Complete King of the Hill Player Stats, with winnings

[SlimShafty]

The final stats from the King of the Hill, some surprises, I think Karen and Allison played very well and there GLI rank shows that.

It is interesting to see just how many games of pool the top players played, this may have an effect on the older players who may not be use to playing 60 games of pool in a day.

Out of 234 games Manalo Broke and ran out almost half of them, not bad.

2007 games and only 13 times someone made the 8 on the break, So thats like 1 every 154 games. The slow cloth, and break box have a lot to do with that.


Corrected Efrens matches total to 12, Thanks Terry!

I have players ranked by GLI. I think the IPT will rank them by earnings.

 

[T-dog]

I am happy to see players finally making some decent cash!!!!

 

[Colin Colenso]

Thanks...I've saved that!

Would be great if we knew the real number of breaks, rather than guessing the BRO (Break Run Out) percentage. But for ranking purposes it provides a good estimate.

 

[sniper]

I am happy to see players finally making some decent cash!!!!

I second that, even the players that went out in the first round won some decent cash.

 

[Tbeaux]

Hey SlimShafty I don't mean to nitpik but shouldn't Efrens 9 wins and 3 loses in matches equal 12 total matches?

Terry

 

[eastcoast_chris]

Thanks...I've saved that!

Would be great if we knew the real number of breaks, rather than guessing the BRO (Break Run Out) percentage. But for ranking purposes it provides a good estimate.

From my calculations... ie. for Malano -> 1/0.45 * 65 = 144 breaks

Sigel -> 3/5 = 60%
Malano -> 65/144 = 45%
Reyes -> 35/85 = 41%
Hohmann -> 23/58 = 40%
Immonen -> 50/132 = 38%
Hundal -> 17/47 = 36%
Bustamante -> 48/141 = 34%
....

I wonder what the number of failed, but attempted runouts were... i.e. broke, made a ball, went for the runout and blew it... and the number of dry breaks?

Chris

 

[Cornerman]

2007 games and only 13 times someone made the 8 on the break, So thats like 1 every 154 games. The slow cloth, and break box have a lot to do with that.

I think the break box has a lot to do with it, but the Sardo Rack is the biggest culprit. Because the rack is perfect, the 8-ball has no reason to even move out of its spot. Only a very fortunate kiss from another ball will get it going. The norm was leaving the 8-ball within a gnats whisker of the spot it started out on.

With an imperfect rack, the 8-ball has a chance to immediately start to come out of the pack, out of the "weaker" side of the rack.

I think all of us have no less 8-ball on the breaks due to slow cloth.

Fred

 

[SlimShafty]

Thanks...I've saved that!

Would be great if we knew the real number of breaks, rather than guessing the BRO (Break Run Out) percentage. But for ranking purposes it provides a good estimate.

Yeah, It would be interesting, but you know what, I think it's going to be very very close to the number of wins, so I bet at most the % might be off by 1 or 2 % and most likely the same.

Thanks to the stats you kept on the finals, we can see that the breaks and wins were spot on, Efren had 16 wins, and as your reporting noted he had 16 breaks, and Mike had 5 wins and he broke 5 times.

Seeing that the winner breaks makes it real close to being accurate and at most off by 1 break per match which mostly has to do with who breaks first, so when it comes down to percentages I think in the long run using the wins will be very accurate.

**I fixed the stats on Efren, thanks to the find by Terry, Efren has 4.00 GLI and now the top player**

 

[bruin70]

the standings are kinda skewed from the HOF's getting byes. i think it was good for a first start.

,,,,,but now i see why earl was crying

the stat that jumps out at me are the games won/lost %.

good show

 

[SlimShafty]

bump for stephen_joyce, and anyone else who missed them.

 

[Bob Jewett]

Yeah, It would be interesting (to have the actual number of breaks), but you know what, I think it's going to be very very close to the number of wins, so I bet at most the % might be off by 1 or 2 % and most likely the same.
...

