The asterisk is there to show a spelling mistake.

If rank means nothing what is the point in ranking?

if you lose, you lose, i do get annoyed after some games, and make myself heard, but if you get outplayed, thats it

Ranking is an achievement like any other which is either important or not to each individual. In that context, the phrase 'rank means nothing' is clearly inappropriate. However, the usual context in which it is applied is that, on a game by game basis, any difference in rank is irrelevant (for a myriad of reasons) and the result is due to how the players play in that game. I think dgen's post (to which I assume you were referring) was meant to be the latter context.

I have to disagree with you slightly bud. I think there is a 3rd interpretation to "rank means nothing", which i shall try to explain. Firstly to set the scene, whenever i get an opponent in a tourny or a clan match i look them up to see how good they are. Lets say I get drawn against 2 players in clan league over 2 sets of fixtures in Regular:

Player A:

Rank: 856.2
Maximum: 872.1
Wins: 300 (60.0%)
Losses: 200 (40.0%)
Highest Break: 76
Half centuries: 31
Tournament wins: 3

Player B:

Rank: 762.4
Maximum: 800.0
Wins: 300 (60.0%)
Losses: 200 (40.0%)
Highest Break: 147
Occurences: 4
Centuries: 23
Half Centuries: 110
Tournament wins: 3

Here I would be much more confident of beating player A than player B, because player B is clearly a lot better. So the rank of the 2 players means absolutely nothing, and this isnt just in any given game, this would be over say 6 frames. I would much rather also have the 2nd set of stats than the 1st set!!!

smallprint: any reference to an actual player is purely coincidence and neither player is meant to represent any individual. Adam accepts no responsibility for likeness to any player out there.

Well yes, but aren't there also many players who have an accurate ranking?
Player 2 must be inactive (at least in terms of ranked games) or else his rank would be higher. Anyone who actively plays tournaments or ranked games has a fairly accurate rank I think.

Hear what you are saying Adam, but I think that is just a sub-class of the 2nd context, in that it is one of the 'myriad of reasons' I mentioned.

This tournament was created with the argument that you lose too much rank in tournaments at the moment.. this is a silly argument because you also gain more rank if you win. It evens out so you get to the rank that you deserve. If everyone was capable of getting to a 950+ ranking then there would be no way of telling the good from the bad and so forth.

Thanks for the clarification chase. I wasn't sure whether your first part was being sarcastic and the second part seemed to be somewhat non sequitur either way.

I am sure on page 1 i_am_champ asked for this to be capped or removed or something

threads are only capped if they have gone so out of control with abuse they are unsalvagable or if they are direct duplicates of existing live threads.

New takes on existing threads can occur at any time

I have a question.

During a semi-final or a final, if a player leaves they only lose the amount of points for one frame even though most of the time semi's are 2 frames as are finals.
If they leave, they should lose both frame points shouldn't they?

I agree in principle, although a disconnection would be pretty harsh then. If I'd gotten disconnected against linfield the other day (instead of just losing the 2 frames lol) it would've cost me 25 points.
On the one hand people can leave to cut their losses which isn't right, on the other hand an internet issue will be harsh.

I don't think so seb, if you leave or are disconnected you only get deducted the rank for that game that you left. So if you were disconnected in the first frame of a final you would lose 2 - 0 but only be deducted the rank of one game

Yeah, but that's what nicko was asking about. He wants that you get deducted the full two frames, because many people leave in the first to avoid losing rank in the second.
So my point was that if this was implemented, a disconnection would be quite harsh because you lose two frames.

Who cares about rank, seriously its just a three digit number that changes constantly.

I think to say 'who cares about rank?' is to minunderstand the point.

I was just recently in a tournament over on pool.

Got to the final.

I lost in total 20 points of my rank.

Now is it not only me who finds that losing 20 points in getting to a final a poor runners up prize?

You see I'd have lost less rank by being knocked out in the first round.

It isn't a question of who cares about rank, or is rank important, but an issue of is the current ranking system working. Especially for tournaments.

I would say not on the whole tournament issue. In fact, I'm not sure just why ranking points have been used in tournaments? First one I have played for like a year so I don't know when it was changed.

The ranking system IMO was never originally intended in a tournament set-up, and for that reason I don't see how it can be applicable?

If we look at real snooker, you get more ranking points for getting further in tournaments, - not less. (Still at least I gained some 'tournapoints' *Roll eyes smilie*

Not sure how that is supposed to represent a tournament tbh. I could easily have won it, and still lost ranking points.

Strange.

Yeah, mike, because rank is changed on a game by game basis, instead of match by match.

So only beating a lower ranked player 2-1 can result in a lower rank.

Exactly, which is why I don't think the current ranking system is applicable to a match situation.

They were introduced to make tournaments the "main attraction" of the site instead of it just being rank.