Post a reply

Ranking event qualifiers - 2011-12 - analysis

Postby Witz78

Im going to examine here where the 16 qualifiers for the last 32 at the event are coming from in the qualifying draw.

Upon the conclusion of todays qualifiers i will post my feedback on this topic.

Australian Open

Round 1 qualifying - 1 - Gilbert
Round 2 qualifying - 0 -
Round 3 qualifying - 5 - Selt, McLeod, Ford, Bond, Pinches
Round 4 qualifying - 10 - Gould, Higginson, Campbell, Day, Bingham, Perry, Davis, Wenbo, Doherty, Dale

Shanghai Masters

Round 1 qualifying - 1 - Wattana
Round 2 qualifying - 1 - Lisowski
Round 3 qualifying - 5 - O'Brien, Hamilton, Bond, Milkins, Holt
Round 4 qualifying - 9 - King, Dale, Day, Lee, Higginson, Bingham, Gould, Wenbo, Davis
Last edited by Witz78 on 04 Aug 2011, edited 7 times in total.

Re: Ranking event qualifiers - 2011-12 - analysis

Postby Witz78

Australian Open

Round 1 qualifying - 1 - Gilbert
Round 2 qualifying - 0 -
Round 3 qualifying - 5 - Selt, McLeod, Ford, Bond, Pinches
Round 4 qualifying - 10 - Gould, Higginson, Campbell, Day, Bingham, Perry, Davis, Wenbo, Doherty, Dale

so of the 51 players who competed in prelim and Rounds 1 and 2 of qualifying only ONE made it, so on this occasion it was a 2% chance of players ranked 49-99 making it to the venue.

prize money only started in the 4th qualifying round here so the players lowly ranked faced an uphill battle to make any money. In addition to Gilbert, 5 others from Rounds 1 and 2 did make the 4th qualifying round to earn the mighty sum of around £700. So that worked out at 6 from the 51 players ranked 49-99 who made any money from this event, or a 12% chance.

Of the 17-32 guys, 10 of the 16 progressed so thats a 63% success ratio.

Re: Ranking event qualifiers - 2011-12 - analysis

Postby Wildey

Witz78 wrote:Australian Open

Round 1 qualifying - 1 - Gilbert
Round 2 qualifying - 0 -
Round 3 qualifying - 5 - Selt, McLeod, Ford, Bond, Pinches
Round 4 qualifying - 10 - Gould, Higginson, Campbell, Day, Bingham, Perry, Davis, Wenbo, Doherty, Dale

so of the 51 players who competed in prelim and Rounds 1 and 2 of qualifying only ONE made it, so on this occasion it was a 2% chance of players ranked 49-99 making it to the venue.

prize money only started in the 4th qualifying round here so the players lowly ranked faced an uphill battle to make any money. In addition to Gilbert, 5 others from Rounds 1 and 2 did make the 4th qualifying round to earn the mighty sum of around £700. So that worked out at 6 from the 51 players ranked 49-99 who made any money from this event, or a 12% chance.

Of the 17-32 guys, 10 of the 16 progressed so thats a 63% success ratio.

and ???

what makes you think they could win 2 matches under your system ?

its the same players they have to get past no matter what the system is.

Re: Ranking event qualifiers - 2011-12 - analysis

Postby Witz78

Wild wrote:
Witz78 wrote:Australian Open

Round 1 qualifying - 1 - Gilbert
Round 2 qualifying - 0 -
Round 3 qualifying - 5 - Selt, McLeod, Ford, Bond, Pinches
Round 4 qualifying - 10 - Gould, Higginson, Campbell, Day, Bingham, Perry, Davis, Wenbo, Doherty, Dale

so of the 51 players who competed in prelim and Rounds 1 and 2 of qualifying only ONE made it, so on this occasion it was a 2% chance of players ranked 49-99 making it to the venue.

prize money only started in the 4th qualifying round here so the players lowly ranked faced an uphill battle to make any money. In addition to Gilbert, 5 others from Rounds 1 and 2 did make the 4th qualifying round to earn the mighty sum of around £700. So that worked out at 6 from the 51 players ranked 49-99 who made any money from this event, or a 12% chance.

