APA handicapping system
ron jeremy
>Yeah, because it does. Well, maybe not to you. After all, the 4 that
>ran three straight racks played on your team. Put yourself in your
>opponent's shoes, however.
I think the APA does a fairly good job (from my experience so far) at
predicting the player's skill level on an average day. Every player at a lower
skill level will always have days where they shoot better than they do on
average (IMO). A 4 might shoot one week like a good 5, but the difference
between the good 5 and that 4 is that the 4 doesn't consistantly shoot like
that week to week.
I've beat 4's in two games and then lost to a 2 in two games - all because I
shot well one week and horrible the other. A situation like that is the reason
that i'm a 3 when I sometimes shoot like a 4 or even a 5.
Its tough to rank someone like me who shoots inconsistantly - I might be tough
to beat one week and a push over the next - all depending on what type of day I
have. That 4 might have shot like a 6, but I can guarentee that same 4 doesn't
consistantly shoot like that, or he'd most definitely NOT be a 4.
Unless he IS a sandbagger... In that case, its not the fault of the APA ranking
system but the dishonestly of the player.
Greg Kilcup
f...@q.com (ron jeremy) followed up on a thread in which I related
that a friend of mine (then rated an APA 4) stepped up his game at
the recent regional tournament and allowed his opponent only one
turn at the table in a race to three. (He was immediately bumped
to a 5).
Two footnotes: I'm here typing this because the same guy knocked me
out of a tournament tonight, again by allowing me only turn at the table.
No question he is consistently playing at a higher level now.
And secondly, in his first official league match as a 5, he pummeled
his opponent 4-0, ...., and was promptly knocked down to a 4 again!
Oh the marvels of the secret APA system.
Mountain Mike^^
"Greg Kilcup" <kil...@campbell.mps.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message
news:5mbt1iy...@campbell.mps.ohio-state.edu...
>
> his opponent 4-0, ...., and was promptly knocked down to a 4 again!
>
for this ng. Here, we backup our suppositions with facts, figures, or
equations. Your choice:) MM^^
Tricky21
1) To say that safeties are "APA Bullshit" is nonsense. While
I don't gamble 8-ball that often, if I'm not 80-90% sure that I'm
going to run out, I safe ASAP. Because if I try to get out but
run only 5 balls, I'm dead against the caliber of players I play.
Of course, they do the same to me.
2) In smaller towns, with fewer players, BCA leagues suck
because they do get stacked teams, usually only 2 teams have a
chance. One BCA league just closed here in the middle of nowhere
Illinois for that reason.
3) The APA is fun, and should be viewed as such. That doesn't
mean you can't take it seriously, but it's not for big money or
anything. I usually play better when I have 7 people counting on
me than when I stand to lose fifty of my own in a set.
4) I would like to see the team limit raised to 24, though.
I've been in APA 7 years and my impression is that the average
player is much better than before.
Maybe we could start a RSB petition on the matter, so people
wouldn't complain about having to break up. If I wanted to be
with my old team we'd have 5 sixes, so it wouldn't help a lot
though.
5) If you really hate it, don't play it.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Bvinco
We just played our APA City's for the chance at Nationals in Las Vegas, and
this is what our LO printed up (in part):
"...keep in mind that every player is entitled to play well, REGARDLESS of
their assigned skill-level. There is "NOTHING WORSE" than the feeling one gets
when others pretty much accuse them of "cheating" because they happen to be
having a good match. EXCEPTION: complain ALL YOU WANT TO if nobody on your
team has EVER played a match better than their skill-level indicated. In other
words, GIVE IT A REST!"
Becky
P.S. my team made it to the semi-finals and we're not going to Vegas...:o(
Bvinco
How did your friend do at the regional tournament right after having been moved
up to a "5"? It takes longer for scores to be updated from regionals back to
local league play because they are sent to St. Louis and back again. I'm sure
you'll see this guy's skill level reach "5" in the next few weeks and stay
there.
There's just more to it than what a person did "last week" or for a few
weeks...
Becky
John Walkup
>
> We just played our APA City's for the chance at Nationals in Las Vegas, and
> this is what our LO printed up (in part):
>
> "...keep in mind that every player is entitled to play well, REGARDLESS of
> their assigned skill-level.
Unless they play too well, right? In that case, they are disqualified.
While
the LO has his own opinion about complaints, the APA doesn't appear to
agree.
They have disqualified entire teams for playing too well.
--
John
John Walkup
> shot well one week and horrible the other. A situation like that is the reason
> that i'm a 3 when I sometimes shoot like a 4 or even a 5.
True, but I can tell by the way a player strokes a cue whether he is a
legit
3 or not. I went up against a 3 that not only shot like a strong 5, but
he
played three shots ahead to a safety. Not many 3's do that.
> Unless he IS a sandbagger... In that case, its not the fault of the APA ranking
> system but the dishonestly of the player.
Or the fault of a system that encourages sandbagging.
--
John
Bvinco
>> "...keep in mind that every player is entitled to play well, REGARDLESS of
>> their assigned skill-level.
>Unless they play too well, right? In that case, they are disqualified.
This can be true during Nationals, but only if a player goes up TWO
skill-levels - that's pretty difficult to do if you haven't been sandbagging
for a year.
In the same paper, the LO also says:
(speaking of City's)
"...the computer analyzes the scores for each player on your team for the
entire year and assesses them with the HIGHEST skill-level for which they
finished ANY of the three sessions. Scores for this tournament are input at
the conclusion of EACH MATCH, therefore players can and will go up (or down)
during this event."
Becky
BAN...@webtv.net
tournament, championship match.
Team A has to be beat twice by team B. Team A has a player who
compains to me that he went up to a 5. This player(I'll call him
Jethro), happens to be the LO's significant other. Team B wins the 1st
match while said player doesnt play.
