Post a reply

Rankings revisit - a trip through history

Postby chengdufan

The current ranking system is reasonably ok at ranking the top 16 or so players. However, there are some major flaws with it.
It weights tournaments on prize money rather than match length, meaning events such as the World Championship are top heavy on points, and the tournament winners of most tournaments are ranked top heavy on points.
It is a horrendous, even comicly bad way of ranking players the further down the list you go, making it very unfair for those who struggle more financially and depend on staying in the top 64 to remain professional.
And points do not gradually decrease over time, but suddenly all drop off after 2 years. Isn't it strange that one day, Stuart Bingham has 300,000 points from the 2015 WC, and the next day he has none of those points?

I've been playing around with alternative ranking systems. One that has been mentioned on here is the Elo system. I don't like that one for snooker, although I concede that it may be because I don't fully understand it. From what I can gather, a player keeps the same number of points until he plays his next match. So if Elo were used, would Hendry have the same number of points he had when he last played professionally? That doesn't seem fair. If I'm right, that system would encourage somene with lots of points to just sit out the season and wait for the World Championship, at which point they would be one of the top seeds. But we want to encourage people to enter as many events as possible.
I also don't think Elo takes into account the mental aspect of snooker. Playing Ronnie in the first round would be the same as playing him in a final in Elo. Similarly, the deciding frame in a match, or the final frame of a final would have the same effect on the Elo rating as a first round first frame against the same opponent.

So I've designed my own ranking points system, which is fairly simple to calculate. The accuracy of my rankings increases the more tournaments are considered, and the further back in time we go (though it should be noted that I only count tournaments from the most recent two years in my rankings). And so, I am going to work out the points for every player who has played in a cuetracker.net ranking event or minor ranking event, starting with the 1974 World Championship and working forwards in time.

The rankings won't be that good until I get to about the 1984-85 season. From '74 to '82, only the World Championship is listed as a ranking event, so the sample size is very small. But including these early WCs is of interest, and does help as we move forward in time.

A couple of final notes, I am only ranking events from the last 128 stage (or last 144 for some WCs). And I will do a ranking revision at the conclusion of each ranking event.

Re: Rankings revisit - a trip through history

Postby chengdufan

The first set of rankings comes from the 1974 World Championship
https://cuetracker.net/tournaments/worl ... p/1974/897

Everyone who won a frame receives a ranking. I'm afraid that means no ranking for Jack Karnehm or Sydney Lee.

1 Ray Reardon 6644
2 Graham Miles 5424
3 John Dunning 3208
4 Rex Williams 3144
5 Marcus Owen 3032
6 Fred Davis 2728
7 Alex Higgins 2320
8 Perrie Mans 1960
9 John Pulman 1840
10 Jim Meadowcroft1192
11 Paddy Morgan 1024
12 Eddie Charlton 936
13 John Spencer 936
14 Bill Werbeniuk 880
15 David Taylor 840
16 Bernard Bennett808
17 Cliff Thorburn 712
18 Warren Simpson584
19 Gary Owen 576
20 Ron Gross 392
21 Maurice Parkin 320
22 Kingsley Kennerley 320
23 Pat Houlihan 280
24 Geoff Thompson192
25 Allan McDonald 168
26 Jackie Rea 168
27 David Greaves 112
28 Ian Anderson 64
29 Dennis Taylor 56

Re: Rankings revisit - a trip through history

Postby chengdufan

Next are the rankings following the final of the 1975 WC, in which Ray Reardon beat Eddie Charlton 31-30 on March 1st 1975, in Australia.
https://cuetracker.net/tournaments/worl ... p/1975/890

1 Ray Reardon 11814
2 Eddie Charlton 8820
3 Alex Higgins 5780
4 Dennis Taylor 5492
5 Cliff Thorburn 4188
6 Rex Williams 3716
7 Gary Owen 3556
8 John Spencer 3528
9 Graham Miles 2856
10 John Pulman 2608
11 Warren Simpson 2536
12 Fred Davis 2372
13 Bill Werbeniuk 2260
14 John Dunning 2180
15 Perrie Mans 1748
16 David Taylor 1556
17 Marcus Owen 1516
18 Ian Anderson 1400
19 Philip Tarrant 1368
20 Lou Condo 1360
21 Jim Meadowcroft 1208
22 David Greaves 1096
23 Paddy Morgan 896
24 Bernard Bennett 852
25 Jim Charlton 784
26 Maurice Parkin 608
27 Rex King 544
28 Ron Mares 320
29 Ron Gross 196
30 Kingsley Kennerley 160
31 Pat Houlihan 140
32 Geoff Thompson 96
33 Allan McDonald 84
33 Jackie Rea 84

Re: Rankings revisit - a trip through history

Postby chengdufan

Ray Reardon wins the World Championship again! The final, in Manchester, concluded on April 24th 1976 with Reardon beating Alex Higgins 27-16.

