Go Back   AzBilliards.com > Main Category > Main Forum
Reload this Page Break Stats -- World Pool Series, Predator Grand Finale 8-Ball, November 2017
Reply
 
Share Thread Tools Rate Thread
Break Stats -- World Pool Series, Predator Grand Finale 8-Ball, November 2017
Old
  (#1)
AtLarge
AzB Gold Member
AtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 10,312
vCash: 500
iTrader: 77 / 100%
Join Date: Apr 2008
   
Break Stats -- World Pool Series, Predator Grand Finale 8-Ball, November 2017 - 11-06-2017, 02:54 PM

Here are some 8-Ball stats from the fourth event of Darren Appleton's World Pool Series -- the Predator World Series Championship or "Predator Grand Finale." It was played October 31 - November 3 at Steinway Billiards in Queens, New York with free live streaming by High Rock Productions. The winner was Klenti KaÇi.

This was a 68-player event, with double elimination down to the final 16 players (races to 9, with a shootout at hill/hill) and then single elimination (races to 11 until the finals, then 13, with a shootout at hill/hill). The stats are for 19 streamed matches (all on the same table), which represented 15.0% of the total of 127 matches played in the event. [Note -- these 19 matches were all from the main event, none from the second-chance event.]

The conditions for this event included:
- Rasson Victory II 9-foot table with 4" corner pockets, 4½" side pockets, and, apparently, harder-than-normal pocket facings;
- Simonis 860 Tournament Blue cloth;
- Aramith Tournament balls with the measles cue ball;
- breaker racks in some matches, the referee in others -- using the RYO triangle rack;
- break from outside a 2-diamonds-wide central box behind the head string (i.e., break from within one diamond of either side rail);
- break shot must contact the head ball first;
- winner breaks in final-16 matches, alternate breaks prior to that;
- take the group you make more of on the break (table open if breaker made same number of each group, or fouled, or broke dry);
- ball in hand behind the line after a foul on the break;
- making the 8-ball on the break is not a game win;
- mixed-group combinations not allowed with an open table;
- call shots;
- foul on all balls, and 3-foul rule in effect;
- jump cues allowed, but only 2 times (races to 9) or 3 times (races to 11) per player per match and only after the opponent's shot;
- shot clock in most matches -- 45 seconds (90 sec. after the break) with one extension per player per game; and
- lag for opening break.

The 19 matches tracked were as follows, shown in the order in which they were played. Thirteen of the games in these matches, indicated below, are not included in the stats because of streaming problems.

Tuesday, Oct. 31, 2017
  • Johann Chua defeted Hsu Kai Lun 9-6 (stats exclude first 6 and last 3 games)
    Ko Pin-Yi d. Jayson Shaw 9-3 (stats exclude first 2 games)
    Alex Pagulayan d. Carlo Biado 9-7
    Chang Jung-Lin d. Thorsten Hohmann 9-4
    Dennis Orcollo d. Lee Vann Corteza 9-3
    Skyler Woodward d. Phaa Hmaunpao 9-5

Wednesday, Nov. 1
  • Naoyuki Oi d. Ralf Souquet 9-6
    Biado d. John Morra 9-5
    Chris Melling d. Brandon Shuff 9-5
    Pagulayan d. Justin Bergman 8-8 plus a shootout (stats exclude first game)
    Darren Appleton d. Hohmann 9-6
    Orcollo d. Zion Zvi 9-1

Thursday, Nov. 2
  • Orcollo d. Pagulayan 11-7
    Shaw d. Ruslan Chinakhov 11-2
    Wu Kun-Lin d. Chang J-L 10-10 plus a shootout (stats exclude first game) [Quarterfinal]
    Petri Makkonen d. Shaw 11-9 [Quarterfinal]

Friday, Nov. 3
  • Klenti KaÇi d. Wu Kun-Lin 11-8 [Semifinal]
    Makkonen d. Orcollo 11-8 [Semifinal]
    KaÇi d. Makkonen 13-11 [Finals]

Overall results -- The breaker made at least one ball (and did not foul) 37% of the time (107 of 286), won 47% of the games (134 of 286), and broke and ran 16% of the games (45 of 286).

Here's a more detailed breakdown of the 286 games tracked.

