Prize Money Rankings are here!

With the flat structure even that protection will disappear. They will start at round 1 like everyone else.
I have more problem with the PTC Grand Final counting for 100 000£ for a best of 7 all along tournament and not open to everyone. You will tell me they earned their spots by winning PTCs or doing well in them, ok, but then the top 16 earned their spot by winning a lot of matches, so why wouldn't the Masters count as well? The answer is both would offer too much protection to players who already earned the rewards elsewhere.

I can tell the difference between the Masters and the PTC grand finals. Can anyone else?

I also know that any money list system employed by World Snooker is bound to include the PTC finals, but not the Masters or PL. And that is entirely fair in my opinion.

Sonny wrote:I can tell the difference between the Masters and the PTC grand finals. Can anyone else?

With the current tiered system, yes, obviously. With a flat structure it's not that obvious. I would have nothing against making the Masters a tournament for the best 16 in proper rankers over the last year. Where would the difference be then? If everyone starts at round 1?

PTC Grand Final is there as a "carrot" to make the PTCs worth something. Well I'd rather have that money used to raise the actual PTCs prize money TBH.

Yep, it's a carrot to make the PTCs worth something which is also why it would definitely count towards a moneylist.

As for the Masters being based around the top 16 on the moneylist, well then I have a problem with that. In fact I would go as far as to say the Masters has lost whatever it had that made it so special so they may as well scrap it now for all I care if it's going to be based on money lists yet isn't open to anyone below 16th.

And your first sentence is exactly why I don't want it to count in the money list. As an European I don't want cheap tournaments where players lose money and with qualifiers played in UK so that the local players find it difficult to take part. I'd rather have proper tournaments worth to play in so that the big boys want to come and try their best. The PTC Grand Final can be made by winning just one APTC … or winning one PTC and treating a few others as a drinking party. Is that the image snooker should give in "new market" countries? That's what I have seen though and more than once.
Really Roland you should go to one of those EPTCs and see how some players treat them. I won't name names. Let me just say this: it's a lot more honest and a lot less damaging to the game not to come and play unless you really try than play the way I have seen some players play in those.

The Masters has history and prestige. It should stay and it should not count to the money list.
If they want to reward the PTC best players by rewarding them financially, fine, let's make the PTC Grand Final a prestige tournament and well paid. But it shouldn't count.

The PTCs will only be a real development platform for the game in new countries if they become proper and valuable tournaments by themselves and that will only happen if the best players want to play and try their best in each of them because they are worth it.
Sponsors will never invest money in them if they know they can get the best players for cheap because the way the system works (currently the blackmail ranking points and the PTC Grand Final). Why would they? Would you pay more if you know you can get it for less? I'm sure you wouldn't.

Well I know one name you named at the weekend and I thought the opposite, that he was trying but just wasn't on his game.

I think the thing that needs to change with PTCs is that they need an identity which means the Euro ones are already getting established but the UK ones are going back to the Sheffield closed shop.

I don't share your concern for the PTC grand finals, I think the idea is fair enough and rewards those who try hard and turn up to events which is what Hearn wants. I don't think it's unfair for the top 24 to play for bonus points.

Sonny wrote:Well I know one name you named at the weekend and I thought the opposite, that he was trying but just wasn't on his game.

I think the thing that needs to change with PTCs is that they need an identity which means the Euro ones are already getting established but the UK ones are going back to the Sheffield closed shop.

I don't share your concern for the PTC grand finals, I think the idea is fair enough and rewards those who try hard and turn up to events which is what Hearn wants. I don't think it's unfair for the top 24 to play for bonus points.

Bonus points as it is today is OK it's only 3000 for the winner, but 100 000£ is the same as the UK Championship and again it's enough to win one and do nothing else than turn up, get drunk and play poker in others … or win one APTC and that's it. I think that in a money list system 100 000£ would be far too much a reward for such best of 7 tournament considering that the qualifying process is rather flawed for the reasons I wrote above.

