Funny pic/gif thread...

1777296017084.png
 
Last edited:
WilliamK said:
Just imagine - all the time that we have put into poking at a white ball with a stick, if that time was put into something like chemistry and physics, we might all be rocket scientists.
Click to expand...
What do you suppose our ScienceFARGO ratings would look like? I bet I’d be almost a 300…
 
Last edited:
Probably too good to be true, but the punch line will definitely give a laugh.

<iframe width="465" height="826" src="
" title="Cop threatens illegal impound on wrong woman and pays the price" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Patrick Johnson said:
What do you suppose our ScienceFARGO ratings would look like?
Click to expand...
I haven't heard of that one. Is it very popular?

Today, most cuesport associations seem to be using a ranking system of of some kind - most useful for seeding tournament draws.

I understand how such systems can work having designed a similar thing into one version of BallStream scoreboards. Before that I recall seeing a rating system used in online pool games - the higher ranked a player was; the more points were won or lost. So if you were a top ranked player you could be gambling with 800-1,000 points while a low ranked player might only win or lose 20 points. One had to be very careful which challenges you accepted, because if you were not on your toes you could lose your ranking. For new players it is a long road to the top. It was also aged - if you didn't play your ranking dropped. I eventually got into the top 10 but it was nerve wracking. I recall them modifying the rules to prevent cheating - too many were logging out of the game in the hope of preventing the loss being recorded - disappearing before you finish your break.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top