Play Gin Rummy -- Forum : Not sure what it takes to end this, let's try this. Play for free or play for $prizes!

Main Forum \| Post Reply	Not sure what it takes to end this, let's try this
Play gin-rummy tournaments online
It's now: Oct 13, 11:01am EST
Not sure what it takes to end this, let's try this Posted by Menkman74 (VIP) 7 Jun 2004 11:47pm Easiest way to reply to a post is to answer it directly... the following is your previous post Calc with my answers in CAPS... 'I am really stunned. The man who once decried people for going after ratings. Who said he 'lost all respect' for me (YES, AND DIDNT THINK IT WOULD SIT WITH YOU... SORRY), because I do that, now admits he's doing the exact same thing, only the goal is a high win percentage CORRECT! FINALLY YOU ARE HEARING WHAT I AM SAYING! AS A HIGH WIN PERCENTAGE IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO YOUR OVERALL RECORD, WHERE RATINGS IS NOT, AS A PLAYER CAN BE A .500 PLAYER AND HAVE A 2100 RATING AT ONE TIME). Incredible. I've heard of money players deliberately going after a LOW win percentage -- that makes sense to me! I never knew there were people out there actually working for the express purpose of getting a high win percentage. NOT SURE HOW MANY TIMES I NEED TO TELL YOU THAT THIS ISNT ABOUT MONEY OR NON-MONEY PLAYERS. JUST BECAUSE THERE ARE VIP PLAYERS DOESNT MEAN THAT MONEY IS MOST IMPORTANT. BUT, THERE ARE MONEY PLAYERS THAT CARE AS MUCH ABOUT THEIR OVERALL RECORD AS HOW MUCH MONEY THEY MAKE, OTHERS WILL LOSE ON PURPOSE TO ALTER THEIR RECORD AND ATTRACT LOWER TALENT AND TRY AND HUSTLE THEM (AND WE KNOW WHO THAT PLAYER IS AS HE HAS MULTPLE NAMES AND I HAVE POINTED HIM OUT ON NUMEROUS OCCASIONS). THE ISSUE THOUGH FROM THE START IS HOW A PLAYERS RECORD, NOT THEIR RATING, IS A TRUE DETERMINING FACTOR OF THEIR SKILL. If this is really an issue, I'd think it would be easy for GC to create an option for unrated play that counts toward win/loss percentage. WELL THERE YOU GO!!!! FINALLY WE ARE ON THE SAME PAGE. FINALLY! MAKE AN UNRATED OPTION WHERE THE GAMES COUNT IN THE RECORD BUT NOT IN THE RATING. I AM ABSOLUTELYYYYYY FINE AND WOULD WELCOME THAT. WHAT DO I CARE WHAT MY RATING IS?? THEN THEN THEN THEN THEN AND ONLY THEN WILL THE TOP PLAYERS SHINE THROUGH AND THE LIST OF 'TOP PLAYERS' WOULD MEAN SOMETHING. GAME COLONY: CAN WE MAKE THAT HAPPEN? calc_guy ALWAYS A PLEASURE, NEVER A CHORE... MENK who cares Posted by (VIP) 9 Jun 2004 1:18pm Who cares about your rating if your playing for free. The only rating that counts is how much $ you have won. HERE, HERE - FINALLY SOME SENSE MADE !!! Posted by (VIP) 9 Jun 2004 5:17pm Way to go Specker-Spanker! Finally someone in this forum has said the 'Bottom Line'. When ANYONE here plays for any $$$, the only thing that counts is $$$. If not, then why don't they play for just fun & not even be 'BLUE'. As far as I'm concerned, I wish GC could & would post the TOP 10 'CASH-OUT' PLAYERS each month or week. This is the ONLY 'Rating, Record, Stat, W/L' - that makes any sense to ANYONE playing for $$$. As far as any other stats, it's all insignificant & irrelevant. (my opinion) TY & GL - (menks buddy) I agree specker Posted by Menkman74 (VIP) 9 Jun 2004 9:20pm Well of course if you play for $$ here it is the most important thing. Just to refresh your memory though, this wasnt about what was most important here, it was about separating the fact that your rating is in no way a determinate of the top players but rather your record is. Well, not in the case of my buddy who has multiple accounts, all of whom have similar stats... losing a tremendous amount of games on purpose to sucker in terrible players and squeeze them out of their cash. But this post isnt about him, enough of them were and that point has been well documented and received. I agree that at the end of the day that the amount you have means more than anything else, but for those who dont play for $$ primarily just enjoy either a high rating or a great record... or both. My argument from day one now rests knowing that over the long haul, the determinate of the top players lies in his/her overall record, not their temporary rating. Their is no column for that under 'top players' and it should be changed from rating to record (ie winning % which is the same thing) with a minimum of a certain number of games played here (100? 200? 500?). Please see my original post above for more details. Always a Pleasure, Never a Chore... Menk I agree specker Posted by Menkman74 (VIP) 9 Jun 2004 9:20pm Well of course if you play for $$ here it is the most important thing. Just to refresh your memory though, this wasnt about what was most important here, it was about separating the fact that your rating is in no way a determinate of the top players but rather your record is. Well, not in the case of my buddy who has multiple accounts, all of whom have similar stats... losing a tremendous amount of games on purpose to sucker in terrible players and squeeze them out of their cash. But this post isnt about him, enough of them were and that point has been well documented and received. I agree that at the end of the day that the amount you have means more than anything else, but for those who dont play for $$ primarily just enjoy either a high rating or a great record... or both. My argument from day one now rests knowing that over the long haul, the determinate of the top players lies in his/her overall record, not their temporary rating. Their is no column for that under 'top players' and it should be changed from rating to record (ie winning % which is the same thing) with a minimum of a certain number of games played here (100? 200? 