Main Forum | Post Reply
DON'T WALK UNDER THE LADDER .......
Play gin-rummy tournaments online
It's now:   Oct 13, 7:15am EST
DON'T WALK UNDER THE LADDER .......
Posted by Ed_Blue (VIP) 20 Aug 2004 8:40pm     




This is the first FORUM posting I’m making in quite a few weeks and it needs to be discussed by those of us that have questions about the dreaded LADDER. I was a staunch proponent of any and every way to compete for tix, for free, for position or for prestige. My highest ranking was #1 and I usually finish in the top twenty closer to the top 15. This past month I noticed something very strange and a few days ago something happened that forced me ‘over the hill’.

The first instance was when I casually glanced at the LADDER rankings and noticed some low rated players on the very top of the LADDER. Maybe the answer is to play only those players who can’t harm your position.

MY second LADDER experience came just the other night and that’s where the statement, “DON’T WALK UNDER THE LADDER” comes from. I played the 11PM High Rollers Tourney on Saturday night and probably played a few more matches into the early hours of Sunday. I noticed my LADDER RANKING was #8. I made the mistake of taking a few days off to go fishing on Lake Ontario. I returned late on Tuesday but didn’t play until Thursday in the 8PM tourney. That was a lag of 4.5 days. Oh yes, without playing a single match, my LADDER RANKING dropped to 91. I went back and analyzed the tourneys played during that time and most of the winners were above me on the ladder to start with. There were 33 tourneys played during that time. I have no idea how many individual matched were played but they shouldn’t have any affect on my standing or do they?

I understood that the only way to climb the LADDER was to win a tourney or defeat a higher ranked player. I know the tourney aspect didn’t get me bumped and I also know that no-one played and beat me in that time.

I am a bit confused and also a bit disappointed with the LADDER system.

What is your opinion of the LADDER and this posting?


On Ladder
Posted by webmaster 20 Aug 2004 10:46pm     


During your 4.5 days of Ladder inactivity, your Ladder re-positioning reflected a 'natural' Ladder movement:

Those who leap-frogged over your ladder rung were active Ladder players who were winning their tournaments, and their individual Ladder games within tournaments & outside them.

You can even be number 1 ... but if you don't play for a few days, you'll drop back way down the ladder. You fall with either penalties for inactivity or tourney wins, or(most likely) because others will keep leap-frogging over you until you're way down

As far as Ladder being representative (or not) of players' strength, there are the following factors to consider:
(a) not everyone chooses to play Ladder, as Ladder participation is a continuous committment
(b) Ladder adds an extra (& different) dimension to a game as it rewards active Ladder players who compete for end-of-the-month prizes and overall positioning



Hi Webbie....
Posted by Ed_Blue (VIP) 20 Aug 2004 11:23pm     


Thanks for your reply for the second time. I understand your point in that you must get your story inyto the record and I appreciate that. The issue is the validity of the LADDER itself. Is it worth it to be playing every hour of every day?

From webmaster Both within Ladder and outside it, there are players who win their $Ticket games more often and there are those who lose their $Ticket games more often. Considering the fact that with Ladder some of the games can be played for free, the question of whether it's worth it to play Ladder per se depends on the player's individual choice between his level of skill and his quest for a moment of glory...

One More Point.....
Posted by Ed_Blue (VIP) 20 Aug 2004 11:25pm     


I knew, and fully respect, your reply but I would really like to hear the opinions of the other players.

Thanks again


My two cents worth
Posted by PEGASUS (VIP) 21 Aug 2004 9:47am     


You wanted other opinions Ed and for whatever mine is worth here goes.

I don't know if you've had experience on ladders before... I have. I've belonged to a canasta ladder for 6 years and have gone through the gamut. I can't believe how important it became to me to stay number 1, but I did it, or at least in top 10 for longer than I care to remember. It became an obsession with me, and I would actually get very 'down' ...especially the times I had to be away or sick etc etc and come back to find myself even out of top 50 or worse. Since I only play there once in awhile now my ladder ranking is pretty much the bottom rung... I think...I really could care less.

