A quite SOLID ratings suggestion

Suggestions & Feedback
1

It shouldn’t go strictly by how much play money one has. Heck, one can “buy” their rating. If there is no formula or algorithm, per say, to determine one’s technical strength as a poker player (as is the case with chess ratings) albeit tournaments won, hand-by-hand performance, etc, then I think it should simply go by how much play money one has won since they’ve been on the site. Subtract all buy-in amounts including the 10,000 which I believe is given initially.

There’s someone on this site who I know who is ranked inside the top-500 and has never paid to get back in since he first hopped on this site. Just the 10,000 that was given to him initially and he simply never lost it, just built off of it to where he is now. Sure enough there are hundreds whom he’d be ahead of if everyone’s re-buy amounts would be subtracted. Anyone here who tries to make it to #1 just for fun, competitive reasons - it’d be nice if he or she can truly feel the feat was EARNED and not BOUGHT.

Now that’s not to say that anyone who is #1 or close to it has “bought” his or her way. Perhaps all chips were truly earned in these cases as well. just think that the 10,000 initially given and any re-buy amounts should be subtracted from the total amount of chips accumulated in determining these rankings. It would be fair and accurate.

Just a friendly suggestion. Thanks!

re1ayer

2 Likes
2

There are about 200 of these same suggestions in the thread “ The fairness debate “ but that wish will never come to fruition. Replay depends on chip sales to survive.

4

No, not at all. The whole point is that’s it’s a business and no one’s in business to lose money. Selling chips keeps the lights on, makes payroll and pay for equipment besides making a profit.

1 Like
5

hit the jackpot on that answer Craig !

1 Like
6

Thank you. Truth be told :+1:t2:

7

You could be describing me, but I imagine that most of the people in the top 500 have never bought chips, or only one time.

Since you get free chips to start, there is no need to buy chips unless you want to play against people who are better than you!

8

how about buying to pay the help ect. to keep the site open??? There are bills to pay sir!

1 Like
9

Myself, I’d rather see everyone’s win percentage.

10

I “buy” some chips every six months or so for the same reason. I love the free poker site and want them to stay in business. I appreciate the fact that Replay doesn’t cover their site with adds or hound me for money. I consider buying chips this way in the nature of a donation. Which as much as I play, I probably should “buy” some more chips. Happy Holidays!

11

Okay, I finally did what I should have done all along. I just made a donation to this site. The $99 one which gives me 3.5M more chips. And it won’t be my last. Unless this site turns into what ‘freepoker’ ended up ultra-regressing into (Soda Poker). But perhaps my NOT donating to THAT site (as I made ‘billions’) was the reason for ITS very demise.

I’m not going to tie myself to the stake and be all hard on myself. No crime. Just should have done so earlier. It’s just that if there’s a great, free site online. And you want it to stay. You should donate, plain and simple (common sense).

Okay, well now that THAT’S done, my suggestion still is to SUBTRACT that very 3.5M in determining my rankings. Same with what I was originally given; despite it being next-to-zip, lol. And if there’s a connection problem during a tourney and I get a refund for it (even if I win it anyway), then, fine, I’ll take the extra chips, but still subtract them from my total amount in determining the rankings as well.

I guess there really shouldn’t be an algorithm or formula. After all, in the real money poker world, doesn’t all that matter is how much money you STILL HAVE? Yeah, you win all these tourneys, win a lot in the ring games (my utter, absolute Kryptonite; got no patience thus real skills in that field, lol), what good is it if you lose all your money in a few even bigger tourneys. Or if you lose it all in one, or a few, ring sessions anyway? You’re BROKE (at the bottom)! So back to the drawing board.

But then as soon as I say that, and see that unless you donate a ridiculous amount, is it that much a difference anyway? Being that I never donated until now, I see already that basically everyone ranked ahead of me really, more-or-less, have thus far EARNED their better current ranking than I. But just for good (perhaps, tie-breaking) measure, still don’t include all that I’ve already exemplified in determining those very rankings.

Actually, the REAL suggestion(s) I should make at this point instead, should be to somehow get more players to participate in those very 9 and 6-player high-stake SNGs like the 2.5M and 5M buy-ins. And create head-to-head SNGs for those 2.5 and 5s as well. And if 10M or maybe even 25M buy-ins can be created for H2H, 6, and 9-players…all the more awesome! Same with the MTTs which I also crave! And, yes, for the ring-gamers jacking up stakes for them can only please them as well.

So, anyway, enough suggestions. Let’s (continue to) play some ****-in cards!

re1ayer,
a self-proclaimed passionate about free just as much as real-money poker (just as long as, basically, everyone else plays as if it’s real - which is why this site, for the most part, KICKS ASS)