I think that's true, but if you want to have a slightly better guess, use:

Number of breaks =
number of games won - (match wins / 2 ) + (match losses / 2)

This assumes that the lag was evenly divided. In the case of Manalo, it raises his B&R from 44.8% to 47.2%.

 

[Colin Colenso]

I think that's true, but if you want to have a slightly better guess, use:

Number of breaks =
number of games won - (match wins / 2 ) + (match losses / 2)

This assumes that the lag was evenly divided. In the case of Manalo, it raises his B&R from 44.8% to 47.2%.

I would have thought the correct formula (to take into account that the last frame win doesn't lead to a break, and the first match frame has a break without a game win) should be.....

Breaks = No. of games won + (no. of matches played / 2) - (no. of match wins).
This means the players who win more matches probably have less breaks than game wins. So their BRO percentages should be higher than indicated in the table Slimshafty produced by a couple of percent.

This also assumes breaking 1/2 the time after the lag. But winners probably win slightly greater than 1/2 of the lags.

As an example, for Marlon, he played 19 matches, won 17 matches, won 145 games and had 65 BRO's.
So to work out his more accurate break & run out percentage of total breaks we calculate this way.
Breaks = 145 + 19/2 -17 = 137.5 Obviously he had a couple more or less.
65BRO's / 137.5 total breaks estimate = 47.3% compared to 45% in above table.

For Efren 86 game wins, 12 matches, 9 match wins, 35 BRO's.
Breaks estimate = 86 + 12/2 - 9 = 83
Break runout % = 35 / 83 = 42.2% compared to 41% in above table.

 

[SlimShafty]

I would have thought the correct formula (to take into account that the last frame win doesn't lead to a break, and the first match frame has a break without a game win) should be.....

Breaks = No. of games won + (no. of matches played / 2) - (no. of match wins).
This means the players who win more matches probably have less breaks than game wins. So their BRO percentages should be higher than indicated in the table Slimshafty produced by a couple of percent.

This also assumes breaking 1/2 the time after the lag. But winners probably win slightly greater than 1/2 of the lags.

As an example, for Marlon, he played 19 matches, won 17 matches, won 145 games and had 65 BRO's.
So to work out his more accurate break & run out percentage of total breaks we calculate this way.
Breaks = 145 + 19/2 -17 = 137.5 Obviously he had a couple more or less.
65BRO's / 137.5 total breaks estimate = 47.3% compared to 45% in above table.

For Efren 86 game wins, 12 matches, 9 match wins, 35 BRO's.
Breaks estimate = 86 + 12/2 - 9 = 83
Break runout % = 35 / 83 = 42.2% compared to 41% in above table.

Colin,
Both formulas sounded interesting, I tested it out and it's not that simple, subtracting half the matches from total wins came out less accurate, although yours was closer then Bobs, and the idea of a player who wins more matches will have less breaks happens sometimes but not enough to use a formula, its all just guessing. In one scenario of equal lags it made an accurate % be off by 5%. by subtracting from total wins your really assuming the player lost most of the lags. So the main time the formula worked was when a player lost all the lags.

I ran 20 test matches from beginning to end, with many many different scenarios, with player 1 winning every lag, winning every lag and losing those games, splitting those games, equal lags, winning the match losing etc. (I can post them but they are boring and only interesting to me)

Actually with my tests I found out there are way too many variables to predict in a match if a player has one less, one more or the same number of breaks in any given match, depending on who lags, if they lag and win, lag and lose, and who wins the match.

But in the long run it usually washes out and comes close, (your reporting on the last 2 matches showed the wins ended up being exactly the same as the breaks) I have not found a formula to make it any more accurate then it is, outside of knowing the total breaks

 

[Bob Jewett]

I would have thought the correct formula ... should be.....

Breaks = No. of games won + (no. of matches played / 2) - (no. of match wins).
...

I think this gives exactly the same correction I proposed, since

matches played = matches won + matches lost

A little algebra and QED.