Interestingly, there were only 2 qualifying places up for grabs, with Jim Meadowcroft qualifying and beating Rex Williams in the first round. He jumps from 21st to 8th in my rankings as a result.
Charlton and Higgins swap 2nd and 3rd place.
Jackie Rea, the second qualifier, moves from 33rd and last up to 19th.

https://cuetracker.net/tournaments/worl ... p/1976/885

Here are the rankings following the 1976 WC:
1 Ray Reardon 15974
2 Alex Higgins 10889
3 Eddie Charlton 10786
4 Dennis Taylor 5612
5 John Spencer 5017
6 Perrie Mans 4642
7 Cliff Thorburn 4452
8 Jim Meadowcroft 4225
9 Fred Davis 4034
10 Gary Owen 3495
11 Rex Williams 2898
12 John Pulman 2770
13 David Taylor 2522
14 Bill Werbeniuk 2449
15 Graham Miles 2184
16 John Dunning 2046
17 Warren Simpson 1829
18 Lou Condo 1668
19 Jackie Rea 1494
20 David Greaves 1332
21 Ian Anderson 1322
22 Marcus Owen 1094
23 Philip Tarrant 1026
24 Jim Charlton 868
25 Bernard Bennett 858
26 Willie Thorne 840
27 Ron Gross 810
28 Maurice Parkin 696
29 Paddy Morgan 544
30 Rex King 408
31 Ron Mares 240
32 Kingsley Kennerley 80
33 Pat Houlihan 70
34 Dennis Wheelwright 56
35 Geoff Thompson 48
36 Allan McDonald 42

Re: Rankings revisit - a trip through history

Postby chengdufan

On to the next ranking event, the 1977 World Championship, the first WC at The Crucible.
https://cuetracker.net/tournaments/worl ... p/1977/878

John Spencer beat no.1 Ray Reardon in the Quarter-finals, before going on to win the event. He beat Cliff Thorburn in the final 25-21, meaning in my rankings, no.5 beat no.7 in the final.

Here are the rankings at the end of the Championship, with Spencer and Thorburn moving up to 1 and 2, and Reardon dropping to 3. Doug Mountjoy, John Virgo, Patsy Fagan and Willie Thorne enter the top 16:
1 John Spencer 9369
2 Cliff Thorburn 9022
3 Ray Reardon 7567
4 Dennis Taylor 6744
5 Eddie Charlton 6232
6 Alex Higgins 5441
7 John Pulman 4704
8 Doug Mountjoy 3328
9 Perrie Mans 3080
10 Jim Meadowcroft 2463
11 Fred Davis 2414
12 David Taylor 2226
13 Graham Miles 2220
14 John Virgo 2136
15 Patsy Fagan 1744
16 Willie Thorne 1420
17 Jackie Rea 1302
18 Rex Williams 1292
19 Gary Owen 1267
20 John Dunning 934
21 Bill Werbeniuk 887
22 Lou Condo 664
23 Warren Simpson 561
24 Bernard Bennett 528
25 David Greaves 522
26 Ian Anderson 482
27 Ron Gross 356
28 Philip Tarrant 342
29 Jim Charlton 336
30 Maurice Parkin 252
31 Marcus Owen 168
32 Rex King 136
33 Paddy Morgan 96
34 Ron Mares 80
35 Roy Andrewartha 56
36 Dennis Wheelwright 28

Re: Rankings revisit - a trip through history

Postby badtemperedcyril

Very interesting. I did a similar exercise but starting in 1969 and including other notable events of the day, such as Norwich Union, Canada Club Masters, Pontins, Watney Open, B&H Masters etc. Obviously has its floors as most events were restricted entries. It also penalised overseas players, such as Eddie Charlton, who only really came across for the World Championship each year. The top “home” players who tended to be box office and first choice invitees into most events were Spencer, Reardon, Higgins and Pulman. My rankings thus gave them an over inflated standing, simply because they got to play in more events.

