Buying chips - ok or pure evil?

Last I checked, birba11 and 2outs4u were #1 and #2 on the site, each with over 7 billion chips. I have no idea whether either of them ever bought chips or not but I think its fairly safe to assume that if they did, the bought chips wouldn’t be a significant fraction of their totals now. Even at the most favorable “exchange rate” where $1 equals 36,000 chips, 7 billion chips is about $194,000.

I’ve had occasion to watch both play several times and its a pleasure. I can see where high-level players, like these 2, could amass a huge number of chips over time here.

He is 19 and he is extremely smart one. He have he’s own way to play. He is not buying chips.

Hi, I am unranked, formerly 2outs4u.

It is certainly interesting how often the topic of chip buying arises, especially with respect to the highest-ranked players. I would like to state that I have no issues whatsoever with chip buying. In fact, I strongly encourage it since it enables the running of this site that we all love.

With that said, I am fairly certain that neither birba11 nor any of the top 5 players have spent a single cent on chips. Of course I could be wrong, but hopefully this would put to rest how frequently such baseless claims arise.

1 Like

Birba is smart one

“3) Purchased chips should not count towards player rank since they were not earned…I hope that as an offshoot of this topic, a better ranking system will be devised.” 1Warlock

“RANK”, as used here at Replay, was never meant to be an indication of a player’s performance, it is based solely upon chips, that can be, and are, accumulated in ways other than at the tables. Really I see this as an unfortunate use of the term “rank” as it encourages this type of thinking. I don’t know whether or not this is by design, as purchasing “rank” is, after all, to the benefit of the site (a good thing for all), but why not just use “CHIP COUNT”, or some such, in place of “RANK” since that is all that it is?

As to “a better ranking system”, I don’t see Replay as having a “ranking system”, at all, if what is meant by that is a system to rate or evaluate performance or skill. However, there is little else to use, and there will be even less if “RANK”/chip count is no longer publicly displayed. Should there be a ranking system? That is the first question. I do have some thoughts, if the answer is yes…

1 Like

i don’t know if replay has the intention to make a new ranking formula. but i do know that i think it would be a good idea since that would be a much more accurate skill based ranking.

if you haven’t seen yet, sassy sarah has already gave it a try to make a new formula with much more in it then it is now. a while later i also gave it a try hoping it would help since the other one already existed for a while and people have more choise this way, i tried to give as many important skill related points in poker as possible in the ranking, without negative results coming at the same time (things like a skill calculation that would reward bad play at the same time, or go at cost of another thing).

but the point is, feel free to make a own formula in your own, or in a already existing topic. the more choices there are, the more chance one of them wil be good enough to be used.

here are the 2 formula’s:
sassy sarah’s formula
yiazmat’s (my) formula

hope this helps.

1 Like

Interesting opinion. However, if you are a bingo player or a bad poker player or have a ‘bad day’, you have the option to purchase chips. I certainly have lost a million or more chips in a day and have had to work to win my chip count back.
Ironically we all can choose to play on any table on the site and choose your style of play and who you play with. So I find it hard to believe the site is rigged. I placed in the top 10 in the freeroll last night and won free chips. Maybe because I am in the top 1% of players I have a different thought on how the site works and how to win? Just saying…

I’m not sure about this. People naturally want to compete against others so some leaderboards or ranking systems probably are beneficial. The more I am thinking about it though, the more I’m convinced that the best way for players to be able to measure their own skills is through the integration of analytical software. Without the ability to analyze your own play over time, it is virtually impossible to say with any degree of accuracy what the level of your game is or whether you are improving or not.

IMO, you should decide what you want to measure first before coming up with a system to measure it :slight_smile:

All the formulas are nice and well intended but based on guesswork in terms of which factors are significant and what their relative weights should be. If any system was going to be designed and implemented, a more rigorous approach should be used. I imagine the data exists to be able to back these factors out so if RP ever wants to implement something like this, it should be possible to do so.

