FICGS poker ratings


FICGS poker ratings

Back to forum

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-03-04)
FICGS poker ratings

Let's continue the debate that started in this discussion:

I'm still not sure of what is best but our top ranked poker player for a while (Nelson Bernal Varela) obviously participated to the discussion his way by resigning all his poker games to show us how much time it will take to regain his points.

His rating was about 2200, now 1924 and the date is march 4th, 2012.

As we're playing single round-robin tournaments only, the rating list was not so distorted but this is not at the advantage of class B players. Of course I do not encourage this behaviour in any way!

However, following the current rules on general forfeits I think that Nelson should continue his experiment so that we can learn from all this. In my opinion he'll reach the top rankings within a few months (particularly if he plays bullet games) which is quite short compared to correspondence chess.

This would actually justify - in my point of view (maybe Nelson's one too but I'm still not sure of what he's thinking about that) - the current poker rating system, so let's wait 1 month or 2 before to decide to make this change or not.

As a reminder, the initial proposal was: "should we change the poker rating rules so that we win or lose twice points after each game compared to now ?"

Scott Nichols    (2012-03-04 22:48:24)
FICGS poker ratings

An interesting challenge. I held the #1 spot for a long time and in truth lost interest and let myself slip down, playing rarely and then stopping for over a year I'm pretty sure. So just recently I announced my intentions to reclaim the #1 spot and hold it before this year is over.

Then soon "after" I said this, Nelson resigned his games to start this "experiment". IMO this is how, in addition to playing good poker, he achieved being able to stay #1 for long periods of time. First, you have to play as many games as possible, over a hundred or more. This will allow you to implement the second phase. That is you get to pick and choose which games to play out immediately an which to stop playing to continue at a more opportune time. e.g. Only finish the "winning" games to get to the top. Then when you have a sufficient lead to where a loss or two won't hurt your position, THEN play out the losing ones.

Thib quote from above " In my opinion he'll reach the top rankings within a few months (particularly if he plays bullet games) which is quite short compared to correspondence chess. " Well for him to do this, he will have to get by me, and others, this time. So consider the Gauntlet thrown down! Scott

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-03-04 23:01:30)
FICGS poker ratings

A problem is that it is impossible to enter new waiting lists when having more than 50 poker games running.

On the other point your strategy may work but at the end you'll probably lose many points... I prefer to lose the almost lost games before to win the almost won ones to have a stable high rating. Anyway it would take much time to sort, I prefer to play all games the same way.

That will be an instructive challenge for sure.

Garvin Gray    (2012-03-04 23:47:06)
FICGS poker ratings

I am more alarmed than anything that a person's selfish actions, regardless of who they are, are not only tolerated, but are encouraged by statements like this:

However, following the current rules on general forfeits I think that Nelson should continue his experiment so that we can learn from all this. In my opinion he'll reach the top rankings within a few months (particularly if he plays bullet games) which is quite short compared to correspondence chess.

His actions now affect many players, which includes denying a place to someone in a tournament that he otherwise should not be allowed to enter ie class B tournaments where by all reports he is too good for.

How about we all do this to see how the rating system goes? I find his actions appalling and he deserves to be banned.

If this was done in chess, would the response be the same? If so and someone did it and the same response was given, I would be looking for another site to play at.

I believe people who act like this deserve to have their rating re-set and then spend quite a lot of time on the sidelines. They should forfeit all their games, but not lose any rating points.

What does this site stand for, I think that is one of the main questions? I play poker on here for something to do in the middle of my chess games, even though I am not particularly interested.
My playing of poker will stop if it is treated with such contempt.

Paul Campanella    (2012-03-05 00:11:09)
FICGS poker ratings

Correction, Scott... you shouldn't count your chickens before they hatch because the number one spot will actually be mine one day! :)

I entered my first poker tournament on February 14th, 2011. In barely over one year, I have managed to raise my poker elo from 1600 to 2071 ... an increase of 471 points in, what I consider to be, record-breaking time!

Here is my proof...

Considering the current situation, I am curious to know if there is anyone else that has managed to increase and maintain their rating by 471 points in such a short amount of time?

