If anyone wants to play I will be at the Sanctuary table where I belong
-
-
Too high IMO.
You've been on tilt for months.Comment -
I tried sitting down with you at Sanctuary table, but received this error message:
Now how about updating your SBR poker villain rankings.Comment -
so what's the math behind these ratings? not saying bobbywaves is not a good player, just how does he have a perfect score with only 2 first places and a 10th in the last month (and no ring badges). i could understand if they were all 1st, but the one 10th place finish should deduct some down. it also doesn't appear he's tearing up the cash games (unless he's playing the lower limit tables).
as for centaur, he has a 1st and two 2nd's which would seem to make him higher than 1400. this math makes no sense to me.
i wonder what shogunrua's is? he's been on fire the last month or so.Comment -
SBR has never published the algorythm used. If memory serves, when they implemented the ratings, I believe SBR_John did indicate that they would publish it but that never materialized.
And regarding Bobby's post, I find that beyond amusing. There is not a player here that would be concerned about playing him, therefore there obviously is some severely warped/skewed calculations in the SBR ratings.
Lastly to be clear, I am not saying Bobby is a bad poker player per se, just that his style is very obvious and exploitable. IMHO, that is the main reason he does not sit at the ring tables regularly and only with rollover points.
To each his own, Bobby plays a certain way and that makes him happy, more power too him.Comment -
When I was going for the IPad, I won 9000 points in like 6 weeks and my rating stayed around 1400 the entire time
edit: it's 1412 nowLast edited by daneblazer; 05-26-14, 03:27 PM.Comment -
It seems to be ELO-based...those type of rankings work well for 100% skill games with consistency (such as chess), but terribly for games with any element of variance. Even though much better statistical models exist for ratings, the lack of widespread adoption of any rating system shows how difficult it is to account for both skill and variance in any non-extreme sample size with any certainty. The most reliable rating system is (and probably always will be) winnings.Comment -
why do i not see bobby at 5/10 or 10/20 ever???Comment -
So is flipping how you get a 2300 rating? Now I understand.Comment -
No; since rating is likely based on winning hands, playing Omaha H/l exclusively is what's responsible for a high rating...if you chop the H and the L, both people are "winners" even though they just got raked, and ratings increase for both accordingly. People who play actual poker will see less than 100% win at showdown %, and since folding postflop is likely treated at least partially as a loss, ring game poker ratings will be very low unless a player is a supernit. About the only reliable conclusion to draw from the rating system is that a greater one means the player is more timid.Comment -
Booby how fukkin dumb are you palComment -
Come play me heads up tonightComment -
This.
The last time I seen a rating system like this is when I used to play Euchre and it worked so games could be restricted to ratings. I dont see a purpose for this with poker tables, as high rated players would rather play lower rated players rather than the chess example above.Comment -
calm down robertComment -
Between the Sanctuary table and hand-for-hand with 15 people left, SBR Poker has been coasting the past couple of years.
An upgrade is needed.Comment -
It aint even about how high your ratings are.....it's about how many pizzas you've wonComment
