Main Forum
| Post Reply
|
I LOVE the new Format!
|
|
Play gin-rummy tournaments online
|
| It's now: Oct 13, 3:06pm EST |
I LOVE the new Format!
Posted by
calc_guy
28 Apr 2004 8:59am
I love being able to see the 'top players' in the different categories. We didn't have that capability before, did we? If we did, I didn't know where to find it.
I especially liked being able to see there are only a dozen or so players above me in the ratings, and that I have the highest win/loss percentage in the top 100. 
Now, the highest rated player right now has a rating of 2290. But it looks like this only lists players currently active? So my question is: What was the highest rating ever achieved on gamecolony, and WHO held it?
calc_guy
ratings
Posted by
(VIP) 28 Apr 2004 10:47am
ratings are bs-if you only play people with high ratings then of course when you lose it doest affect you as much. as i stated b4-ratings in no way are an indication of a players ability. i do though agree, on the win/loss %. i still say that is the main indicator on a players ability and talent.
thinkorswim
Calc-Guy, Calc-Guy
Posted by
Ed_Blue
(VIP) 28 Apr 2004 12:34pm
I hate to be the one to muddy the waters but the issue brought up by Thinkorswim is valid. You and I have played at least six matches in the past week on your setup. The problem was that you set the match as an 'R' which means not rated.
Shame on you. This isn't the proper way to maintain your current status.
For those of you not fully familiar with the rating system. Your rating fluctuates with wins/losses based on your opponent's rating. If you match with lower rated players, like me, and you lose, your rating would be significantly lowered.
The only reason I'm bringing this to light is your e-mail and your targetted 'Best Ever' player. In other words, play the game using the same rules used by the rest of us or don't make statements that aren't all true.
Sorry, but this is the truth.
bravo ed
Posted by
(VIP) 28 Apr 2004 12:52pm
ed- as usual your right on the ball . that unrated feature shouldnt even be there.
ps-thanks for the matches yesterday, im glad that lucky hand came into play for me.
Do you have to be COMPLETELY FULL OF IT ...
Posted by
calc_guy
29 Apr 2004 12:36am
... to get to the top of the ladder?? Suuuure loogslaigit from here!
Spose -- just seepose -- I were to tell you that ladder rank is NO INDICATION of player ability, and that the option to play off the ladder 'shouldn't even be there.' I'd be kindova fool for talking like that, now, wouldn't I!
I don't believe you guys even smell the bologna you're peddlin'. Ed, Ed, Ed. You KNOW if there were anything even remotely wrong with playing unrated, gamecolony wouldn't allow the option. In fact, just a few days ago you made the statement: 'the games were set up by the Calc_Guy and he used the 'R' option for a non-rated match. THis was fine by me because I played for the high game quality and not the rating.'
Now, you have a 'problem.' You say this is not the way I should maintain my current status. Well guess what -- I just spent 45 minutes studying all the games recorded here for the top 20 rated players, and I don't see ONE GAME played versus a player rated under 1900. Not one.
Now, SOME of the top rated players aren't even AWARE of the unrated option. Do you know what THEY do? They just watch and don't play -- for hours. They don't even CONSIDER playing against a very, veeeeeeeery, LOW rated player, such as yourself, Ed. Why? Because EVERYONE is aware of the flaws in the rating system here.
On my third day of play here I was told -- by a 1350 player, no less -- that I should never, ever, play against anyone with a rating more than 100 points below mine, because 'if you lose you go way down but if you win you only go up two or three points.' I just laughed, because I wasn't playing for ratings at that time.
Since then, at least a half dozen times higher rated players have apologized for not playing with me because 'the computer says my rating would only go up 3 points if I won. Must be the point spread.' I didn't complain. I'm not like SOME people around here, Ed.
That doesn't mean the ratings are 'meaningless' -- that's ridiculous. They just aren't as meaningful as they could be and SHOULD be. We've been over this already.
Now, as a Tournament Director, you should be out there educating players about the -R option, and encouraging its use, to foster more comaradery, and more play among different types and levels of players -- until you fix the broken rating system.
Now splain this on me, if you would: If -- I said IF -- ratings are totally meaningless, as you say, then what could POSSIBLY be the problem with playing unrated, hmmmmm? Could it POSSIBLY be that you BOTH KNOW there's a flaw in the system, and you're trying to BAIT me to make a very foolish move by playing YOU? Lets see, you'd be risking 1 or 2 points to my 150 or so... Geez, sounds PERFECTLY FAIR to me!
You know blame well that when the WORST gin rummy player in the world plays the BEST gin rummy player in the world, (s)he has more than 50 to 1 shot.
And while you're splainin that, puhleeeeze esplain eZACKly what rule I'm using that isn't 'used by the rest of us,' and what statements I've made that 'aren't all true.' Be specific ... not prolific.
calc_guy
Reply to this topic
|
Play gin-rummy tournaments online
At GameColony.com you can play games of skill only -- play for free or play for $prizes!.
According to the statutes of most states in the United States, gambling is defined as: "risking something of value upon the outcome of a contest of chance". (Also see No Gambling!). The skill (as opposed to chance) is predominant in games of skill. Playing games of skill for $prizes, therefore, has nothing to do with gambling as it is not a contest of chance -- the more skillful player will win far more often. The chance element of a 'gamble' is either insignificant or missing. When players compete in tournaments or games of skill for $prizes -- it is "competitive entertainment" rather then "gambling". The more skilled winner will always win more matches, tournaments and $prizes.
|
|
