Well don't want to go in to detail about the ranking system (i feel other people will though)

But seriously, something has to be done right. Just seems as though you play for nothing, you can have a bad 20 minutes spell on UK 8 and lose 10 rank, In 9 ball you can loose around 30, to get that back you need to play players alot higher ranked. Or play alot more frames against people of the same rank.

top players i feel for, some people say its about consistancy, but i feel something should change in the way you are award for a win, and points deducted for a loss. .

Anyone agree?

I totally agree on this one. There is absolutely no value in playing someone that is ranked below you on 9 ball. I think alot of the friction on the game comes from people who can't accept it when someone flukes against them in a game of 9 ball and the ranking shift because of it is so severe. I have sent numerous complaints in the past after I have gotten abuse from people after ranked games of 9 ball

Why is it that winning a game in 9ball is worth more?

If you play the same rank as you you get more points than 8ball us / 8ball uk. I would of thought it be the other way around as its a much quicker and flukier game.

I have to agree with all of you.. It is such a hard hit its impossible to calm the storm..the classic situation of losing a bet of blackjack then doubling the next bet to make the loss back springs to mind for some reason...I've often taken a hit of 30-40 points in a session no problem and takes a week to get it back...and quite often it is due to a few hit n hopes gone right but hey i guess thats the game of 9 ball cant do anything about it...but what we can alter is the ranking system...at the same time, beating a superior ranked player in 9 is so so sweet when you see your rank raise by 5 pointe....

Sweeeeeeeeeeeeet

I hate losing so many points in 9 ball too (as it's my favorite game!), but I suppose the system is that way because it's a more flukier game. To be honest, anyone can win. All you have to do is wait for the other player to make a mistake.

I guess it's this way because you take the risk of getting a flukey player just by entering the game.

9 ball is quick and it's always gonna be a bit fluky too, although when it's done right it's a joy to behold. However, it is like playing snap when compared to straight pool, which is a marathon. The points change in straight should therefore be greater. And I haven't bothered to check it, so maybe it is. Opinions?

I agree mate i lost one game and he was same rank as me and lost 3 points

The weighting between win/loss is the same for all game types. If we disregard newbies, the winner gets what the loser loses + 10% win bonus. This is the same for all game types.

There is nothing easier or harder about 9 ball vs. other game types, the ranking system is exactly the same.

The amount of points being won / lost per game is (afaik) weighted solely by average game duration - in order to correctly balance with the daily reductions.

I thought the ranking system was designed so that there is a distribution of scores between the top and bottom ranks (I guess a normal distribution).

In terms of game duration, I would have thought that a game of 9 ball would take less time on average than a game of 8 ball, since there are instances where the games is over in a few shots.

My point is that if I'm ranked 900 on 8 US I'll happily play a 820 because a.) I know I have a tactical advantage in most games and am therefore big favourite and b.) I know I'll only gain say 1.9 points, but at the same time I'll only lose about 3.5. In the same instance in 9 ball, I can win slightly more points (about 2.2) but I'm likely to lose 5.2 or so points. Now against any player they can GB, combo onto the 9 at any point or if I mess my last shot up, they can tap the 9 in, and I have lost big points. Everybody I have talked to about this matter agrees that the system should be changed. Some people are even feeling bad that they are taking so many points off me and stop playing Less points won and lost per frame would be great.

You're both right, originally it was game duration, but I updated it to ensure people's scores were distributed correctly across the range (which they seem to be right now).

My favourite game too, and I lose points a bit fast as well, but less points won and lost will just reduce the distribution and therefore give most people a lower score.

The only real way the rankings could change and reduce the element of luck would be to make games the best of 3, and only the winner takes the points. I'm not sure whether it would work without analyzing it further - besides implementing it would be tough and unrewarding, with an extra layer of complexity the game doesn't need.

Not wanting to sound arrogant here, but it seems you don't really understand or acknowledge the ranking system. If you think there are more or less incentive to play any given rank diff in either game type, this is simply not the case.

The rank weighting is the same for all game types. A simple fact. The point volatility (for lack of a better word) is different, and while that will affect how fast you can work yourself up (or down) the ladder, it does not affect rank gap calculations any differently between the game types.

In short, the win percentage you need in order to stay in balance vs someone 100 points lower than yourself is 75%. This weighting is the same for all game types. Whether the base points lost/won per game is 1 or 50 doesn't change this fact.

In short, there is no technical reason (from the ranking system) why you should have a different preference to opponent rank in 9 ball than any other game type.

Just like in any other game, you want to avoid players with more skill than rank, and you want to play those with better rank than skill - regardless of their rank being 600 or 950.

Granted, 9 ball is a flukier game than most, but there is little (as Nick pointed out) the ranking system can or should do to compensate for the nature of that game.