wouldn’t It be better if at all possible to come up with a ranking system that’s based on tourneys won and ranking points alongside the current system which is based on chips only?
It definitely would be! Ranking should be able player skill not how big your bank roll is. We already started looking into it this year, how we could come up with a system that was a true indicator of skill. It’s definitely a challenge, compared to say a game like chess, because of the random element of luck involved in poker. That’s not to say it’s not possible though. Our plan is to roll out a system next year, no exact ETA though.
This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled have the ranking by points not chip count.
This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled How are player rankings determined?. How are player rankings determined?
This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled buying chips count in ranking. when u buy chips, is that go towards ur ranking and level
OLD in one place merged
This reply was created from a merged topic originally titled The Honor Of Ranks. The Ranking system you have is kind of pointless since you can buy your rank it’s not really earned through hard work and the satisfaction on achieving it. My system is a Letter system, Based on your total chip amount that you Earned and Won not the chips you Bought.
0 - 9,999 Chips are D Class players
10,000 - 99,999 are C class players
100,000 - 999,999 are B class players
1,000,000 - 999,999,999 are A class players
than 1 billion chips or higher are S- class players.
Thanks for the great feedback. We agree that we can have more meaningful player rankings and we do have plans to change how this all works, but we don’t have an ETA just yet. Stay tuned though!
Scrabble rankings use the same formula as chess, and it works pretty well, even though there is a good deal of luck (who draws the blanks and the esses, etc.) What happens is that, in Chess, top ranked players in the world top out at around 3500, whereas Scrabble tops out at 2100. For this reason, ranking conscious Scrabble players avoid playing weaker players, as they sometimes gain only a fraction of a point while winning, but if their opponent somehow gets really lucky, they can lose 40 points. This issue is somewhat mitigated in Poker because of the naturally higher stakes that better players play at. My conclusion is that in Poker a chess/Scrabble based ranking model would work even better than the Scrabble system, and it works really well.
Thanks for this idea and for your feedback. Interesting. The ranking will be changed, but not know exactly how it will be, but it will be on skills and winnings.
Your suggestion to let players play against players who are on the same level is interesting. But means that there must be restrictions, players must play in their own level, players play against players who are ranked on the same level.
Players win (or lose) chips in ring games and in tournaments. The tournament ranking is based on won tournament points. Some players play more tournaments than ring games and some players play only ring games. Think not possible to separate the won chips in tournaments and in ring games for ranking or for playing in a certain ring game level.
With scrabble and chess only 2 players in the game and the game is played untill the end. A winner and a loser, or tie. With 2 players in the game it is easier to make poules.
In poker (ring games) more players in the game and players come and go. Also now a player can sit at the table when he has the min bring in, players with a very different ranking (total chip amount) can play together. When you want to avoid that players must play in their own level based on their total chips amount.
You think players want to play in certain levels? In the past ReplayPoker had restrictions, low level, medium level and high stake level. A certain chips amount was required to play there. But players were able to play at a lower level.
Curious what other players think about a level system for ring games or what other players think about restrictions or have more ideas about restrictions. Now a player can sit at a table with his last chips. It is not a good bankroll management to do that. You can avoid it with restrictions. But is that up to the site? Must players be free to choose their own play level? Let players play against each other no matter the chips they have, can be 5000 chips or millions chips?.
Just curious at reactions for playing in certain levels and having restrictions. Many players want to play with their ReplayPoker friends, they not have the same bankroll. With a level system it will not be possible any more always. And some players like to play relaxed in a lower level.
Ideas always bring up more ideas and other ideas. Please share your thoughts about this if you want. Greetings Happiness.
That’s Not how I intended it to be. It’s just like normal except for the Bought chips paid with real money. will have no affect on your rank at all. The tournament chips you win or lose and the chips you win or lost on the ring tables will affect your rank. I intended it with letter classes, not to separate and divide people. Rather Improve their skills and become better. With this ranking system people can be more competitive to themselves and to make rivals a real sport striving towards a goal. even if you buy chips though it won’t affect your rank you can still play against other higher ranked players than yourself.
I got this idea from Fairy Tail an anime that has Magical guilds and the requests or jobs that wizards go on are ranked this way the higher the rank the higher the reward at the same time bigger risks are involved. Unlike a Guild whose wizards are separated on what level the job they can take. there are no restrictions behind my ranking system unless the player chooses to set him or herself that way.
I understand what you mean. That is the way how the ranking is calculated for best player of the week / month (toplists). There are the bought chips excluded i believe (not sure the daily bonus). But these toplists are only interesting when you play high stake tables. A make-over for toplists is on the to-do list (and also the total ranking system) It should be possible to make the ranking system and ring game toplists more interesting for all players.
Thanks for your feedback. Greetings Happiness.
The live poker league I play in uses a points system as well, with one big difference. Players are ranked by their Average Points Per Game (APPG). In order to make the rankings fair, so that a player can’t be ranked number 1 after winning his/her first game and then not playing again, players must QUALIFY to be ranked. They do this by having to play a minimum of 45% of the number of games played set by the player who played the most number of games. The number of games played % is not set in stone but it is what we use since over the course of a season we only have between 100 and 200 players that play at least one game or more. We have about 100 games in our seasons. The APPG ranking is used to set the championship game at the end of the year and the top 12 players Qualify in this manner to play it. We have been using this system since 2007 and it has worked very well for us. Everyone says it is very fair since the rankings can’t be dominated by someone who never misses a game to rack up Total Points, or by someone playing few games, doing well, and then sitting out the rest of the season to make the championship.
Thanks for your feedback, sounds very interesting. Not sure what the plans are for the new ranking system, but for sure this is something to discuss.
Sounds interesting, thanks for the feedback. I’ve made a note to reference this discussion when we come to review the ranking system, perhaps later this year. We did some preliminary work on the new ranking system, some time ago; and we came up with some initial ideas; but there’s a lot more to do.