Sonny wrote:I can tell the difference between the Masters and the PTC grand finals. Can anyone else?

I also know that any money list system employed by World Snooker is bound to include the PTC finals, but not the Masters or PL. And that is entirely fair in my opinion.

The PTC Grand Finals is a integral Part of the Money List change because it Will become the Major Drawing card for Top players to Enter a Smaller PTC.

There will be 100,000 Ranking Points/Prize money to the Winner of the PTC Grand Final that might be just the Ticket to get you in to the Masters.

Prize Money List will Be in Pounds

these are the Conversion Rates for Events that was not Payed out in Pound Stirling From 2010-2012

EPTC 1 2010 = 0.88 £ per Euro
EPTC 2 2010 = 0.88 £ per Euro
EPTC 3 2010 = 0.88 £ per Euro
EPTC 4 2010 = 0.88 £ per Euro
EPTC 5 2010 = 0.88 £ per Euro
EPTC 6 2010 = 0.88 £ per Euro
German Masters 2011 = 0.83 £ per Euro
Australia 2011 = 0.68 £ per AUS$
EPTC 1 2011 = 0.83 £ per Euro
EPTC 2 2011 = 0.86 £ per Euro
EPTC 3 2011 = 0.86 F per Euro
EPTC 4 2011 = 0.86 £ per Euro
EPTC 5 2011 = 0.84 £ per Euro
EPTC 6 2011 = 0.86 F per Euro
German Masters 2012 = 0.83 £ per Euro
Australia 2012 = 0.64 £ per AUS$
EPTC 1 2012 = 0.80 £ per Euro

So winning the Paul Hunter Classic

2010= 8,800 Ranking Points
2011= 8,300 Ranking Points
2012= 9,600 Ranking Points

BUT Winning a British PTC = 10,000 Ranking Points

bucking joke.

Sonny wrote:bucking joke.

What Gets me is

Barry Hearn Said

it is much easier understood by the general public rather than a complicated series of points.

But How is a Ranking System that Needs Currency Conversion easier to understand than saying 7,000 points to the winner ?

just how thick are the general public that they cant understand points Football Fans does well with 3 Points for a Win

Snooker as a Sport has no Future if Easy Adding Arithmetic Are deemed to complicated for people to understand

And in the end most people don't even know the points allocations or prize money funds for a lot of events. At their simplest, rankings, whether points or money, can be boiled to seeing which player has the biggest number next to their name. I think money rankings is just Hearn's way of showing off. With ranking points the public don't know how much the money the players are getting, so Hearn can't boast about what a brilliant job he's doing.

If Barry Hearn did say that then it should be pointed out to him that the general public NEVER understand ranking points systems but they accept them.

Skullman wrote:And in the end most people don't even know the points allocations or prize money funds for a lot of events. At their simplest, rankings, whether points or money, can be boiled to seeing which player has the biggest number next to their name. I think money rankings is just Hearn's way of showing off. With ranking points the public don't know how much the money the players are getting, so Hearn can't boast about what a brilliant job he's doing.

personally i dont give a rubbish how much money they make i dont get to spend any of it.

for me point structure has potential to acuratly say who the best player on the plannet is but it does need Revising 10,000 points for a World Champion is too Low at the Moment

WORLD

16,000
12,000
9,000
7,000
5,500
4,000 2,000 seeded loser
3,000 1,500 seeded loser
2,500 1,250 seeded loser
2,000 1,000 seeded loser
1,500 7,50 seeded loser

UK and I C

8,000
6,400
5,200
4,000
3040
2300 1150 seeded Loser
1900 950 seeded Loser
1600 800 Seeded Loser
1300 650 Seeded Loser
1000 500 Seeded Loser

Wuxi,Australian,Shanghai,World Open,China Open

6,000
5,000
4,000
3,200
2,500
1680 840 seeded Loser
1380 690 Seeded Loser
1080 540 Seeded Loser
780 390 Seeded Loser
480 240 Seeded Loser

German Masters,Welsh Open

6,000
5,000
4,000
3,200
2,500
1680
1380 690 Seeded Loser
1080 540 Seeded Loser

PTC Grand Final

6,000
5,000
4,000
3,200
2,500
1680

EPTC

3,000
2,400
1,920
1,500
1,140
940
740

PTC & APTC

2,000
1,600
1,280
1,000
760
560
360

you really don't Need Prize Money to Make Winning a Major More Worth While.

i don't Believe how Much Cash = More Ranking Points These Events Should be on Equal Standing.