Of the 17-32 guys, 10 of the 16 progressed so thats a 63% success ratio.

and ???

what makes you think they could win 2 matches under your system ?

its the same players they have to get past no matter what the system is.


no it isnt the same players they would have to beat

for starters they wouldnt be facing each other in the first rounds, thus eliminating half the newcomers straight away

it should be the same criteria for all if they want to make it to a venue, win x number of matches, im sorry but whilst the teired qualifying set up remains, its going to impossible to truly see how good these youngsters are. Give them a level playing field and things will be different.

Re: Ranking event qualifiers - 2011-12 - analysis

Postby Wildey

don't talk utter rubbish if they don't face each other and face journeyman straight off they might not win any bucking match and get no confidence going.

Re: Ranking event qualifiers - 2011-12 - analysis

Postby Witz78

just look at it from the law of averages

even if we assume every match is a 50-50 then its clear that the more games you have to play then the probability of you making it to the venue are less.

Round 1 qualifiers - have to win 4 games = 6% chance of making venue
Round 2 qualifiers - have to win 3 games = 12% chance of making venue
Round 3 qualifiers - have to win 2 games = 25% chance making venue
Round 4 qualifiers - have to win 1 game = 50% chance of making venue

so just l0oking at that the odds are totally in favour of the guys higher up the rankings, someone ranked 32nd is 8 times more likely to make it to a venue than someone ranked 65th.

surely you can see now, that a level playing field in qualifying is the only truly fair way to go

Re: Ranking event qualifiers - 2011-12 - analysis

Postby Witz78

Wild wrote:http://www.snooker.org/res/index.asp?event=24

look at that only 2 bellow top 64 qualified and one of them is a bottler...


hmm on the flipside i could argue that the 16 qualifiers all came through from er, round 1 of qualifying ;-)

ok, right so this proves that the bigger names proved they deserved their rankings, so in that case whats the problem with this always being the norm for the qualifying set up then.

if the guys higher up are better then theyll still qualify ok whatever the set up?

Re: Ranking event qualifiers - 2011-12 - analysis

Postby Witz78

and if we look at the seedings for the German Open qualifiers then this is the split

17-32 - 9
33-48 - 3
49-64 - 2
65-96 - 2

so this level playing field still opens things up slightly more favourably for the lower ranked players compared to a traditional teired qualifying set up

Re: Ranking event qualifiers - 2011-12 - analysis

Postby Monique

Witz, your reasoning doesn't make any sense at all statistically. It's not as if a match is a flip of a coin and each player has the same chance to win or lose it. In principle the seeds at each level are the better players and you would expect that a majority of them will win their matches.
If you really want to get an idea if a "flat" qualifying structure would favour the lower ranked players you have to look at the stats in the PTCS - how many of the 96-65 make it to the last 32 on average over the season - as compared to how many of them succeed to do the same in the traditional qualifying process over the same period of time. And even that would not be fully meaningfull because the playing conditions and the level of pressure are not the same.

Re: Ranking event qualifiers - 2011-12 - analysis

Postby Wildey

Witz78 wrote:and if we look at the seedings for the German Open qualifiers then this is the split

17-32 - 9
33-48 - 3
49-64 - 2
65-96 - 2

so this level playing field still opens things up slightly more favourably for the lower ranked players compared to a traditional teired qualifying set up

the only thing i will say there's only 3 qualifying rounds to play with that system so players under 64 only needs 3 wins instead of 4 but i still maintain they will find it tougher on some level because as the dead wood are weeded out players 33 to 64 will be harder to beat in years to come so new pros would get them 1st match without a match already played and confidence in the bag.