Second match, Jethro happens to play but is now a 4.
Can the LO manually lower a player? If not, how did this player go
down without playing a match?
John Walkup
And if a couple of players go up, the entire team can be disqualified.
It has happened.
--
The Cue Gallery http://www.cuegallery.com
Top quality custom cues by :
Michael Capone Russ Espiritu Nova Cues Inc. Greg Winningham
Bvinco
>It has happened.
Yes. So, don't sandbag. And if you do, you better be damn careful...
Becky
big Brian
punished for playing good!!!
Big Brian
In article <393B58...@telepath.com>, John Walkup
<cue...@telepath.com> wrote:
>Bvinco wrote:
>>
>> We just played our APA City's for the chance at Nationals in
Las Vegas, and
>> this is what our LO printed up (in part):
>>
>> "...keep in mind that every player is entitled to play well,
REGARDLESS of
>> their assigned skill-level.
>
>Unless they play too well, right? In that case, they are
disqualified.
>While
>the LO has his own opinion about complaints, the APA doesn't
appear to
>agree.
>They have disqualified entire teams for playing too well.
>
>--
>John
>
>
Brent Vidrine
Our league administrator
uses software for handicapping and for the most part is fair. I don't know
what software he uses
but I can find out if anyone is interested.
The main difference in our league is that ALL the money goes back to the
players.
Last session we had 12 teams playing for 24 weeks and the fist place team
got $1350.
We were third and received $615.
If you don't like APA, create your own league, follow standard rules
whether APA or BCA,
and keep the money local.
just run'em
Brent
Mountain Mike^^
"big Brian" <bigd79N...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:2801adec...@usw-ex0102-015.remarq.com...
> Really i think John might have nailed the whole thing. You get
> punished for playing good!!!
>
the worse thing that will happen is you have to spot a SL2 (women only), 4
games on the wire in a race to 6. If he/she is just an average bar shooter
(SL4) you only have to spot him/her 3 games. A SL7 is a run-out artist. A SL
4 doesn't run more than 3-4 and can't play shape very well. Use a little
safety play, and it should be a walk in the park. When you lose, it's
because you got sloppy, not usually because the handicap is unfair. MM^^
Tricky21
you are right about the seven winning,
About the only way for a six or seven to lose to a handicap
between 2 and 4 is to play too loose and try to run too much and
not get out. Screwing up this way (trying to get out and
failing) can lead to a lot of complaints because it can make a 3
or 4 look a lot stronger. With the seven's balls off the table,
even a 3 can legitimately make a 6 ball run or play a reasonable
safe. Then everybody whines that the 3 is a sandbager when the 7
just made a bad choice.
Derek Ray
This is not the APA i'm familiar with. The average bar shooter I see
would come in as a skill level 3, and be about medium in that range.
SL4's around here run about 5 consistently, and often will be out if
you leave them an open table with only a few of your balls. They
generally play good, solid basic shape and safe - they just can't do
anything spectacular.
SL5's are about the same except they play MUCH stronger safes and will
make basic breakout shots consistently.
SL6's are out from anywhere someone's supposed to be out from and
generally put you in jail when they play safe.
SL7's are out from anywhere, PERIOD.
This is, of course, assuming they play to their capacity. In order to
STAY at the lower levels, they often deliberately dog balls, which
leaves the game open for their own victory, increases the innings, and
usually prevents the opponent from running out WITHOUT getting a safe
marked against them.
Yes, a 7 playing on his game will abuse a 4 mercilessly. But the
actual play levels of the players are frequently one or two levels
above - it's just that everyone knows better than to play to those
levels, even in the championships. It's why I no longer play APA -
I'm not interested in hiding my skill that way.
-- Derek
Deafness never kept composers from hearing the music.
It only stopped them hearing the distractions.
Jeffrey Weiss
> Really i think John might have nailed the whole thing. You get
> punished for playing good!!!
I guess you can describe ANY handicapped league that way. Under any handicap
system, you get "punished" for getting good. In order to win consistently, you
have to be continuously improving. But I guess that's the point of any
handicapped league.
Do you think APA punishes "good playing" any more so than any other handicapped
league?
If it's not for you, there's plenty of scratch action out there as well.
--
jw (NY not C)
Rufus Carter
of excellent shooting was enough to bump him up to a 7, which meant we coudln't
field a team with him on it. Sometimes one night can wreck a teams roster and the
supposed comforting of, just form a new team isn't comforting at all... a team
should be able to stay together.
Rufus
suzanne
moved
> up to a "5"? It takes longer for scores to be updated from regionals back
to
> local league play because they are sent to St. Louis and back again.
Not so Becky. Our ratings are re-evaluated after each round at the regional
playoffs. So, you can start as a 3, say a sandbagging 3, and end as a 5.
AND if your whole team has and increase of 2 skill levels, say one player
goes from a 4.3 to a 4.9, and another goes from a 3.3 to a 3.7, and another
goes from a 6.1 to a 6 .9, and finally a 4.1 goes to a 4.5, that's a total
of 2.2 skill levels, your team is disqualified and cannot go to Vegas to
compete in the national championships. and that's a national rule, not a
local one.
Suzanne <-------know all this shit cause we just had our regional playoffs
this weekend
Bvinco <bvi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000604111009...@ng-ff1.aol.com...
S0ftlips
>> punished for playing good!!!
IMO, it's the point of view. Everyone wants the win and continue winning..
so, the easy way, is to keep your handicap under control, because if you play
well you'll get punished... Personally, along with some others I know, look
at it as an achievment or a goal....
One of my goals was to always crush any known sandbagger, there's not a better
feeling in pool....