Re: Rankings revisit - a trip through history

Postby chengdufan

In the 1978 World Championship, 45 year-old Ray Reardon returned to glory, beating Perrie Mans 25-18 in the final
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_Worl ... ampionship

Interestingly, there was a third place play-off in which Eddie Charlton beat 64 year-old Fred Davis 7-3!

Poor Jack Karnehm. This is his third World Championship listed as a ranking event, and he is yet to win a frame, losing to nil in each macth so far.

Here are the updated rankings, with Reardon going back to the top. Bill Werbeniuk and Pat Houlihan enter the top 16 at the expense of Alex Higgins and Jim Meadowcroft.

1 Ray Reardon 8256
2 Perrie Mans 8117
3 Cliff Thorburn 7523
4 John Spencer 6096
5 Eddie Charlton 6032
6 Fred Davis 5656
7 Dennis Taylor 4119
8 Doug Mountjoy 3980
9 Patsy Fagan 3872
10 John Pulman 3108
11 Graham Miles 2928
12 Willie Thorne 2342
13 Bill Werbeniuk 2284
14 David Taylor 2213
15 John Virgo 2146
16 Pat Houlihan 2060
17 Alex Higgins 1512
18 John Barrie 920
19 Jim Meadowcroft 816
20 Roy Andrewartha 806
21 Maurice Parkin 640
22 John Dunning 628
23 Rex Williams 582
24 Paddy Morgan 476
25 Jackie Rea 432
26 Bernard Bennett 416
27 David Greaves 168
28 Chris Ross 56

Re: Rankings revisit - a trip through history

Postby lhpirnie

Good work! It will be interesting to see how much difference there was.

Yes we really need a debate about ranking systems, because in my view the current one is strangling the game, and could lead to the death of snooker as a professional game.

Unfortunately any system based on 'points' will suffer from the same problem - it can't deal with all tournaments. That's the reason why the Masters has never been a 'ranking' tournament. The same thing is true with the Champion of Champions, Shanghai Masters, etc. Stuart Bingham was 23 on last year's list, despite winning the Masters. Mark Allen nearly dropped out of the top-16 after he won his Masters. The concept of 'ranking points' and 'ranking tournaments' is no good. It's a hangover from the back-of-an-envelope seedings used in the 1970's. Can snooker not move into the 21st century?

Snooker needs to break free of the chains of a flat 128-player system. It discriminates against overseas players, those with health issues, with families, young players. It forces them to chase after 'ranking points', entering every tournament. The only justification for 'money lists' is to promote the fact that Judd Trump and Ronnie O'Sullivan made over £1M in prizemoney. Apparently that's considered 'big'.

It's not big. The French Open tennis winner will get €1.6M and the L128 losers get €60K. And there are 4 tennis majors (normally), and several other events that pay big. If I were BH, I'd want to hide the fact that the top two players 'only' get £1M, and I'd certainly want to hide the fact that players further down get almost nothing.

For snooker to survive, we really need a global ranking system, with thousands of players, all striving to improve. That would lead to a boom in tournament participation. Different levels of tournaments would be possible, including a healthy Pro-Am circuit which is desperately needed, and events in all parts of the world.

If a player like Ding Junhui wanted to play mostly events in China, that would be fine, rather than have to come to the UK for everything and abandon his family. Older players could reduce their schedule if jaded by all the travelling. Young players would improve at their own pace, qualify for stronger events and gain experience. At the moment they get thrown off a cliff.

Tournaments would almost all be invitational. For example, the German Masters would invite the top players, but there could also be some German players in the Tempodrom. Perhaps some qualifiers, but in general qualification tournaments wouldn't be needed (i.e. no more Barnsley/Preston qualifiers).

If players don't participate, their ranking becomes 'provisional' and they don't qualify for the best tournaments (and don't earn prizemoney of course). The Elo system (or one of its many variants) would work nicely, and is trivially easy to implement. It's basically just a statistically sound way of measuring performance, based on results of matches (all matches).

Re: Rankings revisit - a trip through history

Postby chengdufan

So, on to the 1979 World Championship.

https://cuetracker.net/tournaments/worl ... p/1979/849

Qualifier Terry Griffiths beat Dennis Taylor in the final 24-16, and we also saw Steve Davis and Kirk Stevens for the first time.
With the top two losing early (Reardon lost to Taylor in the quarters, and Mans lost to Griffiths in the first round), Griffiths comes straight in at number 1!

Alex Higgins re-enters the top 16, in place of John Pulman who lost 9-0 to Stevens in qualifying.