Re: Ranking event qualifiers - 2011-12 - analysis

Postby Witz78

Wild wrote:
Witz78 wrote:and if we look at the seedings for the German Open qualifiers then this is the split

17-32 - 9
33-48 - 3
49-64 - 2
65-96 - 2

so this level playing field still opens things up slightly more favourably for the lower ranked players compared to a traditional teired qualifying set up

the only thing i will say there's only 3 qualifying rounds to play with that system so players under 64 only needs 3 wins instead of 4 but i still maintain they will find it tougher on some level because as the dead wood are weeded out players 33 to 64 will be harder to beat in years to come so new pros would get them 1st match without a match already played and confidence in the bag.


on the other hand though, with these guys knocking each other out in the opening rounds, few of these guys low down even get a chance to pit their wits in qualifying against the guys in the 17-48 bracket to see if they can compete against them.

at least a flat qualifying set up would give them a chance then if they still couldnt do it, then they cant complain as the qualifying criteria and points set up here would be the same for all.

this system would also eliminate the guys higher up the rankings getting more minimum points per event, take this week for example, 65-99 start off with 280 points whereas 17-32 get 805 so thats an inbalance and injustice that would be evened out with this level playing field set up.

Re: Ranking event qualifiers - 2011-12 - analysis

Postby Witz78

Monique wrote:Witz, your reasoning doesn't make any sense at all statistically. It's not as if a match is a flip of a coin and each player has the same chance to win or lose it. In principle the seeds at each level are the better players and you would expect that a majority of them will win their matches.
If you really want to get an idea if a "flat" qualifying structure would favour the lower ranked players you have to look at the stats in the PTCS - how many of the 96-65 make it to the last 32 on average over the season - as compared to how many of them succeed to do the same in the traditional qualifying process over the same period of time. And even that would not be fully meaningfull because the playing conditions and the level of pressure are not the same.


Monique that 50% x 50% etc statistic wasnt really the crux of my arguments or evidencial fact, it was simply a rough example to show the theoretical chances each round of qualifiers has, of course this varies more probably to the extreme that the higher guys have a better chance than 50% and the lower ranked guys have less than a 6% chance of making it to a venue.

Re: Ranking event qualifiers - 2011-12 - analysis

Postby Bourne

Witz can you lay down an example of a draw, say what you'd have had for Shanghai ... obviously completely rolling rankings meaning Bingham is already in and Cope is 17th etc ... how would you structure the qual draw ?

Re: Ranking event qualifiers - 2011-12 - analysis

Postby Witz78

Bourne wrote:Witz can you lay down an example of a draw, say what you'd have had for Shanghai ... obviously completely rolling rankings meaning Bingham is already in and Cope is 17th etc ... how would you structure the qual draw ?


im sorry but im going out in the snake hiss in an hour and have to get ready so ill have to get back to you with that, the town will be crawling with 17 and 18 year old fanny out on the snake hiss celebrating their exam results so a man of my calibre aint going to sit in the house whilst that is going on. :john:

but im sure it will be met with dissaproval by the usual prophets of doom :mood:

Re: Ranking event qualifiers - 2011-12 - analysis

Postby Bourne

Witz78 wrote:
Bourne wrote:Witz can you lay down an example of a draw, say what you'd have had for Shanghai ... obviously completely rolling rankings meaning Bingham is already in and Cope is 17th etc ... how would you structure the qual draw ?


im sorry but im going out in the snake hiss in an hour and have to get ready so ill have to get back to you with that

but im sure it will be met with dissaproval by the usual prophets of doom :mood:

I'm pretty sure we're singing from the same hymnsheet but just wanted to get idea of exactly what you meant, i'm all for a revamp in the qualifying system myself, think it's far too weighted as it is now.

Re: Ranking event qualifiers - 2011-12 - analysis

Postby Wildey

god slowly witz is winning me round :shock:

another case for it is players 65-100 will have 1 fewer matches to reach the last 64 and some cash.

Re: Ranking event qualifiers - 2011-12 - analysis

Postby Witz78

Bourne wrote:Witz can you lay down an example of a draw, say what you'd have had for Shanghai ... obviously completely rolling rankings meaning Bingham is already in and Cope is 17th etc ... how would you structure the qual draw ?


In an ideal world there would be 80 players on tour, not 99 then it would work like this.

Qualifying round 1 - 64 players = 32 matches :- 17th seed v 80th seed, 18th v 79th etc right up to 48th playing 49th.
Qualifying round 2 - 32 round 1 winners = 16 matches :- seeded to be 17th/80th v 48th/49th, 18th/79th v 47th/50th and so on...


so there would only be 2 matches for each pro to win to get through to the event and 1 match to win to make the last 48 of the event where prize money would start, simple equation you win a match you get paid, you dont then its tough luck.

