RANKING - not "Your Mama Wears Army Boots"

make all players enter their address and rank them based on how much their house costs


Doesn’t Replay Poker offer enough promotions for 90%? Why in the world would you want low buy ins? How much credence would the Worlds Series of Poker have it it cost $100 to buy in?

The real issue is the new good player. If a new good player just registers tomorrow, you would argue, then he needs to prove he is good so while he waits until next year’s ranking series, he would concentrate on building his bank.

The point is at the end of say 6 or 7 weeks, and say a hundred games, the quality of the winner will have been tested and he or she will be wearing two rankings that will be the qualitative ranking and the quantitative ranking, 1/263.

Yes, players will not have a fractionalized ranking to show, but they will still have the ranking of how many chips they won. It is my belief that as people start to play each year the double ranking will tell a better story about all the players. And the over all quality of the play will necessarily increase.

I think it is a win/win.


If your gonna rank, rank everyone.
If the thought is only high chip stacks should get ranked, where do you draw the line?
Might as well draw it at a 50 million chip entry fee.
If your going to leave out 90% why not leave out 99.99%?

The thought is to eventually create a system that will incorporate all players. But to get there the thought is to first get a quality based ranking determination system that does not cost Replay Poker ownership an arm and a leg in development costs to initiate. And it will be directly based on established poker playing skills in a scoring system that has been tried and tested. It is a giant step up from quantity based simple system that exists now based on an amount of chips that can be achieved in various ways, like attendance, purchase, friend referral, knock-outs, and bonus chips given for an assortment of unconventional game set-ups like free rolls, Santa’s ticket hunt, 240 SNG Hunt, etc.

Even the average money poker player will not get ranked without a substantial accumulation of buy-ins. The Global Poker Index “buy-in refers to the relative amount of the event buy-in to the baseline buy-in of $1000 USD.” Their ranking period is three years with four or five events per year.

I see the qualitative ranking system starting with the 100K buy-in for the first year to get a standard started, and then adapt it so that in the second year there will still be the 100K buy-in but also lower buy-ins of say 50K, 25K, and 10K but the points achieved will be relative to the 100K mark.

The bonus in this case is to have a qualitative ranking of players at multiple levels of buy-ins.


Here is the way the qualitative/quantitative ranking would look on the Player’s Page:

So many threads and forum posts about rankings. I just don’t understand what all the fuss is about ?

I thought we were all here to play poker and enjoy ourselves and participate in an awesome environment and community.

Just my 2 cents,



Hi Craig,

You are right, there is a lingering frustration with the current ranking system and hence the many threads. And yes, you are also right that many people are here to enjoy themselves and participate. I doubt they are mutually exclusive.


1 Like

have a pop up box for all players to enter how many glasses of water they drink every day and then the person with the best hydration gets #1

1 Like

LOL :slight_smile:

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.