1 Like

the theory behind the formula is that tournament skill and cashgame skill, are both counted about equally, also there is a cash and win multiplier, which can be between 0 and 100% according to the ratio of how much cash and wins you got, obviously since no cash and no win is way more frequently happening this is also counted into it, the rarer the wins/cashes the stronger it counts, also when taking the average like you would normally do, there will be a flaw in the system that makes the big wins count less and the more you play the more this will affect it, also for this problem i have thought of a additional calculation that will erase this problem. at last we have a chip multiplier, this is based on the ranking we do have right now, this will increase the points you have by a certain % based on how much chips you have, this because chips are not the only thing that matters but it is certainly one factor that matters.
on top of those things the first 2 are + points and the other 3 are x points. this beause if you only have +, it won’t be about good play anymore but only about the amount you play. and if there is only x, it won’t work anyway. also there is not only + but also - to earn, this is also to make good play favorite over much play, because if you play a lot but play bad, there will be more - points then + ponts and it will give you a negative score. there is another reason why there are much x instead of + points, this is because x makes the points count more equal then + does, and since the bankroll sizes are so much different, even a good formula based on only + and - will favor chips way over all else.

so the short version of this is: the things measured in my formula are cashgame skill, tournament skill, amount of cashes, amount of wins and bankroll size. and all have special formula infused to keep flaws out of the system.

i can understand that part, but what kind of stuff would you also add and why?

1 Like

Yiz,
Now this 3-4 threads , same topic. The easiest way to please everyone is to have in settings “critera” for a "Custom Rank : " line, for each player. The means, in settings I checkoff criteria, then in a line for “custom”… it would let me see everyone’s rank based on the criteria I picked. No other player would have the same criteria, nor would know how I rank everyone… personally I like the approach of Replay having a formula that they think is important also, which could be in many/multiple forms.

1 Like

don’t know if i get it wrong, but you mean you pick random stuff and make a formula of it which involves a ranking and don’t tell it afterwards which stuff is involved?

if i got it right, what would be the idea of picking random stuff? as it is meant to be as best as possible to provide the skill part of poker.
second thing is, what would be the use of not telling which things are involved, that way you can’t improve yourself when doing something wrong.

if i don’t understood well, explain me what i miss plz.

I’ll take this over to the thread for it for a more complete answer but basically what I’m saying is that all the formulas put forward include likely significant criteria but nothing that has been back-tested to see whether is actually significant or not. Even when we have intuited a significant factor, unless we run the data, we don’t know how strongly to weight them relative to each other.

This is a really cool line of inquiry for me and would love to go over it and see if its even possible to come up with a formula that makes sense. My interest stems from the research I did on equity pricing formulas back when I was pursuing my doctorate. You have to go into the piles of data to find which factors have the most explanatory power. Some factors overlap and influence others so then you have to adjust for those issues.

Of course, I’m not even sure a proper formula for “skill” can be found at all but the search itself would likely be worthwhile.

I think this is a cool concept if I’m getting what you are saying. Basically you are talking about setting up a screening system whereby a player could input the criteria he/she feels are most important and have the universe of players here be sorted based on those factors. People could use the factors they find most important and predictive to sort through and rank the universe of other players by their own custom set of factors. If wouldn’t be a public ranking system but could be useful nonetheless.

what if we came up with a balance of how much a player has won or lost in all of their games combined - we’ll call it “chips” for short - and then we just measure who has the most “Chips”

1 Like

You might be on to something here. The simplicity of the idea smacks of pure genius :slight_smile:

I think the poker skills used in MTTS and Ring games are very different. I don’t think you can have a common skill rating combined. It would have to be a rating for each. I prefer MTTs and would like to see a skill rating on my opponents, but only for MTT play. I don’t care about their ring game rating.
Also, I saw one proposed formula in an earlier post where “aggressiveness” was a criteria in the rating. I think agressiveness can be show of skill when used at certain times, but likewise at other times might show a lack of skill. You couldn’t just base it on how often someone raises.
I like all the ideas and Sarah may be onto something with a menu we could used to develop a rating using certain factors and omitting others.

