We use the ELO points system, similar to that used for chess rankings. This is a better way to rank players than a simple count of wins/draws/losses, because it takes into account the relative strengths of each player, based on their past performances.
There are two possibilities:
We also use ELO for our doubles ladders. Points won and lost are calculated using the average ELO scores of each player in a partnership. This means you can play with many different doubles partners, and still have an individual ranking as a doubles player.
No. Rankings for singles and doubles ladders are calculated separately. You can also have different points rankings in different ladders
Sadly not. Although ELO points can be used to compare players in different eras (and work out who is the real GOAT), or predict the results of real matches, your ELO points are relative to the other players in the pool.
No. If you are an established player with a high ELO score and lots of matches in the system then we can be fairly confident that you are a "good player". That means we should only update your score (downwards) when we have lots of evidence that your performance has declined. A single bad match isn't enough evidence to do that.
It's true that you gain the most points when you play others with a higher ranking to yours, but the ELO system reduces the incentive to have a pop at experienced players inherent in naive ladder systems because experience (number of matches played) is also taken into account.
No. The standard ELO algorithm only tracks wins and losses and the margin of victory isn't accounted for. However simulation studies show that using margin of victory doesn't make a big difference to the accuracy of ELO rankings — only a 2% increase in the accuracy of match predictions — and we're unlikely to add this to our points system soon.
Some clubs/ladders use this information to set your position when you join. Beginners will be awarded a lower ranking than intermediate or expert players so their starting position in the ladder will be more appropriate.