Will round 1 %'s be used for round 2
- Thread starter Johnahl
- Start date
Hi Johnny,
Yes, your percentage follows you into succeeding rounds.
Yes, your percentage follows you into succeeding rounds.
Johnahl said:
It is supposed to be the win % for the whole tournament. In fact, I believe they keep the win% for the whole year so players that lost in the first round with a low win % will be at a disadvantage starting the next tournament.
If I understand it right, this is the way that they try to keep a player from dumping once they can no longer advance from their group. It would suck to dump your last match 8-0 and then find out that you missed advancing in the next tournament because your win % was half a point below the person who did advance.
Excerpt from IPT release
2. Total Winning Percentage - This statistic measures the percentage of games that a player wins out of all the games he played. For example, if a player beats someone 8-2, that player has won eight out of ten games and his winning percentage is 80%, whereas the other player won two out of ten for a W% of 20%. This statistic will be carried out to two decimal places. It is important to note that the winning percentage is carried over from previous rounds, so it is crucial to a player's statistics that he tries to win every single game in every match. If a player is beating someone 7-0, it has a seriously positive impact on his statistics to win the match without letting the other player get back into the match! In contrast, if a player is down 0-7, it is equally important for that player to win as many games as possible in order to positively impact his winning percentage. One poor match can result in a player losing out in a tie in the tournament or on the Money List. If someone loses on purpose, or dumps he is virtually killing himself in the end because of the negative impact those purposely lost games will have on his statistics. Remember, these statistics follow the player for the tournament and for the year. They are used to break ties on the Money List, so losing even one game on purpose is potentially detrimental to a player's future on the IPT. Using a stat like the winning percentage is designed to eliminate any dumping or match fixing. It makes every single game of every match crucial to a player's future.
2. Total Winning Percentage - This statistic measures the percentage of games that a player wins out of all the games he played. For example, if a player beats someone 8-2, that player has won eight out of ten games and his winning percentage is 80%, whereas the other player won two out of ten for a W% of 20%. This statistic will be carried out to two decimal places. It is important to note that the winning percentage is carried over from previous rounds, so it is crucial to a player's statistics that he tries to win every single game in every match. If a player is beating someone 7-0, it has a seriously positive impact on his statistics to win the match without letting the other player get back into the match! In contrast, if a player is down 0-7, it is equally important for that player to win as many games as possible in order to positively impact his winning percentage. One poor match can result in a player losing out in a tie in the tournament or on the Money List. If someone loses on purpose, or dumps he is virtually killing himself in the end because of the negative impact those purposely lost games will have on his statistics. Remember, these statistics follow the player for the tournament and for the year. They are used to break ties on the Money List, so losing even one game on purpose is potentially detrimental to a player's future on the IPT. Using a stat like the winning percentage is designed to eliminate any dumping or match fixing. It makes every single game of every match crucial to a player's future.
I don't agree that win percentage should be carried forward. That's horrible. If I had a better winning percentage in my group and a fellow player advanced over me because he had a higher percentage in day 1/2, I wouldn't be happy. Especially considering groups arn't always very balanced so the other player could have ran up his percentage against sup-par opponents.
I don't think this is the case, nor should it be the case. I'm pretty certain the winning percentages reset at the start of each tournament. Otherwise, you'll be hearing of a lot of complaints (me being one of themKeith Buck said:
).I'm sure they will keep a cumulative winning percentage for the entire season, but I think only for statistics purposes. Though, they might use it to objectively seed players in the following tourneys. However, I would use total games won (or maybe total matches won) instead of winning percentage to seed players.
However, I do agree that's it's best to carry it over to subsequent rounds within the same tournament.
Its fine for the year for obvious reasons, but group advancement should be determined by result from within that group only.
jsp said:I don't think this is the case, nor should it be the case. I'm pretty certain the winning percentages reset at the start of each tournament. Otherwise, you'll be hearing of a lot of complaints (me being one of them
I'm sure they will keep a cumulative winning percentage for the entire season, but I think only for statistics purposes. Though, they might use it to objectively seed players in the following tourneys. However, I would use total games won (or maybe total matches won) instead of winning percentage to seed players.
However, I do agree that's it's best to carry it over to subsequent rounds within the same tournament.
So how does your idea stop players from dumping their last match if it doesn't carry on to the next tournament? The whole idea is to make every game important.