Thank goodness I had a very good friend we both know and love to bring me to my senses. I remember her saying 'I can just see you at St. Peter's gate being asked about your life..you can say you were number 1 on a ladder umpteen times' ROFL.. I came to the realization that it is just a number and once you reach that number you've proven that you CAN do it and don't need to prove yourself anymore. Ladder play can be fun if you don't let it ruin your enjoyment of the game.

Now for the question of the validity of the ladder and whether it's worth it to play every hour of the day. The validity of the ladder is unquestionable...it's the way ladder play works and you can accept that, or if you're unable to you can quit playing ladder. It's your choice, but don't blame the site for not having a valid ladder...they DO. You fell while being away ...first with the penalty for inactivity then with the leap frog affect. That's the way it works. Then if it's important to you there is the fun climb back up to the top!

I agree with a few of your points and would like to see the top players more available, but they are within the rules and since the CHALLENGE option is available it definately should be used. They either have to play challenges or take a penalty drop. It was a matter of self respect for me to try to play other top tens especially, but that's just me. When I was number one I carefully made myself available so challenges were not necessary... I did get one, but played it within hours of receiving it so no problem there. Not saying I'm a saint (far from it), but with my ladder experience I know it's important to play... I don't find it worth my while at this point. I've made number 1 a few times on the gin ladder, so know I'm capable of it and that's enough for now, but I'll probably make a run for it again just for the heck of it at some point if I can get games. Tourneys are the best way to climb I've found since most of the top players seem to play tournaments.

Happy Ginning!!!! Peg

Hey Ed,
Posted by 21 Aug 2004 10:26am     


Apparently you are inexperienced with ladder play.
Webbie is right in everything he said and as for your comment:

“I agree with adding another competitive style of play but this has proven a bit too biased.”

The only thing based in this ladder is that it is restricted & favours the ticket holders mostly. When all the players can compete in the ladder tourneys equally and the non ticket holders are not restricted to playing only one ladder game a day with the same opponent, while the ticket holders are not, then it will be a true competitive ladder and a ladder of skill.


Peggy...Peggy...Peggy
Posted by Ed_Blue (VIP) 21 Aug 2004 5:09pm     


As usual, I agree with everything you stated with one exception. You must be a saint to put up with all the grief you get and still remain positive. I understand the LADDER principal and I support every level of competition, as you do. My issue is exactly what you've stated. The LADDER is compulsive and demands 100% all the time.

The quality of play has noting to do with your LADDER ranking, as evidenced recently. I would rather see more of the better players in the top rankings as a measure of theior competance but that will not be seen.

The penalty for not playing is ridiculous but I assume there must be a way to reward those that pour in tix constantly to keep their position. I know this comment will get a reaction since it assumes the #1 player can just sit back and relax without playing. This can't happen but a few days off should never throw one out of contention.

I was #1 also and it was fun. Gladly, I didn't take it too seriously and accepted matches from anyone. Of vcourse I was out of #1 after a while.

Competition versus compulsion. ^The former is wonderful and the later can be very costly. I also remember the times just past when I've left social events to run tourneys.....not the best way of life.....especially when you seem to draw a bit too much criticism when you are always in the spotlight.

One more point, I wish every match I play is 50% as good as the ones we seem to have.

Thanks


Trioo....
Posted by Ed_Blue (VIP) 21 Aug 2004 5:15pm     


You just made my point.....Playing for tix is the obvious key to LADDER success. When I was hovering in the top 5 for a few weeks I played many more tix tourneys and matches than I normally would have played. I was throwing money at the LADDER but I understood what I was doing. I did enjoy being #1 for a minute or so but I really didn't enjoy constantly being challenged by everyone. It did become quite annoying but I guess that's the price we pay for fame.

The non-tix players don't stand a chance in this format unless I'm missing something. It's onvious that Tourney play is the sure way to get to the top without playing the better players.

