I never said it isn't ;)

My point was to disprove the theory that you can take one good and one bad player, have them play eachother exclusively, and eventually end up with the best of the two being #1 overall. THAT is not gonna happen (see no reason to repeat the analysis of why tho, been through it about 5 times already in this thread lol)

If I understand your example correctly, the good player wins ALL his games. 100%. (nm, he has one loss)

You seem to forget (or ignore) that the average outcome is determined by player skill gaps. If you can pull off a win rate like you described here, vs players relatively close to your own rank, of COURSE you are gonna gain rank. And well deserved too.

Keep in mind tho, that the few games you DO lose, become more and more costly. Combined with the rewards you get for winning become lower and lower.

Edited at 21:54 Thu 17/04/08 (BST)

..and I never said anything like that either, you really are not getting the message here (sorry if I;m getting frustrated, this rather simple math is hard to explain once someone isn't getting it in the first place)

You don't have to play any specific type of opponent to get to #1 rank. You do need to play a specific type of opponent to gain rank past your own SKILL.

For example, if I am a player with a real skill level (disregard any flaws or artifacts in the game system) of say 800... The only way for me to gain rank past that, is to play opponents who are (for whatever reason) playing at a higher rank than THEIR real skill level.

A few examples of why anyone would not have a rank that correctly reflects the real skill is stat resets, long vacancies (daily reduction), and simply form.

And sorry to spinner for the most blatant thread hi-jacking ever lol

I suggest we call this a done debate or move it elsewhere - it's definitely a good bit off topic here.

"Another way of explaining this: The only way to gain rank past your "real" skill, is to play opponents who have a better rank than *their* respective player skill. (players on their way down). By playing a single opponent, you are in fact making SURE you can never pass your real skill level, and the only way to never be #1."

Not sure you have, or can, explain that first part of the statement away though - nor my point that you can pick and choose your opponents and make it to number one which was my main argument all along - and why therefore i think you should have no say over who you can play ranked games against.

Not sure which statement you are referring to - there's been quite a few this far lol

And no, you can't get to number one through picking and choosing your opponents. In every single example you have provided, you assume a 100% (or very close to it) win rate. Which needless to say is completely unrealistic.

As long as you lose *some* games, if only a few, the rank weighting means that as soon as you have reached your "correct" rank, and your opponent has reach *his* "correct" rank, you two can play eachother for a decade without either of your ranks going anywhere.

btw, please lets move this to PMs or somewhere with a little more than 1000 chars per post

Edited at 22:34 Thu 17/04/08 (BST)

that example provided was actually from your results (simply cause they were the first ones i looked at) - now you can carry on playing the type of opponents you have done - and with a reasonable amount of 8 ball skill and tactical knowledge expect to maintain those type of results against low ranked players who cant counter those tactics - that would take you to number one in the rankings - but in reality any top 10/20/30 whatever player might be able to consistently take you apart - and indeed may do so constantly in tourney games - however you never actually play against them in a ranked game thus avoiding the challenge and risk to your rank - therefore you would be a false number 1.

and that is 'you' used as an example not 'you' as in yourself btw

move this elsewhere as required however it does show that you can manipulate the system to be number one - particularly in uk8 and us8 where luck is minimalised.

Edited at 22:52 Thu 17/04/08 (BST)

ahhh but tiger woods got to number one by being the best consistently and is required to defend his number one ranking by consistently doing better than anyone and everyone - the same cant be said for a number one ranked pool player necessarily at the moment.

Edited at 23:39 Thu 17/04/08 (BST)

lol, well my opponents are hardly a good example since they are more or less random. Keep in mind that less than 50 players of the 30000ish (?) total on this site is above 850.

So me playing a single 850ish opponent among the last 8 is actually *above* average distribution, not less

As for the bit about carry on playing this way and reaching #1.... well, I'm flattered, but you are (sadly) wrong.

btw, taking this to PMs from now on, sorry for derailing the thread.

*shuts up*

Edited at 00:31 Fri 18/04/08 (BST)

Edited at 00:33 Fri 18/04/08 (BST)

why am i (sadly) wrong? why can you not now play a host of 675-700 ish players for example - one at a time - taking the risk that you may lose - but that risk being acceptably minimal in 8 ball bearing in mind your tactical ability - collecting anything from, i guess, 0.5 to over 1 point a time - that would take you to number 1 in a short time

i meant nothing by using your figures - it just saved me making some up

again my point is that there is an alternative way of climbing to the top of the rankings other than by proving you are the best player at that moment in time


and although this is off thread it seems a shame to take it to pms when other ppl are interested.

its important to remember we are only talking of reaching the number one spot - not reaching the highest rank its possible to get to

Edited at 00:51 Fri 18/04/08 (BST)

"why am i (sadly) wrong?"

