RANKING - not "Your Mama Wears Army Boots"

Where has MR.REPLAY gone to???

My thoughts exactly!!!

1 Like

16 posts were merged into an existing topic: Player Rep Feedback

Just a quick clarification: It’s a long-term goal to improve our ranking system, so these ideas are incredibly valuable to the team. Please keep the suggestions coming!


Heres an idea… Lets get all the people together that are worried about the rankings and Ill give them all a sticker that says “Im #1”.

1 Like

I like your ranking system, Scratch, because it is more like professional poker (not that their rankings matter much), and because it is based on tournament play where you have to beat opponents, rather than ring where you can come and go as you please and choose opponents. That being said, I doubt I could play any/many of these tournaments because of scheduling, so keeping both systems is also a good idea.

As far as people not caring about the ranks, of course it is just play money, but even in a game for fun, like pool or golf or trivia, I still want to win. Having a rank provides a reason to keep playing. If Replay were a video game, I would have already beaten it and given up, but the ranking tells me that there are better players on Replay and there is more to learn.

The current ranking system has value because buying $8,000 in chips wouldn’t get you into the top 70. Outside of the top 2500 it doesn’t mean much, but that provides motivation to try to get into the top 2500! It takes skill to move up, and even for those who buy chips it takes skill not to lose them.

1 Like

Joe, I am wedded on the concept but not the application. I am sure my friend Big Buddha balked at the schedule I suggested. No, I agree the important part of this is the Qualitative Rank / Quantitative Rank. The schedule can be eased up and the buy-in can be eased back; I don’t care about the details because they can be adapted. Hell, maybe you have two series per years for a month. I want you and Buddha and others to be a voice on scheduling; that is very important.

Also my hope is that the high end ring players participate because if a sizable amount don’t play then the effort isn’t as strong and has less integrity. But if we can get three or four hundred people ranked that will be a start that will be worth building.


i want to change the ranking system because i’m not good enough to accumulate chips and move up the rankings that way… maybe there could be a new ranking that makes me #1 even though i can’t win at medium stakes in free-chip games


what if we rank people based on who is concerned the most with the ranking system


Why do we have tournament points . When I first joined I thought we were ranked on how many tourney
points we earned . Then I found out it was how many chips we have. If you are playing in a million chip buy
in game you can win two million chips in one hand and your ranking will go up . We earn tourney points by
persevering through a game that usually has 50 or 60 players in it so you feel like you have earned those
points. A much better way to determine ranking I think.

Thanks Corindi,

Yes, you get it; that is exactly what I am proposing. It is qualitative scoring.

We have leaderboards for as little as ten days and a few leaderboards that last for a year. But if we do a leaderboard tournament for two months, and we promote it, we could get as many as a thousand or more different entrants this first year.

The problem then is we will also have people who didn’t play and they will want to keep their ranking as is. The solution to that is to show both rankings.


make a third ranking that says how many pets you have and breaks down how many are frogs, fish, dogs, etc. so someone with 12 frogs doesn’t beat someone with 8 dogs (dogs are worth twice as much)


Here’s my idea of a ranking system for ring games: Players are ranked based on
(Chips earned) minus (chips lost). Free chips and chips purchased are not included. This turns out to be the same thing as ranking based on
(number of chips) minus (Free chips and chips purchased)

Note that most players value would be negative (but not their ranking).

All it would take to use this ranking system is for Replay to tallyFree chips and chips purchased.

Players could decide which type of ranking they wanted to see: the current or my new system.

The ranking system now isn’t isn’t all that important being that you can buy chips. Displaying the players win % would give you a better idea as to a players “skill” level, wouldn’t it?

Simply put, I absolutely agree with Scratch’s suggestion. It would show rank based on skill along with chip stack. I prefer skill as opposed to chips.

Ranking versus not ranking? There are two groups of players, those who care, and those who don’t. Suggestion - Create a set of tournaments with unlimited rebuys throughout the tourney and only rank those players. Players who could care less about their rankings would/could avoid those “ranking” tourneys, while those who are only interested in playing poker can avoid the ranking tourneys.

Correction - Ranked players play ranking tournaments. Players who don’t care about ranking don’t play them.

Scratch - well reasoned & designed. I’m in - where do I sign up??!! lol

god forbid they get merged, there are 4 simultanious threads on rankings

Actually, ranked players do not play ranking tournaments because ranking that exists is quantitative based upon the amount of chips they have. We have no qualitative ranking system, though we could easily have one by running a leaderboard for six or eight weeks with games that have a buy-in of 50,000 chips, to keep out the proletariat, aka people who say they don’t care about ranking but would like to be high ranking careless people.