500?). Please see my original post above for more details. Always a Pleasure, Never a Chore... Menk An Anomoly...... Posted by Ed_Blue (VIP) 10 Jun 2004 1:37am Up to this point I agree with the w/l versus ratings but something happened today that I must memorialize. I joined an 1850 rated player playing for 30 Tix. This s/b the best of both worlds. I built a good lead, 114:14, in a 175 pts match. He went MIA for 4 1/2 minutes. He then gained up to 54 pts and I went over the 175 to win. I thanked him for the game, said I was sorry and fully expected another match. I hit CONTINUE but he wouldn't close the match. He held it open for another 3 minutes. He then preceeded closing the match with 'you have the worst record' and then hit CONTINUE. My understanding of this message was that I wasn't supposed to win. He asked for a rematch but I refused based on his antics. He tried a few times more to get me to play again but I refused. My rating, at that time, was in the very high 1600's or low 1700's. My W/L% is well below 50% and this is what apparently shocked this 'heavy-hitter'. My point is skewered towards the W/L % argument versus rating but I offended this 'master' of the game by not having either rating, as high as his, or his W/L record. I've decided that my lower % is solely predicated on the number of games I play and with whom I play. Regardless, those of you that have dueked with me know I'll always leave you with the feeling that you've earned the win or deserved the loss. Please explain why this highly rated, and high W/L%, player acted so rudely. I would really like your input. THANK YOU, MENK Posted by (VIP) 9 Jun 2004 10:42pm BY YOUR REPLY - YOU ALSO AGREE WITH ME - TY VM ps - 'CASH-OUT' - To redeem any tickets you may have accumulated and receive the U.S. dollar value via credit card or PayPal. Just thought you would like to know the definition. Someday you may find it usefull. TY & GL Rest all you want Posted by calc_guy 9 Jun 2004 11:17pm That doesn't make anything you say true or even close to true. There is nothing -- I repeat nothing -- temporary about a rating. The ONLY way to make it go up is to win games; the only way to make it go down is to lose games -- unless you change handles, and you can do that with win percentage too. Furthermore, it goes up more when you beat a higher rated player and less when you beat a lower rated player, which is obviously just as it should be. When ratings are properly calibrated, there is no argument as to which is more 'meaningful' between ratings and win percentage. There are hundreds of chess players accross the US with high ratings and low win percentage, because they choose to play higher rated players. When a chess player with a low win percentage and a high rating plays someone with a high win percentage and low rating (say 200 points below the other player), the higher rated player wins over 90% of the time. Players don't even look at the win percentage, it's so widely understood that ratings are more significant. It's just too easy to manipulate win percentage by playing only players you know you can beat. You could easily have a 95% win percentage and still be a VERY POOR chess player. My only problem with the ratings here is that they are calibrated for chess, not gin rummy. They haven't been adjusted by a professional statistician, as have the Elo ratings for football and Go. But that is a lot different than saying the ratings here are 'meaningless.' To be meaningless, there'd have to be zero correlation between ratings and skill, and that's impossible, the way the ratings are structured. I don't say win percentage is LESS meaningful than ratings. Win percentage may be 3 or 4 times more significant than ratings as they are structured here. I simply object to the statement 'ratings are meaningless' because that statement has a precise mathematical interpretation which is PROVABLY false! There is also no reason to be stuck like a post-it note on win percentage in a vacuum. It's very simple to combine the two stats with a linear formula. You can scale them any way you like (1-10? 0 to 100?) and you can weigh them, giving as much weight to win percentage as you like. It takes about 10 seconds on my calculator. The idea that win percentage is more significant right now than ratings (because of the poor calibration), so therefore 'ratings are meaningless' is nonsense. It's mathematical doubletalk. My argument from day one now rests knowing that over the long haul, the determinate of the top players lies in his/her overall record, not their temporary rating. Their is no column for that under 'top players' and it should be changed from rating to record (ie winning % which is the same thing) with a minimum of a certain number of games played here (100? 200? 500?). No, it should NOT be changed. 'Over the long haul,' what should be changed is the calibration of the rating system, shich I've been saying from day one. calc_guy I actually want to apologize ... Posted by calc_guy 11 Jun 2004 10:32pm ... for the 'even close to true' part. I think everything else I said is right, but the 'close to true' put a combative spin on the whole post that wasn't necessary. I've said just about all I have a right to say on this, as a non-money player, so I'll let you have the last word, Menk. calc_guy I actually want to apologize ... Posted by calc_guy 11 Jun 2004 10:32pm ... for the 'even close to true' part. I think everything else I said is right, but the 'close to true' put a combative spin on the whole post that wasn't necessary. I've said just about all I have a right to say on this, as a non-money player, so I'll let you have the last word, Menk. calc_guy Reply to this topic Subject: Message: Main Forum \| Post Reply

...and Earn Free Tickets!

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.

Reply to this topic