Playing APA 9 BALL, keeping in mind the skill levels are from 2 to 9 for
males, I started as a 5 and in the third year got to a 9.. at which time I
decided it was time to move on.. but every time I was moved up I felt a little
bothered wondering how I was going to continue to compete and win... But, I
continued to play and win.... you just have to play harder.....
once you out grow the leagues, it isn't the end of the world.. it just gets
better....
bc
Bob Jewett
: Do you think APA punishes "good playing" any more so than any other
: handicapped league?
It seems that the APA handicaps are not intended to be 100%, that is,
the goal is not to make every match a 50-50 proposition, but rather to
improve somewhat the odds for the weaker player. Many handicapped
leagues do not aim for 50-50, so it becomes a question of which
"penalizes" the better player less. It would be interesting to know
the winning percentages of the top 10% of players in the various
leagues. I think the result for the NPL is within 3% of 50-50.
Bob Jewett
Mountain Mike^^
"suzanne" <soo...@banet.net> wrote in message news:zj9%4.27974. So, you
can start as a 3, say a sandbagging 3, and end as a 5.> AND if your whole
team has and increase of 2 skill levels, say one player
No kidding? A few guys can go up a *fraction* of a point and when you add
them all up, if it's over 2.0, then you get disqualified? Do you know the
way for this NOT to happen? I'd say a team *would* play better in the
regionals because they are more focused, etc...MM^^
John Walkup
>
> big Brian <bigd79N...@hotmail.com.invalid> sez:
> > Really i think John might have nailed the whole thing. You get
> > punished for playing good!!!
>
> system, you get "punished" for getting good. In order to win consistently, you
> have to be continuously improving. But I guess that's the point of any
> handicapped league.
>
> league?
It isn't the "punishing for playing good" factor that turns me off to
the APA.
It is the fact that the formula for determining the handicaps is so
arbitrary.
The whim of the LO can change a player's handicap. And we all know of
instances
where a handicap was changed for no apparent rhyme or reason. Why did I
come in
my second week as a 3, when I won my first week as a 4?
I quit the APA because I had enough of this "secret formula" crap. Why
don't
they tell us the formula so that there is no ambiguity?
--
John
John Walkup
>
> One of my goals was to always crush any known sandbagger, there's not a better
> feeling in pool....
Yeah, beating a sandbagger is real tough, since he is probably not even
trying to
win.
--
John
Bvinco
Yes.... scores are put through the system after each match in upper level
tournaments and your skill level will go up or down during these tournaments.
What I was saying is that these scores do not necessarily reflect on your
REGULAR local league scoresheets right away.
The person I was answering had said his friend had gone to a 5 during
regionals, then back to a 4 during local league play and I was giving an
explanation as to why and/or how this could happen.
MOST teams do not go up 2 skill levels in upper level tournaments. It happens
and there is a reason for it. Personally, I think it's a good thing. IF it
happens unfairly to a team, that's a bad thing, but overall, it seems to work.
Becky
>
>> How did your friend do at the regional tournament right after having been
>moved
>> up to a "5"? It takes longer for scores to be updated from regionals back
>to
>> local league play because they are sent to St. Louis and back again.
>
>Not so Becky. Our ratings are re-evaluated after each round at the regional
>playoffs. So, you can start as a 3, say a sandbagging 3, and end as a 5.
>AND if your whole team has and increase of 2 skill levels, say one player
John Walkup
So the only time you will rise in handicap is if you have been
previously
sandbagging?
--
The Cue Gallery http://www.cuegallery.com
Top quality custom cues by :
Michael Capone Russ Espiritu Nova Cues Inc. Greg Willingham
Greg Kilcup
> What I was saying is that these scores do not necessarily reflect on your
> REGULAR local league scoresheets right away.
>
> The person I was answering had said his friend had gone to a 5 during
> regionals, then back to a 4 during local league play and I was giving an
> explanation as to why and/or how this could happen.
Just to clarify, I was relating that my friend was bumped up
to a 5 at the regional tournament, and the following week
played a regular summer session match, at which point he
was still a 5. So it is not an issue of information taking
time to propagate back to the local level.
The apparently weird effect was thing was that after a 4-0 victory,
the following week he was back down to a 4!
I'd guess this has to do with the wonders of inning counting.
Playing as a 4 at the regional tournament he won his match 3-0
in one total inning, but in his next (4-0) match, he took a
relatively large number of innings. (I didn't look closely
enough at the score sheet at the time to remember exactly how many.)
-- GK
Ron Hudson
I don't agree that any handicapped league punishes good play. And I think
that's a misinterpretation of what John meant. The APA system punishes good
play by splitting up teams or keeping the players from being able to play by
having the skill level cap.
Ron
On Tue, 6 Jun 2000 11:11:58 -0400, Jeffre...@gs.com (Jeffrey Weiss) wrote:
>big Brian <bigd79N...@hotmail.com.invalid> sez:
>> Really i think John might have nailed the whole thing. You get
>> punished for playing good!!!
>
>I guess you can describe ANY handicapped league that way. Under any handicap
>system, you get "punished" for getting good. In order to win consistently, you
>have to be continuously improving. But I guess that's the point of any
>handicapped league.
>
>Do you think APA punishes "good playing" any more so than any other handicapped
>league?
>
big Brian
big Brian
getting better. You have to break up a team of friends who have
played together for a good while. In the BCA you have no maximum
number you can play. You play what you got. YOu also give a
healthy handicap up when playing a team much less than yours.At
least in the BCA you just have to keep your game improving when
you get better,and not your skill to snatch up un suspecting
players from bars. Some might be able to hold a stick , some
might not but its a chance your now non-functional APA team will
have to take.
