of a magic ranking system that could give us an accurate idea how good any unknown, random player is. It doesn’t exist, and I don’t think it can.
First, there’s no reliable way to quantify “skill” so it can be repeated and measured accurately. There IS no ideal player to measure against.
Second, every day is a new day and every deal is a new deal. Players learn new tricks; they forget old ones They have off days or they get lucky. The point is they’re not static, they’re ever evolving. So, what you measure today, even if it was accurate, may not apply tomorrow or the next day.
Third, our game is not as easily defined as something easy to measure, like the stock market–which is almost unimaginably complex, but is still far simpler than poker. Even the “experts” on TV who claim to get their info directly from Doyle’s mouth, get surprised when things don’t go as they expect.
Seriously, there have been some unusually bright people trying to come up with a ranking system that both made sense and was easily used. They’ve been working on it not merely for years, but centuries, not merely at Replay, but around the world. And, still, there are no reliable answers.
And, if there was, that highest ranked guy, Mister X, would pretend to be weaker than he actually is, solely to gain advantage in games. That’s what bluffing is all about.
None of the things we take for granted in normal technical fields are “givens” in poker. All of it is relative. Relative to what, you ask? Relative to itself, I answer. Poker is beyond mere mathematics. Poker may well be an Art, but it’s NOT a science. If you can’t reliably–and repeatably–measure something on an objective scale that never changes, it isn’t science, it’s just opinion; theory, not fact.

2 Likes

And yet you still get some geniuses on other threads who refer to themselves as “the elite” because their ranks are less than a certain number that they have decided is the threshold that separates good players from bad ones.
If only everyone understood the concept of ranks and skills like you just explained it @Alan25main . Thank you for this great post! I just hope everyone on RP could read it and see ranks and skills from a more logical and less personal perspective.

1 Like

How many times has someone said, “Go home Daffodil. You’re drunk.” :wine_glass::wine_glass:. I certainly don’t know.because I was too hammered to read it.

But I think this very simple formula - total hands played are divided by chips in bank but first minus all chips bought or given free - would give a general sense of any player’s historical style.

As you say Alan, just like the stock brokers’ famous small print caveats, “Past performance is no guarantee of future results.” But at least that ranking would make a little bit more sense instead of now where it’s like joining a country club one just buys their way in regardless of anything more than a willingness to open a wallet or relentlessly sign in for daily chips.

That is for stock…not poker players…:slight_smile:

I just went all in with a J high flush when I should have known the guy I CALLED had the nuts. So, you know, I think the stock rule and the poker rule are the same. Yesterday, in a different tournament or with more caffeine in me, I might not have made that call. Today I’m the donkey that gave another player a bunch of chips. I hope he wins the tournament, but still…totally stupid move on my part that I can’t explain. “Past performance is no guarantee of future results.” I might have it tattooed on my forehead.

1 Like

there is a reason some people on here have a lot of chips and others not so much…and the reason is their past performance

So County I have a question. You play poker exactly the same way today as you did the first time you sat down at a table? You learned nothing that improved your play during that time and you’ve never had an ‘off’ day? That’s pretty incredible.

I do not understand your point…my point is that past performance of a poker player is an indicator that he will continue to win if he has won in the past…

My point is that most (not all) players improve over time, they learn from mistakes. I know I have and I assume you did as well. And that even great players sometimes play when they are tired or had a few too many drinks with dinner and make dumb mistakes.

“Past performance is no guarantee of future results.”