Billiard University (BU) playing-ability-exam scores and ratings

dr_dave said:
Since the thread has gotten a little off track, I thought I'd post this again, hoping people will participate:

I suggest that everybody who has submitted BU scores also try the 10-ball "playing the ghost" drill so we can see how well a practiced BU score compares to an average "playing the ghost" score. I recommend doing the ghost drill 3 or more times (10 racks of 10-ball each) and using the middle (median) value of the 10-rack scores to help deal with the inherent (and sometimes extreme) variability. I will add these scores and ratings to the BU rating list for comparison and correlation purposes.

Here's the current data for all AZB participants to date:

List of AZB'ers who have taken the BU playing-ability exams so far (in ranked order):

BU score, Username, BU Rating, 10-ball ghost rating, Video links (if available):

160, Gerry Williams, semi-pro (A++/AAA), no 10-ball ghost score yet, Table Setup, Exam I (part 1, part 2), Exam II
141, 12squared (Dave Gross), adv-3 (A+/AA), no 10-ball ghost score yet, no videos (see AZB post)
141, Neil, adv-3 (A+/AA), no 10-ball ghost score yet, Exam (part 1, part 2), Exam II (part 1, part 2, part 3)
135, dr_dave, adv-2 (A/A-), 54 (B+), Exam I, Exam II
132, Gerry Williams, adv-2 (A/A-), no 10-ball ghost score yet, Table Setup, Exam I, Exam II (part 1, part 2)
132, BRussell, adv-2 (A/A-), no 10-ball ghost score yet, Exam I, Exam II
124, JC, adv-1 (B+/B), no 10-ball ghost score yet, Table Specs, Exam 1, Exam 2
112, RobMan, adv-1 (B+/B), no 10-ball ghost score yet, no videos (see AZB post)
87, iusedtoberich, int-2 (C+), no 10-ball ghost score yet, Table Specs, Exam I, Exam II
78, iusedtoberich, int-2 (C+), 38 (C), Table Specs, Exam I, Exam II
77, SeanChamp, int-2 (C+), 38 (C), no videos (see AZB post)

Here are the details and scores for all official BU graduates.

Thanks again for your participation,
Dave
Click to expand...

The ten ball ghost is too seriously flawed to use as any kind of a ratings measure. I gave it a shot and the first round shot a 33. Immediately after I scored 71. I was the same exact player both times, only minutes apart. I did not shoot better the second time than the first, I just broke better. In my 33 round I got out just as often when the layout didn't demand safety play. No test that can vary this much due to rolls can be taken seriously as a skill level indicator without way too much data included. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Fargo will tell a more accurate story. Ten ball ghost is ten ball practice. Plenty fun but, nothing more and nothing less.

JC
 
Fatboy said:
i still want to know how to account for different equipment,


the table i play on has 3.98" pockets at the points and 3.80" at the shelf, its a 9' table.


I'm sure I could score much higher on a barbox or a B-Wick home style table like my biz partner has with no shelf and 5" pockets,

I have mentioned this a few times and get ignored, i aint trying to cause a problem-i'm just asking a simple question. there has to be a coefficient built into the scoring for table conditions-I would think or a multiple. 7' and 9' tables are 2 very different animals. I'm sure there is a 30% difference in scoring between the 2 for any given player.

its a great program, well thought out and presented. i admire the work you have put into it, but it's a error to just score all equipment the same, everyone here knows that that can run 5 balls in a row.

best regards

eric:)
Click to expand...

There's too many factors to quantify how tough a table is until you hit balls on it. Sometimes it's hard to explain a tough or easy table using measurements, but you sure know it when you see it.

JC
 
Fatboy said:
i still want to know how to account for different equipment,


the table i play on has 3.98" pockets at the points and 3.80" at the shelf, its a 9' table.


I'm sure I could score much higher on a barbox or a B-Wick home style table like my biz partner has with no shelf and 5" pockets,

I have mentioned this a few times and get ignored, i aint trying to cause a problem-i'm just asking a simple question. there has to be a coefficient built into the scoring for table conditions-I would think or a multiple. 7' and 9' tables are 2 very different animals. I'm sure there is a 30% difference in scoring between the 2 for any given player.

its a great program, well thought out and presented. i admire the work you have put into it, but it's a error to just score all equipment the same, everyone here knows that that can run 5 balls in a row.

best regards

eric:)
Click to expand...

Eric, you weren't ignored, you just missed the posts that Dr. Dave addressed those issues. There were several of them. Basically, there's no real way at this time to address a rating for tables. Because of that, and the varying between tables, the Doctorate can only apply to 9' tables, not 8; or 7'. Because there is no rating available, Dave asks for the table specs so others can kind of put ones score in perspective to other scores. For instance- Dave Gross and I got the same score. However, I give more credit to him than me because his was on a 9' table, and mine was on a 7' table. Likewise, my 7' is not a standard issue table anymore, so I rate it a ways higher than other 7' tables.
 
Neil said:
Eric, you weren't ignored, you just missed the posts that Dr. Dave addressed those issues. There were several of them. Basically, there's no real way at this time to address a rating for tables. Because of that, and the varying between tables, the Doctorate can only apply to 9' tables, not 8; or 7'. Because there is no rating available, Dave asks for the table specs so others can kind of put ones score in perspective to other scores. For instance- Dave Gross and I got the same score. However, I give more credit to him than me because his was on a 9' table, and mine was on a 7' table. Likewise, my 7' is not a standard issue table anymore, so I rate it a ways higher than other 7' tables.
Click to expand...

i probably missed them, i'm getting old and sloppy....
 