For a standard 5,000 ranking points event id stagger the ranking points like this

Qualifying round 1 lose = 0 points, win = 633 points
Qualifying round 2 win = 1267 points
Round 1 win at tournament = 1900 points (no minimum points for seeds that lose though )

another factor to weigh in would be with this system there would be 48 qualifying matches requires, as opposed to the 67 needed at present, albeit this is based on a tour of 80, not 99.

Re: Ranking event qualifiers - 2011-12 - analysis

Postby Bourne

Yeh that sounds fair to me, I was just trying earlier to work out if there was any way that the seventeen-thirty-two seeds would have byes in round one kwollies but it doesn't seem to work with 96 pros (80 kwollies)

Re: Ranking event qualifiers - 2011-12 - analysis

Postby Wildey

Witz

believe me if you throwing top 32 in to the First Qualifying Round new Pros has No hope of making Progress first Season therefore Dropping Right Off Tour Straight away.

as it is now is Better Than That that way you get matches against Equal Standard Newbies rather than Hardened Match players with experience.

you need experience to be a success at snooker look how long it took Judd to get Past Marcus Campbell when Marcus was Ranked 40+ and Judd was top 32 and facing the likes of Wenbo or Marco Fu first off would be tough for new pros.

The German Masters Module Might Work Though

1st Round 33-64 v 65-96
2nd Round Winners v Each Others
3rd Round 17-32 v 16 Winners
1st Round Proper 1-16 v 16 Qualifiers

Re: Ranking event qualifiers - 2011-12 - analysis

Postby Witz78

Bourne wrote:Yeh that sounds fair to me, I was just trying earlier to work out if there was any way that the seventeen-thirty-two seeds would have byes in round one kwollies but it doesn't seem to work with 96 pros (80 kwollies)


the only way you could do it with 99 players would be this

well take the rankings after the Aussie Open and assume qualifying for Shanghai went like this......

top 16 qualify

Williams, Higgins, Selby, Ding, Murphy, Robertson, Carter, Maguire, O'Sullivan, Trump, Dott, Bingham, Allen, Stevens, Hendry and Ebdon.

so were left with 83

players ranked 17-58 are the seeds ( one of these is selected at random and will recieve a bye into round 2)

the other 41 seeds are placed against the respective lower ranked players (59-99) for simplicity well assume the 58th ranked player Alfie Burden got the bye so its ie. 17th v 99th, 18th v 98th etc

so bye for Alfie Burden and the rest of the matches are as follows

1 - COPE - VATNANI
2 - M.DAVIS - FIGUERIDO
3 - LEE - WELLS
4 - GOULD - MEHTA
5 - WALDEN - MEARA
6 - CAMPBELL - HOGAN
7 - HAWKINS - GRACE
8 - PERRY - FILIPIAK
9 - DOHERTY - CARRINGTON
10 - HIGGINSON - YUPENG
11 - FU - WICHEARD
12 - DALE - SUWANNAT
13 - KING - DUFFY
14 - WENBO - BRECEL
15 - DAY - HULL
16 - FORD - BAIRD
17 - GREENE - POOMJAENG
18 - MCLEOD - NORMAN
19 - MILKINS - PENGFEI
20 - O'BRIEN - DELU
21 - DUNN - YAN
22 - SELT - CRAIGIE
23 - HAMILTON - MAFLIN
24 - BOND - BEDFORD
25 - BURNETT - MACKENZIE
26 - PINCHES - MORRIS
27 - JOYCE - DAVISON
28 - HOLT - PAGGETT
29 - JONES - M.WHITE
30 - JOGIA - COUCH
31 - DRAGO - WOOLASTON
32 - S.DAVIS - MCCULLOCH
33 - LISOWSKI - WATTANA
34 - HAROLD - SONG
35 - LINES - HANEVEER
36 - MCMANUS - GILBERT
37 - J.WHITE - HIGHFIELD
38 - ROBERTSON - HICKS
39 - GUNNELL - GUODONG
40 - SWAIL - CHUANG
41 - LAWLER - MCGILL

