Premier B: Redland B v Workout Harbourside (Wed 11 Jan 2017)

Match played between Phil Rea (home) and John Welton (away).
Match won by John Welton. Result: 7-9,4-9,9-3,6-9:9-3,9-5,9-4:9-7,5-9,9-4,9-3:7-9,9-1,9-2,9-4:0-9,5-9,2-9.

Starting level for Phil Rea: 2,622, level confidence: 60%.
Starting level for John Welton: 5,478, level confidence: 68%.
John Welton to win as he is currently playing 109% better than Phil Rea.

John Welton won 75% of the games and 54% of the points.
This games result would be expected if he was better by around 25%.
This points result would be expected if he was better by around 9% (english scoring).
These are weighted and combined to calculate that John Welton played 20% better than Phil Rea in this match.

Due to the difference between the players' levels, allow for the likelihood that John Welton was taking it easy by anything up to 14%. This gives him an allowed level range for this match between 3,948 and 5,478 without affecting his level.

As John Welton has played below his allowed range at 3,520, his level reduction is 12% before damping. On the assumption that John Welton would normally have been playing at level 4,736 (based on typical behaviour), Phil Rea played better than expected and therefore gains a pre-damping level increase of 23%.

Allowing for the difference in level between the players, the adjustments have been reduced to 8.3% and 15% respectively.

Factoring in the relative levels of confidence which allows players with low confidence in their levels to change more quickly, the adjustment for John Welton changes to -7.1% and Phil Rea changes to +15%.

After applying standard match damping, the adjustment for John Welton becomes -2.9% and for Phil Rea becomes +6.2%.

Given John Welton's level and the type of match played, an additional damping of 2% has been applied to his level change. Looks like he wasn't taking the match too seriously...

Apply match/event weighting of 75% for 'Mixed Spring 2016/2017' so the adjustment for John Welton is -2.1% and for Phil Rea is +4.7%.

Increase level confidence due to one more match played. John Welton: 83%, Phil Rea: 77%. Reduce level confidence based on how unexpected the result is. John Welton: 63%, Phil Rea: 58%.

A final adjustment of +0.1% has been made to both players as part of the automatic calibration that is performed after each match. All players in this pool will have been adjusted equally in order to remain equivalent to other player pools.

Final level for Phil Rea: 2,753, level confidence: 58%.
Final level for John Welton: 5,356, level confidence: 63%.

Notes

• This calculation is done in two main parts; first work out the adjustment needed to match the results and then apply damping. This means that levels should always be 'about right' but the time taken to get there or the volatility is dependent on the damping.
• A level also has 'level confidence' which drops if players haven't played for a long time or have had enexpected results. As low confidence levels adjust more quickly than high confidence levels, it allows these players to find their level more quickly without impacting their opponent's level too much.
• Point scores are used as well as game scores for accuracy - particularly important for 3-0 results - though we can work with game scores only too, albeit with more damping.
• Mismatched players are allowed for - you don't have to hammer your opponent. See explanation above if this applies to this match.
• The section on damping is where we still have some options. We have recently made a change to damp league matches more than tournament matches and box matches even more than that. This gives added weight to the more important matches.
• There are occasional, very small adjustments made to all players to keep the averages constant which are not covered here.
• You don't get a bonus just for winning - if you want to go up you have to play better than expected against your opponent.
• We have spent more than 5 years fine tuning the level calculations based on tens of thousands of match results and a great deal of feedback from players, team captains and coaches. It's the most usable and accurate ranking system there is in any sport, let alone squash.
• For a more complete explanation of how levels are calculated (on which this system is based) see the help file here.
• If you have thoughts/opinions on the above or any feedback on the way levels are calculated or updated, please contact us. We welcome all feedback, although we are keen squash players ourselves and would pefer to be on-court than in front of a screen so please be patient and please do try to see if your question has already been answered on the help page. We are unable to answer questions about hard anyone played in their match - we only get to see the results - and if your level didn't increase as expected please make sure you've looked at the above explanation before contacting us. If you want to go up the levels, train harder, listen to your coach and win more points. Or just be incredibly talented!