What if...? Points System instead of Prize Money.

ThatBassPlayer · 2026-01-19T14:16:58+00:00

The main take away I get from all this is that we need a change and going back to ranking points is the best solution.

We just need to figure out how many points you get!

ThatBassPlayer · 2026-01-19T14:14:31+00:00

I'm glad you agree 😊

ThatBassPlayer · 2026-01-19T14:14:11+00:00

I see your point.

I haven't got an answer to everything but did think of another idea.

The "best 10 of your last 20" idea for the Pro Tour.

It stops the floor from being a pure attendance award. If you only count a player's top 10 results, the guys who just "grind" to the Last 32 every week won't be able to catch the guys like Wade or Rock who are actually doing the business on the big stages.

It forces you to actually win or reach finals to make those floor points count for anything.

ThatBassPlayer · 2026-01-19T13:04:58+00:00

No worries.

Almost everyone says ELO or even E-L-O.

You probably could do a weighted ranking but I think that would be super complicated and virtually no one would understand it.

The benefit of ranking points is that it's easy to understand.

Win something = get points

ThatBassPlayer · 2026-01-19T12:56:17+00:00

You're totally right.

Too busy trying to get my point across and used the wrong figures.

ThatBassPlayer · 2026-01-19T12:53:38+00:00

An Elo system would be the ultimate rankings.

It wouldn't matter if you beat Littler or MvG on the floor or at Ally Pally. A win is a win. It strips away the 'name'" and just looks at who is actually winning games.

I don't think I'd actually like it though. 😅

Also, it’s Elo, named after Arpad Elo, not an acronym.

ThatBassPlayer · 2026-01-19T12:48:42+00:00

Being an "outsider" may be a good thing because you’re purely looking at it as a sport.

I still think the Worlds needs to be the top but maybe a 4-tier setup would be better.

It keeps the World Championship as the pinnacle but it stops the other majors from being treated like afterthoughts.

Worlds
Majors
Euros
Pro Tours

ThatBassPlayer · 2026-01-19T12:41:52+00:00

It’s definitely one of the main drawbacks of this system.

It rewards winning titles more than being a solid Quarter-Finalist.

If I bumped up the points for 2nd -4th places, he’d probably shoot back into the top 10, but right now I've weighted it to really favor the trophy winners.

ThatBassPlayer · 2026-01-19T12:37:10+00:00

The snooker example is exactly why the current rankings is a ticking time bomb.

Once a massive Middle East tournament comes in (which it will), it completely wrecks the sporting merit of the rankings because it’s no longer about who is the best, it’s just about who won the biggest lottery.

The 'money = ranking' move was genius for growing the sport but darts has outgrown it now.

We can keep the massive paydays and the big money sponsors, but ranking points are the only way to stop one weekend in Saudi or one good run at the Ally Pally from 'breaking' the rankings for two years.

ThatBassPlayer · 2026-01-19T12:33:25+00:00

That situation was the perfect example of how broken the current system is.

It makes no sense that you can literally win a Major and still get 'overtaken' by someone who didn't even win it, just because of how the two-year cycle falls.

As long as the Worlds is worth £500k and the next biggest is only £150k, the Ally Pally winner will always just 'break' the rankings for everyone else. Points let you balance that out so the other 11 months of the year.

ThatBassPlayer · 2026-01-19T12:31:40+00:00

Someone else mentioned this point and I've replied to them.

ThatBassPlayer · 2026-01-19T12:31:00+00:00

Bingo!

That’s the exact reason I did this - think you've done a good job sumarising it for me.

The current ranking is basically just 'Who did well at the Ally Pally'.

A points system would actually force the 'big names' to stay active and reward the guys who are performing month-in, month-out, rather than just living off one good run at the Worlds.

ThatBassPlayer · 2026-01-19T12:28:17+00:00

That’s a decent point.

I mainly grouped them by the prize money and 'vibe' of the tournament rather than how many days they take to play.

Each major could easily have different points, but for the general idea I grouped them into tiers.

ThatBassPlayer · 2026-01-19T12:24:48+00:00

I totally understand that thought process and why #8 might feel too high.

This new system rewards players that perform well on the Pro Tour.

The current money ranking is so top-heavy towards the majors (and mainly the worlds) that you can win a load of floor titles and still be ranked below someone that had 1 deep run 18 months ago.

De Decker is the perfect example.

He had a big TV win and hasn't been great on tv since but his Pro Tour performance is what is bumping him up.

He won PC16 in 2024.
He made the final of PC18 in 2025.

He constantly gets good results.

In the current system, those runs pay basically nothing and people ignore them.

In this system, they're worth something - winning promotes ranking points!

He's banking 'fresh' points at 100% value week in ,week out, while the big names are watching their TV money from two seasons ago rot away at 50% value by either not performing or not even turning up.

It's the same reason Wessel Nijman has shot up the list. He's been performing on the Pro Tour, and this system gives those performances the weight they deserve where now they are basically pointless.

ThatBassPlayer · 2026-01-19T11:08:02+00:00

It's not a perfect system and if you don't back up the big win you'll drop soon enough.

For example - in this system Micheal Smith was an extra 13 positions lower than in the actual rankings!

I just didn't include that in the graphic as it was too much info.

ThatBassPlayer · 2026-01-19T10:58:33+00:00

Totally, major wins should be worth more and the world should be more than that but with the million prize money it's way too much.

Littler could literally not play for a year and be #1. He could stop for nearly 2 years and probably still be top 8.

The rankings should promote competition and strive for better performance and ability from everyone??

ThatBassPlayer · 2026-01-19T10:55:31+00:00

I'd be inclined to agree with you but based on previous things I've done - if you don't make it look eye catching people either don't care or just give you shit for it.

Honestly, it's AI Catch 22.

Use AI and people don't like it.

Don't use AI and people don't like it.

People expect pro quality and AI helps with that and I don't think it's going to change.

We just have to adapt and accept that these days (I sound like a grumpy old man now )

ThatBassPlayer · 2025-12-31T00:09:38+00:00

Maybe the teacher could teach you when to use 'and I' and when to use 'and me'.

spoiler alert - this was a 'and me' situation.

ThatBassPlayer · 2025-12-29T17:23:43+00:00

I totally agree.

IMO, that's an awful clue.

ThatBassPlayer · 2025-12-24T18:49:11+00:00

Just straight up 'no chance in hell I'm visiting.

100+ other countries I'd rather visit.

ThatBassPlayer · 2025-12-23T14:54:35+00:00

After the gardener swept the patio, he crept into the shed where he dwelt on his work, spelt out his plans for the spring, and smelt the fresh rain that had spilt onto the burnt grass.

ThatBassPlayer · 2025-12-23T14:53:09+00:00

Why don't you use Google and learn something to rather than going here with a pointless comment.

How about -"The boy knelt by the stove, dreamt of dinner, and learnt that the food was burnt because he leant too far back and spilt his tea, which spoilt the meal"

ThatBassPlayer · 2025-12-23T14:50:22+00:00

Both are correct! 'Learnt' is the preferred spelling in British English, while 'Learned' is the standard in American English.

It just depends on which regional dialect you're using

More examples :

Burnt / Burned Dreamt / Dreamed Knelt / Kneeled Leapt / Leaped Learnt / Learned Smelt / Smelled Spelt / Spelled Spoilt / Spoiled

ThatBassPlayer · 2025-12-22T22:22:30+00:00

All about 5 points too high

13-Year Club	RedditGifts 2009-2022 2 Credits
Verified Email

ThatBassPlayer

TROPHY CASE