US Open 9B October, 2022 -- Atlantic City

Going by results of past 5 years major events, 780 to 800 finalist in majors recently Roland Garcia, Max Lechner, Omar Al-Shaheen, Christopher Tevez. So yes potential finalists around 50 (FR780+) in this field.
But for past 5 years, winners of majors have all been FR800+. Which puts potential winners in this event at around 2 dozen
Actually, 47 players carry a Fargo of 790 or better. These are elite players, and, in my assessment, they all play well enough to go on a magical run to the title. That said, I'd put the over/under on the Fargo of the eventual champion at about 820.

As you say, the biggest titles are generally the domain of the most elite, but not always.
 
Actually, 47 players carry a Fargo of 790 or better. These are elite players, and, in my assessment, they all play well enough to go on a magical run to the title. That said, I'd put the over/under on the Fargo of the eventual champion at about 820.

As you say, the biggest titles are generally the domain of the most elite, but not always.
Every once in a while one gets hot (or exploits a rule) and gets though. This by no means is a slight on Daryl Peach. Good solid player...just not world class.

1664754119645.png
 
Forgive my being a sentimentalist here, but in light of the WPA ban that came in the wake of the Ukrainian invasion, I think the best possible story waiting to be written at this year's US Open would be that of Fedor Gorst, who has greatly endeared himself to American pool fans. If Fedor wins, it will be quite the story.
Kristina Tkach or Margaret Fefilova winning would be even better!

[nearly uncalculable odds]
 
Simulations suggest the over/under on the winner’s Fargo rating is 824, which is interesting given that the highest rating is 837 - so half the time we are looking at someone in the top 5-6 players snapping it off. Only 5% of the time is the winner rated under 800. None of the 1000 runs ended up with a winner under 760.

Based on this, odds for any individual player other than Filler being shorter than 10 to 1 are likely a bad bet.
 
Simulations suggest the over/under on the winner’s Fargo rating is 824, which is interesting given that the highest rating is 837 - so half the time we are looking at someone in the top 5-6 players snapping it off. Only 5% of the time is the winner rated under 800. None of the 1000 runs ended up with a winner under 760.

Based on this, odds for any individual player other than Filler being shorter than 10 to 1 are likely a bad bet.
Sounds about right. The standard is so high that one must expect one of the best few to prevail.
 
Simulations suggest the over/under on the winner’s Fargo rating is 824, which is interesting given that the highest rating is 837 - so half the time we are looking at someone in the top 5-6 players snapping it off. Only 5% of the time is the winner rated under 800. None of the 1000 runs ended up with a winner under 760.

Based on this, odds for any individual player other than Filler being shorter than 10 to 1 are likely a bad bet.

what program are you using?
 
The biggest change compared to last year is that KO stage this year is last 64 while last year was last 16
In first stage double elimination stage, only need to win 3 straight on winners side to qualify for last 64
So first stage now gives the elite players less time to "warm up" finetune their game unlike last year. Means the elite players really have to perform and get their game up to speed real fast cos KO stage now starts earlier.
Number of matches to win title undefeated is 9 same as last year. This year is 3 in first stage+6 in KO stage while last year is 5 in first stage +4 in KO stage.


dumb-and.gif
If that is true then we might see some wild cards, lower rated players who get a good roll and make it to the top stages of the competition. Like it happens in the FIFA World Cup sometimes.

Sent from my SM-G781B using Tapatalk
 
Simulations suggest the over/under on the winner’s Fargo rating is 824, which is interesting given that the highest rating is 837 - so half the time we are looking at someone in the top 5-6 players snapping it off. Only 5% of the time is the winner rated under 800. None of the 1000 runs ended up with a winner under 760.

Based on this, odds for any individual player other than Filler being shorter than 10 to 1 are likely a bad bet.

Are you running a Monte Carlo simulation that predicts outcomes based on Fargo ratings?
 
brilliant table of stats. i felt kinda sad for parica and rempe. everybody knows they were good enough to win anything 9-ball
Yea, amazing how close Parica and Rempe came to winning the event, or even Bustamante not even making it to the finals of the event, mind boggling!
 
