RANKING - not "Your Mama Wears Army Boots"

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.

Scratch

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)

2 Likes

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
Fin

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.

Scratch

I never look at a players rank… I look at my notes and check my lists and find out all I need to know.

ive seen my rank go from4055 lost 1m same day it gos to144000 seems chip amount plays in it but its poker some days computers randum has a thing for me some days blue skys cards comeing my way to bad no program takes all games played were you placed give rate i think it would be cool to have knock out rates to i do check stats on players at my table goals help push us teach us to go on in life mine is a rank of 33 it will not make me careless or think less of those at the table im nice to all it takes all kinds too make this world im here for the ride i think Replay poker is in top ten in time the best on line when late night tv doing there intro says miket hit rank of 33 it will be a fad how cool will that be one word of wisdom its nice when the other player thinks his cards are better gl gg to all

There’s really only one way to rank tournaments and it mean anything. ROI,

1 Like

I think you are 100% right. I hope replay staff gives this serious consideration.

1 Like

Zacly. No poker player left behind. I’m a dog too.

For petes sake and everyone elses,this is free poker and no one here plays like they do with real cash. I’m sick of hearing about RANK on a monopoly money site.Utterely ridiculous.
Nic

2 Likes

I think the first million chips should be ignored and then there should be 2 rankings, one based on the number of tournament chips won (not including refunds of entry fees included in winnings) in tournaments, and the other the number of chips won in ring games.

Another possibility is that the tournament rankings should only be based on winnings over the last 3 years, so that only fairly current players are ranked, which is similar to the way the world golf rankings are rated. This would exclude players who are retired from the site or have turned pro.

For Pete’s sake and everyone elses,this is free poker and no one here plays like they do with real cash. I’m sick of hearing about RANK on a monopoly money site.Utterely ridiculous.

People in other amateur sports have ranking systems like leagues and ladders. Naturally when you are involved in a sport you want to know where you stand and how you compare to others, regardless of whether it is poker, chess, or golf.

“…when you are involved in a sport you want to know where you stand and how you compare to others, regardless of whether it is poker, chess, or golf.” Does that include other card games, like War, or Solitaire? Some of us, maybe most of us here on RP, don’t care one whit about rankings, let alone chip accumulation.

2 Likes

You are about as good as you gonna get…IMO

Unless you want to rank players by game…there is a lotta difference between ring an tournament…

and between Royal and Omaha…