Thanks for your reply
\



Point?
Posted by 21 Aug 2004 7:01pm     


Ed, what exactly is your point?
As I understood your post, you are complaining for going down the ladder after being inactive for a couple of days. Furthermore you say it is a ‘flaw’.
I say it is not a flaw, it is one of the reasons it is called a ‘ladder’. The flaw is probably in the way this specific ladder is set up giving an advantage to a certain group of players only (Ticket players), hence excluding some of the better players that may want to try it.
Tourney play should be a chance to play the better players several times in one day, not a way to get to the top without playing them as you say. I don’t agree that ladder play requires 100% of our time. Most of us play over 20 games a day anyway and that is more than enough to be very active on any ladder.
The non-tix players don't stand a chance in this format only because they are excluded from playing the tournies.

A Misunderstanding.....on my part
Posted by Ed_Blue (VIP) 21 Aug 2004 7:59pm     


Oops.....I agree with you fully regarding the tix and non-tix player opportunities to advance on the LADDER. My point was not a complaint but an observation. as a matter of fact I found it quite amusing that I lost that many LADDER rungs without playing a match. That is my issue.

I understand fully that the LADDER is dynamic but certain criteria should be set to allow qualifying play by all players. Missing a few days should never result in exclusion. I suggest a rule stating a definitive number of games must be played within the month to qualify and maintain your LADDER position.

Non-Play, for a very short time, and Non-Tix play should not be a negative. The LADDER should be on equal ground for all.

Sorry for the misunderstanding....


Does This Make Sense?????
Posted by Ed_Blue (VIP) 22 Aug 2004 1:51am     


Since I started this FORUM posting mid-day Saturday my LADDER RANKING went from #147 to #19. It is now just after midnight and I beat the #1 Ranked player in the 11PM High Roller Tourney. I consider this phenomina amazing and also comical.

The one and only explanation for this 'miracle' is Tourney Play. I guess the very wise Pegasus was correct when she stated that most of the top players seem to gravitate to the tourneys. Okay, this is not a challenge to all Tix and Non-Tix players that don't play tourney's. It also can be an inaccurate quote from a wonderful lady. I can state that even the stauchest anti-tourney high-rollers tend to show up every once in a while in tourneys.

Trioo, you are correct in stating that non-tix players are at a marked disadvantage in the LADDER since they don't have any way to lep-frog over the tourney winners.

What do the rest of you think about this subject?



Climbing Is The Fun Part Of Ladder Play
Posted by PEGASUS (VIP) 22 Aug 2004 7:50am     


Going back to my history of ladder play .... after I got over my obsession of being number one or at least top ten on the canasta ladder, I discovered how much fun it was to climb. I would send a request to be dropped to the bottom of the ladder just so I could enjoy the climb once again, and as you've discovered in the last few days Ed, it's not that hard to do.

The controversy of tix vs non-tix I'm not going to get into. There are many low tix tourneys offered, so it wouldn't take much of an investment for non-tix players to get their blue suits and join in. Anyone that can afford a computer and internet access should be able to find a little more IF they are interested. Some don't like the idea of risking the tix for tourneys and I can understand that, but it sure is fun, isn't it?

Why play Gin ??????
Posted by Ed_Blue (VIP) 22 Aug 2004 9:19pm     


Peg brought up an interesting scenario with her “obsession to be #1.” This is a natural lead in to the reason why people play gin on GC. I could make a fortune diagnosing the various players and play on GC if I was a trained analyst. I’m not, so these are my personal observations after thousands of games of gin on GC and a few more years than I’d like to admit playing gin.

Some play for the potential monetary rewards, some play for competition, some play for relaxation, some play for companionship and some play for obsession.
We all know who the “money players” are. Most of us watch their antics with comedic relief as they ‘lure’ and ‘trap’ their unwitting opponents into their webs. Others are appalled by their obvious behavior and have to strike out against the dastardly deeds of the ‘hustle’. Ironically, the latter is exactly what the money players want. The more verbiage the better the chances of getting those guys to play. These players pick and choose their opponents carefully and they obviously are terrified of a match on an equal playing field. I enjoy challenging these players. Most of them refuse to play and those that accept my challenge usually get a great ‘run for their money.’

