Senior Classification

I would like to see a senior ranking class, say 60+ or even 55, so we can play poker as intended. Today’s poker players,“yout’s” as Joe P. would call them, do not embrace the game with the same attitude as we “old farts”. It would be nice to sit down an play without having to slam down 3 or 4 Five Hour Energy drinks to get through the first 10 minute BINGO frenzy… What do you think out there?

Thanks for the suggestion smallmac. Were you thinking of ring games or tournament or both? I assume the idea would be to restrict access based on whatever age you put on your profile (of course we have no way of checking).

Sounds like a great Idea Tournaments

Thanks for your interest Paul. Age verification does pose a problem but at my age just getting up in the morning is a problem. My vision is to create a group of like minded players. Generally age is a good measure that can be used as a tool to classify players. Chip count is not the answer. I have gone from a low stakes player to a high stakes player and back again. I would propose that once you attain a level of play you remain there. I have always been a good player, low, medium or high, my skill and ability to play poker does not change with my chip count, i.e. classify me as a senior high stakes player or what ever fits. It could be done in all forms of play, ring, S and G or tournaments. I believe the concept would be well received.

I agree the ranking system based on chip count is just plain stupid. We need a ranking system that reflects the true level which a player has attained. Last year we began looking at alternatives, and although, unlike for example chess, there is no official ranking system; we think we’ll be able to come up with something a lot better than we have today. I’m hoping it’s something we can implement this year. What would be truly wonderful if we enabled players to create their own ring games and tournaments, either open to all or just to their friends. then like minded players could more easily play together whenever they want.

Simple Paul, create groups, Leagues, clubs or what ever. For instance, friends could be a club (Old Farts Club) comes to mind. We could compete in tourneys or any multi-table format. Challenge other Clubs to matches or form leagues and have team play within the club or interleague play… very doable I believe.

Love it!


I love the idea of being able to create our own leagues. as we all know, there are several techniques people tend to play, and not all agree with each other. Nothing worse than a player coming to n established table and throwing things completely out of whack. It is frustrating to say the least. I have met several players that have the same poker fundamentals as myself, and respect the game and the players. When we all get together upon chance during a tourney, its magical…:slight_smile: and almost always will an incredible game commence.

Paul, looks like the ball is in your court. Will provide whatever help possible. In MHO it should be put out to the masses an see how it sings.

One thing i not understand. Who decides who may play in that private group ? How can you be sure their friends are your friends also? Just curious:)

Hi Happiness, As with any new concept, the logistics will need to be worked out. Such as number of players in a group or who and/or how you would become a group member. Friends can group or if you wish to join a group or league enter on a trial basis where current members would have a opportunity to play with you. Just some thoughts.

Another thing to consider when thinking about how to reduce the amount of nonsensical play would be to stop giving 2500 chips immediately after a player has gone to zero. I have seen several players go all in with nothing at all, lose their only 2500 chips, and then just go and “top off” their account with another 2500 as soon as they go below 500. They then do the same thing with that 2500, go all in with nothing. Part of the reason they do this is because they know they can get more chips immediately. Maybe it would be a good idea to make such players wait a day or so before giving them another stake to go all in with. These people are not playing poker. I don’t know what they are playing, but it is not poker.

Great Idea!

after first top up is a 10 min wait time already, third is 20min, and so on. Do you think the first need to be a lil bit time?Maybe if player log in , loose 2500 under 10 min, then 10 min for first time too, then 20, 30,40… ?

I don’t see why they shouldn’t have to at least wait until the next day. They might play a bit more carefully then. Part of the reason of nonsensical play is that chips have no monetary value. That is the reason that so many individuals(I hesitate to call them players) play in a manner they would never play in a real money game. There is, of course, nothing Replay Poker can do about this. The absence of any monetary value on chips makes some people—not everyone, but a few—play like complete fools. When one of these individuals is at a table, it can ruin the game for others. The answer, of course, is to leave the table, which is what I usually do when confronted with someone like this.

I do think, however, that this sort of nonsensical play might be reduced somewhat by making people wait at least 24 hours before replenishing their chips. If they knew they would have to wait 24 hours before getting another 2500 chips, they might play just a little more carefully.

This isn’t really a huge problem. Most people on Replay enjoy the complexities and nuances of the game of poker and play the game seriously. Keep up the good work.

Thanks for the feedback, I think we should review the delay to see what effect changing it might have. Anyone else care to comment? After first top of the day you need to wait 10 mins, then after that, 20 mins and so forth. I think waiting 24 hours, esp for new poker players, seems somewhat harsh. But maybe we can go from 15, to 30 to 45 etc.


Thank you for responding. I agree with your desire to encourage new players to learn the game. At the same time, I would like to see a reduction in the amount of players who obviously do not care whether they win or lose. We have all seen them. They call all in, lose all their chips, and then respond with an LOL. Of course LOL! They know they can go back and get 2500 more chips almost immediately. So that’s what we get . . . . LOL! Does any serious player respond with LOL when he loses?

But, as I say, I applaud your desire to encourage people who are new to poker to learn the game. What about this? What about limiting the games one can play on based on chip total? Perhaps those with 2500 or less should be limited to 1/2 or 2/4 or even 5/10 boards. Those with more than 2500 would have access to all the Low Stakes games. Those with over 10000 would have access to all the Low and Medium Stakes games and those with over 100,000 would have access to any game offered by Replay. Such a system might create some slight sense of value to chips. Higher chip total? . . . You can play at higher stakes games. No chips and LOL when you lose? You are limited to Low Stakes games.

I am just trying to think of ways to reduce the amount of nonsensical LOL play seen at Replay. It is unlikely that someone who are worked hard over a period of time to accumulate, say, 180,000 chips, would play like a complete fool and then LOL when he loses them all.

Thanks again, Paul, for providing this great poker site.

Call me Blonde, but I just realized people can BUY chips here…lol. I worked and played hard for each and every chip I have, I guess I am feeling a bit discouraged.

But it would be kind of fun watching a fish buy a bunch of chips then we devour them…lol.

Geez, I am usually not so vicious, my apologies.