Hi emerson,

We now run a fixed number of tables all the way up to $1000/$2000. In order for us to keep these tables running all the time we occasionally give Virtual Players small bankroll bumps.

Thanks,

Mark

I can undersand why you've done this but it destroys the competive aspect of the virtual rankings. Nobody really knows what virtual players have really done the best and which were the recipients of bankroll bumps to keep tables open.

I have a suggestion for a different type of virtual rankings that would be quite easy to set up. Simply rank the top 20 (or top 10 or what ever) for each level from 1/2 to 1000/2000, in terms of BB/100. Only include virtual players in each ranking group that have some minimal number of hands to qualify, such as 10,000 hands played at that level.

This would give players a much better idea of how the skill level of their virtual player stacks up against others.

I really need to reemphazise how uninteresting everything here is since the change. Competing for top spots in the real player standings is uninteresting because few, if any, serious players will ever put in enough hands to have statistical significance. The hands that are played are really for the purpose of training the virtual player... which does play enough hands to have statistical significance. But we now have no way of knowing how the virtual player is doing relative to others because the rankings are done in terms of bankroll, which is a very meaningless measure... especially when they are arbitrarily bumped up in order to maintain a player population at various levels of play stakes.

Do something.

----- This message has been deleted by greasy larry -----