Oh dear WSA, it's all gotten very complicated(!)

When they say that the new cash rankings are "easier for the public to follow", I think what they meant was that winning the Worlds or the UK would equate to being very high in the rankings in the eyes of the public, and there's some truth in that.

But having varying levels of conversions from/to the same currency is needlessly complicated. Plus, with the WSA's history of non disclosure (or late disclosure), it's gonna be very difficult for rankings boffins like me and Matt PSB etc to keep up.

For the record, I LIKE the idea of a prize money list, but for it to work, there has to be cash earnt from round 2 onwards. Also, the jump from round to round has to have some consistency. (Just look at the gap from last 48 losers to last 32 losers in overseas events.....obviously there's a "travel/hotel" factor built into this, but that's not what the rankings should be about).

I favour a system where the cash for each round decreases by a constant percentage, from winner all the way back to round 2. The % figure I'd favour would be around the 25% mark, for example:

Winner: 1000 points
Runner-up: 750 (i.e 25% less than the winner)
Semis: 562
Quarters: 422
Last 16: 316
Last 32: 237
Last 64: 178
Round 1: 133

So the points go up by an increasing amount each round, but the percentage stays consistent.
This is based on a flat 128 draw, but could still apply, with a little tweaking, to the tiered system.

Then I'd apply a factor for each event, for example, the above would be for the smallest events (PTC's), but for the bigger events, the above model is simply multiplied by whatever tarriff the event carries. This tarriff can even be based on prize money levels.

I'd have:
PTC's...tarriff 1
PTC finals, Euro ranking events with a first prize less than £100,000.....tarriff 5
Asian/Australian ranking events with a first prize less than £100,000.......tarriff 6
Ranking events other than the WC with first prize of £100,000+......tarriff 9
World Championship.......tarriff 15

JIMO96 wrote:This list is FULL of inconsistencies!!

I put my own spreadsheet together, and tried to work out why Martin O'Donnell has 576 points, despite not winning anything this season......or last(!) Turns out he reached the last 64 of 2 * UK PTC's (PTC3 & PTC4) and 1 * Euro PTC (EPTC1) in the 2010-11 season. SO....WSA have obviously included those 3 events in the list, despite being more than 2 years old.

Also, I think they're using different conversion rates for different EPTC's. I'm pretty sure the one just finished has an 80% conversion, but it's obvious some others have 81 and 83 conversion rates. Unless WSA issue a list of currency exchanges for each event, then us budding rankings compilers are well and truly cute little kittened!

Jimo -how are you getting on now that they've published the conversion rates. I'm within a few pounds for most players now (looks like they rounded the published rates).

Main discrepancies I've found are:
O'Sullivan - I think they've counted £4k for 2010 Shanghai even though he wasn't awarded any ranking points for the event
Jones, M Davis, Pinches, Cope - all have more than £1k than I expected. No idea where from.

I don't think that updating the money list will be too difficult in future - it's just a pain at the moment given that we're having to track back 2 years with limited info provided. I agree that WSA communications need to improve dramatically.

Brief thoughts on the use of a money list:
1. I don't actually mind it too much - most players are in a similar position as in the current system.
2. It does devalue a number of tournaments - hard to see top pros supporting many of the smaller tournaments.
3. I would support a move to a 1-year list to make it more current.
4. The structure of tournaments does need to change in order to give lower ranked players an opportunity to progress.
5. I actually think the Masters should be included, though perhaps prize money should only be awarded to players winning at least one match in the event.

