In funkysnooker it's possible to achieve pro status whilst still a 'newbie', i.e played less than 100 games. And that's not even by winning that many of them, maybe a 60% win rate can do it.
This is why I could never like funkysnooker as much as funkypool. The game itself is great but even achieving virtuoso is not that amazing, where as on funkypool it takes serious talent to do so. What do you guys think?

But a game of snooker often takes alot longer than a game of pool

yeah, game points are weighted to reflect average game duration, and that's how it needs to stay.

Getting professional is only easy on snooker if you're actually a good player, i remember getting professional for the first time over on snooker after about 10 near misses and what an achievement i thought it was.

If you think you get so many points for snooker well try and get to number one, you should do it right? I know to get virtuoso over here take a lot of consistency but the same goes over there. I got to 996.4 on snooker and was getting 0.1 for beating a 850 and took a lot of consistence to retain top. So the two sites have their differences, it would be boring if they were both the same.



Edited at 12:54 Tue 16/12/08 (GMT)

points feel far too easy to get on funkysnooker compared to funkypool. You appreciate it more when your in the top 10 if you know what i mean lol

One thing no one has pointed out is the other end of the scale, its also easier to lose ranking points, what's the most you can lose in a match over here? Not sure about that but on snooker i have lost 23 points in 1 game before, a lot higher than it is over here for sure.

Yes you do need to be good to get high rank but 1 game lost will shoot you right back down just as quick.

Doesn't this just prove my point? Such a rank as you have is all but impossible to achieve on funkypool.

You get people being 560 newbies aswell, do you see that over here? No i didn't think so. Just remember its both ends of the scale are effected by the rank.

It's all relative.........


EDIT: I meant in mathmatical terms of course - not in 'we are family I got all my sisters with me'.


Edited at 20:01 Tue 16/12/08 (GMT)

Lol John.

I'm glad I don't lose up to 10 points over here.. so I'm glad pool and snooker have their different ways.

I don't think it is a strength that there are newbies on 560. The whole point of being a newbie is that you are still learning your way and shouldn't lose so many points for a loss, and shouldn't gain so many until you start beating those that are more highly ranked than you.
Plus a game isn't that long, certainly not so much longer so as to reflect the difference in points gains.

That is where the Re-set feature kicks in many people will then not want to reset will they?

The fact that it will make you less likely to reset hardly makes it a good thing. This is practically conceding the point that it is easier to climb the ranks in snooker, no??

No it's not. Since you can get higher ranking in Funkysnooker, it means you need and even higher ranking to get into the top 10. So it isn't easy.
In pool, lets take UK 8 for example - you need to pot 8 balls to win right? Well in snooker, you need to pot the reds as well as colours, so 8 pots is 4 reds and 4 colours, meaning 6 reds and 6 colours to go, not including the additional colours you have to pot at the end. So really, pool is about 3 times quicker than snooker. Your average win on pool is about 3, ours is about 9. Sounds right to me

yeah

Ok, take the Arcade Snooker top ten rankings for example. The top ten ranges from 946 to 960.4. There are a lot of virtuosos compared to, say, 8 Ball UK which only has 4 players over 900 in the whole of the rankings! I think this has to show that getting a good rank in snooker is easier.
It's hard to argue with those numbers.

Edited at 21:57 Tue 16/12/08 (GMT)

Something often overlooked is the chance factor.

An experienced snooker player is quite simply more likely to win than an experienced pool player.

This is due many things, but a huge factor is the fact that you can't lose due to one unlucky (or lucky from your opponent if it is 9ball) shot on snooker.

If the balls fall nicely, any player can quite easily pot 9 balls in a break.

On pool, thats a loss, wheras on snooker, if a less experienced player pots 9 balls in a break then misses, a higher level player can easily recover and win.

One game isn't easier than the other or vice-versa, they are simpy different

I am in no way saying the game itself is easier, rather the points reward for winning is significantly larger than pool.
I am not saying that the snooker virtuosos aren't great players. Rather, as an example of my argument about snooker ratings, I'm saying that virtuoso status at pool is far more difficult to attain than it is at snooker.

Rank is just a number. The absolute scale is not really very interesting, the number series betwen 675 and 1000 is just a chosen range - technically, it could been any range and any progression you like, it's irrelevant.

What IS relevant, is rank differences and how the weighting balances out rank, so two players playing at their "correct" rank (meaning the ranking number that correctly reflects their skill) should be able to play each other 1000 times without either player gaining or losing any rank at all. This is what we already have, and it works.

As for how much points should be lost/gained per game (daily reductions being the opposite side of the same coin), is also not really relevant in terms of the scale. All it really reflects is how volatile the ladder is (how fast you gain rank by winning AND how fast you lose rank when losing). It is the same for everyone and +/- balances out here too.

Yes but this doesn't change the fact that the title of pro or virtuoso is less impressive in snooker than in pool. No?

Edited at 23:41 Wed 17/12/08 (GMT)