New rankings system

I currently only play no-limit Texas Holdem poker through the Bodog site and I had a question. Does the Railbird freeroll ranking system work with Bodog poker as it does through Full Tilt Poker and Poker Stars? Or will I have to sign up with these poker sites to start to get ranked?

[SwtLilTabbie]

As long as you have you're bodog name on your profile, you will get ranked. Same with FT and PS. Best of Luck to ya.

sounds pretty legit. I cant wait to kick ur butts in the freerolls

This is going to sound really self-serving since I and players like me would benefit from it. Anyhow, does anyone else think the freeroll ranking system would be a better measure of skill if it went by average number of points earned per tournament over a statistically significant number of tournaments rather than just total points accumulated?

I say this because looking at the standings now, the vast majority of people near the top have played in well over 100 tournaments this year. I'm not saying these folks aren't good players, but for people like me who can play in one or two tournaments a week tops, we have no realistic shot to get near the top. I've gotten to play in 32 tournaments so far this year, and I did some quick calculations and figured that I would have more total points than the current freeroll ranking leader if I had played in the same number of tournaments as that person and earned the same points (on average) per tournament.

Anyone else think a formula that looks at average points per tournament over a minimum number of tournaments (with that minimum increasing as the year goes on) would be more fair? Or maybe one like the Pokerstars TLB which looks at your best results over a number of tournaments?

[cptmorgan]

"Anyone else think a formula that looks at average points per tournament over a minimum number of tournaments (with that minimum increasing as the year goes on) would be more fair? Or maybe one like the Pokerstars TLB which looks at your best results over a number of tournaments?"

Well we use the system that pokerstars use's for its tournament's for the top 15%

Originally Posted by cptmorgan

Well we use the system that pokerstars use's for its tournament's for the top 15%

Thanks for the reply cptmorgan. I don't understand though, what is the "top 15%" ranking? Is this different from the regular freeroll ranking?

I think the points system is pretty far, cause really you don't have to really play most of the tournaments to stay in contention with points. If you have some high finishes you can get 2000+ plus points in one week, which is plenty. It might take more work if you play a lot fewer tournaments than everyone else, but it can be done. The point average thing, has some problems, in that someone could just play in not many tournaments at all and just happen to finish pretty high in the ones they do, I think some reward for playing a lot of the tournaments should be there as well. I don't say this just because I've been doing well in my first month of playing freerolls on here. I thought the point system was good to begin with and it's a cool thing this site has going on, makes playing online freerolls a lot more enjoyable.

Originally Posted by imkentou

I think the points system is pretty far, cause really you don't have to really play most of the tournaments to stay in contention with points. If you have some high finishes you can get 2000+ plus points in one week, which is plenty. It might take more work if you play a lot fewer tournaments than everyone else, but it can be done. The point average thing, has some problems, in that someone could just play in not many tournaments at all and just happen to finish pretty high in the ones they do, I think some reward for playing a lot of the tournaments should be there as well. I don't say this just because I've been doing well in my first month of playing freerolls on here. I thought the point system was good to begin with and it's a cool thing this site has going on, makes playing online freerolls a lot more enjoyable.

I agree that a potential problem with a point average system is that you could finish high in a couple of tournaments and have an inflated average. That's why I suggested the "minimum divisor" option. In other words, your total points would be divided by greater of a mimimum number of tournaments (with that minimum increasing as the year goes on) or the number of tournaments you have actually played. That way, you couldn't just have one or two high finishs and still have a high average, because the value of the points accumulated in those high finishes would drop as the "minimum divisor" increases. And you would have an incentive to play in more tournaments to accumulate points and get your average up if you had a run of poor results.