Here are the rankings:
1 Terry Griffiths 8648
2 Eddie Charlton 8535
3 Ray Reardon 7380
4 Dennis Taylor 7247
5 Perrie Mans 6320
6 John Virgo 6046
7 Fred Davis 5268
8 Bill Werbeniuk 4397
9 Cliff Thorburn 4061
10 Doug Mountjoy 3581
11 Graham Miles 3138
12 John Spencer 3064
13 Alex Higgins 2864
14 Pat Houlihan 2561
15 Willie Thorne 2500
16 Patsy Fagan 2487
17 David Taylor 2225
18 Steve Davis 2056
19 Kirk Stevens 1804
20 John Dunning 1407
21 Jim Meadowcroft 1328
22 Roy Andrewartha 1235
23 John Pulman 1156
24 Rex Williams 1131
25 John Barrie 1030
26 Maurice Parkin 480
27 Ray Edmonds 448
28 Jackie Rea 424
29 Jimmy van Rensberg 392
30 Paddy Morgan 357
31 Bernard Bennett 344
32 David Greaves 238
33 Jim Charlton 204
34 Derek Mienie 84
35 Ian Anderson 56
36 Roy Amdor 56
37 Chris Ross 42

Re: Rankings revisit - a trip through history

Postby chengdufan

lhpirnie wrote:Good work! It will be interesting to see how much difference there was.

Yes we really need a debate about ranking systems, because in my view the current one is strangling the game, and could lead to the death of snooker as a professional game.

Unfortunately any system based on 'points' will suffer from the same problem - it can't deal with all tournaments. That's the reason why the Masters has never been a 'ranking' tournament. The same thing is true with the Champion of Champions, Shanghai Masters, etc. Stuart Bingham was 23 on last year's list, despite winning the Masters. Mark Allen nearly dropped out of the top-16 after he won his Masters. The concept of 'ranking points' and 'ranking tournaments' is no good. It's a hangover from the back-of-an-envelope seedings used in the 1970's. Can snooker not move into the 21st century?

Snooker needs to break free of the chains of a flat 128-player system. It discriminates against overseas players, those with health issues, with families, young players. It forces them to chase after 'ranking points', entering every tournament. The only justification for 'money lists' is to promote the fact that Judd Trump and Ronnie O'Sullivan made over £1M in prizemoney. Apparently that's considered 'big'.

It's not big. The French Open tennis winner will get €1.6M and the L128 losers get €60K. And there are 4 tennis majors (normally), and several other events that pay big. If I were BH, I'd want to hide the fact that the top two players 'only' get £1M, and I'd certainly want to hide the fact that players further down get almost nothing.

For snooker to survive, we really need a global ranking system, with thousands of players, all striving to improve. That would lead to a boom in tournament participation. Different levels of tournaments would be possible, including a healthy Pro-Am circuit which is desperately needed, and events in all parts of the world.

If a player like Ding Junhui wanted to play mostly events in China, that would be fine, rather than have to come to the UK for everything and abandon his family. Older players could reduce their schedule if jaded by all the travelling. Young players would improve at their own pace, qualify for stronger events and gain experience. At the moment they get thrown off a cliff.

Tournaments would almost all be invitational. For example, the German Masters would invite the top players, but there could also be some German players in the Tempodrom. Perhaps some qualifiers, but in general qualification tournaments wouldn't be needed (i.e. no more Barnsley/Preston qualifiers).

If players don't participate, their ranking becomes 'provisional' and they don't qualify for the best tournaments (and don't earn prizemoney of course). The Elo system (or one of its many variants) would work nicely, and is trivially easy to implement. It's basically just a statistically sound way of measuring performance, based on results of matches (all matches).


Thanks! I think in terms of comparing the real rankings, this may come to life when we get to the present day.

Elo (or one of its variations) would definitely be good for the amateur game, I completely agree with you there. And I also think it would be very easy to start using if there was a decree from WST that players in all comps should use the system.

However, at the professional level, in addition to having Elo ratings, I think a ranking system such as the one I'm implementing here is necessary. I would like professionals to be encouraged to enter as many events as possible, which purely using Elo would not do. I also think the ranking points system needs to be easily understandable and calcuable for the majority of fans, which Elo isn't.

Re: Rankings revisit - a trip through history

Postby lhpirnie

chengdufan wrote:I also think the ranking points system needs to be easily understandable and calcuable for the majority of fans, which Elo isn't.