Breaker made at least one ball and did not foul:
  • Breaker won the game: 69 (24% of the 286 games)
  • Breaker lost the game: 38 (13%)

Breaker fouled on the break:
  • Breaker won the game: 5 (2%)
  • Breaker lost the game: 7 (2%)

Breaker broke dry (without fouling):
  • Breaker won the game: 60 (21%)
  • Breaker lost the game: 107 (37%)

Therefore, whereas the breaker won 47% (134 of 286) of all games,
  • He won 64% (69 of 107) of the games in which he made at least one ball on the break and did not foul.
  • He won 42% (5 of 12) of the games in which he fouled on the break.
  • He won 36% (60 of 167) of the games in which he broke dry but did not foul.
  • He won 36% (65 of 179) of the games in which he either fouled on the break or broke dry without fouling.

Break-and-run games: The 45 break-and-run games represented 16% of all 286 games, 34% of the 134 games won by the breaker, and 42% of the 107 games in which the break was successful (made a ball and didn't foul).

With alternating breaks, B&R "packages" of the normal type are not possible. But we can still look at the breaks of a given player and see how many he ran on his own successive breaks, and we can call these "alternate-break packages." The 29 break-and-run games in the alternate-break portion consisted of 2 alternate-break 3-packs (by Woodward and Melling), 3 alternate-break 2-packs, and 17 singles. The 16 break-and-run games in the winner-breaks portion were all singles; no one broke and ran 2 or more games in a row.

8-balls on the break:
The 8-ball was never made on the break (it would not have counted as a win).
  
Reply With Quote

Old
  (#2)
AtLarge
AzB Gold Member
AtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 10,312
vCash: 500
iTrader: 77 / 100%
Join Date: Apr 2008
   
11-06-2017, 02:55 PM

Miscellany from the 8-Ball data for the 2017 Predator World Series Championship -- World Pool Series event #4
[This relates only to the 19 streamed matches I tracked, not to all matches in the event.]

• The most balls made on a single break was 5, done just once (by Shaw, who won that game by B&R).

• The average number of balls made on the break was 0.5 (this includes dry and fouled breaks). On successful breaks (made at least one ball and did not foul), the average was 1.2.

• 52% (150 of 286) of the games ended in one inning – 16% (45) won by the breaker (B&R) and 37% (105) won by the non-breaker. Twenty-eight percent of the games (79 of 286) ended in the second inning of either the breaker or non-breaker, and 20% (57 of 286) went beyond the second inning.

• 45% (128 of 286) of the games were run out by the player who was at the table following the break. These run-outs were:
- By the breaker after successful breaks (B&R games) – 42% (45 of 107)
- By the non-breaker after fouls on the break – 42% (5 of 12)
- By the non-breaker after dry breaks – 47% (78 of 167)

• The player who made the first ball after the break:
- Won the game in that same inning 52% of the time (148 of 286)
- Won the game in a later inning 16% of the time (46 of 286)
- Lost the game 32% of the time (92 of 286)

• The average minutes per game for all 286 games was 7.6. The elapsed time for each match was measured from the lag (or the start of the streaming for a few matches) until the winning ball was made (or conceded), so it includes time for racking and timeouts.

• The match that was highest in average minutes per game (12.1 min./game) was Orcollo d. Pagulayan 11-7. The average minutes per game for the other 18 matches was 7.3 (vs. 7.6 including Orcollo/Pagulayan).

• The match that was lowest in average minutes per game (5.1 min./game) was Woodward d. Phaa 9-5.

• Breaking fouls averaged about 1 for every 24 games, other fouls 1 for every 8 games, and missed shots 1 for every 1.1 games. Over half of the “other fouls” occurred in the Orcollo/Pagulayan match, so the frequency of “other fouls” falls to 1 for every 15 games without that match.

• About 23% of the games involved one or more safeties.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#3)
AtLarge
AzB Gold Member
AtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 10,312
vCash: 500
iTrader: 77 / 100%
Join Date: Apr 2008
   
11-06-2017, 02:56 PM

Here's an extension of the stats comparisons I posted after each of the first three World Pool Series events. The most significant change in the first WPS event was breaking outside a 2-diamonds-wide central box. This second WPS event narrowed the allowable breaking area even more, to about a half-diamond width off of either side rail, and used a table with even tighter pockets for most of the streamed matches. For the third and fourth events, the allowable breaking area was widened to what it was for the first event, and the table was at least as tight as in the second event.