1 Like

I think this is correct. You may be able to have a combined ranking but it wouldn’t be as accurate as a ranking for the specific discipline. To go a bit farther down this line of thought, it would be hard to compare a heads-up specialist against an MTT player or 6-max SnG player. Any ranking system is going to have to make decisions on what it is measuring and how specific it wants to get. That is why it is both a difficult and interesting topic for me.

I really do like Sarah’s concept with the 1 caveat that I would still want an opt-out for players who do not want their hands and play available for analysis. I will always start with the assumption that it has to be up to the individual player how much of their information they wish to share, if any.

As 1 final note here - I do think the single most valuable tool RP could provide to players is the ability to gauge our own play over time. Integrating an analytics program or making the hands played here exportable to 3rd party analytics programs would be of great help in terms of training and learning. Competing against others is certainly great but I think it is just as important to be able to compete against ourselves and improve our games over time. The only real way to do that is to review hands played and learn from mistakes we make. That ability would take the focus away from small-samples of results and allow players to look at their game on a macro-level.

4 threads, not helping…
this 1 - this thread
player ranking, not ur momas army boots - ??
New player ranking calculation - S_Sarah
another player ranking calc - Yiaz

I will respond to this, in my thread.

i do fully agree on this one, but the problem is, how can we test this without actually changing the ranking?[quote=“1Warlock, post:46, topic:6209”]
Of course, I’m not even sure a proper formula for “skill” can be found at all but the search itself would likely be worthwhile.
[/quote]

also fully agree on this one. i do also think there is no such thing as the perfect skill system, skill is a very very wide thing, and the only thing we can do is minimize the possible flaws in the rank and maximize the stuff involved in it.

i get there is a part of this that’s likable in the way of seeing which parts are going well and which need improvement, but while i like this as an extra addition, i really don’t like this replacing the system, this is because it will erase the ranking instead of replacing it, since there won’t be a number 1 player, 2,3,4,5 etc. anymore, which means the public ranking what we all want to improve, will be fully erased instead.

isn’t that the same as we have right now? the bankroll is already all chips won and lost combined. don’t know if i understand wrong, but if so lets hear it :slight_smile:.[quote=“Seville, post:50, topic:6209”]
I think the poker skills used in MTTS and Ring games are very different. I don’t think you can have a common skill rating combined. It would have to be a rating for each.
[/quote]

i do agree on this one since they are very different, but i have also considered this in my ranking formula, i have gave ring and tourneys both + points while the other criteria got x points. the fact that they both have + means it won’t matter if you choose to play ring, tournaments, or both, since it will add points both on the same way. the only flaw is that siince they are so different, they both have a different way of adding points. i do have tried of making them as close as possible however but they can never be 100% the same.[quote=“Seville, post:50, topic:6209”]
Also, I saw one proposed formula in an earlier post where “aggressiveness” was a criteria in the rating. I think agressiveness can be show of skill when used at certain times, but likewise at other times might show a lack of skill. You couldn’t just base it on how often someone raises.
[/quote]

agreed. i have also mentioned this point on the thread.

really great idea![quote=“1Warlock, post:51, topic:6209”]
You may be able to have a combined ranking but it wouldn’t be as accurate as a ranking for the specific discipline.
[/quote]

i agree.
at last i like to say that for the ranking as we use it now the best possible thing we could do is getting a formula to getting as close to the true skill as possible and use this as the main/public ranking.
and as a additional thing the side rankings we talked about of a specific discipline will be also a great thing to add because like you said this is the only way to make it 100% accurate.

long story short: as ranking i think the best would be all things considered and as close as possible to the truth.
and i also like the idea of rankings of a single criteria, but only as a side rank, not the main one.

if anyone has questions about these opinions and/or the ranking feel free to ask.

1 Like