What's your SBR Poker rating?

**Carseller4** · 10-14-11, 02:49 PM

1431

Kind of a wild player....that must hurt my rating?

**downsouth** · 10-14-11, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by Carseller4

1431

Kind of a wild player....that must hurt my rating?

NO offense but 1431 is probably fairly accurate. You occasionally run up in tourneys but you will never have any sort of sustained success in ring game.

**Cuse0323** · 10-14-11, 03:49 PM

1409

**bipolar** · 10-14-11, 05:52 PM

2020.. not sure what that means, ive been getting murdered at 2-4 and 5-10 lately...

**playersonly69** · 10-14-11, 06:04 PM

What does 2247 mean? I dont play that often though

**MexicanStallion** · 10-14-11, 06:06 PM

Originally posted by downsouth

NO offense but 1431 is probably fairly accurate. You occasionally run up in tourneys but you will never have any sort of sustained success in ring game.

Tournaments don't count in the rating. So that's why his score isn't up big or anything if he does have good run in tournaments. It's no factor.

Originally posted by playersonly69

What does 2247 mean? I dont play that often though

The higher the score the better.

**supermanN1** · 10-14-11, 06:11 PM

he

**Carseller4** · 10-14-11, 06:24 PM

Originally posted by supermanN1

he

First day at SBR and nails SBR Trivia.

Ghost much?

**mrmarket** · 10-14-11, 06:29 PM

Originally posted by downsouth

NO offense but 1431 is probably fairly accurate. You occasionally run up in tourneys but you will never have any sort of sustained success in ring game.

You know why this is stupid right?

**aggieshawn** · 10-14-11, 06:34 PM

1400 baby.

Anyone wanna play for $$. I am just a little guppy.

**daneblazer** · 10-14-11, 06:39 PM

I don't have a number, just a goldfish bowl with a fish in it.

**wtt0315** · 10-14-11, 06:39 PM

2125

**aggieshawn** · 10-14-11, 06:57 PM

so cool....

**borednaz** · 10-14-11, 08:25 PM

I'm a huge fish

. 1473 atm. But I know why, I like to see flops at ring games & I play too many hands. I noticed my rating creeped up not based upon how much I won but by how much I didn't played my hands. I also blame the fact up until this last week I did not have a PC or internet at home so I did not log much time on poker.

Ok ok I'm a huge donkey everyone knows how much I suck at poker. There the truth set me free.

**borednaz** · 10-14-11, 08:26 PM

Also noted for honesty I shove all in a lot which probably doesn't help lol. But it is a hell of a lot more fun.

**mrmarket** · 10-14-11, 09:42 PM

Originally posted by borednaz

Also noted for honesty I shove all in a lot which probably doesn't help lol. But it is a hell of a lot more fun.

Just play the way you want. The ratings are meaningless.

**zsr** · 10-14-11, 10:08 PM

Originally posted by mrmarket

Just play the way you want. The ratings are meaningless.

Agreed. Cant belive some people take sbr poker so seriously lol the highest table is 0.01/0.05. Who gives a shit what your ranked your playing for pennies

**downsouth** · 10-14-11, 10:14 PM

Originally posted by mrmarket

You know why this is stupid right?

Im just messing with Carseller a little so why is this stupid?

**mrmarket** · 10-14-11, 10:21 PM

Originally posted by downsouth

Im just messing with Carseller a little so why is this stupid?

If you're just joking around with him it's fine and my apologies if this is the case. I've just played with too many table captains live and it annoys me to no end to this day.

**downsouth** · 10-14-11, 10:41 PM

Originally posted by mrmarket

If you're just joking around with him it's fine and my apologies if this is the case. I've just played with too many table captains live and it annoys me to no end to this day.

Nope, just giving him crap in jest. I actually could care less how good/bad someone is at this game.

**deadphish** · 10-15-11, 03:35 AM

1677 for me. only been playing here for a week...so doesnt really reflect much

**Optional** · 11-24-11, 07:23 AM

Originally posted by Carseller4

First day at SBR and nails SBR Trivia.

Ghost much?

Well picked Carseller.

This supermanN1 is definitely a knob.

**k13** · 11-24-11, 10:51 AM

Seems to change very quickly. Was at 1400 then 2298.

**BranchDavidian** · 12-03-11, 08:30 AM

Originally posted by mrmarket

Just play the way you want. The ratings are meaningless.