So, the 7 events compared here are:

• CSI Invitational 8-Ball Championship, July 2014 -- template rack, break from anywhere behind the line, table open after the break
• Accu-Stats MIH 8-Ball Invitational, Nov. 2014 (final 2 days only) -- template rack, break from anywhere behind the line, table open after the break
• Accu-stats MIH 8-Ball Invitational, Nov. 2016 -- template rack, break from anywhere behind the line, take what you make more of
• World Pool Series #1, Molinary Players' Championship, Jan. 2017 -- triangle rack, break from outside a 2-diamonds-wide central box, take what you make more of
• World Pool Series #2, Aramith Masters Championship, April 2017 -- triangle rack, break from outside a 3-diamonds-wide central box, take what you make more of
• World Pool Series #3, RYO Rack Classic Championship, July 2017 -- triangle rack, break from outside a 2-diamonds-wide central box, take what you make more of
• World Pool Series #4, Predator World Series Championship, Nov. 2017 -- triangle rack, break from outside a 2-diamonds-wide central box, take what you make more of

The first 3 events used Diamond tables with standard pro-cut 4½" pockets. WPS event #1 used a Brunswick Gold Crown with 4¼" corners. But I doubt that the difficulty factor for this Brunswick was any higher than for the Diamonds (shallower shelf depth on the Brunswick, e.g.). Most of the streamed matches for WPS event #2 used a Rasson table with corner pockets just a bit over 4". WPS event #3 used a Rasson table with 4" corner pockets and 4½" side pockets. WPS event #4 used a Rasson table with 4” corner pockets, 4½” side pockets, and hard pocket facings. The WPS events used a regular triangle instead of a breaking template, and that may have had an effect on the stats. The WPS events also had several other differences in the rules/conditions, but I doubt that they caused any significant difference in the stats. The field strength for the streamed matches was high for all 7 events.

Successful breaks (made at least one ball and did not foul):
  • 2014 CSI Invit. -- 71% (154 of 218)
    2014 A-S MIH -- 73% (85 of 117)
    2016 A-S MIH -- 73% (182 of 251)
    2017 WPS #1 -- 53% (155 of 293)
    2017 WPS #2 -- 45% (96 of 215)
    2017 WPS #3 -- 47% (92 of 196)
    2017 WPS #4 -- 37% (107 of 286)

Breaker won the game:
  • 2014 CSI Invit. -- 64% (139 of 218)
    2014 A-S MIH -- 61% (71 of 117)
    2016 A-S MIH -- 55% (139 of 251)
    2017 WPS #1 -- 48% (141 of 293)
    2017 WPS #2 -- 46% (99 of 215)
    2017 WPS #3 -- 54% (105 of 196)
    2017 WPS #4 -- 47% (134 of 286)

Break-and-run games, on all breaks:
  • 2014 CSI Invit. -- 54% (118 of 218)
    2014 A-S MIH -- 50% (59 of 117)
    2016 A-S MIH -- 41% (102 of 251)
    2017 WPS #1 -- 29% (85 of 293)
    2017 WPS #2 -- 18% (38 of 215)
    2017 WPS #3 -- 23% (46 of 196)
    2017 WPS #4 -- 16% (45 of 286)

Break-and-run games, on successful breaks:
  • 2014 CSI Invit. -- 77% (118 of 154)
    2014 A-S MIH -- 69% (59 of 85)
    2016 A-S MIH -- 56% (102 of 182)
    2017 WPS #1 -- 55% (85 of 155)
    2017 WPS #2 -- 40% (38 of 96)
    2017 WPS #3 -- 50% (46 of 92)
    2017 WPS #4 -- 42% (45 of 107)

Runouts by the player at the table following the break:
  • 2014 CSI Invit. -- 74% (162 of 218)
    2014 A-S MIH -- 68% (80 of 117)
    2016 A-S MIH -- 59% (147 of 251)
    2017 WPS #1 -- 54% (159 of 293)
    2017 WPS #2 -- 42% (91 of 215)
    2017 WPS #3 -- 47% (93 of 196)
    2017 WPS #4 -- 45% (128 of 286)

Games won by the player at the table following the break:
  • 2014 CSI Invit. -- 78% (169 of 218)
    2014 A-S MIH -- 76% (89 of 117)
    2016 A-S MIH -- 69% (172 of 251)
    2017 WPS #1 -- 66% (193 of 293)
    2017 WPS #2 -- 60% (128 of 215)
    2017 WPS #3 -- 64% (125 of 196)
    2017 WPS #4 -- 64% (183 of 286)