Hi SnookerAnalyst-

lol I sat and stared at the spreadsheet for ages last night, having adjusted all the figures in line with the published conversion rates, and eventually had to switch my computer off. Reconciling all the mistakes and inconsistencies is very time consuming!

I did though pick out one or 2 differences between my own totals, and those of WSA:

(i) lots of single and double figures differences....due to WSA quoting only 2 digit conversion rates; 3 or 4 would have been better, but we should be thankful they published it at all lol

(ii) O'Sullivan allocated £4k in WSA list for 2010 Shanghai, despite not turning up (as you state) BUT, Jimmy White in another Chinese event allocated prize money for last 48, despite winning through to last 32....and then not showing up. Inconsistent.

(iii) David Gilbert allocated some £16k in cash for performances in the 2010-11 season (which he did earn), but since he was relegated that season, they shouldn't count.

(iv) Lots of annoying differences of figures between £800-£1200, Maguire, Pinches, Cope, Mavis....there are a few more, I'll check again when I get home from work.

(v) I dislike this persisting with a 2 year cycle, surely there are enough tournaments now to only count 1, or at least devalue the previous season by half?

(vi) Yeah the PTC's are going to see massive drops in entry levels if they maintain their current status by the time this system comes in; but then, maybe by that point Hearn will have sought out sponsors and names for them all, and upgraded them accordingly? (I sincerely hope one of the UK PTC's is upgraded to full ranking status with a flat draw, sponsor and big cash pot.....we need some "normal" ranking events over here)

(vii) I think Masters points should count.....but not under the current system. If a system comes in where a player has to count his best 15 (for example) events, then he should count the Masters as a mandatory event from the 15, if qualified for it. Similarly with PTC Finals.

The Jimmy White case is at least consistent with the rankings - they basically counted him as a Last 48 unseeded loser.

I think you're probably right to suggest that Gilbert's results from 2010/11 shouldn't count. Let's hope that they come up with a consistent way of dealing with players who re-qualify for the Tour in the future.

I'm going to get back to World Snooker about the remaining discrepancies because I can't see where they've come from. Will let you know if I hear anything from them.

Monique wrote:

SnookerFan wrote:

Monique wrote:

Sonny wrote:I wondered the same thing. In fact I dared to suggest that he's a brown noser who backs everything World Snooker suggests. Am I bad?

He's a good boy, is he? and not the only one (not naming the names)

What I find striking though is that for the players established on the Main Tour (the top 64 at start of the season) there isn't much difference with the current ranking. Ronnie is probably the biggest "discrepancy"

A coincidence that will shock World Snooker staff, I'm sure.

He's the reigning World Champion and has won 5 events last season, including 2 major rakers,that's a lot more than anyone else. So despite his poor previous season and missing tournaments I think this is a better reflection of his ranking than the current one.
There is less emphasis on consistency - or actually on dedication to play in ever tiny event even if you lose money on it - and more on winning. In short it rewards excellence rather than being a "good boy".

I'm all for it and before anyone jumps at me it's nothing to do with Ronnie. I always thought this way. I always found it ridiculous - and quite infuriating - at school to get rewarded for a nice handwriting, for being a "good girl" (which BTW in my time and whereabouts implied going to Mass every day, to bow in front of the nuns and priests and above all to never challenge authority, religion and imposed prejudices) rather for being clever and mastering the subjects you were supposed to study and being able to develop original ideas.
If you have to deal with an engineer to build a bridge, or a surgeon to remove a tumor, you will not care in the least if their handwriting is nice or if they are complying to all etiquette rules. You want them to be capable. You want the bridge to be solid and reliable, you want the surgeon to restore your health. If the bridge collapses and kills people close to you, you don't want to be told "Oh but he's such a nice guy who always says the right things and always gets in the office at 9 sharp"…

John Higgins won more than Anyone else in 2010/2011 and 16 Months after his Last win hes Still top dog thats my concern With it overprotecting players to the extream based on a few Good Results Lets not Kid ourselves the reason Ronnie is second has sod all to do with German Masters,2 PTC and PL hes there because of his World win.

and you Mentioned a Surgeon

his Job relies on Turning up for work and being dedicated to that Job he cant afford to turn up and cant be bothered or people die.

of course people want a Job Done properly but they also want dedication and commitment to the Job

"I'm all for it and before anyone jumps at me it's nothing to do with Ronnie."