I believe you are correct. I read this thread yesterday, and later played for a couple of hours. Lost 300 points after getting outdrawn consistently. I realize I am no poker genius. But I am better than average. I will get a bye for being in the top 50 in Decembers number of cashes tourney. I made some bad plays, but more good ones. Most of the losses can be attributed to two hands where my pocket aces got outdrawn after I got my chips in with by far the best. I know I am being rather subjective here, but I believe any unbiased observer would concede that I played fairly well and made mostly good decisions. I checked my rating again after this session and it dropped about 50 points. So I have come to the conclusion that these ratings are result driven. If you sit down and get your chips in with the best and get outdrawn, your rating will drop while your opponent gets rewarded for making bad decisions but getting lucky. Well, I suppose that it is a lot more difficult for a programmer to generate these ratings based upon whether the player is making good poker decisions rather than getting lucky after making bad decisions. And, of course, the theory is that luck will even out after enough hands have been played. But I can assure you that I have gotten outdrawn many, many more times than I have outdrawn someone, but this is true for any decent player, since good players don't get themselves into the position of having to outdraw often. However, even tho I agree that these ratings are meaningless, I suppose over the long run result driven ratings should closely parallel decision based ratings. Although, I think the result driven ones will be a little worse for better players because the better players actually lose a little more due to bad luck than bad players ( since better players are seldom in the position of needing luck but often in the position of hoping for no bad luck). Sorry for the rant!

**BranchDavidian** · 12-05-11, 12:57 AM

Originally posted by BranchDavidian

I believe you are correct. I read this thread yesterday, and later played for a couple of hours. Lost 300 points after getting outdrawn consistently. I realize I am no poker genius. But I am better than average. I will get a bye for being in the top 50 in Decembers number of cashes tourney. I made some bad plays, but more good ones. Most of the losses can be attributed to two hands where my pocket aces got outdrawn after I got my chips in with by far the best. I know I am being rather subjective here, but I believe any unbiased observer would concede that I played fairly well and made mostly good decisions. I checked my rating again after this session and it dropped about 50 points. So I have come to the conclusion that these ratings are result driven. If you sit down and get your chips in with the best and get outdrawn, your rating will drop while your opponent gets rewarded for making bad decisions but getting lucky. Well, I suppose that it is a lot more difficult for a programmer to generate these ratings based upon whether the player is making good poker decisions rather than getting lucky after making bad decisions. And, of course, the theory is that luck will even out after enough hands have been played. But I can assure you that I have gotten outdrawn many, many more times than I have outdrawn someone, but this is true for any decent player, since good players don't get themselves into the position of having to outdraw often. However, even tho I agree that these ratings are meaningless, I suppose over the long run result driven ratings should closely parallel decision based ratings. Although, I think the result driven ones will be a little worse for better players because the better players actually lose a little more due to bad luck than bad players ( since better players are seldom in the position of needing luck but often in the position of hoping for no bad luck). Sorry for the rant!

Well, now this is sorta interesting. I have not played in the ring games since the above post where I thought I played fairly well, but got outdrawn too often and lost 300 points resulting in about a 50 point decline in my rating. Then I enter Sunday's tourney and in the second hand some glitch appears where at showdown my opponents hand does not show while the pot got split. My opponent said he had a pair of kings, while I had a pair of aces. And rebuys and add ons were on the table. I did not like what was happening, and started to call with hands I would normally fold because I really didn't mind if I was shown the door. Of course, I hit draws that really shouldn't have been drawn to in a couple of big pots and all of a sudden, with a big chip stack the tourney became a lot more interesting for me and I began to play a little more conservatively until the we were down to the last two. On the final hand, I made another really bad call but again outdrew the better hand. I just now checked my rating, and it went up 500 points. I think this pretty much shows these ratings are result only driven. Play well but lose, and rating goes down. Play poorly but win and rating goes up.

**yisman** · 12-05-11, 01:08 AM

Branch, that's been established. It goes by pots won and the players you face.

If you play very poorly but happen to get lucky and win pots anyway, your rating will increase.

**mp5070** · 12-05-11, 09:52 AM

1419

**d2bets** · 12-05-11, 11:01 AM

Originally posted by k13

Seems to change very quickly. Was at 1400 then 2298.

Weird. Do you have a lot of history playing, or do you play cash games very rarely?

**k13** · 12-05-11, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by d2bets

Weird. Do you have a lot of history playing, or do you play cash games very rarely?

I only play when I have a rollover but that's quite often.

More of an indication of running bad and good....

**nosniboR11** · 12-05-11, 04:48 PM

looks like they reset em

**Optional** · 12-05-11, 06:03 PM

I'm still a 1404