Poker Rating

  

Poker Rating


Back to forum


Herbert Kruse    (2021-03-27)
Poker Rating

if someone goes all in all games and loses, why i dont get a rating?
do i have to fold??


Herbert Kruse    (2021-03-28 15:10:13)
Poker Rating

This rule has good reasons to be maintained, whatever the game played : at least 10 moves must have been played so that it be rated...


Best regards,
Thibault

and i:

so if my opp goes all in and i have 2 aces i have to fold to get a rating win?

how can this be my fault?


Herbert Kruse    (2021-03-28 15:11:55)
Poker Rating

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=129651


Herbert Kruse    (2021-03-28 15:13:21)
Poker Rating

firtst i had 2 aces, 2nd 2 6ces and last K9


Herbert Kruse    (2021-03-28 15:14:55)
Poker Rating

and i only called, he went all in - thats so unfair


Herbert Kruse    (2021-03-28 15:42:14)
Poker Rating

i looked into the rules and didnt found any part, where at least 10 moves had to be played

and this rule would only make sence for chess and not poker


Thibault de Vassal    (2021-03-29 01:20:13)
Poker Rating

It is not a question of "fault". It is a rule, nothing more. And yes, it does make sense in poker as well, exactly the same way (and it is possible to checkmate in less than 10 moves).


Christoph Schroeder    (2021-04-03 12:51:26)
Poker Rating

I really don't get the point of disallowing the rating of short games. It is like saying: "If a football team scores a goal within the first 5 minutes, the game result is cancelled (how dare they score so quickly?)."

In chess: What is the justification for handling a blundering of a piece at move nine (game not rated) differently from blundering a piece at move 11 (game rated)?

In poker, Herberts example shows the whole absurdity of the rule. If you are playing a maniac, such games can happen. What is the reason for not rating these games?


Don Groves    (2021-04-03 19:38:10)
Poker Rating

I agree with Christoph!


Thibault de Vassal    (2021-04-06 01:15:09)
Poker Rating

In my opinion it would be more like saying: "If a football team shows probable non-sportsmanship by playing without any effort...", in many competitions the result is impacted by such behaviour, in some cases the game is adjudicated.

Why move 10 ? Only because we need a clear rule. It is a choice and just like most rules, once we know it, we have to accept it to continue the game (and casually adapt our way to play). Anyway this rule was very efficient as for rapid forfeits, it is really useful.


Christoph Schroeder    (2021-04-06 08:53:31)
Poker Rating

In OTB chess I once lost a tournament game in 10 moves, blundering a winning combination by my opponent. Was my resignation at move 10 non-sportsmanlike?

The reason for losing quickly is most probably a lack of skill or an oversight by one player. Both things happen every day and are part of the game. No reason not to rate the game.

The consequence of this rule is outright ridiculous: a player who has the chance to mate his opponent before move 10, would have to refrain from mating and intentially play weaker moves, hoping that his opponent will resign only after move 10. I think noone really wants to see games like that.


Thibault de Vassal    (2021-04-07 01:18:50)
Poker Rating

No, it wasn't non-sportsmanlike for sure, good example... but should this game really be rated? (rated for the winner I mean, you lost some points in this case)

The other problem is that players trying to manipulate ratings could do the same and reality is that they do not (or very rarely) when there are 10 moves at least to play, so this rule is efficient to prevent this. And as we all know, no rule is perfect for everyone.

You are right, lasting a won game to move 10 would be strange but it is a choice and a price to pay... the main thing is that it should be rare.


Don Groves    (2021-04-07 01:53:29)
Poker Rating

Sorry, Thib, but I think this is bad rule. We enter games in good faith that they will be rated, not doing so violates that good faith.


Thibault de Vassal    (2021-04-08 00:27:08)
Poker Rating

Well, let's try to gather more opinions here... if players want such a change, it is possible.


Ilmars Cirulis    (2021-04-11 13:54:18)
Poker Rating

Imo, the 10 move rule doesn't make sense for poker. It should be turned off (for poker only).


Don Groves    (2021-04-11 16:57:33)
Poker Rating

Why does it make sense for chess?


Ilmars Cirulis    (2021-04-11 17:55:56)
Poker Rating

Dunno, but it makes a bit more sense for chess (not sure if enough, and mostly I don't care as all my games are more than 10 moves anyway).

Poker has this option to go all-in which is legit move and sometimes can cause legit games that are less than 10 moves short. (If a player is crazy enough.)


Daniel Parmet    (2021-04-11 21:54:28)
Poker Rating

I agree with Herbert.


Thibault de Vassal    (2021-04-12 12:16:37)
Poker Rating

Thank you Daniel. Any others?


Yeturu Aahlad    (2021-04-12 19:10:42)
Poker Rating

At big chess, it is fairly common for one side - typically Black - to be down a pawn early in the game. I have had at least one opponent immediately resign. At Go, a player may blunder in a corner and immediately resign.

On the other hand, I have won many games on time and in many of those cases, the opponent didn't make any moves at all.

Perhaps a subjective challenge deserves a subjective response - I am seeing sound arguments on both sides. Suggestion - if a game concludes under 10 moves, and the winner thinks she has a genuine grievance, she can appeal for the ELO grant and a referee will adjudicate. Herbert's case is very strong. If the losing side didn't make any moves, adjudication need not be allowed, or may be automatically denied. Too many frivolous appeals from a player can lead to disciplinary action including a loss of this privilege. (I don't expect that to happen in this community)


Thibault de Vassal    (2021-04-13 01:04:44)
Poker Rating

This rule was added when, more than 10 years ago, players asked for a non-subjective system, as automatic as possible (more algorithm, less human referees)... it looks like the debate is still open :)