My Opinion Big Brian
Bvinco
I obviously have no idea why he went down to a 4 after winning, but I do know
that sometimes our LO (and others) may be lax about inputting scores, so what
happens one week doesn't necessarily reflect what happens over a period of 10
match scores or how and when the skill levels change.
Becky
Bvinco
JW
>So the only time you will rise in handicap is if you have been
>previously
>sandbagging?
wow... did I say that? I don't think so.
You will and should rise over a period of time and that one score that can put
you up can and MAY happen during an upper level tournament, BUT it won't happen
to you twice in the same tournament if you haven't been sandbagging and odds of
it happening to two players on the team at the same time are pretty low, too.
BUT, yes, it CAN happen and that's not fair (like I said), but I still think
they have to do something to keep it the most fair for everyone. The teams who
go up are watched, they call for past scoresheets, they talk to the LOs - they
don't just say, "oh, two of you went up... your team is out of here."
Becky
Ed Mercier
leagues. These leagues are by ability level. I played on a 4.0 team for
several years in doubles. Based on my win-loss percentage one year, and the
teams that we had beaten, I was promoted to a 4.5. My partner had played one
match with a different partner, and lost that one, and as a result he wasn't
moved up to 4.5 So I was off the team, and on my own to find another team to
play on. This was very disrupting since over the past 6 years I have yet to
find a partner that I play as well with.
Since that time I have moved back down to 4.0, and the team I used to play on
has joined an alternative league system that was created out of frustration with
the USTA and the exorbitant fees they charge.
Mountain Mike^^
"John Walkup" <cue...@telepath.com> wrote in message > Yeah, beating a
sandbagger is realtough, since he is probably not eve> trying to> win.
>
Walkup, you need to work on your attitude! Fist you insult me by claiming I
posted *forged* testimonials about Sheldon cues, then you refused to
apologize for your stupidity, and now you're insulting any one that makes a
damn comment. Hell, give the PhD back to the university....or get it changed
to "PhD in Dickhead"
MM^^<--thinks Walkup's wife dumped him.
Jeffrey Weiss
> Jeffrey Weiss <Jeffre...@gs.com> wrote:
>
>: Do you think APA punishes "good playing" any more so than any other
>: handicapped league?
>
> It seems that the APA handicaps are not intended to be 100%, that is,
> the goal is not to make every match a 50-50 proposition, but rather to
> improve somewhat the odds for the weaker player.
I'd be interested in the winning percentages by skill level as well because I
have no evidence either way as to whether APA is shooting for a full handicap
or not.
Jeffrey Weiss
> I don't agree that any handicapped league punishes good play. And I think
> that's a misinterpretation of what John meant. The APA system punishes good
> play by splitting up teams or keeping the players from being able to play by
> having the skill level cap.
If that's what you mean by "punishing good play," then I agree - certainly it
is APA's strategy to keep the flow of new team creation. A lot of this has to
do with growing the business, but I believe that at least a very small part has
to do with mixing strong and weak players as much as possible to foster
learning.
Again, if you're into team stability, there are other leagues with no caps.
Jeffrey Weiss
> It isn't the "punishing for playing good" factor that turns me off to
> the APA.
> It is the fact that the formula for determining the handicaps is so
> arbitrary.
> The whim of the LO can change a player's handicap. And we all know of
> instances where a handicap was changed for no apparent rhyme or reason.
> Why did I come in my second week as a 3, when I won my first week as a 4?
>
> I quit the APA because I had enough of this "secret formula" crap. Why
> don't they tell us the formula so that there is no ambiguity?
The formula itself is unambiguous. Do you think they've got some random number
generator built into the formula to make it arbitrary?
Once again, the LOs are the ones who can (and many do) make the system
ambiguous and arbitrary. Oftentimes, it's simply by being so far behind in
entering scores that handicap changes become out of sync with actual
performance. Other times it's because they make manual adjustments based on
whatever whim suits them. There are good LOs and there are loser LOs. And,
sometimes, APA HQ is very proactive about getting these problems solved. But
sometimes, they're not.
But, this can happen in any handicapped league.
They don't tell you the formula because they believe it is part of their
competitive advantage.
John Walkup
>
> JW
> >So the only time you will rise in handicap is if you have been
> >previously
> >sandbagging?
>
> wow... did I say that? I don't think so.
Here is what was said (it really helps to leave in the relevant text
when
denying you made an earlier claim):
I originally wrote: And if a couple of players go up, the entire team
can be disqualified.
Your response was: Yes. So, don't sandbag. And if you do, you better
be damn careful...
You are directly insinuating that the two players were sandbagging.
Otherwise, of what
relevance was your response?
> You will and should rise over a period of time and that one score that can put
> you up can and MAY happen during an upper level tournament, BUT it won't happen
> to you twice in the same tournament if you haven't been sandbagging and odds of
> it happening to two players on the team at the same time are pretty low, too.
Since players' handicaps go up and down, it is hardly out of the
question
that two out of five players' handicaps would go up during the course of
a week.
> BUT, yes, it CAN happen and that's not fair (like I said), but I still think
> they have to do something to keep it the most fair for everyone. The teams who
> go up are watched, they call for past scoresheets, they talk to the LOs - they
> don't just say, "oh, two of you went up... your team is out of here."
So in other words, it is partly based on the whims of the LOs. That
isn't a
system, it is a star chamber because there is no formula. They say
that
you cannot have a team that has a total handicap of 23. But even if
your team
has a handicap of 22 it is going to be tough to go all the way through
the
championship and win every match and not bust out. And even if it is
possible
to do it, it is going to be on the team's mind that they could end up
with
NOTHING if they play too well. Who can play well under those
conditions?
I haven't played in the APA championships, but if your team wins it all
but is
disqualified for busting out, do they get 2nd place? What do they win?
