I'll amend that, too many silly errors lol

now of course u are the almighty one and what u say goes lol and i dont even know if this would work but i'll throw it in the air anyways.

all productive comments welcome from players too...

instead of having a players RANK based from their POINTS, how about basing the RANK from the AVERAGE POINTS PER GAME?

let me simplify a lil...

player x has 1000 POINTS and 50 games under his/her belt.

his/her AVERAGE POINTS PER GAME would be 20.

that would then become his SCORE and base players RANKS from thier SCORE.

i know this would benefit the higher players more BUT, i would discourage high players playing on the lower tables and encourage the lower players to get to the next table-step rating...know what i mean?

please only post if u are gona be productive. would be nice to hear from Ryan in particular...

thanx

awsome

Points per square root of games played would probably be a better measure than points or points per game. Points puts too much emphasis on total games played, while points per game put too much emphasis on luck. See chapter ix in the comment on my profile page.

Well, I'd build several accounts until I have one that wins the first couple of games in a row - and then never use it again. That account is unbeatable...
Take this one, >200 points in 3 games in October - that would be hard to beat, even at higher tables.

In 2 games I was at 220 or so.

i'd create multiple accounts,

and finish with 1 win. 0 losses.... and see which score i got was the highest.



your idea has merit... needs some tweaking.

but i agree, the more games you play.. the more points you (most likely) get, but that doesnt make u more skillful

The top 3 players finished 1,2,3 in PPRG I believe (correct me if I am wrong skru). Each with under 400 games and most of those were at the 1k tables. You can get a high rank by playing at the low tables but it takes a very large number of games, where if you can win at the 1k tables consistently you can get to the top with a much lower number of games.

So yes I agree with Awsomeness that I think where a player is playing and how many points they earn per game or some variation of that type of calculation should be used, and would encourage better players to play at the higher tables.

I think it's a great idea. I also think you need to have 50+ games or something before you get ranked. You can of course see your average before that, but until you get the requisite games you won't be listed

just bringing this post back to life...

i agree with cyron...have a minimum of games played before a player qualifies for ramk is a great idea...

Ryan, would be nice to hear from you

cheers Awsome

Use an alt for three weeks to drag down the top players' average scores and then in the last week --when the higher tables are flooded with bad players-- rise to the top? Fun!

I don't understand what this idea is trying to improve. It says encourage high players to move on to the next level but obviously the best players are going to play where they get the most average points per game, even if it's the low tables. There are better and simpler ways to resolve that problem if it's a problem

Summary: Someone who only plays 100 games in the last week shall have a better average score than an equal player who spread out their games all month. Also, this encourages cheating, discourages activity, makes the top players page look boring and doesn't do anything to improve fun

This idea could work but it needs a lot more thought into it, would be easier to just improve on the old elo or rank system

* spread out 100 games all month