Pad Thai Padel League Men’s Rankings · Career Table Proposal — not deployed September 2026

▮ Ranking methodology proposal

The PTP 1000 System

Two changes, borrowed straight from the ATP Tour: tier the divisions like Masters 1000 / 500 / 250, and replace the flat finish spread with the ATP’s convex round curve. Everything else — the 50/50 partner split, the career-cumulative table — stays. The result: winning finally matters, and the fastest way up the rankings becomes playing up, not farming down.

1000PTP 1000Division 1 · champion’s base

500PTP 500Division 2

250PTP 250Division 3

125PTP 125Division 4 · if running

Diagnosis

What the current table actually rewards

Today a win pays 100 points, last place pays 50, and every position in between is spread evenly. That score is multiplied by a division weight that steps down almost linearly, then split 50/50 across the pair and added to a career total that never expires. Each piece sounds harmless. Together they make the ranking a measure of attendance in weak fields, not of winning.

1.05× What the champion earns vs the runner-up today (12-pair field). Winning the final is worth ~4.5 points. Proposed → 1.67×

2.0× Champion vs last place. Coming first pays exactly double coming dead last. Proposed → 6.3× (field of 12)

83% A Division 3 title vs a Division 1 title, under representative linear weights. Proposed → 25%

77% What 6th of 12 earns, as a share of the champion’s points. Mid-table pays almost like winning. Proposed → 27%

Failure 01

Winning is barely rewarded

First beats second by ~4% of the title’s value. Over a season, the difference between winning finals and losing them is statistical noise — the podium is decoration, the points come from showing up.

Failure 02

Low divisions are a points farm

With near-linear weights, a Division 3 title pays ~83% of a Division 1 title against a far weaker field. The rational strategy is to sandbag: stay down, win often, out-accumulate players competing at the top. The ranking punishes ambition.

Failure 03

Attendance masquerades as achievement

Finishing 6th of 12 pays 77% of the winner’s points, and career-cumulative scoring compounds it forever. Sorted honestly, today’s table ranks events played, lightly seasoned by results.

Failure 04

Ties with no answer

A coarse, evenly-spaced grid produces identical career totals with no published tiebreak. A convex curve makes collisions rarer; the proposal adds an explicit tiebreak order anyway.

Current-system figures use representative parameters (weights ×1.2 / ×1.1 / ×1.0, 12-pair fields). The live table’s exact weights differ; the shape of the problem doesn’t — every conclusion below holds for any linear weight set of this character.

Lever 1 · Division gaps

A 2× tier ladder: PTP 1000 / 500 / 250 / 125

The ATP prices its calendar as Masters 1000, ATP 500, ATP 250 — a 4:2:1 ladder where every step up doubles the prize. Apply the same geometry to PTP divisions: each division’s champion base is exactly twice the one below. Extended to a fourth division, the ladder reads 8:4:2:1.

Today — linear weights

Champion’s value by division, as % of a Division 1 title

Div 1

100%

Div 2

92%

Div 3

83%

Div 4

75%

Nearly flat. Level is close to irrelevant; volume decides everything.

Proposed — ATP ladder

Champion’s base by division, as % of a PTP 1000 title

Div 1

100%

Div 2

50%

Div 3

25%

Div 4

12.5%

A Division 1 title is now worth four Division 3 titles. Today it’s worth 1.2.

The play-up invariant: 0.6 × 2 = 1.2 — reach the final one division up and you out-earn a title in your own division. On every rung, always.

Runner-up in Division 1 pays 600 against Division 2’s 500-point title; runner-up in Division 2 pays 300 against Division 3’s 250. But merely attending a higher division doesn’t pay — 4th place up a tier (0.72×) still trails a title below. You have to contend up there, not just show up. That is exactly the incentive we want.

Why 2× steps and not more? A 2× ladder is the smallest gap that, combined with the 0.6 finalist factor below, makes playing up strictly better — and it’s the ratio the ATP itself has stress-tested for decades. Go steeper (3–4× per step) and lower divisions become pointless to win, which kills turnout at the base of the pyramid. At 2×, a Division 3 season still builds a real career total; it just can never again outweigh success at the top.

Lever 2 · Finish points

The 60% rule: an ATP curve for finishing positions

The ATP round table (W 1000, F 600, SF 360, QF 180 …) hides one clean law: every round earlier you exit, you keep roughly 60% of the points. PTP events are mostly round-robin and Americano formats, so we express the same law on final finishing position — which also makes it field-size independent, exactly like the ATP, and lets one published table cover every event.

Points(position) = TierBase × 0.6^{log₂(position)} — every time your finishing position doubles, you keep 60%.