So of these 41 matches 19 are picked at random and will be played in Qualifying round 1, the other 22 matches (44 players + Burden who got a bye will go into Qualifying round 2)

so thats 45 players with the 19 round 1 winners to follow making the last 64 in round 2

the seeding for the last 64 is as follows

the 22 set matches will be played as expected

the 19 qualifying matches will have already been placed into order as per the above numbers, the lower the number the higher the expected seeding of the winner.

these 19 + Burden who got the bye and slots into 20/20 as hes 58th seed and the 19 matches played in qualifying will always feature one player higher than him in the rankings.

for example and simplicity say the 19 qualifying matches are number 23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40 and 41 then it would be expected in round 2 that the winner of 23 would play Burden, the winner of match 24 would play the winner of match 41 , 25 v 40 etc up to 32 v 33.

now the last 32 / qualifying round 3 would be simply seeded on the basis of winner match 1 v winner match 32 as it would be expected that the seedings had still panned out despite the randomness of draws / byes etc

in the scenario where a match, say match 1 was drawn out in the 1st qualifying round, then obviously the winner of that match would already be playing in round 2 so couldnt just waltz straight into round 3 but it would still be assumed that the 17th seed had won his round 1 match v 99th seed then his round 2 match v the lowest ranked other round 1 qualifying round winner, and therefore hed still face the 32nd seed in round 3.

and if anyone can follow that, well done. :hatoff:

Re: Ranking event qualifiers - 2011-12 - analysis

Postby Bourne

Yes, yes, yes :hatoff: It's pure & simply the most progressive and sensible format, would be even better if we get a bigger tour of over a hundred players but that will come in time.

Re: Ranking event qualifiers - 2011-12 - analysis

Postby Witz78

Bourne wrote:Yes, yes, yes :hatoff: It's pure & simply the most progressive and sensible format, would be even better if we get a bigger tour of over a hundred players but that will come in time.


the optimum amount of players we need is 144, given the talent out there its feasible IMO, better them being on tour than kicking their heels doing nothing.

so top 16 qualify

round 1 = 64 games, 17 v 144, 18 v 143 etc etc right up to 80 v 81

round 2 = 32 games, 17/144 v 80/81, 18/143 v 79/82 etc etc right up to 48/113 v 49/112

round 3 = 16 games, 17/144/80/81 v 48/113/49/112 etc etc

this would be a no brainer

Re: Ranking event qualifiers - 2011-12 - analysis

Postby Wildey

Witz78 wrote:
Bourne wrote:Yes, yes, yes :hatoff: It's pure & simply the most progressive and sensible format, would be even better if we get a bigger tour of over a hundred players but that will come in time.


the optimum amount of players we need is 144, given the talent out there its feasible IMO, better them being on tour than kicking their heels doing nothing.

so top 16 qualify

round 1 = 64 games, 17 v 144, 18 v 143 etc etc right up to 80 v 81

round 2 = 32 games, 17/144 v 80/81, 18/143 v 79/82 etc etc right up to 48/113 v 49/112

round 3 = 16 games, 17/144/80/81 v 48/113/49/112 etc etc

this would be a no brainer

why didnt you cop off tonight your frustrated i can tell <laugh>

Re: Ranking event qualifiers - 2011-12 - analysis

Postby Witz78

Wild wrote:
Witz78 wrote:
Bourne wrote:Yes, yes, yes :hatoff: It's pure & simply the most progressive and sensible format, would be even better if we get a bigger tour of over a hundred players but that will come in time.


the optimum amount of players we need is 144, given the talent out there its feasible IMO, better them being on tour than kicking their heels doing nothing.

so top 16 qualify

round 1 = 64 games, 17 v 144, 18 v 143 etc etc right up to 80 v 81

round 2 = 32 games, 17/144 v 80/81, 18/143 v 79/82 etc etc right up to 48/113 v 49/112

round 3 = 16 games, 17/144/80/81 v 48/113/49/112 etc etc

this would be a no brainer

why didnt you cop off tonight your frustrated i can tell <laugh>


id sooner be out on the lash up to no good believe me, but being out on the lash and up to no good has put me in my current predicament so it will need to be rubbish like this for tonight and the forseeable future :mood: