IMO, there is no realistic way to segregate players and still have enough players in each segment to operate a site. As it is, there aren’t many players online at any given time compared to other sites. When I played SnG’s, I could wait 30min+ for a 25K game to start. Very few MTT’s get 100+ runners as it is.
Yeah how do you determine skill? And I think someone make the point earlier here that our rank, may or may not, be our skill level. Besides, I’ve frequently been at a table early in a tourny with a killer lucky player that’s got 10 or 20x my stack - the player’s skill level isn’t near as dangerous as that huge stack. Isn’t that the same thing?
I don’t have a problem with what I call “Chip Stack Bullies”… I usually keep track of how I would have done if I hadn’t folded, and I KNOW they are virtually ALL Good Folds… I’m happy they are here… lol… Perverse? Probably, lol… Then again I’m left-handed… lol…
Being an Old Geezer I have made some observations that help me in life… One is, Learning from the mistakes others makes it almost always better than having to learn from my own mistakes… :>)) …
Aren’t Replay Tourney Points an established method to determine skill/performance?
Or is the site giving away millions of leaderboard chips every month to the wrong people because “poker skill can’t be measured”.
Not everyone plays for monthly tournament leaderboards. Many very good players don’t even play tournaments, much less enough of the same ones to do well on a leaderboard.
Not really. Except for the gemstone first 7 and SnG first 20 boards, the leaderboards favor those who play a LOT of tournaments. There are better players who just don’t play enough to win a regular leaderboard.
Precisely. If I get into a weekly gemstone, I’m typically top 10 on the first 7 and several places lower on best 7 because I don’t feel the need to play 30 of them.
I’ve never really been able to cash out on the monthly best 30, because I might only play 35 MTTs within the buy-in range per month. The top players on those LBs have typically played over 300 for the month. It’s about quantity over quality. Shove all-in early and often. Bust out quick or get 30% of the chips in play and blind off until final table. The same style of play is used on SnG “most points” promos.
Those 270 or so MTTs in which they donk out or place low in the money don’t matter at all. The 5 or 6 wins, 10 or 15 second & thirds, and other final table finishes provided by early shoves and a bit of luck are all that matter. That’s not good poker; that’s just exploiting "variance"™.
I was playing the MTT medium LB Aug, Sept, Oct, Nov, and nobody in the top 5 was doing what you said. I know I wasn’t, but it took about 120 tournies a month to get anywhere near the top, at least for me. Most of the top scoring players were playing a lot more games than I was.
Still, 4 or more tournaments a day is a lot of poker, there’s no doubt about it. There were plenty of solid players who couldn’t or wouldn’t put in the time.
The point is, the LBs aren’t the best indicator of pure skill. Don’t get me wrong, some of the LB leaders can play the game, I don’t want to take that away from them. All I am saying is that there lots of fairly good players who don’t play enough to win the monthly LBs.
But hey, that’s why they have the first 7 gemstone and first 20 SnG boards.
Yeah, the MTT medium LB isn’t so bad, but there are a handful of names (that I won’t mention) who do play a hybrid style of what I mentioned previously. For the most part, the players at the top of that one are fairly solid. However, the MTT low LB is exactly as I described.
Otherwise, I think we’re on the same page regarding this topic.
I was actually outplayed in a game earlier by a new player with a rank over 5000. It was one of the nicest experiences I’ve had in a long time here. He played poker and I underestimated him. Rank is meaningless - underestimate your opponents at your own risk.
More seriously, I start respecting rank somewhere around 15,000, and extra respecting <5000 or so. But only until I’ve observed their play, then I base it on that.
Okay Puggy, you set my goal for me. I think the closest I got was around 18,000, then I got stoopid and I’m back down to 23,000. Actually, I was playing hi/lo tournys…never again…don’t get me started, lol!
Actually IMHO RPP is a pretty nice site that needs substantial funding to stay alive going on a decade. Experienced great play from high and low ranks and played quite a few very low ranks that obviously have been quite generous in their “contributions” to the site. It would be really interesting to include an ** next to every self-made player. The ability to elevate ones rank instantly from 1,657,000 to 3,460 for $99 blows the entire ranking system. I get it but at the end of the day rankings here are a bit of a joke. Two players started here two months ago. One player never bought chips and has 250K in the bank. Another bought 7M two months ago and has 6.5M in the bank. One has a 22K ranking while the other has 2500. An award for self-made millionaire would be more indicative of skill along with the amount of time or better yet hands played. What percentage of players actually reach 1M chips without at least one buy-in ?
I think putting a ** or something next to self-made players would mean determining what a “self-made” player is. If someone buys 100k, or 200k to get started and then goes on to better their rank, are they one? How about if you’ve lost over 100k (like I have recently, that was almost 1/3 my bank, and I just had recovered from playing hi/lo tournys…don’t get me started), and you start thinking about buying some chips? Would you blow your chances of a ** rank mark?
I think it’s normal for greenhorns to get cleaned out by good players. It’s part of the game. I see players doing stupid things all the time, and I don’t think I’m a great player, so if I’m seeing it, it’s happening lots. Those players have to learn that a Qd6s is not an all-in hand, for instance.
Replay gives newby players a number of options, and if the player decides to buy in to a tourny and plays badly, then it’s a good learning experience for them.
I am assuming that skill level should be based on winning consistently which implies winning chips, increasing bank account. I think we can all agree starting from zero and getting to 250K takes more skill than buying 7M and going to 7.25M. I think the fact is that it is nearly impossible to get a correct ranking on a free site where the vast majority of players are in the red once all the free/purchased chips are factored in. Add in the fact players that purchase 500K or more chips are at a distinct advantage over players starting from scratch. I guess my point is that a player who starts from zero, buys no chips and within 6 months tops 1M is likely in the top 1%.