--
John
John Walkup
>
> John "8-Ball" Walkup <cue...@telepath.com> sez:
> > It isn't the "punishing for playing good" factor that turns me off to
> > the APA.
> > It is the fact that the formula for determining the handicaps is so
> > arbitrary.
> > The whim of the LO can change a player's handicap. And we all know of
> > instances where a handicap was changed for no apparent rhyme or reason.
> > Why did I come in my second week as a 3, when I won my first week as a 4?
> >
> > I quit the APA because I had enough of this "secret formula" crap. Why
> > don't they tell us the formula so that there is no ambiguity?
>
> The formula itself is unambiguous. Do you think they've got some random number
> generator built into the formula to make it arbitrary?
I have no idea. Show me the formula and I will tell you. I would love
to
see the formula that made me a 3 after winning as a 4.
> Once again, the LOs are the ones who can (and many do) make the system
> ambiguous and arbitrary. Oftentimes, it's simply by being so far behind in
> entering scores that handicap changes become out of sync with actual
> performance.
That happens with Ron's league, but there is still no ambiguity. I can
take my team's scores over the session and compute exactly what each
player's
skill rating is. Try that with the APA.
> Other times it's because they make manual adjustments based on
> whatever whim suits them. There are good LOs and there are loser LOs. And,
> sometimes, APA HQ is very proactive about getting these problems solved. But
> sometimes, they're not.
>
> But, this can happen in any handicapped league.
No, in Ron's league each player can compute their own skill rating if
they chose
to. There is no ambiguity. If Ron computes the skill rating, and the
player
computes the skill rating, they will agree. 100% of the time. There
is ZERO
arbitrariness.
Also, there is no busting out. A team captain can sign any player he
wants,
no matter how good or bad they are. Teams are under no fear of being
disqualified for playing too well. Sure, their handicaps may be
adjusted if
they are obviously badly handicapped, but that takes a vote of the team
captains AND it doesn't disqualify a team.
Is that right, Ron?
> They don't tell you the formula because they believe it is part of their
> competitive advantage.
I had a feeling it wasn't based on our interests.
--
John
John Walkup
Look who's talking.
--
John
S0ftlips
>Why did I
>come in
>my second week as a 3, when I won my first week as a 4?
because you don't know the "secret formula"
bc
S0ftlips
>Yeah, beating a sandbagger is real tough, since he is probably not even
>trying to
>win.
bc thinks a PhD does nothing for a personality.....
Jeffrey Weiss
> Not so Becky. Our ratings are re-evaluated after each round at the regional
> playoffs. So, you can start as a 3, say a sandbagging 3, and end as a 5.
> AND if your whole team has and increase of 2 skill levels, say one player
> goes from a 4.3 to a 4.9, and another goes from a 3.3 to a 3.7, and another
> goes from a 6.1 to a 6 .9, and finally a 4.1 goes to a 4.5, that's a total
> of 2.2 skill levels, your team is disqualified and cannot go to Vegas to
> compete in the national championships. and that's a national rule, not a
> local one.
Where in APA do they use fractional skill levels? It's been a few years since
I've played there, but in 8-ball, we only had integers. I can't help but be
amused when I imagine our league players dealing with decimal skill levels!
Anyway, I'd love to see some stats on how many teams get the boot at Vegas due
to the two-bump rule. This thread is starting to give the impression that
every team that has any success in Vegas gets disqualified.
The other impression from this thread is that even established players (greater
than 30 matches played) have to be careful about winning in Vegas because
they'll go up. With only six skill levels in 8-ball (five for guys for some
reason), there's a whole lot of range at each discreet level. It's not THAT
easy to go up if your handicap is accurate (i.e., it's based on accurate
scorekeeping of at least 30 matches, and it hasn't been artificially altered by
a LO).
suzanne
> them all up, if it's over 2.0, then you get disqualified? Do you know the
> way for this NOT to happen? I'd say a team *would* play better in the
> regionals because they are more focused, etc...MM^^
Of course they are more focused, but you hafta remember, your skill level is
based on your best 10 out of 20 matches, so no matter how well you play, as
long as you haven't been sandbagging, you shouldn't go up like that. Your
skill level doesn't take into account your inconsistencies, only the best of
your game. that's why this kinda system works
Suzanne
suzanne
agree about seeing pool players deal with the fractional stuff
most of them cant count high enough to score a match LOL
but as for going up in Vegas I posted above that your skill level is the
best 10 out of your last 20 matches, so it rates you on the best games you
have, not the bad ones so in theory, unless you sandbag, you shouldn't go up
Suzanne
Jeffrey Weiss <Jeffre...@gs.com> wrote in message
news:2000060713...@nhrmdc204.fw.gs.com...
Jeffrey Weiss
>> The formula itself is unambiguous. Do you think they've got some random
>> number generator built into the formula to make it arbitrary?
> I have no idea. Show me the formula and I will tell you. I would love
> to see the formula that made me a 3 after winning as a 4.
Once again, there's nothing in the Equalizer that could make that happen. I
suspect you know this by now. If by "formula" you mean whatever combination of
Equalizer, "judgement," and procedural efficiency your particular LO used, then
you're absolutely right. In my experience, it's exactly these sorts of things
that are the greatest source of vexation in APA.
> ...I can take my team's scores over the session and compute exactly what each
> player's skill rating is. Try that with the APA.
If you knew the Equalizer AND IF YOUR LO DIDN'T SCREW AROUND, you'd be able to
do exactly this as well. Perhaps exposing the Equalizer in all its glory would
help the situation, but I kind of doubt it. The LOs I knew wouldn't have cared
if you came to them with the correct calculation to support your case as to why
a handicap was wrong. This is the crux of the problem. Ron's a good guy. But
try minting a few thousand Rons to establish a national league. Especially
these days where the only qualification needed for most jobs is that the
applicant be a fairly regular breather of oxygen.