Just keep telling yourself that and you'll start to believe it.

Wild WC wrote:

Monique wrote:

SnookerFan wrote:

Monique wrote:

Sonny wrote:I wondered the same thing. In fact I dared to suggest that he's a brown noser who backs everything World Snooker suggests. Am I bad?

He's a good boy, is he? and not the only one (not naming the names)

What I find striking though is that for the players established on the Main Tour (the top 64 at start of the season) there isn't much difference with the current ranking. Ronnie is probably the biggest "discrepancy"

A coincidence that will shock World Snooker staff, I'm sure.

He's the reigning World Champion and has won 5 events last season, including 2 major rakers,that's a lot more than anyone else. So despite his poor previous season and missing tournaments I think this is a better reflection of his ranking than the current one.
There is less emphasis on consistency - or actually on dedication to play in ever tiny event even if you lose money on it - and more on winning. In short it rewards excellence rather than being a "good boy".

I'm all for it and before anyone jumps at me it's nothing to do with Ronnie. I always thought this way. I always found it ridiculous - and quite infuriating - at school to get rewarded for a nice handwriting, for being a "good girl" (which BTW in my time and whereabouts implied going to Mass every day, to bow in front of the nuns and priests and above all to never challenge authority, religion and imposed prejudices) rather for being clever and mastering the subjects you were supposed to study and being able to develop original ideas.
If you have to deal with an engineer to build a bridge, or a surgeon to remove a tumor, you will not care in the least if their handwriting is nice or if they are complying to all etiquette rules. You want them to be capable. You want the bridge to be solid and reliable, you want the surgeon to restore your health. If the bridge collapses and kills people close to you, you don't want to be told "Oh but he's such a nice guy who always says the right things and always gets in the office at 9 sharp"…

John Higgins won more than Anyone else in 2010/2011 and 16 Months after his Last win hes Still top dog thats my concern With it overprotecting players to the extream based on a few Good Results Lets not Kid ourselves the reason Ronnie is second has sod all to do with German Masters,2 PTC and PL hes there because of his World win.

and you Mentioned a Surgeon

his Job relies on Turning up for work and being dedicated to that Job he cant afford to turn up and cant be bothered or people die.

of course people want a Job Done properly but they also want dedication and commitment to the Job

Yeah I agree, the main reason Higgins and Ronnie are there is purely because they've won the last 2 World Champs to be played, so naturally whoever wins it will surely be right up there at the top. yeah even after 16 months and Higgins not winning a single title in between, he won far more than any other player that season, namely the Uk, worlds and welsh open, the former 2 which give the most prize money (the Masters also, but he didnt win that one) so based on a money list it isnt surprising at all that he holds the number one spot.

a 2 year Rolling Rankings consisting of 2 Worlds,2 UK,11 other Ranking events,2 PTC Grand Finals and 22 PTC Events then ranks people highly based on playing well for a limited time That really cant be right.

there was 149,000 Ranking Points available during that time Mark Selby as World no 1 has 77,285 points about 52% of available points

in the same period there was £1,614,500 available for someone to pick up in cash and as "prize money" No 1 John Higgins has £491,908 about 30% available points thats about the percentage Peter Ebdon has in 20th place of the Points World Rankings.

so surely with 50+ percentage of points that's available to every player on tour Selby is more deserving of World no 1 than Higgins is.

Sonny wrote:"I'm all for it and before anyone jumps at me it's nothing to do with Ronnie."

Just keep telling yourself that and you'll start to believe it.