 

[mikepage]

I think this gives exactly the same correction I proposed, since

matches played = matches won + matches lost

A little algebra and QED.

Phew! ...now that we've got *that* figured out.. I have two questions.

Does anybody know what percentage of the games finished in one inning, that is, were won either by the breaker or his opponent in the first turn at the table? Call that number P.

The second question is what is the optimum value of P for the game of 8-ball to be most interesting? I'm assuming pockets can be tightened to get the desired number.

If P is too small (like it is for most bar league players on valley tables), then there's no real drama until someone seems close to getting out. If P is too large, then there's not really much drama of *competition.* --a player either gets out or he screws up and his opponent gets out.

I think the game is most interesting when between 20 and 50% of the games are won in one inning.

mike page
fargo

 

[Bob Jewett]

... Does anybody know what percentage of the games finished in one inning, that is, were won either by the breaker or his opponent in the first turn at the table? ...

I sat next to a scorekeeper for a while. I think he may have only been noting runouts, as I don't think he was marking each inning. Maybe the group that was going to share a full set of DVDs should send them by Mike first for data extraction. Only 2000 games to watch.

 

[Colin Colenso]

I sat next to a scorekeeper for a while. I think he may have only been noting runouts, as I don't think he was marking each inning. Maybe the group that was going to share a full set of DVDs should send them by Mike first for data extraction. Only 2000 games to watch.

Here is a copy of the scorecard they used.
http://www.internationalpooltour.com/ipt_content/ipt_online_event/sportswriters_day5.asp
It doesn't record innings, but I have made a recommendation that scorecards record inning plus whether the break was dry or wet. Then we could interpolate that data quite insightfully.

Colin >~Uses strange adverbs!

 

[Colin Colenso]

Phew! ...now that we've got *that* figured out.. I have two questions.

Does anybody know what percentage of the games finished in one inning, that is, were won either by the breaker or his opponent in the first turn at the table? Call that number P.

The second question is what is the optimum value of P for the game of 8-ball to be most interesting? I'm assuming pockets can be tightened to get the desired number.

If P is too small (like it is for most bar league players on valley tables), then there's no real drama until someone seems close to getting out. If P is too large, then there's not really much drama of *competition.* --a player either gets out or he screws up and his opponent gets out.

I think the game is most interesting when between 20 and 50% of the games are won in one inning.

mike page
fargo

Mike,
Here are some stats I collected on the first day (I think) that I posted (now back on the 5th page).

The runout after break was a mere 40% which was VERY suprising considering most had predicted near 90%. I had speculated it wouldn't be so high, but 40% was still way below my expectations. I didn't track this in the better play that occured later on, but I suspect it creeped up over 60% and over 80% for players like Marlon, Efren and Busta.
==========
Total 55 Frames sampled randomly from matches withe the following players:
Mika v Earl, Souquet v Williams, Feijin v Allison, Owen v Putman, Earl v Schmidt, Archer v Nick VDB, Gerder v Schmidt, Robles v Morris and Owen v Souquet.

Ball off Breaks = 24 from 55 = 43.6%
Break & Run Outs from Sample = 10 = 18.2%
Legal breaks followed by runout = 10 / 24 = 41.7%
Runout % after break (legal or not) = 22 / 55 = 40%
Breaker Win % = 26 from 55 = 47.3%​

I was always cautious about my expectations of high run percentages, partially for fear of hoping they would be much lower than the claims that some made about how easily pros run out.

I've no doubt the stats will climb for the top players as the tourney progresses but fact is, quite mediocre percentages would get most players through most matches at the IPT. eg: A break percentage of 50% and run-out from first shot after break of around 60% would put you in the upper echelon today.

The best break and runner was Cory I think who was just over 35% of frames won I think.
============

 

[Colin Colenso]

I think this gives exactly the same correction I proposed, since

matches played = matches won + matches lost

A little algebra and QED.

hmmm...after some thinking...you're right.

I just find it hard to visualize your calculation method.