It’s sad, but some of the players we clash with everyday play for companionship. There is one particular player, an excellent player I may add, that lost his mate a year or so ago and he uses GC as his window on the world.

The obsessive player is so 'wrapped up in his/herself that he/she won’t take the time or effort to acknowledge their opponent’s presence. This is the most pitiful player and come across as social outcasts. Nothing less than a win will soothe this beast and nothing will correct his/her rude ways.

One type left, the play for relaxation. I’d like to assume that most of us are in this category but I know otherwise. We love to win but a loss is not ‘the end of the world’. We are the ones that identify others like us and even agree to share the tourney prizes regardless of who wins. The motive is to win a great match and not to take his/money. I have this arrangement with a few players that I consider incredibly worthy opponents. Our matches are always close and they seldom swing until the very last hand.

Which one of these categories do you fit into? It has to be one of them or did I miss something?

Okay, this is an attempt to stimulate FORUM chat among those great people that want to be heard. I am not a psychiatrist, psychoanalyst or psychologist. I am just a player who’s interested in what other players think.


NO NO NO ED...
Posted by PEGASUS (VIP) 22 Aug 2004 10:16pm     


Ed...first thing...don't make it sound like I'm still an obsessive player. I'm not, and it's been a LONG time. And you depicted this category wrong too, because when I was (as I felt...obsessing) about ladder rank I was NOT rude and I treated my opponents every bit as nice as I feel I do now. I wished them gl in the game and always congratulated them when they won. We even chatted during the games which not many like to do in gin, but thats probably because we always played 2/3 matches and canasta isn't as fast as gin so we were in touch longer. The fact that I was working so hard to stay on top had nothing to do with my basic makeup.

You've bunched players together that shouldn't be also...because there are many different types in each category. As far as your description of 'money players' I think you are 'obsessed' with them! lol I never pay any attention to them... as you said, they pick and choose and as far as I'm concerned if they play that much money they can do it with my blessings. I sure can't join them.

And what is sad about players that play for companionship? I myself could fall into that category also. I enjoy almost all of my games and the different types of players. I also fall into the category of playing for relaxation and do that often. Maybe just a game or two before I go to bed at night or between hosting tourneys . Very relaxing!!! I'm also a competitor although I don't obsess about it anymore lol So you see I could fit into just about all of your categorys except for the big money players.....unless you count my 3 or 4 times a week playing the high roller, and that is as much for the enjoyment of the challenging games as anything. Sure it's nice to win but always a fun time.

How we do run on...but had to answer you this time.



OOPS......sorry
Posted by Ed_Blue (VIP) 22 Aug 2004 10:55pm     


OOPS………

I never intended to depict Peg as an obsessive player. What I said was: Peg brought up an interesting scenario with her “obsession to be #1.” This is a natural lead in to the reason why people play gin on GC. I do understand why she came to this opinion and I do apologize. You all know I consider Peg one of the very best players in GC and always a delight to play against.

The comment about rudeness is attached to those I consider obsessive and Peggy does not fit into that category. I agree that chat and obsession may not be an automatic tandem but it seems that those that ‘hit and run’ and fail to recognize other players are the most obsessive.

The reason for my comments about the ‘money players’ is that they intrigue me. Some are obvious and others are super-spies. I rather enjoy playing them if they agree to play with me.

My comment about ‘companionship’ was target at specific players who have told me of their need to “heal recent wounds by playing in GC.” You know that I am as much as a people oriented player as 99.9% of the GC players. I enjoy the other players but don’t play for companionship.

I appreciate your response and apologize for any misunderstandings



Main Forum | Post Reply
Bookmark and Share    ...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.
Affiliate Program

Copyright © 2024

Site map