Not only do I have a winning record against you of 60%-40%, I also have a 50%-50% record against Nelson, which is better than almost everyone else on FICGS.

Regarding the experiment, Nelson will have to get by me as well. Since I am one of the only people on this site that does not have a losing record against him... it's not going be an easy quest. :)

Scott Nichols    (2012-03-05 00:16:41)
FICGS poker ratings

:) Good one Paul. There are about 6-10 players here that have a real chance to be #1 by end of this year. I consider you one of them.

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-03-05 00:22:47)
FICGS poker ratings

I knew that you would answer this way... And you are right on several points.

I read the rules before to write this, we could envisage to change the rules on the general forfeits issue but it wouldn't probably be so easy to "fix" it. Maybe another discussion is needed.

About chess, this has been done the same way several times for different reasons, see Wolfgang Utesch, Wayne Lowrance... The only difference is that Nelson gave a bad reason (with the excuse that he may have done this to help to find the best rating rules, which was not necessary). But he could have said something else. What would be the perfect rule? The current rule was probably discussed in the forum previously. Nothing better was found, that's all.

Anyway, this site stands for applying rules... and IMO I have the choice between doing nothing in this special case and preventing Nelson to enter a waiting list during 2 months. Nelson was totally wrong to do this... (also because of Paul's previous message that proves that it is possible to climb the scale quite quickly, which IMO goes in the way of not changing the rating rules) but now that it's done, I think that the best thing for the site is to let him continue, at least we'll learn something from this and it will improve the rating rules.

Paul Campanella    (2012-03-05 03:29:32)
FICGS poker ratings

Thank you for the compliment, Scott!

I consider you to be one of the top players and have great respect for you: as both top poker and as a person. You're also a very worthy adversary and our matches are almost always 3-2 (on either side)! :)

Thank you, Thibault, for recognizing my point that it is possible to climb the ladder quite quickly using the current rating system.

I would like to note that it is also possible to climb the ladder without using any strategy. Throughout all of my poker matches on FICGS, I always finished my games (both the winning games and the losing games). I could have easily waited a long time (like some players obviously do on this site) to finish my losing games, but I refuse to do that out of respect for my opponents.

Although poker is a game that requires a combination of luck and skill, I believe that respect belongs here as well. Out of my overall record of 202 completed games, I have won 120 and lost 80. During each game, I was always honorable. For instance, if it is my turn and I know that I am 4 chips away from losing a match 3-0, I will refuse to delay the game and deny my opponent his victory for the next two months even though I have 60 days left on the clock.

Besides, it is my philosophy that the best thing to do when opponent outplays me is to accept the loss, learn from it, and then try to win in a rematch! :)

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-03-05 13:36:51)
FICGS poker ratings

Paul, then do you agree that the current poker rating rules are fine? Because of your rating history and because it avoids the possibility to have significant rating peaks by delaying to lose games that are almost lost? (seems logical to me)

Thibault de Vassal    (2012-03-05 16:51:57)
FICGS poker ratings

Ah, another argument for the current rating rules: unlike advanced chess, bullet poker games count for the same rating list, so it is quite easy and fast to win points this way.

Paul Campanella    (2012-03-05 16:55:11)
FICGS poker ratings

Yes, I say keep it the way it is!

Don Groves    (2012-03-06 04:03:50)
FICGS poker ratings

It will take Nelson longer to reach his goal if the rules are left as they are now. My answer is to keep them.

Stephane Legrand    (2013-10-27 10:55:40)
FICGS poker ratings

I experiment what Scott says at 2012-03-04 22:48:24 many times... see for instance game 72996 ...

Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2013-12-24 14:12:26)
FICGS poker ratings

I also have this problem with exactly one player. And I have now decided to act in the same manner against this player. If it looks as if I lose then I'm going to reply when my time is almost over.

Garvin Gray    (2013-12-24 14:36:50)
FICGS poker ratings

Heinz-Georg, have you replied in the correct thread? This one is about poker and ratings.

Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2013-12-24 15:07:01)
FICGS poker ratings

This is the right thread, Garvin. I have the same problem as Stephane in his poker game 72996. And I tried to describe my way to handle this situaton.