> Also, there is no busting out. A team captain can sign any player he
> wants, no matter how good or bad they are. Teams are under no fear of being
> disqualified for playing too well. Sure, their handicaps may be adjusted if
> they are obviously badly handicapped, but that takes a vote of the team
> captains AND it doesn't disqualify a team.
Do the stronger players tend to cluster together in teams, or is there a good
mix of stronger and weaker on most teams?
>> They don't tell you the formula because they believe it is part of their
>> competitive advantage.
> I had a feeling it wasn't based on our interests.
I suppose if you believe the Equalizer is, in fact, a competitive advantage (I
don't, BTW), and you like APA, then it's in your interest as well. Look, I'm
no fan of the APA, but I'd bet that there's a lot of folks who like the fact
that it exists. But again, I don't think you really have a problem with the
Equalizer per se, it's really the execution and administration of it where the
problems come in.
Jeffrey Weiss
>>> player goes from a 4.3 to a 4.9, and another goes from a 3.3 to a 3.7, and
>>> a total of 2.2 skill levels, your team is disqualified and cannot go to
>>> Vegas to compete in the national championships. and that's a national
>>> rule, not a local one.
>> Where in APA do they use fractional skill levels?
"suzanne" <soo...@banet.net> does fractions, but only on paper:
> well we don't see the fractional part on paper, but it does exist,...
I find this amazing. I can see how inning averages can be translated into
fractional skill levels, but I'm really surprised that fractional increases
would be aggregated. These averages shouldn't be moving around all that
quickly, but they're certainly noisier than the integral skill level itself.
Again, I'd love to see stats on national tournament DQ rates.
> but as for going up in Vegas I posted above that your skill level is the
> best 10 out of your last 20 matches, so it rates you on the best games you
> have, not the bad ones so in theory, unless you sandbag, you shouldn't go up
Does anyone know if this has changed recently? I heard they bumped it up again
to the best 15 of the last 30, but I can't confirm this. At one time (I'm
told) it was best 5 of the last 10.
--
jw
Bvinco
JW, you make me tired...
>I originally wrote: And if a couple of players go up, the entire team
>can be disqualified.
>
>Your response was: Yes. So, don't sandbag. And if you do, you better
>be damn careful...
This means that yes, the entire team can be disqualified. Not being a
sandbagger will decrease your chances of that happening. IF you are a
sandbagger, then you better be careful how you do it. Since I don't know these
people, how do I know or how can I insinuate they sandbag? I was just noting a
way to keep the odds down.
There are nearly 500 teams in Nationals. Out of those teams, maybe two will be
disqualified for the reason you stated (save me some time and just read between
the lines here).
The "whims" of the LOs and those running the tournament are the same as the
whims of a tournament director or someone making a judgement call.
The whims of the local LO during local league sessions are different and
that's another whole discussion and I can only speak for the ones I know
personally. I'm sorry if you've had a bad experience with a stupid or bad LO
and sorry for anyone else who has. If the LO sucks, then he isn't going to do
very well and has invested money he's going to lose. These are people and they
run a business and you're a customer and you should complain to them and/or the
powers that be, or just not buy the product. It's pretty much that simple.
> They say
>that
>you cannot have a team that has a total handicap of 23. But even if
>your team
>has a handicap of 22 it is going to be tough to go all the way through
>the
>championship and win every match and not bust out.
You need to keep a team that has options for playing different skill levels.
There's no reason to load up on high end skill levels and not keep a balance
you can't work with. That's just bad management. If you have 8 people who are
great friends and after a few sessions or years, you all go up to a point where
you can't field, yes, you have to split up. If you start a team with only 4
great friends or so, and fill up the rest with lower skill levels and people
you like, but don't have to bond with that closely, then you can add and drop
as needed and still be a team. If you want a power team, join another league.
What's the big friggin' deal?
Becky
Bvinco
ah... a voice of reason.
Becky
>Anyway, I'd love to see some stats on how many teams get the boot at Vegas
>due
>to the two-bump rule. This thread is starting to give the impression that
>every team that has any success in Vegas gets disqualified.
>The other impression from this thread is that even established players
>(greater
>than 30 matches played) have to be careful about winning in Vegas because
>they'll go up. With only six skill levels in 8-ball (five for guys for some
>reason), there's a whole lot of range at each discreet level. It's not THAT
>easy to go up if your handicap is accurate (i.e., it's based on accurate
>scorekeeping of at least 30 matches, and it hasn't been artificially altered
>by
>a LO).
jw (NY not C)
suzanne
again
> to the best 15 of the last 30, but I can't confirm this. At one time (I'm
> told) it was best 5 of the last 10.
> --
rule book, but when you have less than 20 matches its the best 1 of 2, 2 of
3, 3 of 5, 5 of 10...etc, that's why newer players ratings fluctuate more
than players with many matches
Suzanne
Ron Hudson
1. Players like a handicapping system that works perfectly all the time.
2. There is not a handicapping system that works perfectly all the time.
3. Players always complain when opponents are playing above their skill level.
4. Players rarely complain when opponents are playing below their skill level.
Ron
Wyatt186
will have to leave current teams and form new ones because it is GOOD FOR
BUSINESS (not because they are trying to get the "weaker" players to learn),
more teams.......more money. The APA also disqualifies teams that appear to be
playing stronger than their handicaps indicate because it is GOOD FOR BUSINESS.