Simulations suggest the over/under on the winner’s Fargo rating is 824, which is interesting given that the highest rating is 837 - so half the time we are looking at someone in the top 5-6 players snapping it off. Only 5% of the time is the winner rated under 800. None of the 1000 runs ended up with a winner under 760.

Based on this, odds for any individual player other than Filler being shorter than 10 to 1 are likely a bad bet.

So statistically and theoretically,
50% chance that winner has FR >=824 and 5 players can win
95% chance that winner has FR >=800 and about 2 dozen players can win
100% chance that winner has FR>=760 and about 70 to 90 players can win
:D
 
Are you running a Monte Carlo simulation that predicts outcomes based on Fargo ratings?
Yup. The key code in R is:
Code:
# Single-game win probability for player A vs. player B
fargo <- function(a, b) { 1 / (1 + exp(-(a - b) / 144.3)) }

# Simulate result of a race to 9 between player A and player B
result <- rbinom(n = 1, size = 1, pbinom(8, size = 17, prob = fargo(a, b), lower.tail = FALSE))
From there you can set up the 256-player field and then go through various double elimination rounds and the ultimate single elimination bracket.

It looks like the single elimination rounds are actually a race to 11 but that shouldn't change the end results very much as most of the lower-rated players will have been eliminated by then. That said, the longer the race, the more favored the higher-rated player will be.
 
Last edited:
Yup. The key code in R is:
Code:
# Single-game win probability for player A vs. player B
fargo <- function(a, b) { 1 / (1 + exp(-(a - b) / 144.3)) }

# Simulate result of a race to 9 between player A and player B
result <- rbinom(n = 1, size = 1, pbinom(8, size = 17, prob = fargo(a, b), lower.tail = FALSE))
From there you can set up the 256-player field and then go through various double elimination rounds and the ultimate single elimination bracket.

It looks like the single elimination rounds are actually a race to 11 but that shouldn't change the end results very much as most of the lower-rated players will have been eliminated by then. That said, the longer the race, the more favored the higher-rated player will be.

Well done!
 
The biggest change compared to last year is that KO stage this year is last 64 while last year was last 16
In first stage double elimination stage, only need to win 3 straight on winners side to qualify for last 64
So first stage now gives the elite players less time to "warm up" finetune their game unlike last year. :LOL: Means the elite players really have to perform and get their game up to speed real fast cos KO stage now starts earlier.
Number of matches to win title undefeated is 9 same as last year. This year is 3 in first stage+6 in KO stage while last year is 5 in first stage +4 in KO stage.
:LOL:

dumb-and.gif
I liked the 16 in Stage 2 format, but I like this, too. As you suggest, the elite have a little less room for error and, of course, as we've seen in the past, a bad draw can bury you in this format. If memory serves, Shaw drew Van Boening in the Round of 64 during the 2021 World Pool Championship. In my experience, fans like "win or go home" matches a lot more than the players do, as the drama and tension run high. This tourney should be a fan's delight.
 
I liked the 16 in Stage 2 format, ...
In the first US Open that Matchroom ran, I think all 15 matches of the final 16 stage were broadcast -- there was only one table. That's nice because you get to see all of the players and follow all of the progress. The advantage of 64 is that you can pick the matches you want to show and the broadcast is more flexible. I think in the case of the UK Open they did not show all of the matches from the round of 16 on. (In the UK Open, they ran the tournament on 24 tables, so scheduling was tight.)
 
I reran the code for this year's format (race to 9 winner's qualification, race to 8 losers bracket except final round of the losers bracket which is race to 9, single elimination from 64 onwards, race to 9 in round of 64/32, race to 10 in round of 16/8, race to 11 semis, and race to 13 finals). The previous simulation had races to 9 all the way through.

The longer races at the end make it a tad more likely that a top player snaps it off but the overall story is the same - there is about a 50% chance that someone in the top 5 in the world will win and ~800 represents a reasonable minimum rating to have any kind of chance.

Of course, all this assumes that the Bradley-Terry model contains all the relevant information to make a prediction and that players will perform precisely at their past skill level for the entire event, both of which are not the case. But as George Box said, "All models are wrong but some are useful" ;)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top