That's a mean and stupid comment.
I would be in favour of ANY system that rewards the winners rather than the "good boys". If it's to be points, so be it, but the winners should get more. These are not school kids you reward with "good points" when they behave and slap on the wrist when they don't. They are professional sportsmen and it should be about winning, not just doing well. I don't like Higgins, I think he shouldn't be there playing at all but he's won the UK, the welsh and the world and he deserved his spot, Selby doesn't because he's not winning enough. It's that simple. The day Selby will start winning more and proves he's the best I will say "well done". But not now.

That was yesterday morning and we've had all this since then. Back to slagging Selby for being WN1 again now. Give it a rest!

Someone has to be number 1, so by definition someone "deserves" it at any point in time.

John Higgins had a great season where he won three events, but followed it with a terrible season of going out in the early rounds of every major event.

O'Sullivan is the only player to hold two ranking titles at the moment, but he's had his share of early exits and non-appearances, and hasn't really amassed anywhere near enough points.

Then you have Judd Trump who is very close, but the current 2-year period still covers the series of events where he was a qualifier, and not a particularly successful one at that.

Robertson? His major win in this period was not a ranking event. Williams? Was world number 1 after winning a ranking title and reaching several finals, but rightly lost the spot after a period of losing in the early rounds.

Selby? One ranking title, thee more finals, one major setback at the WC last season, but no really prolonged periods of mediocrity.

Take your pick. It was a similar situation in 2006 when Stephen Hendry got back to number 1, with pretty much the same record as Selby has now. That's just how it goes, sometimes you get a non-controversial dominant number 1, but if the titles are shared too much, the player who keeps reaching the business end of tournaments will get to the top.

Just remembering back a couple of years and how Selby was in some eyes in danger of dropping out the top 16 (which would have been 50x more false than the current WN1 status) due to how poor the ranking system used to be. People criticise the current one but it's so much better than it was for years.

Sonny wrote:Just remembering back a couple of years and how Selby was in some eyes in danger of dropping out the top 16 (which would have been 50x more false than the current WN1 status) due to how poor the ranking system used to be. People criticise the current one but it's so much better than it was for years.

i do think Ronnie is in a false position at no 16 but that's down to poor point allocation for the World Championship as you pointed out if the World Championship winners points was double the UK as the UK now stands then Ronnie would be about 10th and John Higgins second Trump 3rd and Carter 16th instead of 20th on the projected seeding List but Selby would still be No 1 and i think that's Fair.

Rankings in all sports has Rewarded Consistency over a sustained period of time.

Sonny wrote:Just remembering back a couple of years and how Selby was in some eyes in danger of dropping out the top 16 (which would have been 50x more false than the current WN1 status) due to how poor the ranking system used to be. People criticise the current one but it's so much better than it was for years.

When was that?
If the system was poor then, so it is today because it's essentially the same except it wasn't rolling and players had a full season to "manage" their ranking which had its pro and cons.

It was around the time when he was Masters champion and there were only 6 events in a season, and he had to miss Bahrain due to the Premier League contract and then immediately went down in the last 32 of the UK to Mark Williams who was in the process of pulling himself back together and was at that time easily the most dangerous qualifier.

You say if it was poor then then so it is today because it's essentially the same. That's simply not true! It's entirely different when it rolls, in the olden days you would have fixed rankings for far too long and then you would actually have ranking points still affecting the draws from close to 3 years ago! You also had the ever annoying thing of always knowing who was seeded to meet at the Crucible the following year, but I digress.

Wild WC wrote:

Sonny wrote:Just remembering back a couple of years and how Selby was in some eyes in danger of dropping out the top 16 (which would have been 50x more false than the current WN1 status) due to how poor the ranking system used to be. People criticise the current one but it's so much better than it was for years.

i do think Ronnie is in a false position at no 16 but that's down to poor point allocation for the World Championship as you pointed out if the World Championship winners points was double the UK as the UK now stands then Ronnie would be about 10th and John Higgins second Trump 3rd and Carter 16th instead of 20th on the projected seeding List but Selby would still be No 1 and i think that's Fair.

Spot on