Equivalent to TierBase × position^−0.737. At positions 1, 2 and 4 it reproduces the ATP Masters anchors exactly — 1000, 600, 360 — giving champion : finalist : semifinalist-grade ratios of 1 : 0.60 : 0.36 (champion ≈ 1.67× the finalist, ≈ 2.8× a semifinalist). Below the semis it decays slightly gentler than the ATP’s, deliberately: a community league still wants turnout to count for something.

Share of the champion’s points, by finishing position

Current · linear 100→50 Proposed · ATP curve

Hover, or focus the chart and use ← →, to inspect a position. Under the current spread, 6th place keeps 83% of the winner’s value; under the proposal it keeps 27%. Exact values for every position and tier are in the table below.

Master points table — one table, every field size
Finish	% of base	PTP 1000	PTP 500	PTP 250	PTP 125	Marker
1	100	1000	500	250	125	Champion
2	60.0	600	300	150	75	Runner-up
3	44.5	445	222	111	56	Semi-final grade
4	36.0	360	180	90	45	Semi-final grade
5	30.5	305	153	76	38
6	26.7	267	133	67	33
7	23.8	238	119	60	30
8	21.6	216	108	54	27	Last in a field of 8
9	19.8	198	99	50	25
10	18.3	183	92	46	23
11	17.1	171	85	43	21
12	16.0	160	80	40	20	Typical field · last
13	15.1	151	76	38	19
14	14.3	143	72	36	18
15	13.6	136	68	34	17
16	13.0	130	65	32	16	Last in a field of 16
17	12.4	124	62	31	15
18	11.9	119	59	30	15
19	11.4	114	57	29	14
20	11.0	110	55	27	14
21	10.6	106	53	27	13
22	10.2	102	51	26	13
23	9.9	99	50	25	12
24	9.6	96	48	24	12	Last in a field of 24

Values are the formula rounded to the nearest point; near-ties at depth in the 125 tier are cosmetic. Position value is field-size independent, exactly like the ATP: 8th place is worth 216 whether 8 or 24 pairs entered — a bigger field simply lets the table run deeper. One published table covers every event; nothing is recalculated per tournament.

When an event has knockout rounds
Exit	Position equivalent	% of base	PTP 1000	PTP 500
Champion	1st	100	1000	500
Lost the final	2nd	60.0	600	300
Lost a semi-final	4th — worst possible finish	36.0	360	180
Lost a quarter-final	8th	21.6	216	108
Lost in the round of 16	16th	13.0	130	65
Lost in the round of 32	32nd	7.8	78	39

One rule covers both formats: a loser in the round of R scores the position-R value — the worst place they could have finished. If a bronze match is played, its winner takes the position-3 value (445) and its loser position 4 (360). Group-plus-knockout events use the knockout mapping for bracket qualifiers and final group standings for the rest. Note the anchors: 1000 / 600 / 360 are the ATP Masters numbers themselves.

Partner split

Keep 50/50 — the pair earns, both bank half

The pair is the competitive unit; the split is how points travel with the player when pairs re-form. Keeping 50/50 preserves every career total’s meaning, keeps the event’s points pool comparable across the table, and changes nothing about ordering. No change proposed.

Aside — the ATP actually does the opposite

In ATP doubles, each partner receives the full round points. Doing the same here would double every number and make the tier names literal (“I won a PTP 1000, I banked 1000”) — with identical rankings, since it’s a global ×2. It costs a one-time ×2 rescale of legacy points to stay comparable. Worth it only if the headline legibility appeals; the math is indifferent.

Worked examples

The same seasons, scored both ways

All events are 12-pair fields. Current-system math uses the representative weights from the diagnosis (×1.2 / ×1.1 / ×1.0); proposed-system math uses the tables above. Points shown per pair, then split.

Case 1 — The Grinder vs The Contender

Four Division 3 titles against one Division 1 title plus two finals

Pair A — “The Grinders” Win Division 3 four times. Never play up.

Current 4 × (100 × 1.0)400.0

→ per player200.0

Proposed 4 × 2501,000

→ per player500

Pair B — “The Contenders” Play Division 1 three times: one title, two lost finals.

Current (100 + 95.5 + 95.5) × 1.2349.1

→ per player174.5

Proposed 1000 + 600 + 6002,200

→ per player1,100

Current table saysGrinders ranked above — 200.0 vs 174.5. Farming Division 3 beats contending in Division 1.

Proposed table saysContenders ranked above, 2.2× — 1,100 vs 500. The ranking order flips.

Case 2 — The Regular vs The Closer

Both in Division 2: eight mid-table attendances against three podium runs

Pair C — “The Regulars” Enter eight events, finish 6th of 12 every time.

Current 8 × (77.3 × 1.1)680.0

→ per player340.0

Proposed 8 × 1331,068

→ per player534

Pair D — “The Closers” Enter three events: a title, a final, a 4th place.