The disqualified teams might be "pissed off" but the rank and file teams are
happy because "they" have a better shot at the prizes....which means they will
probably come back next session which is GOOD FOR BUSINESS. I believe the
reason the APA keeps part of their formula "secret" is because it is GOOD FOR
BUSINESS (anytime something happens that does not make numerical sense in the
handicaps...it can be attributed to the "X" factor in the formula). Take
Ritchie Indrovo of Chicago that was recently "banned for life" from APA play.
Ritchie was a "7" himself so he was not "sandbagging" personally but....the
teams he captained were always dominant in the league. The reason....while
(IMO) other teams were having to make do with hiding their "5"s as "3"s,
Ritchie could get "7"s as "3"s. Because Ritchie knows better players than the
rest of "them", there was never a shortage of "monsters" that Ritchie could
come up with session after session when his "current" players would be raised
off the roster. That was BAD FOR BUSINESS...so the only thing left to do was to
get Ritchie out of the APA system. I do not have a problem with APA League
Operators running the league like a business because it is one. They should not
be so hypocritical when somebody else treats the league LIKE A BUSINESS. Just
have the "nuts" to say "hey kid (Ritchie)....your BAD FOR BUSINESS and your
costing us MONEY!". Keep all the "BS" about "being honest", "truthfuness", "how
dare he do this" and "we are shocked and outraged". "IF" a team (or player)
were GOOD FOR BUSINESS you can bet your bottom dollar that the rules are bent
and a way is figured out how to keep him or them in the league. As good as
Ritchie and his teams played, he turned out to be a liability and it was
costing them MONEY! After all isn't that what it is all about.....MONEY! (not
pool)
John (Kent, WA)
players would complain if their scores weren't getting posted in a timely
manner. In my area the players want to see where they stand every week. Our
scoresheets show the current team standings each week.
Maybe my area has an exceptional LO because it only happens maybe twice a
year that the scores aren't current. Our LO will explain the week before why
this is happening. Usually it happens because they're out of town.
If a team is late sending their scoresheet they will be penalized by having
match points deducted from the seasons total.
Bvinco <bvi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000606173303...@ng-cu1.aol.com...
Mountain Mike^^
>
> JW, you make me tired...
>
up.......what the hell is *really* bothering you? No room for another
Physics Professor? Gotta find *real* work? You could always enroll in
another discipline and maintain your status as a career student....Just a
thought.
MM^^<--thinks JW should be on top of the world right now.
John Walkup
>
> JW, you make me tired...
>
your lengthy responses.
It takes two to tango.
> > They say
> >that
> >you cannot have a team that has a total handicap of 23. But even if
> >your team
> >has a handicap of 22 it is going to be tough to go all the way through
> >the
> >championship and win every match and not bust out.
>
> You need to keep a team that has options for playing different skill levels.
> There's no reason to load up on high end skill levels and not keep a balance
> you can't work with. That's just bad management.
Unfortunately, you may not get all eight of your players to fly out to
Vegas. What is the point of having a cap of 23 when you have to, in
effect, field a team that is below that cap?
The APA could solve the problem very easily by simply doing away with
the team skill-rating cap during the championships. Why not? The
players
on the team are already well established, so it isn't like a team can
all of a sudden load up on top talent.
> If you have 8 people who are
> great friends and after a few sessions or years, you all go up to a point where
> you can't field, yes, you have to split up. If you start a team with only 4
> great friends or so, and fill up the rest with lower skill levels and people
> you like, but don't have to bond with that closely, then you can add and drop
> as needed and still be a team. If you want a power team, join another league.
> What's the big friggin' deal?
The friggin' deal is that you can do exactly what the APA wants, that
is,
field a team with lower skill rated players so that you can keep the
handicap
lower than 23, and still get disqualified if your team busts out during
the
championship.
Suppose you start out with a team that is comfortably under the handicap
limit. But then suppose that your 3's take lessons and start to
improve,
so that they become 4's. Now what are you going to do? Throw your 7
off
the team?
You know, and I know, what you have to do: Dump games to keep enough
players
at the lower handicap. You cannot have your players improve too much
during the
course of the session, because if you do you end up going to Vegas with
a top-heavy team. Teams don't just dump games to give themselves an
advantage
score-wise --- they dump games to keep their teams from getting too
close
to disqualification.
The disqualification rule doesn't discourage sandbagging -- it
ENCOURAGES it.
The upper team skill-rating limit mandates that teams somehow keep their
lower skill-rated players' handicaps down so that even if a couple of
players
move up they can still field a team.
By the time the championships start, the rosters of each team are
already
set. Therefore, the total team skill rating has already forced each
team
to field a certain number of lower skill-rated players. So why have
a total team skill rating in the championships? After all, each player
can
still move up in skill rating and, therefore, have to give his opponents
more games in a given match.
--
John
John Walkup
>
> Lets face it folks....The APA "caps" team averages so the "stronger" players
> will have to leave current teams and form new ones because it is GOOD FOR
> BUSINESS (not because they are trying to get the "weaker" players to learn),
> more teams.......more money. The APA also disqualifies teams that appear to be
> playing stronger than their handicaps indicate because it is GOOD FOR BUSINESS.
> The disqualified teams might be "pissed off" but the rank and file teams are
> happy because "they" have a better shot at the prizes...
Yep, share the wealth.
--
John
John Walkup
>
> "Bvinco" <bvi...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20000607101309...@ng-cd1.aol.com...
> >
> >
> up.......what the hell is *really* bothering you? No room for another
> Physics Professor? Gotta find *real* work? You could always enroll in
> another discipline and maintain your status as a career student....Just a
> thought.
> MM^^<--thinks JW should be on top of the world right now.
Who asked you?
--
John
John Walkup
Was it supposed to?
--
John
Bvinco
>your lengthy responses.
