Winning percentage becoming a huge factor

I think this accumulated win% tiebreaker is giving far too much weight to some players, especially in these closing rounds. It is almost the equivalent of a free match win.

For example, Quinten Hann had to win 4 out of 5 matches today to get through. In other words, his lower winning percentage meant he had to win the group to get through. He would have had to win a huge percentage of his frames to be able to win just 3 matches and still get through.

It's not a bad idea to give players an advantage based on their overall performance, but the current method just gives too big an advantage in some cases.

I'd suggest a tiebreaker that used something like the following:
(Group Win% + Previous Accumulative Win %) / 2. That way, a player with a good win/loss % in that group has a reasonable chance to pass another player to win a tie-break in the latter rounds.

Colin
 
Colin

Colin Colenso said:
I think this accumulated win% tiebreaker is giving far too much weight to some players, especially in these closing rounds. It is almost the equivalent of a free match win.

For example, Quinten Hann had to win 4 out of 5 matches today to get through. In other words, his lower winning percentage meant he had to win the group to get through. He would have had to win a huge percentage of his frames to be able to win just 3 matches and still get through.

It's not a bad idea to give players an advantage based on their overall performance, but the current method just gives too big an advantage in some cases.

I'd suggest a tiebreaker that used something like the following:
(Group Win% + Previous Accumulative Win %) / 2. That way, a player with a good win/loss % in that group has a reasonable chance to pass another player to win a tie-break in the latter rounds.

Colin
Click to expand...

I fail to see your logic. All you are doing is reducing the percentage difference because the 2 players would have to be tied to begin with before the winning percentage would comei into play. Player A (6 players per group) wins 3 matches with overall 60% accum win rate (50+60/2=55%). Player B wins 3 matches with 56% overall (50+56%/2=53%). All you are effectively doing in cutting the difference in half. And, if you meant to include prior group win % on a group basis then it ends up doing what the accumulated win percentage does to begin with, although you final difference numbers would be slightly different, but the outcome is the same.

And, in reference to Sigel win rate, his would not come into play as much as you think, because with 200 players, the range of skill is much greater than the latter rounds, and there is much more variance in the matches won within a group (5 wins, 4 wins, 2 wins( as opposed to the closer skill range in latter rounds where many ties in number of matches won are occuring.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by recoveryjones
Rudolpho Luat(2 wins-2 losses) survives a tiebreaker by a mere .39 of a won/lost record percentage point.Vimos Foldes(2-2) is the victim.

Darren Appelton(2-2) survives a tiebreaker by a mere 1.05 of a won/lost record percentage point.Steve Moore(2-2) is the victim.

Raj Hundal(1-3) survives a tiebreaker by a mere 1.4 of a won/lost record percentage point.Gary Abood (1-3) was the victim.

Ivica Putnik(2-2) survives a tiebreaker by a mere 3.89 of a won/lost record percentage point.Jianbo Fu(2-2) is the victim.

Winning percentage is becoming a HUGE factor as the tournament progresses on.In upcoming matches it's a smart bet to bet on the guys with the best winning percentages, because they can finish 3rd in their group and move on in a tiebreaker.

Anyone have any stats on the players with the highest winning percentages? Comments?
RJ


recoveryjones said:
Once again percentage point win/loss records were a major factor in round 4 tiebreakers.Here are the latest four victims who had equal won/lost records,however, were eliminated because of percentage point tiebreakers:

Adkins loses tiebreaker to Alcano by .88 percent points, Group 73
Deuel loses tiebreaker to Appleton by .95 percentage points, Group 75
Feijen loses tiebreaker to Luat by .97 percentage points, Group 76
Putnik loses tiebreaker to Owen by 1.74 percentage points,Group 74

As the marathon continues, who will the next percentage tiebreakers be?
Fasten your seatbelts folks, it doesn't get any better than this!!!!:D
RJ
Click to expand...

And yet, once again winning percentage points are a HUGE factor in the IPT pool tournament.

Orcollo 3 wins two loses advances of Peach(3-2) in a tiebreaker by a mere .40 percentage points.

Stalev (3-2) advances over Appleton(3-2) by 2.42 percentage points.

Manalo (3-2) advances over Chamat(3-2) by 6.05 percentage points.

That's a whopping total of eleven matches in the last three days decided by percentage point tiebreaker eliminations.It pays to make every game like life and death.This is truly a marathon!

Will percentage points decide a tiebreaker in the final six?
Here are the percentage point leaders going into the final six:

Manalo 61.41
Soquet 61.99
Reyes 61.51
Stalev 57.3
Orcollo 56.86
Hohmann 55.44

Comments?
RJ
 
recoveryjones said:
... Anyone have any stats on the players with the highest winning percentages? Comments?
RJ
Click to expand...
One other point that I haven't seen mentioned is that with the W% being so important, the fans and players are actually getting into statistics and scenarios. I think that's a good addition to the texture of the game. At one point after the round of 36 (I think), Nick Varner had his calculator out while we figured out why Dee Adkins didn't advance on W% in spite of going into the round with a very nice 59.56%. It turned out that when the scoreboard guy wrote the number down, it should have been 55.56%. The percentage was almost certainly correct in the on-line data.

Here's a math puzzler: what is the minimum number of games Adkins would have had to have played to have a 59.56% winning percentage? W% are rounded to two decimal places. (For the case of 55.56%, it could have been 5/9 or only 9 games played.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top