Winning percentage becoming a huge factor

R

recoveryjones

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
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
 
I will say that I think it's a great idea for a tiebreaker. It makes the guys or gals play hard at all times because that one extra game here or there might make the difference. Also it's infinitely easier to understand than the previous system of Games Lost Index. Any idiot knows what a winning percentage is.
 
Just shows anybody who forfeits or doesn't try hard whether they are guaranteed to be eliminated or not are just stupid. It could really affect their ranking, and if game winning % carries on to the first round of the next event, which i think it should, even more so.
 
Good for the tour

It makes every single game important just knowing you might be knocked out by .01 percentage point if you tie someone. It sort of 'demands' that the player perform like a professional at all times, and it rewards consistency, and consistency is a big factor.

Just look at what happened to Archer yesterday. He was going full steam, and got knocked in the head, and his winning percentage will suffer because of it.
 
StraightPoolIU said:
...Also it's infinitely easier to understand than the previous system of Games Lost Index.
Click to expand...
I don't understand why the idea of GLI is so difficult, or according to the IPT "far too confusing and complicated for many players and fans to understand". Quantitively, it's basically total games lost over total matches played. Qualitively, it's just the average games lost per match. It's not rocket science?

I still don't buy the IPT's reasoning on why they changed GLI to winning percentage. The real reason they changed their initial system because it was unfair! They just can't admit that they were wrong initially.

Man, I can only imagine how different this tournament would be if they used GLI. The players who lost hill-hill battes would definitely be screwed over. There would be so many complaints. I doubt too many players now are complaining how the tie-breaking system works currently using winning %.
 
StraightPoolIU said:
Also it's infinitely easier to understand than the previous system of Games Lost Index. Any idiot knows what a winning percentage is.
Click to expand...


And we all know that the world of pool is full of idiots.

So, then you are saying the IPT is making it idiot simple?

Sorry, people, I just couldn't resist.

Jake
 
jsp said:
I don't understand why the idea of GLI is so difficult, or according to the IPT "far too confusing and complicated for many players and fans to understand". Quantitively, it's basically total games lost over total matches played. Qualitively, it's just the average games lost per match. It's not rocket science?

I still don't buy the IPT's reasoning on why they changed GLI to winning percentage. The real reason they changed their initial system because it was unfair! They just can't admit that they were wrong initially.

Man, I can only imagine how different this tournament would be if they used GLI. The players who lost hill-hill battes would definitely be screwed over. There would be so many complaints. I doubt too many players now are complaining how the tie-breaking system works currently using winning %.
Click to expand...


See my previous post. Ha Ha. The IPT had to make it idiot simple.

Actually I believe that a GLI is a truer representation of who the better player is.

To me, the better player is the one who allows his opponent the fewest wins.

Jake
 
DanielM said:
Just shows anybody who forfeits or doesn't try hard whether they are guaranteed to be eliminated or not are just stupid. It could really affect their ranking, and if game winning % carries on to the first round of the next event, which i think it should, even more so.[/QUOTE

I vaguely recall reading that the winning percentage stays with a player for the whole season.

If so, those 9 games that Ginky gave away will really hurt his average. And can impact on his earnings. It will hit him right in the pocket book. Something that I am sure all of the players will think about from now on. And that doesn't take into consideration what a sponsor would say to the player.

Jake
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
don't break & runs and 8s on the break factor in? In Stevie Moore's group he had more of these than ANYONE? I would have thought that would bring his up?


:(
 
cuechick said:
don't break & runs and 8s on the break factor in? In Stevie Moore's group he had more of these than ANYONE? I would have thought that would bring his up?


:(
Click to expand...
I think these are secondary tiebreakers if two players have the exact same winning percentage, however unlikely that circumstance is to occur.
 
If what jsp said about the games lost index is true then I don't see how the two numbers are all that different. They both describe the data the same way. For instance, if you subtract your winning percentage from 1, in decimal form of course, you have your losing percentage. If you mulitply that by the total games played and devide it by the total matches played then you have your average losses per match which would give the same ranking as a win %, although in this case a lower GLI would be a higher ranking. Since these numbers have a linear relationship it would not change the rankings. That is, of course, if the GLI is simply the average losses per match like jsp said.
 
Last edited:
zeeder said:
If what jsp said about the games lost index is true then I don't see how the two numbers are all that different. They both describe the data the same way. For instance, if you subtract your winning percentage from 1, in decimal form of course, you have your losing percentage. If you mulitply that by the total games played and devide it by the total matches played then you have your average losses per match which would give the same ranking as a win %, although in this case a lower GLI would be a higher ranking. Since these numbers have a linear relationship it would not change the rankings. That is, of course, if the GLI is simply the average losses per match like jsp said.
Click to expand...

I don't think that is right because under the GLI it didn't matter if you lost 8-0 or 8-7 you still lost 8 games but it does make a difference in win %(8-0(0.00%) vs. 8-7(46.00%)).
 
Johnnyt said:
The players that that have under 55% are at a huge disavantage today. Johnnyt
Click to expand...


Definitely, yesterday was an example of just how big a factor the winning percentage can be with it determining who advanced in several groups. I've noticed most of the players advancing based on their winning percentage have been around or above the 55% mark that you pointed out.
 
jjinfla said:
And we all know that the world of pool is full of idiots.

So, then you are saying the IPT is making it idiot simple?

Sorry, people, I just couldn't resist.

Jake
Click to expand...
Why apologize now? This is the kind of stuff you always say. :rolleyes:
 
recoveryjones said:
... Winning percentage is becoming a HUGE factor as the tournament progresses on....
Click to expand...
And in the later rounds, it's harder to boost your W% by dominating a match because you already have so many games completed. I think several players in the Wednesday round got through by a good final match.
 
Here's an interesting one...

IF Sigel were still in, his winning % (59.92) would rank him at #12 of the remaining 36 players... between Rafael and Mika... meaning there are 24 players that have a lesser % than Mike, the lowest being Shawn Putnam at 52.60.

Come next IPT tournament, Sigel's winning % may become a huge advantage to him in the early rounds.
 
cigardave said:
.... Come next IPT tournament, Sigel's winning % may become a huge advantage to him in the early rounds.
Click to expand...
As mentioned in another thread, W% resets for each tournament, but total W% counts towards end-of-year ranking.
 
recoveryjones said:
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
Click to expand...

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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top