Games ending in one inning (by B&R or on non-breaker's first visit):
  • 2014 CSI Invit. -- 88% (192 of 218)
    2014 A-S MIH -- 85% (99 of 117)
    2016 A-S MIH -- 78% (195 of 251)
    2017 WPS #1 -- 69% (201 of 293)
    2017 WPS #2 -- 57% (122 of 215)
    2017 WPS #3 -- 57% (112 of 196)
    2017 WPS #4 -- 52% (150 of 286)

Games involving safeties:
  • 2014 CSI Invit. -- 4% (8 of 218)
    2014 A-S MIH -- 4% (5 of 117)
    2016 A-S MIH -- 8% (21 of 251)
    2017 WPS #1 -- 12% (36 of 293)
    2017 WPS #2 -- 19% (41 of 215)
    2017 WPS #3 -- 17% (33 of 196)
    2017 WPS #4 -- 23% (65 of 286)

Average number of balls made on all breaks and on successful breaks:
  • 2014 CSI Invit. -- 1.3, 1.6
    2014 A-S MIH -- 1.3, 1.7
    2016 A-S MIH -- 1.3, 1.6
    2017 WPS #1 -- 0.8, 1.4
    2017 WPS #2 -- 0.6, 1.3
    2017 WPS #3 -- 0.6, 1.3
    2017 WPS #4 -- 0.5, 1.2

Average number of minutes per game:
  • 2014 CSI Invit. -- 6.6 for 218 games (no shot clock)
    2014 A-S MIH -- 5.4 for 117 games (45-sec. shot clock)
    2016 A-S MIH -- 5.5 for 251 games (45-sec. shot clock)
    2017 WPS #1 -- 7.0 for 293 games (no shot clock)
    2017 WPS #2 -- 7.4 for 215 games (30-sec. shot clock in the majority of the matches)
    2017 WPS #3 -- 7.4 for 197 games (45-sec. shot clock in most matches)
    2017 WPS #4 -- 7.6 for 286 games (45-sec. shot clock in most matches)

So, moving from the first two events to the third, we saw the effect of not having an open table after the break -- a reduction in the rate of run-outs from the break and in the breaker's win percentage. Then moving from the third event to the WPS events, we have seen that breaking outside a central box and using a regular triangle instead of a breaking template has had a further effect in making the game more difficult -- lower success rates on the break, reductions in B&R's and breaker wins, and more player interaction. The extra-difficult pockets on the streaming table in WPS #4 made it the most difficult table for breaking and pocketing balls in all of these events.

So Darren Appleton's tweaks to the WPA rules have certainly made the game more difficult for top pros. He has said that the WPS events will continue in 2018. It will be interesting to see what he does then.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#4)
smashmouth
AzB Silver Member
smashmouth has a reputation beyond reputesmashmouth has a reputation beyond reputesmashmouth has a reputation beyond reputesmashmouth has a reputation beyond reputesmashmouth has a reputation beyond reputesmashmouth has a reputation beyond reputesmashmouth has a reputation beyond reputesmashmouth has a reputation beyond reputesmashmouth has a reputation beyond reputesmashmouth has a reputation beyond reputesmashmouth has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 2,756
vCash: 500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Jan 2006
   
11-06-2017, 04:13 PM

thanks for the stats confirming what we kinda knew

the break was an absolute joke and disadvantage

having said that the players should have played that table accordingly and they didn't

the bad play after the break i.e. trying to run out next to impossible tables was as bad as the conditions leading to those bad break results

did they have the option to pass the break back to their opponent?

I would have omitted those frankenstein extended rails on the side pockets and more importantly the "take what you make" rule

play the tv table on those gold crowns and Shaw runs roughshod through everybody

Last edited by smashmouth; 11-06-2017 at 04:14 PM. Reason: na
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#5)
King T
AzB Silver Member
King T has a reputation beyond reputeKing T has a reputation beyond reputeKing T has a reputation beyond reputeKing T has a reputation beyond reputeKing T has a reputation beyond reputeKing T has a reputation beyond reputeKing T has a reputation beyond reputeKing T has a reputation beyond reputeKing T has a reputation beyond reputeKing T has a reputation beyond reputeKing T has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 1,688
vCash: 500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: May 2011
   
11-07-2017, 11:43 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by AtLarge View Post


So, moving from the first two events to the third, we saw the effect of not having an open table after the break -- a reduction in the rate of run-outs from the break and in the breaker's win percentage. Then moving from the third event to the WPS events, we have seen that breaking outside a central box and using a regular triangle instead of a breaking template has had a further effect in making the game more difficult -- lower success rates on the break, reductions in B&R's and breaker wins, and more player interaction. The extra-difficult pockets on the streaming table in WPS #4 made it the most difficult table for breaking and pocketing balls in all of these events.