Looks like only group matches count.
It looks like you advance strictly on your performance on the current group. IOW they don't use your total % for the whole tournament.
I just looked at Group 42 from Tuesday
http://www.internationalpooltour.co...na_8ball_open/scoresheets/ViewGroups.asp?G=42
According to that scoresheet, the players that should have advanced were Alex P, Varner and Keith Bennett. Instead Monday advanced instead of Bennett.
Oops, I just thought of something. Will the %'s from previous days show the current total tournament %. IOW I would expect the scoresheet at the end of day 2 to lock on and show what the % was at the end of that round only.
So maybe the correct person did advance. But you can't tell from the earlier scoresheets????
Edit: I just went and checked and it looks like they do link the scoresheets % to the tournament total. IOW if you go back and look at a scoresheet from day 1, the % will change as the tournament advances.
It looks like you advance strictly on your performance on the current group. IOW they don't use your total % for the whole tournament.
I just looked at Group 42 from Tuesday
http://www.internationalpooltour.co...na_8ball_open/scoresheets/ViewGroups.asp?G=42
According to that scoresheet, the players that should have advanced were Alex P, Varner and Keith Bennett. Instead Monday advanced instead of Bennett.
Oops, I just thought of something. Will the %'s from previous days show the current total tournament %. IOW I would expect the scoresheet at the end of day 2 to lock on and show what the % was at the end of that round only.
So maybe the correct person did advance. But you can't tell from the earlier scoresheets????
Edit: I just went and checked and it looks like they do link the scoresheets % to the tournament total. IOW if you go back and look at a scoresheet from day 1, the % will change as the tournament advances.
Last edited:
O
onepocketchump
Guest
Poolislife said:
First there aren't really any groups with "sub-par" opponents. I think the list of so-called "upsets" has clearly shown that there are PLENTY of players who names are not famous but they play jam-up. The only truly sub-par players in the IPT won't be there next year so that will correct itself.
The draw was done in such a way as to balance the groups as much as possible and future tournaments will be seeded according to the win % and the money list. The advancement scheme also balances the groups as well.
I like the win % carrying over throughout the tournament. It does make every game in every round super important. You can't just squeak into another round and be on equal footing with everyone else. When Efren wins all of his matches 8:0 then he should not be penalised by having to start on equal footing with someone else who won his matches 8:7. That's the WHOLE POINT of this tournament format - to see who the BEST PLAYER really is over distance.
If a player advances with a poor win % then he had better step it up in the next round. Conversely players that came in with really high win percentages have a cushion that they have earned.
I think that this whole thing ushers in a new era of pool. It does hearken back to the old days when straight pool championships were determined round robin style. It's the way carom championships are decided.
ON top of all that - it's exciting! When it comes down to the end of a group and you know that the matches MUST go down a certain way it adds another level for the players and the spectators as well.
John
I like it that IPT is carrying ones winning percentage for the whole tourney.
I don't like it that it carrys on the whole year. If it's a new tourney, everyone should start fresh.
JMO RJ
I don't like it that it carrys on the whole year. If it's a new tourney, everyone should start fresh.
JMO RJ
recoveryjones said:
I don't think it would be fair either. Unless they keep enough stats that you wont play Bustamonte again until you've played all of the rest of the players on the tour.
How would it be if you played Reyes your first round and then Busta. Then in the next tournament your played the same champions again your 1st and 2nd round. You could have a deficit for the year that you could never recover from. I could see players not attending certain tournaments because the expenses would overcome the minimum payouts.
I sort of agree with this. In Round 2, I counted 24 of 120 players (20%) who advanced or didn't based on their winning percentage. The tightest case was where there was a 4-way tie for first. Larry Nevel was the one who did not advance.recoveryjones said:
On the other hand, after several tournaments, you will have more or less settled in to your average.
It's not clear to me how much spread there will be in the long run, since in the later rounds the top players have to play each other and someones average has to drop.
Bob Jewett said:
recoveryjones said:
Oops. It must be getting late. Group 56 is the one I was looking at, and it was actually Okumura who didn't advance. He trailed Nevel by 0.36%.
And I'm informed by someone who is absolutely sure to know that in fact the winning percentages start over each tournament, but the end-of-the-season tie breaker will be total winning percentage.