Is the RB rankings system flawed?
Jun 19, 2008 7:37 am
Report Abuse
Hey Everyone,
I was looking over the ranking systems for the freerolls and the buyin tourneys and I kind of think the system is flawed. Shouldn't the money won be the most deciding factor? I know we have varying levels of money payouts for the freerolls and buyins, but ultimately I think the guy that plays twenty freerolls and perhaps wins three of them, winning sixty bucks is doing better than the same guy who cashed small in 13 of 20 events. I'd appreciate some input on this and any clarifications needed.
Thanks
BigJoeJones
© Copyright 2008
16 comments
The system is flawed for the money games.
Where if you get 28th in a $1 game, you get more points than if you win a $5 game.
But, they give out a lot of free money every month so, no reason to question them.
I agree with Hughes. Totally. It blows, but it isn't changing.
Yeah theres no way they can change it mid-year.
But it would be nice if a lot of people got behind this and maybe we can strive for a more fair system next year.
no the guy that finishes in the money more will be better and do better in long run then just a guy who won 3 times no matter the $ ammount its how many times you place consistantly ..
srry but jamie gold is far far wrse playr then ivy or helmuth . and neither of them have won as much as jamie..RIGHT ... gl the stonedman!!!
I should point out that I don't mind the current system. I simply have noticed that larger fields yield more points. If you know and understand the system (as I have admitted I do NOT), you should be able to rise (again, something I can't do, lol).
Just glad to see it discussed.
I disagree and think the system is pretty good as it is. Maybe the higher placings could be weighted a bit more but as far as the freerolls go, I think consistently cashing is pretty good and tough to do (wading thru the vast schools of donk-fish).
I couldn't offer any input on the RMR $ one's cuz so far I haven't gotten into them. To win over a smaller field at a higher buy-in level I don't believe should be weighted more than the lower buy-ins (maybe a bit,.. but would have no idea as to how much?). How do some of the online stat. sites do it? I notice they'll rank a player with say a +4% ROI in bigger buy-ins as a higher rating than say a +35% ROI in cheaper ones?? Who knows.....
The system is already weighted towards higher finishes. I believe its flaws are that there should be a 1000 pts for first irrespective of field size so its more consistent. For the RmR games, some consideration of stake paid should be built in.
None of this matters very much for the annual freeroll rankings as its only for fun and there are no annual prizes. Entry to the monthly freeroll can be achieved by 3 or 4 good results under any system.
a fairer system would be to count onlt the best 50 results inthe annual rankings. this would be fairer to people from around the world, who cant play every freeroll, with the bets player winning.
Not sure your solution would work Lucy. The only way really to be competitive is to move to the US but I wouldn't want to do that and miss out on the pleasant weather,good company
and culture here.
For me, the freeroll rankings are like the World Series of Baseball - it'll most likely be won by americans, and good luck to them.
In any case like I was saying, it's only for fun, and do I really give a smile
. I'm more concerned about the random colour generator 
on this site that allocates expert status, now that really does need fixing.
Well of course North America is favored- after all it IS TEXAS hold'em.....and I don't think OMAHA refers to a code named beach in France.
As for the point system- I was surprised that the same formula applied to free rolls and real money rankings......but I can understand why.
At Jetset Poker the ranking system included a multiplication factor based on the ammount of buyin. However, if Railbirds were to do that- many birds would be "unfairly" excluded from the competition due to the size of their bankroll.