Are Player Ratings Actually Meaningful?

[jasonv12]

I seem to find the highest player ratings go to the biggest nits, rather than the best players (there is some overlap, not calling out the nits).

Like, getting 1st is hardly any better than 3rd for player ratings, despite that you win 3x times the money.

Or bigger picture: if someone bubbles a ton to win more when they do cash, it hurts their player rating even though they are winning MORE money overall. Is that the goal? To win the most money? I think we all agree it is; shouldn't the player rating reflect that?

I know that this site is just freerolls and not very many serious players, but I think just a few small number/formula tweaks could be really beneficial to the ranking system.

What do you all think?


I think a player rating based on average amount of money won compared to the average the field won would be better. Ie. if the prize pool is $40 and there are 80 players, the average amount a player would win is $0.50, so if you win $4.50 for third, that should be a player rating of 9 for that tournament; if you didn't cash, then a player rating of 0 for that tournament. Your overall rating could be the overall average. Or something more like that.

[MichMan]

Did you read how the player ratings are calculated? Its not just a flat # based on how many players are in the field and where you finish.

http://www.pokerowned.com/forums/f11...stem-5216.html

There is already a money leader board to easily calculate money won per game.

[jasonv12]

Did you read how the player ratings are calculated? Its not just a flat # based on how many players are in the field and where you finish.

http://www.pokerowned.com/forums/f11...stem-5216.html

There is already a money leader board to easily calculate money won per game.

The leaderboard only accounts for total money won, regardless of games. That's good to know, but someone like wagon or rrickirr who have been on here from the site's beginning will have had way more time to rank up than a player who is a few months old, which is fine for that, but not for a player rating system.

[lorenz0wns]

agreed totally jason btw GL in the FO tonight

[jasonv12]

agreed totally jason btw GL in the FO tonight

You too! Hopefully your b2b attempt will go better than mine this morning did. lol

[lorenz0wns]

You too! Hopefully your b2b attempt will go better than mine this morning did. lol

tnx, not off to a good start though, lol

[igor23]

Good luck to all players. B2b would be nice for you, good luck.

[MichMan]

Ive only been here a little more than a yr and half. And Im doing ok.

You can get more detailed info like # of games played, ITM % etc. on any players profile to calculate what you are looking for.

But there is no one concrete method to rate a player. You have to look at all aspects.

But your player ratings idea has one inherent flaw.

For instance:

In a .30c buy in game (150 pts)
Player A has is 30% ITM and wins an average profit of .50c per game,
Player B has is 20% ITM and wins an average of .60c per game profit.

If they both played 100 $1 buy in games. Who do you think has the most profit after?

Do the math and the answer may surprise you.

(don't forget to factor in the ITM%)

[jasonv12]

The rating system just needs to account for the exponentiation of money at the top of the money ladder and currently it doesn't...

[Zab]

It's a pretty complicated algorithm