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.