Current (100 + 95.5 + 86.4) × 1.1310.0

→ per player155.0

Proposed 500 + 300 + 180980

→ per player490

Current table saysRegulars ahead 2.2× — pure attendance crushes podium form.

Proposed table saysNear parity — 534 vs 490. Turnout still counts (it’s a league), but three podium runs now equal eight attendances, and one more final flips it.

Case 3 — How points travel with a player

The 50/50 split under the proposed tables, across changing partnerships

March — PTP 500, Division 2 Petch & Book win the event. The pair earns the 500 base.

Pair points500

Petch banks+250

Book banks+250

April — PTP 1000, Division 1 Petch partners Non and wins the top event.

Pair points1,000

Petch banks+500

Non banks+500

Career table after April Petch 750 · Non 500 · Book 250. Points always follow the player at half the pair’s value; partners stay free agents. Unchanged from today.

Side by side

Current vs proposed, dimension by dimension

Dimension	Current system	Proposed — PTP 1000
Winner vs runner-up	+4.5 pts on a ~120-pt title (1.05×)	1.67× — 1000 vs 600 at the top tier
Winner vs last place	2.0×, by construction	6.3× in a field of 12; 7.7× in a field of 16
Division 1 title vs Division 3 title	~1.2× — near-linear weights	4× — the 2×-per-step ATP ladder
Optimal strategy	Sandbag a weak division, maximise events entered	Play up: a final one tier up always beats a title below (1.2×)
Finish scoring	Linear 100→50 spread over positions	TierBase × 0.6^{log₂(position)} — convex, ATP-anchored
Knockout events	No defined mapping	Round-of-R loser scores the position-R value; same table
Field-size handling	Winner always 100, whatever the field	Position-anchored and field-independent; one published table
Partner split	50/50	50/50 — kept
Memory	Career-cumulative, never expires	Career-cumulative kept; optional season Race view alongside
Ties	Frequent on the coarse grid; unresolved	Rarer, plus an explicit tiebreak order

Recommendation

What I would ship

These are the exact numbers. Nothing here requires new data — every input is a finishing position and a division, both of which the league already records.

Ship spec · v1

Four tiers, 2× steps: PTP 1000 / 500 / 250 / 125 mapped to Divisions 1–4. If only three divisions run, the ladder trims cleanly to 1000 / 500 / 250.
Finish points = TierBase × 0.6^{log₂(position)}, published as the master table above (rounded to the nearest point, field-size independent).
Knockout mapping: a round-of-R loser scores the position-R value; bronze-match winner takes position 3.
Partner split stays 50/50. The pair earns the table value; each player banks half.
Guardrails: events with fewer than 6 pairs score one tier down (no micro-event farming); division entry remains promotion-gated, so the 1000 base can’t be farmed by tanking upward.
Tiebreaks, in order: most titles at the highest tier played → best single result → most recent superior result.
Migration: recompute the full career history under the new tables. One currency forever; the table reshuffles once, loudly — which is itself the announcement that winning now matters.

Optional — outside the brief

A “Race” view next to the career table

Career-cumulative is the status quo and this proposal leaves it untouched — it’s the league’s honor roll. But cumulative tables ossify: after three seasons, new players can’t see themselves climbing. The ATP’s answer is two boards: the career/rolling ranking and the January-to-December Race. A “Race to the Finals” tab that resets each season — same points, filtered to the current year — would cost nothing, change no career number, and give every season a live plot. Time-decay and best-N windows are heavier surgery; park them unless the career table visibly stagnates. Explicitly not part of the two asks — take it or leave it.

Open questions

Calls only Nestor can make

Q1How many divisions actually run? The ladder ships as 1000/500/250/125 for four; it trims to three without touching any other number.

Q2Confirm typical field sizes. The tables cover 8–24 pairs. Do we want the sub-6-pair guardrail (score one tier down), or do tiny events simply not happen?

Q3Retro-recompute or cut over? I recommend recomputing all history under the new tables (one currency, one reshuffle). The alternative — freezing legacy points as a separate column — preserves old totals but splits the table’s meaning in two.

Q4Add the season Race view now, or later? Optional lever; zero impact on career numbers either way.

Q5A season-ending Finals event? An invitational for the top 8 of the Race at a 1500 base would complete the ATP analogy — and give the Race something to race toward.

#	Player	PTP 1000	Was	Move	Divisions
1	Meik Rotrakarn	812	10	▲9	4·2·1
2	Net T.	800	7	▲5	—·1·1
3	Kavi r	742	2	▼1	1·1·1
4	Arnav	722	9	▲5	1·1·—
5	Vatsal Tolasaria	603	3	▼2	2·1·1
6	Rafael Garcia (old #1 — never won)	522	1	▼5	1·1·1