The current system of ranking players according to rake paid on PS-tracked rooms is misleading. There are bronze and even basic players who earn 2bb/100 at 1KNL in non-tracked room, while there are platinum players who bleed money fishily at 10NL. I believe this misleads people as to the quality of advice and input. If a bronze and a platinum member disagree about something, whom are people going to believe? Yet sometimes the bronze player is actually the better player and offers more sound advice.
I propose that PokerStrategy implement a second, parallel ranking system that ranks players according to their level of play and their winrate. Whether such a system could be implemented or not, I don't know, because I don't know what tracking information is available to PS staff.
There is a second reason for improvements to the ranking system. The strategy articles are assigned to levels according to assumptions about players becoming better and winning more as they collect more rake. That assumption is not always correct. There is no reason for me to have access to silver-level articles while remaining a -8 bb/100 losing player. Ideally I should be able to read only the basic and maybe bronze articles. In fact, I have read only one silver article and found that far too confusing and inappropriate for my level of play to do more than skim the contents once.
Hopefully something can be done about this.