That's true, the mathematics behind Elo are sophisticated. However, personally I don't remember how many ranking points are available for reaching the Q-finals of the Gibraltar Open! The fact is, any calculations with any ranking system would need an app, which is perfectly normal in the modern world. The proof of the pudding is in the eating - if people look at the ranking list and it looks right and fair, it will be accepted.


Question: does your ranking system cover the Masters?

Re: Rankings revisit - a trip through history

Postby chengdufan

lhpirnie wrote:Question: does your ranking system cover the Masters?


No. Events officially classed as ranking events only.

Re: Rankings revisit - a trip through history

Postby HappyCamper

chengdufan wrote:
Thanks! I think in terms of comparing the real rankings, this may come to life when we get to the present day.

Elo (or one of its variations) would definitely be good for the amateur game, I completely agree with you there. And I also think it would be very easy to start using if there was a decree from WST that players in all comps should use the system.

However, at the professional level, in addition to having Elo ratings, I think a ranking system such as the one I'm implementing here is necessary. I would like professionals to be encouraged to enter as many events as possible, which purely using Elo would not do. I also think the ranking points system needs to be easily understandable and calcuable for the majority of fans, which Elo isn't.


you're correct that simple elo can lead to an issue of protecting rankings by not playing, but this trivially solved by reducing a player's ranking over time if they don't meet a qualifying number of participations.

i don't think a ranking system should be used to incentivise players to enter as many events as possible. it should exist to, as best as possible, approximate the relative strengths of players. i don't think these are compatible goals.

i don't see how an elo system as particularly hard to understand. it is based on basic statistics that should be at a typical high school education. and the points transfers can be calculated with a pocket calculator. this can even be simplified further (eg rugby union uses a points transfer using simple linear function with a ceiling).

Re: Rankings revisit - a trip through history

Postby HappyCamper

chengdufan wrote:I also don't think Elo takes into account the mental aspect of snooker. Playing Ronnie in the first round would be the same as playing him in a final in Elo. Similarly, the deciding frame in a match, or the final frame of a final would have the same effect on the Elo rating as a first round first frame against the same opponent.
.


on the first point you could parametrise an elo type system to weight matches by length, round of tournament etc if appropriate. i think that beyond finals typically being longer i doubt there would be much of an effect here.

on the second, are there data to suggest that performance is typically bimodal on deciding versus non deciding frames? if not it seems an unnecessary complication to me.

also i don;t think snooker is unique in either of these regards. most competitive games or sports have a winning condition, at players could be affected as they approach it.
Last edited by HappyCamper on 10 Oct 2020, edited 1 time in total.

Re: Rankings revisit - a trip through history

Postby chengdufan

The 1980 World Championship next, and it's only a few more years before more than just the World Championship is a ranking event.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Worl ... ampionship

This year, Cliff Thorburn defeated Alex Higgins 18-16 in the final. As he lost his first match in '79, Thorburn only moves up to 3rd in the new rankings. Higgins goes number 1.
The tournament was much expanded in 1980 with a lot of names seen for the first time including Joe Johnson, Mike Hallett, Tony Meo and Jim Wych. Wych reached the quarter-finals.

Stevens, Davis, David Taylor, Wych, Meo, and Ray Edmonds come into the top 16, replacing Fred Davis, Houlihan, Spencer, Miles, Mans (drops from 5 to 29) and Fagan (drops from 16 to 34).

1 Alex Higgins 7492
2 Kirk Stevens 6390
3 Cliff Thorburn 6308
4 Terry Griffiths 5044
5 Steve Davis 4976
6 John Virgo 4592
7 David Taylor 4256
8 Eddie Charlton 4034
9 Dennis Taylor 3522
10 Jim Wych 3436
11 Ray Reardon 2892
12 Bill Werbeniuk 2630
13 Willie Thorne 2236
14 Doug Mountjoy 2186
15 Tony Meo 1708
16 Ray Edmonds 1404
17 Rex Williams 1258
18 Jim Meadowcroft 1088
19 Fred Davis 1008
20 Pat Houlihan 1004
21 John Spencer 972
22 Graham Miles 948
23 Jackie Rea 888
24 Joe Johnson 884
25 John Dunning 864
26 Eddie Sinclair 864
27 Cliff Wilson 848
28 Sid Hood 812
29 Perrie Mans 720
30 Frank Jonik 656
31 Mike Hallett 608
32 Roy Amdor 604
33 Roy Andrewartha 524
34 Patsy Fagan 448
35 Paddy Morgan 440
36 Derek Mienie 378
37 John Pulman 320
38 Mark Wildman 280
39 Bernie Mikkelsen 280
40 Kevin Robitaille 272
41 Jimmy van Rensberg 244
42 John Bear 240
43 David Greaves 212
44 Paul Thornley 208
45 Mario Morra 200
46 John Barrie 170
47 Chris Ross 156
48 Bernard Bennett 108
49 Maurice Parkin 104
50 Jim Charlton 102
51 Kingsley Kennerley 96
52 Ian Anderson 28

Re: Rankings revisit - a trip through history

Postby lhpirnie

HappyCamper wrote:
chengdufan wrote:
Thanks! I think in terms of comparing the real rankings, this may come to life when we get to the present day.

Elo (or one of its variations) would definitely be good for the amateur game, I completely agree with you there. And I also think it would be very easy to start using if there was a decree from WST that players in all comps should use the system.

However, at the professional level, in addition to having Elo ratings, I think a ranking system such as the one I'm implementing here is necessary. I would like professionals to be encouraged to enter as many events as possible, which purely using Elo would not do. I also think the ranking points system needs to be easily understandable and calcuable for the majority of fans, which Elo isn't.


you're correct that simple elo can lead to an issue of protecting rankings by not playing, but this trivially solved by reducing a player's ranking over time if they don't meet a qualifying number of participations.

i don't think a ranking system should be used to incentivise players to enter as many events as possible. it should exist to, as best as possible, approximate the relative strengths of players. i don't think these are compatible goals.

i don't see how an elo system as particularly hard to understand. it is based on basic statistics that should be at a typical high school education. and the points transfers can be calculated with a pocket calculator. this can even be simplified further (eg rugby union uses a points transfer using simple linear function with a ceiling).

With any ranking system, people would view the rankings and test out possible scenarios using a web app. Similarly, tournament directors input the results in an app, and would update immediately online. It's really trivial to implement in today's world.

Re: Rankings revisit - a trip through history

Postby chengdufan

Sorry, I did intend to add in the OP but forgot.

By far the most important reason for me partaking in this exercise is for my own personal pleasure :-D

I'm enjoying working through these events with my very own system. The fact that it is far better than the real ranking system, and not as good as other potential or existing possibilities, is incidental really.

Re: Rankings revisit - a trip through history

Postby Dan-cat

chengdufan wrote:Sorry, I did intend to add in the OP but forgot.

By far the most important reason for me partaking in this exercise is for my own personal pleasure :-D

I'm enjoying working through these events with my very own system. The fact that it is far better than the real ranking system, and not as good as other potential or existing possibilities, is incidental really.


It's an excellent endeavour :-D

Re: Rankings revisit - a trip through history

Postby lhpirnie

HappyCamper wrote:
chengdufan wrote:I also don't think Elo takes into account the mental aspect of snooker. Playing Ronnie in the first round would be the same as playing him in a final in Elo. Similarly, the deciding frame in a match, or the final frame of a final would have the same effect on the Elo rating as a first round first frame against the same opponent.
.


on the first point you could parametrise an elo type system to weight matches by length, round of tournament etc if appropriate. i think that beyond finals typically being longer i doubt there would be much of an effect here.

on the second, are there data to suggest that performance is typically bimodal on deciding versus non deciding frames? if not it seems an unnecessary complication to me.

also i don;t think snooker is unique in either of these regards. most competitive games or sports have a winning condition, at players could be affected as they approach it.

Yes, that's how it works. I did a rough test a couple of years ago and reckoned that a deciding frame was worth approximately double, from the statistical weighting. But all of that is built into the distribution, which is determined by result data from thousands of matches.


As for psychological impact of 'playing Ronnie O'Sullivan', no ranking system can handle that!

Re: Rankings revisit - a trip through history

Postby chengdufan

lhpirnie wrote:
HappyCamper wrote:
chengdufan wrote:
Thanks! I think in terms of comparing the real rankings, this may come to life when we get to the present day.

Elo (or one of its variations) would definitely be good for the amateur game, I completely agree with you there. And I also think it would be very easy to start using if there was a decree from WST that players in all comps should use the system.

