Can we improve flat 128 draws?
by gninnur karona » 11 Feb 2023 Read
Perhaps the most nonsensical argument put by those against flat 128s is that the lower-ranked players would be better off with a tiered structure. The truth is that the major beneficiaries of a tiered structure are the top 16 who are guaranteed 16 places in the last 32 with the accompanying prize money. Meanwhile the rest of the tour suffer reduced opportunity, condemned to play for ‘their’ 16 places. In a flat structure every player has to earn their place in that last 32. If a top 16 player cannot beat two players from outside the top 32 they do not deserve a place in the last 32. It is as simple as that.
That a tiered structure benefits the top 16 is easily illustrated with the example of Mark Williams and Duane Jones in this season’s UK Championship. Mark Williams received £10000 prize money, Duane Jones £7500. Both players lost 6-3 to Jamie Clarke. Duane Jones beat Reanne Evans, Louis Heathcote and Anthony McGill. Mark Williams beat nobody.
The argument for protecting the lower-ranked players often runs along the lines of: some numpty this season consecutively faced Zhao Xintong, Ricky Walden, Neil Robertson and Ronnie O’Sullivan in flat 128 first round matches. (Not a numpty, the rest is true) How dreadful. (Yes, indeed) No lower-ranked player could prosper with that fixture list. (Unlikely, true) The system is biased against lower-ranked players. (What? ) They always have to play seeded players in round one (WTF?)
The snookerisland cognoscenti don’t require detailed explanation, but what is blatantly obvious to us unfortunately appears to be beyond the grasp of those who could make a difference.
In their most commonly used flat 128 structure WST seed 32 players. There are thus 96 non-seeded players. In any random draw there is thus a one in three chance that any given non-seeded player will draw a seeded player in round one. That extrapolates for any number of players and any number of competitions. Prior to a draw the probability is always one in three. The result of any draw is always the same – one in three. Each time a Bai Langning draws a seed, two other non-seeds will be paired together. One in three. Always.
But we can do better. Let’s consign the bad luck run Bai Langning suffered to the history books.
This is this season’s Welsh Open draw round 1 for the 32 seeds.
Joe Perry [1] v Mark King [47]
Noppon Saengkham [32] v local wildcard (a)
Ryan Day [16] v Stuart Carrington [56]
Gary Wilson [17] v Graeme Dott [37]
Tom Ford [24] v Aaron Hill [94]
Kyren Wilson [9] v Asjad Iqbal [105]
Jordan Brown [25] v Steven Hallworth (a)
Mark Williams [8] v Michael White [76]
Judd Trump [5] v David Grace [64]
Matthew Selt [28] v Adam Duffy [119]
Shaun Murphy [12] v Victor Sarkis [122]
Anthony McGill [21] v Lukas Kleckers [98]
Ricky Walden [20] v Liam Highfield [40]
Jack Lisowski [13] v Zhang Anda [66]
Stephen Maguire [29] v Michael Judge [82]
Neil Robertson [4] v Fraser Patrick [78]
Mark Selby [3] v Jamie O'Neill [97]
Robert Milkins [30] v Oliver Brown [103]
Barry Hawkins [14] v Ian Burns [73]
Hossein Vafaei [19] v Lyu Haotian [35]
Ding Junhui [22] v Ashley Hugill [93]
Luca Brecel [11] v Sean O'Sullivan [95]
Zhou Yuelong [27] v Wu Yize [63]
Mark Allen [6] v Alfie Burden [90]
John Higgins [7] v Alexander Ursenbacher [65]
Jimmy Robertson [26] v Mohamed Ibrahim [115]
Zhao Xintong [10] v Tian Pengfei [50]
Ali Carter [23] v John Astley [86]
David Gilbert [18] v Marco Fu [96]
Stuart Bingham [15] v Jackson Page [61]
Jamie Jones [31] v Rod Lawler [107]
Ronnie O'Sullivan [2] v Oliver Lines [58]
Now what can we do in the next competition to prevent the Bai Langning syndrome?
Allocate seeds 1-32 normal slots
Draw the players that faced seeds 1-16 in round one to face seeds 17-32 in round 2
Draw the players that faced seeds 17-32 in round one to face seeds 1-16 in round 2
(Note the absence of local wildcard creates a gap)
Draw remaining players randomly
As an example here is what the draw could look like having allocated the players that faced seeds in round 1 in that Welsh Open, before drawing the remaining players randomly.