>
>It takes two to tango.
touche....:o)
the cap is 23. you can field skill levels that reach 23, not 22.
As I mentioned in my last post, there are over 500 teams at Nationals for
8-ball and a couple of hundred for 9-ball and out of all those teams, MAYBE 3-4
will be disqualified for skill levels going up too much during the tournament
(this is over a period of more than a week).
JW, those teams at Nationals all have lower skilled players... that's the
point. They also have a couple of high skilled players. You should be able to
mix and match within the 7 or 8 players well enough to reach 23 when playing 5
of them without a problem. Almost 700 teams do it every year and don't
complain. The ones doing the yelling are the ones who have been disqualified
and I'd be willing to bet big bucks that they did some major sandbagging.
It seems that some players want a "lock" on everything...
Becky
Patrick Johnson
> >It takes two to tango.
Yeah, but why is one of them always you?
Pat Johnson
Chicago
John Walkup
>
> >Yeah, well you are certainly don't appear to be too tired, judging by
> >your lengthy responses.
> >
>
>
> the cap is 23. you can field skill levels that reach 23, not 22.
> As I mentioned in my last post, there are over 500 teams at Nationals for
> 8-ball and a couple of hundred for 9-ball and out of all those teams, MAYBE 3-4
> will be disqualified for skill levels going up too much during the tournament
> (this is over a period of more than a week).
Of course, it is more likely that those teams that were disqualified
went
farther than those that weren't.
Sure, if you get knocked out of the first round, or play terribly,
you are unlikely to get disqualified.
> JW, those teams at Nationals all have lower skilled players... that's the
> point. They also have a couple of high skilled players. You should be able to
> mix and match within the 7 or 8 players well enough to reach 23 when playing 5
> of them without a problem. Almost 700 teams do it every year and don't
> complain. The ones doing the yelling are the ones who have been disqualified
> and I'd be willing to bet big bucks that they did some major sandbagging.
Yeah, I would be willing to bet that those teams that don't get
disqualified
have no problems with other teams being disqualified. That is hardly
shocking.
> It seems that some players want a "lock" on everything...
No, I just want to be able to play as well as I can without
disqualifying
my team by doing so.
--
John
big Brian
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
John Walkup
>
> JW wrote:
>
> > >It takes two to tango.
>
Well, you seem to be jumping in now. Arguing doesn't seem to bother
you a bit, either.
--
John
Tricky21
Vegas).
Say you win with a given roster in the summer. Then you have to
keep most of those players (only two can play 4th or 5th). Thus
you either have to sandbag the next two sessions or you can be
stuck short-handed in Vegas. Over the course of 9 months most
3's should move up to 4's, and many 4's should improve to a 5, so
you can be honest and still get stuck.
I'm still in favor of raising the team limit. Insofar as I have
seen sandbagging, it's been to keep teams together and under 23,
not to give someone a bigger spot in a particular match. So in
that sense the 23 rule does encourage sandbagging.
Patrick Johnson
> > > It takes two to tango.
> > Pat barked:
> > Yeah, but why is one of them always you?
> JW retorted:
> Well, you seem to be jumping in now. Arguing doesn't seem to bother
> you a bit, either.
Excellent point. Maybe I should have said "why is one of them always
you or me?"
Pat Johnson
Chicago
Bvinco
>Of course, it is more likely that those teams that were disqualified
>went
>farther than those that weren't.
Err....excuse me? LOL
>
>No, I just want to be able to play as well as I can without
>disqualifying
>my team by doing so.
...and I repeat, one more time...
You can. AND, if you begin with a good mix of skill levels and you ALL play as
well as you can ALL THE TIME, you will NOT disqualify your team (not even in 3
full sessions, in City's OR at Nationals).
Note: IF you begin with a good mix of skill levels, which, whether you choose
to believe it or not, you can afford for a few of them to go up. Odds are that
in three sessions, only one or two will go up during a session. THOSE players
will probably NOT go up again (players with established skill levels do NOT
move up as quickly or as easily as some seem to think - I've seen players in
the league who haven't gone up in years, let alone sessions - yes, without
sandbagging), which will leave room for another one to go up. IF you start out
with the right frame of mind and know what the hell you're doing (in the
beginning, and later on) and you don't play sandbagging games, you CAN win.
I've seen it. I've been there. I've done it.
There was one session when everyone on the team took lessons and 5 of the 8
went up and we eventually had to form two new teams (most went up one skill
level and I went up two skill levels in two sessions). This was not such a bad
thing and both teams were able to requalify for City's.
Becky
John Walkup
>
> JW writes:
>
> Note: IF you begin with a good mix of skill levels, which, whether you choose
> to believe it or not, you can afford for a few of them to go up. Odds are that
> in three sessions, only one or two will go up during a session. THOSE players
> will probably NOT go up again (players with established skill levels do NOT
> move up as quickly or as easily as some seem to think - I've seen players in
> the league who haven't gone up in years, let alone sessions - yes, without
> sandbagging), which will leave room for another one to go up. IF you start out
> with the right frame of mind and know what the hell you're doing (in the
> beginning, and later on) and you don't play sandbagging games, you CAN win.
> I've seen it. I've been there. I've done it.
>
> There was one session when everyone on the team took lessons and 5 of the 8
> went up and we eventually had to form two new teams (most went up one skill
> level and I went up two skill levels in two sessions). This was not such a bad
> thing and both teams were able to requalify for City's.
First you say that the odds are only one or two will go up, and now you
offer
an example where 5 of 8 went up. Obviously, having multiple players
advancing isn't so rare.
As for the latter team, they could have kept their team together if they
had
sandbagged. More often than not, that is how teams keep together.
They
shouldn't have taken lessons --- becoming a better player is not what
the
APA is all about.
John