However, at the professional level, in addition to having Elo ratings, I think a ranking system such as the one I'm implementing here is necessary. I would like professionals to be encouraged to enter as many events as possible, which purely using Elo would not do. I also think the ranking points system needs to be easily understandable and calcuable for the majority of fans, which Elo isn't.


you're correct that simple elo can lead to an issue of protecting rankings by not playing, but this trivially solved by reducing a player's ranking over time if they don't meet a qualifying number of participations.

i don't think a ranking system should be used to incentivise players to enter as many events as possible. it should exist to, as best as possible, approximate the relative strengths of players. i don't think these are compatible goals.

i don't see how an elo system as particularly hard to understand. it is based on basic statistics that should be at a typical high school education. and the points transfers can be calculated with a pocket calculator. this can even be simplified further (eg rugby union uses a points transfer using simple linear function with a ceiling).

With any ranking system, people would view the rankings and test out possible scenarios using a web app. Similarly, tournament directors input the results in an app, and would update immediately online. It's really trivial to implement in today's world.


Good comments here.
I agree that a ranking system needn't incentivise participation. I think my point is that it shouldn't incentivise non-participation and I'm delighted to hear the suggestion that the ranking could reduce over time in an Elo system. How would you suggest implementing this?

Good points about the use of technology.
I'm more sold on Elo after reading these replies, thanks fellas :)

Re: Rankings revisit - a trip through history

Postby lhpirnie

Dan-cat wrote:
chengdufan wrote:Sorry, I did intend to add in the OP but forgot.

By far the most important reason for me partaking in this exercise is for my own personal pleasure :-D

I'm enjoying working through these events with my very own system. The fact that it is far better than the real ranking system, and not as good as other potential or existing possibilities, is incidental really.


It's an excellent endeavour :-D

Yes it is, and indeed it does show that the official rankings are pretty poor, which at worst can mean that the wrong players get relegated from the tour...


I've measured ranking systems (not just for snooker) based on their ability to predict results. WST's 'Money Lists' come out very badly. Incidentally, I'm not a gambler, but Elo systems are used by betting companies to calculate odds. That's a vote of confidence if anything.

Re: Rankings revisit - a trip through history

Postby lhpirnie

chengdufan wrote:Good comments here.
I agree that a ranking system needn't incentivise participation. I think my point is that it shouldn't incentivise non-participation and I'm delighted to hear the suggestion that the ranking could reduce over time in an Elo system. How would you suggest implementing this?

Good points about the use of technology.
I'm more sold on Elo after reading these replies, thanks fellas :)

Yes, I would go as far as saying that if snooker doesn't use technology, it will simply be seen as old-fashioned by younger generations, who we need to attract (I'm 48 myself). I still cannot believe technology isn't used to help referees replace the balls.

I actually think money lists can still be used for some 'races', like Tour Championship qualification. But the main rankings need to be universal, to build a global game.

Players who don't compete don't earn prizemoney. Also, there would be a minimum requirement for the ranking to remain official (e.g. 100 frames in the last 12 months). But the main thing is that tournament entry would be invitational. Tournament organisers have discretion, knowing that their audiences want to see the top players.

Re: Rankings revisit - a trip through history

Postby Iranu

chengdufan wrote: I also think the ranking points system needs to be easily understandable and calcuable for the majority of fans, which Elo isn't.

Understandable maybe but calculable? I’m not so sure. The vast majority of fans aren’t going to be combing through the rankings looking at all the permutations and working out which players can get up to/fall down to where. Particularly when this info is readily available with online and during TV coverage.

Hell, I’m a diehard snooker fan and I get all my ranking info from TV coverage on here. I’d never be able to tell you who can get into the top 16 at any given time. At least not without paraphrasing a post from Wild or someone from a week earlier!

I don’t really know anything about Elo specifically but I think 99% of fans simply trust the existing and predicted rankings as they are given and I’m sure this wouldn’t be any different.

Re: Rankings revisit - a trip through history

Postby chengdufan

Iranu wrote:Understandable maybe but calculable? I’m not so sure. The vast majority of fans aren’t going to be combing through the rankings looking at all the permutations and working out which players can get up to/fall down to where. Particularly when this info is readily available with online and during TV coverage.

Hell, I’m a diehard snooker fan and I get all my ranking info from TV coverage on here. I’d never be able to tell you who can get into the top 16 at any given time. At least not without paraphrasing a post from Wild or someone from a week earlier!

I don’t really know anything about Elo specifically but I think 99% of fans simply trust the existing and predicted rankings as they are given and I’m sure this wouldn’t be any different.

Fair enough!

Re: Rankings revisit - a trip through history

Postby HappyCamper

chengdufan wrote:
lhpirnie wrote:
HappyCamper wrote:
chengdufan wrote:
Thanks! I think in terms of comparing the real rankings, this may come to life when we get to the present day.

