Sport Today

WPA ranking before the name
final 64 seeding after

1 Cory Deuel 26
3 Mika Immonen 2
4 Efren Reyes 17
5 Ralf Souquet 49
6 Warren Kiamco 30
7 Ching-Shun Yang 4
8 Antonio Lining 8
10 Kun-Fang Lee 12
11 Francisco Bustamante 9
12 Niels Feijen 13
13 Charlie Williams 60
15 Earl Strickland 3
16 Thorsten Hohmann 46
18 Marcus Chamat 7
19 Oliver Ortmann 1
21 Johnny Archer 5
22 Rudolfo Luat 29
23 Peter F Nielsen 47
23 Thomas Engert 40
26 Jeremy Jones 51
27 Takeshi Okumura 18
28 Kim Davenport 39
30 Alex Pagulayan 10
31 Michael Schmidt 61
33 Paul Potier 44
37 Sin-Young Park 35
39 Chien-Te Chung 34
39 Steve Knight 64
39 Wei-Chih Chen 25
45 Kunihiko Takahashi 6
45 Lu-Kung Hung 31
50 Ernesto Dominguez 38
52 Steve Davis 36
54 Radoslaw Babica 48
54 Tony Robles 32
58 Evgenji Stalev 28
58 Nick Van Den Berg 57
63 Christian Reimering 24
64 Fabio Petroni 52
64 Ramil Gallego 15
74 David Alcaide 45
74 Jim Rempe 50
77 Alex Lely 22
77 Daryl Peach 55
85 Nick Varner 23
90 Hiroshi Takenaka 20
90 Sandor Tot 42
102 Imran Majid 56
107 Rico Diks 37
108 Niklas Bergendorff 58
108 Stephan Cohen 21
108 Victor Tapies 41
123 Kun-Chang Huang 54
123 Shannon Daulton 63
135 Gary Ponting 62
153 Phil Harrison 53
153 Vangelis Vettas 27
204 Lee Van Corteza 11
204 Shintaro Sugaya 19
281 Roman Hybler 33
358 Matjaz Erculj 59
x Dennis Orcullo 16
x Ignacio Chavez 14
x Mark Williams 43

Gregory
[Delete the one, five, and three for email.]

...

Interestingly, the WPA rankings do a very poor job of predicting
relative performances in Cardiff.  The correlation between the two is
about .25, which means that only about 6% of the variability in
performance could have been predicted by WPA ranking.

Of course the different round-robin groups are not of equal weight.  I
am doing an NPL-like analysis of the whole tournament.  This will
couple the groups together and will serve to compare the performance of
everyone.

--
mike page
fargo

Ross say

I included the final 64 seeding numbers just for curiosity sake.
Mostly so Sherm can say, "Man, look at that Lee Van go!"

Yes the WPA rankings are based on points earned in WPA sanctioned
events going back I don't know how far.  There are not too many of
those babies, so many players have only a handful of WPA points.  Too
few runs.  Is that the right lingo?  The ranking lists are here-
http://www.wpa-pool.com/rankings/RankingsMen.htm
http://www.wpa-pool.com/rankings/RankingsWomen.htm

My point in all this is to see how fast, if at all, the higher ranked
and unranked players fall off the list.

Not making a statement, this is just for kicks.

Gregory
[Delete the one, five, and three for email.]

OK, local boy issues aside, how in the heck can Corey Dueul get seeded 26th.
Top 20?  Certainly.  Top 10?  Probably.  26????  The bookmakers must be
having a field day twiddling with these numbers.

--Jim

NPL?

National Pool League

It's like ELO chess ratings, adapted for pool by Bob Jewett.  It's
widely used in San Francisco and has been implemented in Chicago by Ron
Shepard and is used other places.  The basic idea is that when two
players differ by a factor of two (i.e., the score in a race to 1000
would be 1000 to about 500) they are some fixed number of points apart.
NPL uses 30.  The assumption is that if A beats B 1000-500 and B beats
C 1000-500 that A will beat C 1000 - 250.  It's a logarithmic scale.
It's generally used to handicap matches in local tournaments.

--
mike page
fargo

The seeding in the main tournament was entirely based on the
performance in the preliminaries.  The prelims were round robins
in groups of eight.  Matches were races to 5.  It was not hard to
lose two matches in the prelims -- each player played all 7 of his
round-mates.

F.P. Chao, the winner two years ago, failed to get out of the prelims.

--

Bob Jewett