[1] v
Oliver Brown [103] v
[32] v
Zhang Anda [66] v
[16] v
Adam Duffy [119] v
[17] v
Fraser Patrick [78] v
Ian Burns [73] v
[24] v
Michael Judge [82] v
[9] v
Sean O'Sullivan [95] v
[25] v
Wu Yize [63] v
[8] v
[5] v
Ashley Hugill [93] v
[28] v
Oliver Lines [58] v
[12] v
Steven Hallworth (a) v
[21] v
Jamie O'Neill [97] v
Mark King [47] v
[20] v
Lyu Haotian [35] v
[13] v
Stuart Carrington [56] v
[29] v
Aaron Hill [94] v
[4] v
[3] v
Lukas Kleckers [98] v
[30] v
Michael White [76] v
[14] v
John Astley [86] v
[19] v
Tian Pengfei [50] v
Asjad Iqbal [105] v
[22] v
v
[11] v
David Grace [64] v
[27] v
Rod Lawler [107] v
[6] v
[7] v
Liam Highfield [40] v
[26] v
Jackson Page [61] v
[10] v
Graeme Dott [37] v
[23] v
Alfie Burden [90] v
Alexander Ursenbacher [65] v
[18] v
Marco Fu [96] v
[15] v
Victor Sarkis [122] v
[31] v
Mohamed Ibrahim [115] v
[2] v
Simple, and in good taste.
FAQs (for summary)
WHAT IS THE DRAW SEQUENCE?
1 Seeded players placed
2 Players who faced 1-16 in round one drawn into positions to face 17-32 in round two
3 Players who faced 17-32 in round one drawn into positions to face 1-16 in round two
4 Remaining players drawn randomly
WHAT ABOUT A SEED THAT’S NO LONGER A SEED?
Drawn randomly
WHAT ABOUT A NON-SEED THAT HAS BECOME A SEED?
Takes seeded position
WHAT ABOUT PLAYER THAT DIDN’T PARTICIPATE IN PREVIOUS COMPETITION?
Drawn randomly
WHAT ABOUT A PLAYER THAT PLAYED A SEED IN PREVIOUS COMPETITION BUT NOT PARTICIPATING IN THIS COMPETITION?
For each player that creates a gap in the draw. These are filled from those drawn randomly..
HOW DOES THIS ALTER THE PROBABILITIES?
As things stand each flat 128 is a free draw for non-seeds. Therefore 32 of the 96 non-seeds will be drawn to face a seed in round 1, a 1 in 3 chance. Whilst that is true for a single draw and also equates to the average number of times a non-seed will be drawn to meet a seed in round 1 the variance for any given player in a season crosses the entire range from a player never drawing a seed in round 1 to a player drawing a seed in round 1 in every competition. This modification eliminates a player having that sequence of draws by imposing a maximum limit of one first round draw in two against a seed whilst maintaining the overall 1 in 3 probability. In today’s unrestricted system all nine possible sequences are open to any non-seeded player who may be drawn to play against a top 16 seed in any of rounds 1, 2 or 3 each tournament. This change imposes a limit over two tournaments by removing sequences 1 followed by 1, and 1 followed by 2 (sequence 2 followed by 1 remains).
ANY OTHER CONSTRAINTS?
No
That a tiered structure benefits the top 16 is easily illustrated with the example of Mark Williams and Duane Jones in this season’s UK Championship. Mark Williams received £10000 prize money, Duane Jones £7500. Both players lost 6-3 to Jamie Clarke. Duane Jones beat Reanne Evans, Louis Heathcote and Anthony McGill. Mark Williams beat nobody.
The argument for protecting the lower-ranked players often runs along the lines of: some numpty this season consecutively faced Zhao Xintong, Ricky Walden, Neil Robertson and Ronnie O’Sullivan in flat 128 first round matches. (Not a numpty, the rest is true) How dreadful. (Yes, indeed) No lower-ranked player could prosper with that fixture list. (Unlikely, true) The system is biased against lower-ranked players. (What? ) They always have to play seeded players in round one (WTF?)
The snookerisland cognoscenti don’t require detailed explanation, but what is blatantly obvious to us unfortunately appears to be beyond the grasp of those who could make a difference.
In their most commonly used flat 128 structure WST seed 32 players. There are thus 96 non-seeded players. In any random draw there is thus a one in three chance that any given non-seeded player will draw a seeded player in round one. That extrapolates for any number of players and any number of competitions. Prior to a draw the probability is always one in three. The result of any draw is always the same – one in three. Each time a Bai Langning draws a seed, two other non-seeds will be paired together. One in three. Always.
But we can do better. Let’s consign the bad luck run Bai Langning suffered to the history books.
This is this season’s Welsh Open draw round 1 for the 32 seeds.
Joe Perry [1] v Mark King [47]
Noppon Saengkham [32] v local wildcard (a)
Ryan Day [16] v Stuart Carrington [56]
Gary Wilson [17] v Graeme Dott [37]
Tom Ford [24] v Aaron Hill [94]
Kyren Wilson [9] v Asjad Iqbal [105]
Jordan Brown [25] v Steven Hallworth (a)
Mark Williams [8] v Michael White [76]
Judd Trump [5] v David Grace [64]
Matthew Selt [28] v Adam Duffy [119]
Shaun Murphy [12] v Victor Sarkis [122]
Anthony McGill [21] v Lukas Kleckers [98]
Ricky Walden [20] v Liam Highfield [40]
Jack Lisowski [13] v Zhang Anda [66]
Stephen Maguire [29] v Michael Judge [82]
Neil Robertson [4] v Fraser Patrick [78]
Mark Selby [3] v Jamie O'Neill [97]
Robert Milkins [30] v Oliver Brown [103]
Barry Hawkins [14] v Ian Burns [73]
Hossein Vafaei [19] v Lyu Haotian [35]
Ding Junhui [22] v Ashley Hugill [93]
Luca Brecel [11] v Sean O'Sullivan [95]
Zhou Yuelong [27] v Wu Yize [63]
Mark Allen [6] v Alfie Burden [90]
John Higgins [7] v Alexander Ursenbacher [65]
Jimmy Robertson [26] v Mohamed Ibrahim [115]
Zhao Xintong [10] v Tian Pengfei [50]
Ali Carter [23] v John Astley [86]
David Gilbert [18] v Marco Fu [96]
Stuart Bingham [15] v Jackson Page [61]
Jamie Jones [31] v Rod Lawler [107]
Ronnie O'Sullivan [2] v Oliver Lines [58]
Now what can we do in the next competition to prevent the Bai Langning syndrome?
Allocate seeds 1-32 normal slots
Draw the players that faced seeds 1-16 in round one to face seeds 17-32 in round 2
Draw the players that faced seeds 17-32 in round one to face seeds 1-16 in round 2
(Note the absence of local wildcard creates a gap)
Draw remaining players randomly
As an example here is what the draw could look like having allocated the players that faced seeds in round 1 in that Welsh Open, before drawing the remaining players randomly.
[1] v
Oliver Brown [103] v
[32] v
Zhang Anda [66] v
[16] v
Adam Duffy [119] v
[17] v
Fraser Patrick [78] v
Ian Burns [73] v
[24] v
Michael Judge [82] v
[9] v
Sean O'Sullivan [95] v
[25] v
Wu Yize [63] v
[8] v
[5] v
Ashley Hugill [93] v
[28] v
Oliver Lines [58] v
[12] v
Steven Hallworth (a) v
[21] v
Jamie O'Neill [97] v
Mark King [47] v
[20] v
Lyu Haotian [35] v
[13] v
Stuart Carrington [56] v
[29] v
Aaron Hill [94] v
[4] v
[3] v
Lukas Kleckers [98] v
[30] v
Michael White [76] v
[14] v
John Astley [86] v
[19] v
Tian Pengfei [50] v
Asjad Iqbal [105] v
[22] v
v
[11] v
David Grace [64] v
[27] v
Rod Lawler [107] v
[6] v
[7] v
Liam Highfield [40] v
[26] v
Jackson Page [61] v
[10] v
Graeme Dott [37] v
[23] v
Alfie Burden [90] v
Alexander Ursenbacher [65] v
[18] v
Marco Fu [96] v
[15] v
Victor Sarkis [122] v
[31] v
Mohamed Ibrahim [115] v
[2] v
Simple, and in good taste.
FAQs (for summary)
WHAT IS THE DRAW SEQUENCE?
1 Seeded players placed
2 Players who faced 1-16 in round one drawn into positions to face 17-32 in round two
3 Players who faced 17-32 in round one drawn into positions to face 1-16 in round two
4 Remaining players drawn randomly
WHAT ABOUT A SEED THAT’S NO LONGER A SEED?
Drawn randomly
WHAT ABOUT A NON-SEED THAT HAS BECOME A SEED?
Takes seeded position
WHAT ABOUT PLAYER THAT DIDN’T PARTICIPATE IN PREVIOUS COMPETITION?
Drawn randomly
WHAT ABOUT A PLAYER THAT PLAYED A SEED IN PREVIOUS COMPETITION BUT NOT PARTICIPATING IN THIS COMPETITION?
For each player that creates a gap in the draw. These are filled from those drawn randomly..
HOW DOES THIS ALTER THE PROBABILITIES?
As things stand each flat 128 is a free draw for non-seeds. Therefore 32 of the 96 non-seeds will be drawn to face a seed in round 1, a 1 in 3 chance. Whilst that is true for a single draw and also equates to the average number of times a non-seed will be drawn to meet a seed in round 1 the variance for any given player in a season crosses the entire range from a player never drawing a seed in round 1 to a player drawing a seed in round 1 in every competition. This modification eliminates a player having that sequence of draws by imposing a maximum limit of one first round draw in two against a seed whilst maintaining the overall 1 in 3 probability. In today’s unrestricted system all nine possible sequences are open to any non-seeded player who may be drawn to play against a top 16 seed in any of rounds 1, 2 or 3 each tournament. This change imposes a limit over two tournaments by removing sequences 1 followed by 1, and 1 followed by 2 (sequence 2 followed by 1 remains).
ANY OTHER CONSTRAINTS?
No
- gninnur karona
- Posts: 601
- Joined: 05 June 2021
- Snooker Idol: Mark Selby + T Un-Nooh
- Highest Break: 22
- Walk-On: Muse - Apocalypse Please