So Darren Appleton's tweaks to the WPA rules have certainly made the game more difficult for top pros. He has said that the WPS events will continue in 2018. It will be interesting to see what he does then.
So what do you think? Is less running out good for the game? I'm not a fan of seeing a bunch of balls missed, I mean wheres the entertainment in tthat?
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#6)
AtLarge
AzB Gold Member
AtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 10,312
vCash: 500
iTrader: 77 / 100%
Join Date: Apr 2008
   
11-07-2017, 04:30 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by King T View Post
So what do you think? Is less running out good for the game? I'm not a fan of seeing a bunch of balls missed, I mean wheres the entertainment in tthat?
To me, old-fashioned 8-Ball -- normal tables (regardless of size), break from anywhere behind the line, and table open after the break -- is just too easy for top pros.

Appleton has taken steps to make the game into a real test. I do like the increased amount of interplay among the players in his events, i.e., fewer runouts by the player at the table after the break. But I think he may have gone a little too far now, with 63% of the breaks unsuccessful and B&R's in only about one game in six.

Appleton did some commentary during a few of the WPS #4 matches. If I heard him correctly, he feels that the side pockets (but not the corners) were a bit too tough this last time. So we may see some easing on those in the future.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#7)
AtLarge
AzB Gold Member
AtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond reputeAtLarge has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 10,312
vCash: 500
iTrader: 77 / 100%
Join Date: Apr 2008
   
11-07-2017, 04:52 PM

A few oddities from WPS #4:

• Ko Pin-Yi vs. Shaw -- Zero balls were pocketed on the break during the 12-game match. (I saw only the last 10 games of this match, but the commentators said the break was dry in the first two games as well.)

• Woodward vs. Phaa -- Woodward broke wet on 7 of 7 breaks; Phaa went 0 for 7. (She just didn't seem to have the power needed for that table.)

• For 4 matches in a row (beginning with Pagulayan vs. Bergman) on the streaming table, the number of break-and-run games was zero. That was 59 games in a row. Then in the next match, Game 1, Shaw made 5 balls on the break and ran out. That was followed by 12 more games without a B&R. So they went 72 games with just one B&R. (And it might have been 1 in 79; I didn't see the first game of the next match, but it was Game 8 before the next B&R).

• Shaw vs. Chinakhov -- Nine dry breaks in the match, and the breaker won all nine of those games.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#8)
Cameron Smith
is kind of hungry...
Cameron Smith has a reputation beyond reputeCameron Smith has a reputation beyond reputeCameron Smith has a reputation beyond reputeCameron Smith has a reputation beyond reputeCameron Smith has a reputation beyond reputeCameron Smith has a reputation beyond reputeCameron Smith has a reputation beyond reputeCameron Smith has a reputation beyond reputeCameron Smith has a reputation beyond reputeCameron Smith has a reputation beyond reputeCameron Smith has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 4,113
vCash: 500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Wouldn't you like to know
   
11-07-2017, 05:58 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by King T View Post
So what do you think? Is less running out good for the game? I'm not a fan of seeing a bunch of balls missed, I mean wheres the entertainment in tthat?
I remember reading that the other tournament tables had normal pockets. I don't think it helps going from normal tables to a super tight table in the middle of an event. If a feature of the tournament is a certain type of table, all tables should be of that type. I feel like the players looked more comfortable on the Chinese 8 ball tables than the Rasson.

I do however like the idea of 4 inch pockets for 8 ball. I think if all the tournament tables are very tight, the players who don't adjust lose early and we are left with those who are comfortable.


I would kill for a nobel peace prize
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#9)
smashmouth
AzB Silver Member
smashmouth has a reputation beyond reputesmashmouth has a reputation beyond reputesmashmouth has a reputation beyond reputesmashmouth has a reputation beyond reputesmashmouth has a reputation beyond reputesmashmouth has a reputation beyond reputesmashmouth has a reputation beyond reputesmashmouth has a reputation beyond reputesmashmouth has a reputation beyond reputesmashmouth has a reputation beyond reputesmashmouth has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 2,756
vCash: 500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Jan 2006
   
11-07-2017, 06:04 PM

the way he was shooting and smashing the rack, god himself (and maybe Darren) helped all players from the wrath of jayson shaw with that tv table

he played light years beyond the field
  
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.