Elo (or one of its variations) would definitely be good for the amateur game, I completely agree with you there. And I also think it would be very easy to start using if there was a decree from WST that players in all comps should use the system.

However, at the professional level, in addition to having Elo ratings, I think a ranking system such as the one I'm implementing here is necessary. I would like professionals to be encouraged to enter as many events as possible, which purely using Elo would not do. I also think the ranking points system needs to be easily understandable and calcuable for the majority of fans, which Elo isn't.


you're correct that simple elo can lead to an issue of protecting rankings by not playing, but this trivially solved by reducing a player's ranking over time if they don't meet a qualifying number of participations.

i don't think a ranking system should be used to incentivise players to enter as many events as possible. it should exist to, as best as possible, approximate the relative strengths of players. i don't think these are compatible goals.

i don't see how an elo system as particularly hard to understand. it is based on basic statistics that should be at a typical high school education. and the points transfers can be calculated with a pocket calculator. this can even be simplified further (eg rugby union uses a points transfer using simple linear function with a ceiling).

With any ranking system, people would view the rankings and test out possible scenarios using a web app. Similarly, tournament directors input the results in an app, and would update immediately online. It's really trivial to implement in today's world.


Good comments here.
I agree that a ranking system needn't incentivise participation. I think my point is that it shouldn't incentivise non-participation and I'm delighted to hear the suggestion that the ranking could reduce over time in an Elo system. How would you suggest implementing this?

Good points about the use of technology.
I'm more sold on Elo after reading these replies, thanks fellas :)


i can't remember off the top of my head any specific implementations. but i think something as simple as reducing a ranking by x points if they haven't entered y sanctioned tournaments in a particular time frame z. the exact numbers could be set at whatever is sensible given the calendar - and may need to make some allowance for summer offseason. x could even be weighted to increase the longer a player is absent.

Re: Rankings revisit - a trip through history

Postby chengdufan

lhpirnie wrote:Players who don't compete don't earn prizemoney. Also, there would be a minimum requirement for the ranking to remain official (e.g. 100 frames in the last 12 months). But the main thing is that tournament entry would be invitational. Tournament organisers have discretion, knowing that their audiences want to see the top players.

Hmm, not sure I agree with this. I would expect the distribution of money to initially make the rich much richer, and the poor... wouldn't be able to afford to keep playing.
This would lead to the current elite staying at the top for even longer. Think about those players who spend their first 4-5 years struggling at the 50s-60s part of the ranking. Would they really keep plugging away if all the money kept going to the top 16? I'm thinking of players like Lisowski, Vafaei, J Robertson, most of the Chinese players,... Bingham? I think many of these players would quit the game if events were all invitational.

Re: Rankings revisit - a trip through history

Postby acesinc

I just woke up to find this gem of a thread Chengdufan. You truly are a genius in this regard. I think you and my kid would get on well as your brains seem to work in a similar way, spinning numbers to create a story. I, on the other hand, am continually scratching my head trying to understand, and wearing the dunce cap in the corner of the room. No matter, I can understand your basic principles and I greatly appreciate that you are starting a serious conversation about this.

Re: Rankings revisit - a trip through history

Postby lhpirnie

chengdufan wrote:
lhpirnie wrote:Players who don't compete don't earn prizemoney. Also, there would be a minimum requirement for the ranking to remain official (e.g. 100 frames in the last 12 months). But the main thing is that tournament entry would be invitational. Tournament organisers have discretion, knowing that their audiences want to see the top players.

Hmm, not sure I agree with this. I would expect the distribution of money to initially make the rich much richer, and the poor... wouldn't be able to afford to keep playing.
This would lead to the current elite staying at the top for even longer. Think about those players who spend their first 4-5 years struggling at the 50s-60s part of the ranking. Would they really keep plugging away if all the money kept going to the top 16? I'm thinking of players like Lisowski, Vafaei, J Robertson, most of the Chinese players,... Bingham? I think many of these players would quit the game if events were all invitational.

We have that anyway. Players below top-50 have a difficult time. The costs of travelling to tournaments is prohibitive, and currently they get £0 if they lose (a horribly cruel way of mocking players). Prize money distribution will always be down to negotiation between player reps, sponsors and tournament organisers.


There will still be 128-player draws, but also smaller invitational events as well. It's the variety of sizes of events which makes tournaments viable, especially outside the UK. Ultimately, if snooker is allowed to grow, the money will be there. But yes, it is a gradual process. That is why I am still in favour of a tour card system to protect the players.