I would love a tournament-based ranking system (or preferably a system consisting of both), but that would require a lot of changes to the recorded statistics from the tournaments for this to be any point.

A tournament win alone says nothing what so ever. A player having won 100 tournaments is not better than a player having won 3, that all depends on how many they each have entered as well as which opponents they faced in that tourny.

We would need at least:
- tournaments entered
- tournaments won

From this you can derive the only useful statistic: Number of wins per entry.

From that, in turn, you could derive a point system based on the rank of those you faced.

Any in ANY case, no matter what we agree on or not, it's a simple fact that there is a LOT of room for improving the recording of statistics from tournaments. Compared to the ranked games, our tournament statistics are as good as non-existent.

Heres another spanner for the works, since the debate is going so well

Lets not forget that If this was to be implimented, it would also need to work in reverse..

For example, If someone is 900+ in 9Ball, but constantly loses a lot at around 750-800 playing straight, should thier 9Ball rank should be reduced accordingly?

To summarise my views - linking rank is not suitable for the current rank format. A MUCH bigger "flaw" is giving people the ability to choose the rank of their opponent.

I do, however, similarly to Chris, fully support the introduction of a new "rank", whatever it may be called, based on the same system as we have now.

That, with Jans initial suggestion implimented, applied to every game played, be it tournament, friendly, or ranked, would then give those who want it a true statistic showing their level of skill across all games.

(Edit - to clarify - tournament games are no different to any other, and should be ranked as such. winning a final is a big achievement in a tournament sense, but is just one player vs another from a global rank point of view..)

As for tournament stas in themselves, I believe nothing more is needed than to record the number of semi's and quarters reached on a players profile.

After all, anything more only serves to water down the achievement of reaching that leve, or indeed winning..

Edited at 23:37 Wed 13/05/09 (BST)

no you're ok - we only have the same argument

difference was that you maintained for 12 months it made no difference who you played then last week you admitted it did - and now it seems you've gone back the other way again??!!

not really off thread though since you continue to call it an attempt to improve the ranking system

one final point on the golf handicap system that you love to keep quoting. My handicap would allow me to play on an 'equal' basis against everyone or against individuals. Others would not refuse to play against me because at the end of the day what i do has no bearing on their handicap. On here however i have the situation where some would play me whilst others would come no where near me.

No, it should not. I think you misunderstand the very fundation of this discussion since you even ask this Dave.

The deal is to reflect skill in one game in the ranks you have in others, because whatever skill you have in one game really does benefit your performance in other game types, at least on the same table.

We are talking about levels, not deltas. Technically, something like this would have to be implemented by leaving the system 100% as-is, still storing the ranks we currently see, lets call it unmodified rank to keep things apart. The synergy bonus would be applied on top of that, and used in profiles as well as when calculating rank wins/losses after each played game.

Not hard to write an algorithm for this at all, but hard as hell to explain in plain language without people running down the wrong alley.

Since rank gains/losses are weighted according to their respective ranks, this is next to insignificant. Too many suffer from the misconception that this in fact allows people to somehow beat the system.

By all means, I would welcome whatever system that in greater degree would encourage people to play a larger range of opponent ranks (since it would be healthy for the community), but this has nothing to do with the rank system. You can easily have a very accurate handicap system without having to avoid selective opponent choosing.

There is one way you can currently beat the system:
Not by being choosy about the rank of your opponent, but by being a psycic and being choosy about your opponents rank vs. his skill.

It does you no good or any harm to consistantly play only low range or high end players. It does however make you (artificially) good to choose players with higher rank than skill, just like it hurts you to play players with lower rank than skill.

Which in turn is also why you should always worry more about making sure people play at HIGH ENOUGH rank, than being concerned with people having too high rank. The latter hurts no one but the player himself, while too low rank hurts others.

This is probably the most realistic option.

I'm not with you there Jan, sorry!

The core principle you suggested is that people of a high rank on one game type should have thier rank increased relatively on other game types played on the same tables.

If we assume rank to be a reflection of skill level, then this is a sound and logical system, since it prevents a user having an innacurately low rank on a table on which they are clearly profecient.

However, this can only work effectively if the inverse is also true.

The point is that there IS no inverse or opposite to this. It can all be looked at as natural numbers, with 0 happening to be 675.0. Everyone works their way up from there.

You seem to think the bonus I'm talking about should be added to your rank as a permanent delta, comparable to the points you get from a win. That's not the idea.

I really need graphics to demonstrate how this should work, I really don't think I can get through to you in words - this is not complicated at all, but hard as hell to explain.

I understand what you're trying to say Dave, but it only goes to show I haven't managed to explain this system at all - this is not a matter of disagreement, it's a matter of poor communication on my part. I'll see if I can whip together a graph on this tomorrow or over the weekend to illustrate this properly.

I fully understand and can visualise the graph I'm sure you have in mind.

Just turn it upside down, and my point above will become clear

Edit - Just realised that it appears you are considering having a users highest rank as a fixed point, which I disagree with, the fixed point of the graph must be whatever game is being played and other relevant ranks must be adjusted relatively, either up or down, upon each result.

Edited at 22:57 Thu 14/05/09 (BST)

The point of reference will always be the highest rank you have in any game on the relevant table at this point in time. Also note that this will be a true, completely unmodified rank, since it's the highest one.

Also note that this will never help you boost any rank beyond what you would otherwise achieve. It might get you there faster, yes, but the "contribution" from higher ranks in other game types heads toward zero as you approach the highest among your ranks.

An example:

I have 800 in 8 ball, 9 ball and UK - no adjustments needed. I decide to only play 9 ball for a few months and, due to losing my sight and several limbs, I'm playing as well as someone with a rank of 600. However, my 2 ranks of 800 will never be reduced if I don't play them, but they will still boost my dismal 9 ball rank.

Is that the point you were trying to make, spinner?

Probably, and that's actually a good point. No idea why I didn't grasp on to that from spinners posts - it's clear as day from yours.

Several ways to solve it though...

Remember that artificially high rank is not really a problem for the system - only for the individual player. So a solution to reflect your deteriorated skills are not really needed.

You could also allow daily reductions to pull your rank further down than 800.0

Edited at 01:07 Fri 15/05/09 (BST)