Because I wish you were right? lol

"why can you not now play a host of 675-700 ish players for example - one at a time - taking the risk that you may lose - but that risk being acceptably minimal in 8 ball bearing in mind your tactical ability - collecting anything from, i guess, 0.5 to over 1 point a time - that would take you to number 1 in a short time"

You underestimate the risk. When playing high 800s vs a 700ish opponent, you have to win about 9 of 10 to balance out. While possible, it's very hard to keep a consistant win rate above 90%, both because of flukes, as well as "fake" lowbies that you occasionally run into.

"i meant nothing by using your figures - it just saved me making some up"

No offense taken of any kind, in fact the opposite. I just pointed out they do a lousy job at backing your point since they demonstrate the very opposite.

"and although this is off thread it seems a shame to take it to pms when other ppl are interested."

True enough, if people wanna take part in, or read this topic I guess that's ok. Spinner can always speak up when or if he wants his thread back lol

Also wanna take the opportunity to point out that although I love healthy debate and take great pleasure in digging deep into a topic like this one, it doesn't necessarily mean I think it's a big deal. Just fun to try make people understand, whether it's others or yourself - and some times it takes a little longer than others lol

Edited at 23:20 Mon 21/04/08 (BST)

the fact remains when you are trying to edge to the top of the rankings, or play games to avoid daily reductions, players will often pick and choose opponents and they are very often extremely low ranked players - there has to be a reason - and that is the overall risk to their rank is minimal

you only need to look at the records of a number of players to see that

the whole point in any ranking system is that you should be there to be 'shot at' by everyone - not simply those you select - if tiger woods elected to go and play the nationwide golf tour instead of the pga - he would still probably win each week - but he would not be able to remain as the world number 1

sorry for labouring the point - but just trying to get people to understand

Edited at 23:54 Mon 21/04/08 (BST)

i can testify that when i am at a high ranking i will usually only play people who are 850plus or 675less. not worth playin the people in between when youre close to 900. a 5-1 win over a 700 will cost you a couple of points.....loads of people do it....davidslyvian only plays guests and intermediates to stay around the top ten.....smithbit wont play me when hes ranked higher than me at something....loads of examples.
i agree that the ranking system is a joke in terms of a the representation of the site but you gotta love it!

Edited at 23:58 Mon 21/04/08 (BST)

lmao mate - yep not got a problem with it as long as ppl take it for what it is

"i meant nothing by using your figures - it just saved me making some up"

"No offense taken of any kind, in fact the opposite. I just pointed out they do a lousy job at backing your point since they demonstrate the very opposite."
- not convinced by that statement - you gained over 25 points and climbed to number 8 in rankings in that period and yet havent played one person ranked within the top 50 and most not even in top 1000 to do it. Thats a way to score points but can in no way give a genuine indication of your 'true' status in the game type.

Edited at 01:12 Tue 22/04/08 (BST)

You have gotten this entirely upside down. You run a lot less risk by playing high rank opps. You also have a much lower chanceof running into the only opponents you really don't want - those who are much better than their rank.

I climbed because I played better than my rank. Nothing more to it.

You need to make up your mind LOL, you dislike opponent shaping, yet that's exactly what you are asking me to do.

and again you need to realize that picking high rank opps is the safe route, low ranks hold the risk.

And I do play the very best opponents here too, they are by far the most fun games you can get. Playing other high ranks is often not an option tho, almost all of them spend a great deal of time in tournies and there's few of them in the first place.

Edited at 08:39 Tue 22/04/08 (BST)

and that my friend is the difference neatly summed up. You are looking at it as the way to achieve points, to get to the highest score you possibly can and also to remain there with least risk of losing your points. In fact much like what there is in most computer games. On the other hand I look at it from a 'real life' sport point of view in that a ranking system should exist to purely reflect at any given time the proper order of players in terms of skill and performance. This cant happen whilst you can get to the top playing only opponents of your choice and dont allow yourself to be shot at by everyone.

No problem with the current system if it is viewed simply as a high score table - it just isnt a ranking table.

this is a great idea!!! exspeacially for people who are not so uptight about there rank

In interest of explaining how the system works, yes of course I am since it's the most relevant approach.

Personally I play for fun - regardless of what my rank might be. If I didn't, you wouldn't see me playing a non-pro ever (because of the risk of "fake" lowbies)

"No problem with the current system if it is viewed simply as a high score table - it just isnt a ranking table."

A matter of definition. As far as I'm concerned, they are one and the same - since regardless of what you try to believe, the upper part of the rank ladder over time very accurately reflects relative player skill. Not true for the lower part tho, since it typically contains a lot of new players who are in fact a lot better than their current rank. That's not a problem in the top tho.