Topheavy Prize Money

[jay helfert]

Jay...looking at the total games won (only) would solve the problem of distinguishing efforts in matches lost, but it just opens up the problem of distinguishing efforts in matches won. Like I said in my previous post, looking only at games won doesn't reward you any more if you ran an 8-pack out of the gate, compared to if you won a match hill-hill.

To put it another way, if Efren wins all his 5 first round matches 8-0, and Loree Jon Jones wins all her matches 8-7, then they would have identical number of racks won (40) going into round 2 (or same GWI [8] if you divide by the total number of matches, same principle). However, it's safe to say that Efren performed much better than LJJ, so he should get rewarded with a better tie-breaker statistic.

So GLI and total racks won (or GWI) have almost exactly the same types of problems. GLI makes no distinction on how you perform in your matches lost and GWI makes no distinction on how you perform in your matches won.

GLI and GWI seem equivalent, but if I had to choose between the two I would have to pick GLI. Why? Because GLI penalizes dumping racks much more than GWI. Actually, GWI doesn't penalize dumping racks at all, since it doesn't matter how many racks you lose.

Again, you have to look at both wins and losses, so winning percentage (games won over total games) is the most fair. I understand that winning percentage doesn't penalize dumping as much as the GLI system, but it still penalizes the dumper to an extent, not to mention GLI (and GWI) is intrinscially unfair.

Okay, I agree to disagree.

 

[Keith Buck]

You think a player who lost a match 8-0 played better than a player who went hill-hill with every opponent and won three of five. I like the second player in this scenario.

The first player only got to the table once in his 8-0 loss. He didn't play bad, his opponent played great.

The player who won less games only took 12 innings to win the twenty-four games in the three matches he won while the second player took 25 innings to win his twenty-four games plus he got more turns at the table in the two matches he lost 8-7.

The first player played opponents that were playing better and still won as many matches. I would say the first player played a lot better.

If it was alternate break games won would definately be the way to go.

 

[jay helfert]

The first player only got to the table once in his 8-0 loss. He didn't play bad, his opponent played great.

The player who won less games only took 12 innings to win the twenty-four games in the three matches he won while the second player took 25 innings to win his twenty-four games plus he got more turns at the table in the two matches he lost 8-7.

The first player played opponents that were playing better and still won as many matches. I would say the first player played a lot better.

If it was alternate break games won would definately be the way to go.

Thanks Keith.

 

[jsp]

Okay, I agree to disagree.

No problemo.

 

[jsp]

This might be too complicated but I wonder if the best tiebreaker (after matches won, of course) might be games won per inning played. You would have to subtract innings which ended with a safety. This way a player who didn't win a game but only missed one or two shots wouldn't be hurt too much and a player who won the match without a miss or with only one or two misses would be rewarded.

examples(Score(innings): ........................................... Record ................ GW/Inning

8-7(6),8-1(2),5-8(6),0-8(1),8-5(4) ........................... 3-2(29-29) ............ 29/19=1.526

7-8(4),8-7(9),7-8(5),8-7(10),8-7(6) ......................... 3-2(38-37) ............ 38/34=1.118


In this example I think the first player played better but Total Games Won would have the second player advance.

No matter what tiebreaker you use an example can be found which doesn't seem to promote the person playing best to the next round but I think Games Won per Inning seems best to me.

Keith. This sounds like a decent plan in theory. However, this sounds a bit complicated and cumbersome to enforce in practice. Not only will the players have to keep track of the number of innings of each game (something I doubt they did for the KOTH), but they also have to keep track of the innings that end in a safety. And also, determing what exactly constitutes a safety can get VERY subjective, and could lead to arguments amongst the two combatants.

Okay...if this was MY tournament, this is probably how i would do the (first) tie-breaking system. Yes, I would use something like winning percentage that looks at both wins and losses. However, I would also incorporate the break-and-run numbers (a stat they already kept track of in the KOTH tournament) not only of yourself but also that of your opponent's. I'll call the resulting statistic the JSP average...or simply the JSP. Here's how the JSP system works...

The key to the JSP average is that it rewards you for your break-and-runs (BRNs). It also doesn't punish you fully for your opponent's break-and-runs. The reasoning for the latter situation is why should you be totally penalized a full loss if you've never had a single turn at the table? Here's exactly how the JSP average is calculated...

Take the number of games won and add to it half of the number of BNRs you had. This number is your effective games won. Then you take the number of games lost and subtract from it half the number of BNRs your opponent had. This resulting number is your effective games lost. The JSP average is just the winning percentage of your effective games (or effective games won over total number of effective games).

An example. Let's say Efren and Earl matched up. Efren won the match 8-6 and had 2 BNRs while Earl had 4 BNRs. Efren's effective games won is 9 (8+[0.5*2]) and his effective games lost is 4 (6-[0.5*4]). Earl's effective games won is 8 (6+[0.5*4]) and his effective games lost is 7 (8 - [0.5*2]). Therefore, Efren's JSP average is 0.692 (9/[9+4]) while Earl's JSP is 0.533 (8/[8+7]).

