Ranking Points Ranked

Have been meaning to do this for years, but just got round to it. It's the number of ranking points gained from winning a match at a specified stage of competition, using this source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_Rankings

In case of a tie, I've gone with the match that also gives the opportunity to get more points in the next round or tournament as a whole.

1. Grand slam final – 800 points
2. World tour finals – final – 500 points
3. Grand slam semi – 480 points
4. World tour finals semi – 400 points
5. Masters final – 400 points
6. Grand slam quarter – 360 points
7. Masters semi-final – 240 points
8. Round robin win at world tour finals – 200 points
9. ATP 500 final – 200 points
10.Grand slam round of 16/R4 – 180 points
11.Masters quarter final – 180 points
12.ATP 500 semi – 120 points
13.ATP 250 final – 100 points
14.Grand slam round of 32/R3 – 90 points
15.Masters round of 16 – 90 points
16.ATP 500 quarter – 90 points
17.ATP 250 semi – 60 points
18.Highest level of challenger  - final – 50 points
19.Grand slam round 2 – 45 points
20.Masters round of 32 – 45 points
21.ATP 500 last 16 – 45 points
22.ATP 250 quarter final – 45 points

I left out the Olympics, where the points are not consistent from year to year, but the final this year is 300 (750-450). I think that's way low personally, I think it should be about 600 (although I know some others won't agree!   )

I think they do a great job with allocating the ranking points. Possibly they tend to slightly give too many to masters to try and help promote them - I don't think anyone would rather have 2 masters than 1 slam, although the ranking points is the same.

Minor quibble 1: 400 points for world tour semi final is too high, that is the same as the final of a regular masters, that should be 300 or 350. 200 points for a round robin win is perhaps a bit high as well, maybe 180 or 150 there. I think they just like round numbers at that event, or maybe they are deliberating giving more ranking points than it's really worth to try and make sure all the top 8 turn up and ensure the status of the year end event.

Minor quibble 2: I think the ATP 500 final and 250 final are a little low - less than the semi at the next level above in both cases - a tournament win at any level is a big deal for all but a very small handful of players.

If anyone's got time to check for errors, that would be handy.

Thanks HB. This is a useful breakdown. I had a rough idea how ranking points stacked up, but am much clearer now. Agree with your analysis that slam final wins are undervalued, but I think the balance is about right at other levels (e.g. a masters final win at 400 is worth slightly less than a slam semi win at 480).

Doesn't change your figures but I thought that there were no rankings points being awarded for the Olympics this year.

I think you're right but I can't remember for sure whether the points were zero or just reduced, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/30/sports/tennis/points-and-prize-money-mean-more-to-olympic-tennis-holdouts.html seems to agree with you and looks recent.
I guess that Wikipedia article is wrong/out of date

Sorry am I missing something...is this the level of points you think SHOULD be or ARE awarded?
Because obviously many of the areas you mention are incorrect vs. actual points...eg. slam F = 1200, Master F = 600, etc.

It's the number of points awarded for winning the match in question. E.g. when you win a slam you get 2000 points, whereas if you lose in the final you get 1200, thus a win in the slam final is worth (net) 800 points...