I assume it's total points, but it could be based on wins/losses\draws

It's available points. >100 is a political puppet. Id actually like to know the system on the ranks.

Seems to me that you shouldn't be regulated to a political puppet just because you have points in play. It should make sense to demote your named rank only after you have lost said points in play

Just looked at agent k, a 2000 plus point player who is a political puppet. Haha

the best tactic for a nice title is to get enough points for a top 100 position and then stop playing

I RECOMMEND IT

although it's probably better if it doesn't change with points in play, that's quite silly

I used to be solidly in the camp of using the total points for ranking and to show after your name, but I'm less so after talking about this with others on previous occasions. AgentK may have 2000+ points total right now, but in a week or two he may be down to 100 should the big game he is in go bad. So the question is, how do you value the points that are invested in games? If AgentK is down to 1 center in his big pot game, should he still get credit for those 2000+ points? Ideal would be to calculate your worth in each game and add that to your available. But that is wasting CPU time for something that really doesn't matter THAT much. Just my opinion. There are plenty of other things I'd rather see changed first.

Yeah, the distinction isn't really that important that it justifies going higher in the to-do list than, say, proper support for sitters.

it's definitely based on available points. It's also based on % of over 100 point players. I know this because I was right on the 20% border before joining 2 games. Prior to joining 336 got me "pro" because I was top 20%. After joining, i'm top 24% which is "experienced"

@Alderian, I don't agree. Points in play have not been lost until the fat lady sings, (the game is over) so it makes sense that you shouldn't lose your rank just because you are playing a game where you *might* lose all your points.
Does Tiger Woods lose his rank before a tournament is over just because he is doing badly?

The negative of this is exactly what Dee Eff pointed out. Why bother playing if it would jeopardize your status title?

You could use in game "current worth" for a more accurate real time rank, but as mentioned, that is probably unnecessary, though, I don't think its necessarily CPU intensive. It would just require that each time a turn is processed and the current "worth" of players in any given game calculated, that the amount be added to the stored sum in the profile db. But anyway, its unnecessary. Post game decision changes to the Ranks should make the most sense.

Why all the fuss? because I know a bunch of people who are an the boundary region of scores that make them a "mastermind" which avoid games which would cost them the points that would drop their title. That seems pretty silly to me, that upper middle caliber players are reduced to playing noobs for a while just so that they can get enough of a buffer in their points to keep their title while playing

Oh, and I happen to be one of those players. :)
Oh, and I just donated fifty bucks to the site so I feel slightly entitled to voice such minor peeves :)

Dig, I'm now a fan of yours. I recently donated some as well (come on, y'all) and this give me an idea for an enhancement. Players' comments in the forum should be in size type appropriate to their financial contribution, doncha think?

dont even look at that 'title' as it is pointless. The GR rating is the only measure by which I judge any player I meet on this site.

@Babak, -- Agreed, better GR integration (transparency, visibility on the profile) was also one of my suggestions... I posted it on the dev forum topic. But until that happens (and I do agree with some of Kestas points that the betting system has some inherit benefits over a pure ranking system.) I think that both have its place. But as the DP system is a lot more visible (I bet you most people don't even know about GR) It should not be neglected.

People restrict what games they'll play in so that they'll keep a title? That seems pretty silly to me.

I have to completely disagree about the points being yours even though they are invested in a game. You've spent the points to "buy in" to the game. You can't take your points back at will, and you don't have access to them, so they aren't yours anymore. All you have is an opportunity to win them back.

So players in poker tournaments lose their rank the instant they buy into a game?

I think you are confusing points and your title. Sure, your points are blown, but you don't become a noob just because you are playing a lot of games. Titles are "badge of achievement", and also a convenient method for most people earn the respect of their peers (ones that don't know about the GR system). I don't think you should a rank that easily.

"should LOSE a rank that easily. "

Do people on this site actually care about their title? It's a bunch of arbitrary labels assigned to an arbitrary binning of numbers that doesn't represent your skill at diplomacy (sorry Kestas).

That seems to be where digitsu and I differ. I see the points as money, to be bet, won, and lost. And the ranking is currently based on your bankroll so to speak.

Pardon me if I've got this wrong digitsu, but you appear to view the ranking as an indicator of what has been accomplished? That would be fair enough, but basing that on points at all, whether total or available or some mix, doesn't seem accurate anyway.

Well, mostly I don't think it matters really, but looking at your record and seeing yourself described as a "Political Puppet" isn't what I would call flattering. I mean, I realize it actually means nothing, but on some level it's still a little, I dunno, 'galling' might be the word I'm looking for?

anyone who won't join a game for fear of dropping titles, doesn't deserve to move past their current title.

Mafialligator has it right... Yes, I do know it means nothing when it comes down to the nuts and bolts of it.... but so do "mayorships" on Four Square. As are achievement trophies on Xbox live.... as are Scout Badges, but people like to collect them anyway.

@Alderian as for the bankroll analogy, I think an appropriate counter analogy would be that the dp balance is M1 cash (liquid assets), while the "net worth" of a person is the sum total of their liquid AND illiquid assets like bonds, CDs, and other investments.
Your credit rating should not be based solely on your liquid assets.

i like the betting though... buy ins... high stakes... pots... its fun


always such hate for the points

I too am a fan of the pot system.
But having a Title confers bragging rights :)