The JSP average is a much better indication of your overall performance, as opposed to a straight winning percentage that doesn't factor in your break-and-runs and your opponent's break-and-runs.

Okay, sorry...I got carried away. It would be interesting to calculate the JSPs for some of the players at the KOTH tournament. All the necessary statistics have been taken, i just have to do a bit of number crunching. I'm guessing Manalo has the highest JSP average by a longshot...with Bustamante coming in a distant second.

 

[Keith Buck]

Keith. This sounds like a decent plan in theory. However, this sounds a bit complicated and cumbersome to enforce in practice. Not only will the players have to keep track of the number of innings of each game (something I doubt they did for the KOTH), but they also have to keep track of the innings that end in a safety. And also, determing what exactly constitutes a safety can get VERY subjective, and could lead to arguments amongst the two combatants.

Okay...if this was MY tournament, this is probably how i would do the (first) tie-breaking system. Yes, I would use something like winning percentage that looks at both wins and losses. However, I would also incorporate the break-and-run numbers (a stat they already kept track of in the KOTH tournament) not only of yourself but also that of your opponent's. I'll call the resulting statistic the JSP average...or simply the JSP. Here's how the JSP system works...

The key to the JSP average is that it rewards you for your break-and-runs (BRNs). It also doesn't punish you fully for your opponent's break-and-runs. The reasoning for the latter situation is why should you be totally penalized a full loss if you've never had a single turn at the table? Here's exactly how the JSP average is calculated...

Take the number of games won and add to it half of the number of BNRs you had. This number is your effective games won. Then you take the number of games lost and subtract from it half the number of BNRs your opponent had. This resulting number is your effective games lost. The JSP average is just the winning percentage of your effective games (or effective games won over total number of effective games).

An example. Let's say Efren and Earl matched up. Efren won the match 8-6 and had 2 BNRs while Earl had 4 BNRs. Efren's effective games won is 9 (8+[0.5*2]) and his effective games lost is 4 (6-[0.5*4]). Earl's effective games won is 8 (6+[0.5*4]) and his effective games lost is 7 (8 - [0.5*2]). Therefore, Efren's JSP average is 0.692 (9/[9+4]) while Earl's JSP is 0.533 (8/[8+7]).

The JSP average is a much better indication of your overall performance, as opposed to a straight winning percentage that doesn't factor in your break-and-runs and your opponent's break-and-runs.

Okay, sorry...I got carried away. It would be interesting to calculate the JSPs for some of the players at the KOTH tournament. All the necessary statistics have been taken, i just have to do a bit of number crunching. I'm guessing Manalo has the highest JSP average by a longshot...with Bustamante coming in a distant second.

I agree that games lost per inning would probably be too complicated and that's why I started the point by saying "this might be too complicated but" The safety argument problem could be solved by making the the players have to call safety when they play one.

I think your JSP average would be better than just games won but it also starts to get a little more complicated.

I guess my main point was that any simple tiebreaker is going to have situations where the best player doesn't get through and any more accurate the tie-breaker gets it also gets more complicated.

My vote is to stick with a simple tie-breaker and if the player doesn't play well enough to avoid the tie-breaker he/she deserves to get screwed once in a while.

 

[loyarc]

In terms of prize money, its great for the sport on the surface. However, without a sustainable tour revenue model, as soon as Trudeau gets bored, those large payouts are history.

 

[jsp]

The GLI system is just stupid. It's flawed because you don't take the number of games won into consideration at all. I started a thread explaining this a while back in December when the KOTH was being played.

If you lose a match, you could have been totally shut out or you could have went till hill-hill (winning 7 racks)...the GLI system doesn't make any distinction. All it sees is that you lost 8 racks. (One can argue that the number of racks won in your match losses does affect you indirectly, since you're reducing your opponent's GLI...but that's like a 3rd order effect.)

Looking only at the total of games won is also unfair, because it discounts your number of losses. It only makes sense if you look at BOTH your racks won AND your racks lost. A simple winning percentage (games won over the total games played) seems like the most obvious and simple solution. Why the IPT choses only to look at the losses is beyond me.

Check out the new round robin scoresheets...

http://www.internationalpooltour.com/ipt_content/events/06_na_8ball_open/scorecard_how_to_read.asp

Notice anything different? Yup, no GLI! They have a winning percentage instead! Woohoo! We've been heard people.

I'm just happy to know that this trounament will be much more fair than the way they did things in the KOTH.

Sorry if this was posted already. I'm too lazy to look at all the other threads.

 

[DanielM]

I noticed a mistake on that page. Players 4 and 5 have the wrong number of wins.

..but yes change is surely fairer, counting sets that you've lost aswell as sets you've won.