Fair enough Nick, but as far as tactical play goes, this is non applicable to all but a few of the top players on here. I've played an awful lot of killer on here, and played pretty much anyone and everyone who has an interest in the game, and I can safely say that when playing for money and being tactical, skillful etc., only about 7 or 8 of those would be in with a shout of actually making money out of this. I hope for your sake more than anything else that it gets off the ground. You say there's a decent market for gambling in pool...while I don't disagree, I envisage it being particularly difficult for a site based around killer, that a minority of users would most likely dominate, to attract a wider segment. If you were to ever introduce the other games to the site, I for one would find it far more appealing. I've had my say and I'm beginning to feel I'm being overly negative, when I really don't mean to be. Good luck with it!

Thanks, that's interesting.

Why do you think killer is easier to dominate than a two player game?

In killer you only have to think 1 shot ahead and bad positioning off a shot will 9 times out of 10 not get you in trouble where as the other games it would. In 8uk for example yo get bad position, snooker yourself and foul, then your opponent has carry to clear the table and again if a good player 9 times out of 10 you will lose. In killer you pot and get bad position which in this case would leave a pot on and possibly a snooker, then you are still getting out of touble if there are more players aroun if you are down to the last 2 and this happens then with the hit and hope method you can pt any where on other 8 ball games you are limited to 1 type be it solids stripes reds or yellows. I think this could be 1 reason for nialls argument.

I never said I think killer is easier to dominate than a two player game, I just feel that it would not be so attractive for people who are not very good when they are competing against more than one person...to me it doesn't seem logical for an even "average" player to consider risking money in this format of the game, considering the quality of some of the players who will be interested in playing. A 1v1 game type would seem a more rational option for someone who is not so good, as opposed to pitting their wits against possibly 6 or 7 better players, and getting nowhere, which is what would happen!

Nick, are there plans to bring a 2-player option to killer on funkypool?

Sorry, I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, I believed your point was killer would only be won by a handful of players. Now I understand you better, I think, in that with a two player game you could choose a similar opponent and play them, and this is much more difficult to do on killerpool.

The problem with gambling on a two-player game is that you're playing only at even odds. A goal with killer pool is to appeal to casual gamblers who generally prefer gambling for higher odds. On pool this can only be done with a multi-player game (be it killer or a tournament).

There is a number of levellers that can be introduced to killer pool, reducing lives to a single life increase the luck element, varying stakes can encourage better users to play the more pricey games, areas for newer users, etc. I don't see how killer pool is inherently flawed in that respect, you could still pick and choose an opponent for a two-player game.

Are you thinking that killer pool is unpopular due to player numbers of the sub-game on funkypool?

Yeah that's a slight problem with two player games, indeed, and in fact you are gambling at less than evens, assuming there is some fraction of your stake contributing to the site as is the case in poker.

An interesting arrangement, perhaps not so much a leveler, would be to have some sort of structured payout system...say in a ten pound per head, ten player game, there is a payout for two or even three places...50 for the winner, 30 and 20? Basic example, but hopefully you can see where I'm coming from. I think a ten player, winner-takes-all game might be rather deterring to the average players. Like you said, options would be primitive, in that the more game types there are in terms of stakes, payout structures, whichever levelers, the more likely people are to maintain interest.

For me, the notion of ten player games or more has little or no value without a structured payout scheme. I've no doubt you have thought all this through. If there were structured payout games, I'd definitely consider playing - as I do with poker - as I'm sure so many other people would. For me, even though I might be decent at the game, gambling a certain amount on a ten player game where I know there are better players than me, with only "one" winner doesn't seem right. Even as a risk-lover it still wouldn't appeal to me. For those who are more risk averse, they would never consider playing such a game, unless there expected payoff was reasonable.

(contd.)

(I won't get too much into the economics of it ). But yeah, options are key here, and plenty of them, and again I'm sure you have and are looking into every possibility available. I'm not sure how global you are looking for this to be, or how necessarily global it needs to be, but I'm certain (after quite a lot of thought about it) that it definitely could work with a "newbie"-friendly structure in place, for lack of a better phrase, and that it could grow to become extremely popular among users of this site and would-be gamblers around the internet.

Interesting idea.

A lot of effort will probably be made on refinements to get things working to it's potential.

Never heard Niall talk so much sense =O

Have to agree with a lot of what he is saying, particularly the bit about structured payouts

wow as if someone has called themselves curtissorren which is my name but that isnt me and i cant see someone else been called that

Yeah erm click forgot password, send it to your email and it should come through, did the same to me but then realised i did create it but without it telling me.

the structured payout system is actaully a fantastic idea, why didnt i think of that, that would without doubt incourage me to play. it is definetly an option that would entice alot more players to enter.

i for one would not play against the likes of damee, destiny or _ace_ knowing that only one player would win the pot, however if i knew that by coming 4th i could at least recoup my money i would definetly enter.

i think i will still to conventional gambling for now tho

Look good...

Edited at 01:20 Thu 16/07/09 (BST)

Asked for about the sixth time now..

I've asked four times... Dunno about the rest of you, looks like a new thread might be needed just to get an answer?

wrong place anyway cloone

Despite what you say, killer is really, really, really not skill dependant. You say you need to put up a good white to make tyhe opposition shot harder? Great - if thats the case, remove the luck factor or implement a call shot option.

Until that happens, Killer is all about luck - nothing else.


Gambling should be about skill, mess up once in 8 uk, you'll lose - way to counter this is to make games longer,
e.g - Races (First to 5 for example) and the first to a dedicated number takes the money.

I REALLY hope this gets taken seruiously, as killer would be a waste of an idea.


As for people moaning about the sound on the clock, TURN DOWN YOUR SPEAKERS

If it isn't, then everyone wins by luck, and its not by the fact that they have some ability what so ever?



In your opinion...



No, thats wrong, because if others are like me, firstly they could be listening to music or just like to hear the clutter of the balls, so turning the volume down doesn't solve that problem.