JC said:
There's too many factors to quantify how tough a table is until you hit balls on it. Sometimes it's hard to explain a tough or easy table using measurements, but you sure know it when you see it.

JC
Click to expand...


thats true, when it rains the pockets tighten up. I realize that, I have played over 30 years all over the world on every possible thing that resembled a pool table.

Seems to me that there should be a way to separate at a minimum 7, 8 ,9 foot boxes. I know about pocket profiles and humidity etc. no table plays the same 2 days in a row for that matter. So it is impossible and too complex to get a 100% accurate comparison, however 7,8,9 is only 3 variables-forget pocket size. a 7' table with 4" pockets is still easier than a 9' with 5" pockets, correct? for CB placment and the wagon wheel drill its MUCH easier on a 7' table cause the margin of error in much larger.

at the end of the day what Doc Dave has done I respect and am ever grateful to him for all his hard work and dedication.:smile:
 
JC said:
There's too many factors to quantify how tough a table is until you hit balls on it. Sometimes it's hard to explain a tough or easy table using measurements, but you sure know it when you see it.

JC
Click to expand...
This is true, but there is a table pocket taring that I think Bob Jewitt put out? Takes the pocket opening x the throat opening / shelf to get a number.

7-11 Extra Tough
12-16 Tough
17-21 Easy
22-27 Extra Easy

I measured pcokets on some nine footers I play on. I can't guarantee the measurements, but they are close.

So a Brunswick with a 5" pocket, 4 1/4" throat, one inch shelf = 21 easy. An Olhausen with the same pocket and throat but 1 1/2 shelf = 14 tough. A Kim Steele with 4.5 pocket, 4 1/8 throat and one inch shelf is 18. So in this case, a smaller pocket is easier due to the shelf.

I can attest that shots hit down the rail on that Olhausen with pace will jar much easier than the other tables.
 
RobMan said:
Okay Dr. Dave - here is a little more info for you, I have tracked many many racks of playing the nine ball (10 point as listed on your site) and tracked the scores. Earlier this year I switched to playing the 10 ball drill - I only have 6x10 rack scores.

9 bill drill - last 10 scores (ten racks each) - average 67. Your range of a B is 63-78 so I am pretty solidly in the B- category here.

10 ball drill - 6 scores (ten racks each) - average 46. This is the bottom of the B rating. As Neal pointed out, I am amazed how many times I had 1's or 2's due to very difficult or unplayable clusters early.

The 10 ball is so much harder in my view. For perspective: in the last 60 racks of 9 ball, I had 16 run outs. I only had 2 in the the same racks of 10 ball -- ouch!

Lastly, I retook the Masters Exam and increased from 53 to 58. A little experience with the drills does help!

Hope this data helps you in correlating skill levels.

Rob
Click to expand...
Thank you for posting your new BU score and 10-ball "playing the ghost" rating. I've updated the list. Here's the latest:
dr_dave said:
List of AZB'ers who have taken the BU playing-ability exams so far (in ranked order):

BU score, Username, BU Rating, 10-ball ghost rating, Video links (if available):

160, Gerry Williams, semi-pro (A++/AAA), no 10-ball ghost score yet, Table Setup, Exam I (part 1, part 2), Exam II
141, 12squared (Dave Gross), adv-3 (A+/AA), no 10-ball ghost score yet, no videos (see AZB post)
141, Neil, adv-3 (A+/AA), no 10-ball ghost score yet, Exam (part 1, part 2), Exam II (part 1, part 2, part 3)
135, dr_dave, adv-2 (A/A-), 54 (B+), Exam I, Exam II
132, Gerry Williams, adv-2 (A/A-), no 10-ball ghost score yet, Table Setup, Exam I, Exam II (part 1, part 2)
132, BRussell, adv-2 (A/A-), no 10-ball ghost score yet, Exam I, Exam II
124, JC, adv-1 (B+/B), no 10-ball ghost score yet, Table Specs, Exam 1, Exam 2
117, RobMan, adv-1 (B+/B), 46 (B), no videos (see AZB post)
112, RobMan, adv-1 (B+/B), 46 (B), no videos (see AZB post)
87, iusedtoberich, int-2 (C+), no 10-ball ghost score yet, Table Specs, Exam I, Exam II
78, iusedtoberich, int-2 (C+), 38 (C), Table Specs, Exam I, Exam II
77, SeanChamp, int-2 (C+), 38 (C), no videos (see AZB post)

Here are the details and scores for all official BU graduates.
Click to expand...

Thanks again,
Dave
 
Fatboy said:
i still want to know how to account for different equipment,

the table i play on has 3.98" pockets at the points and 3.80" at the shelf, its a 9' table.

I'm sure I could score much higher on a barbox or a B-Wick home style table like my biz partner has with no shelf and 5" pockets,
Click to expand...
It would be interesting to see how different your score would be on each piece of equipment. Please give your best effort on both and let us know how it goes.

Fatboy said:
I have mentioned this a few times and get ignored,
Click to expand...
I haven't ignored you. Here are two previous posts from me on this topic:
dr_dave said:
Excellent point. We handle this in the BU system two ways:
- A Doctorate diploma cannot be earned unless both exams are taken on a 9' or larger table.
- Table information and pocket geometry are reported with the BU score so there is "context" to go along with the score (see the official list of graduates to see how the scores are reported).
Click to expand...
dr_dave said:
Another way to handle this is to require that the BU Exams be taken on a 9' table with a pocket size 4 1/2" or less and and a shelf depth 1 1/2" or more, but I don't think people would like this very much because it is too constraining for many people. Also, there are many other factors that go into how difficult a table plays (the angles of the pocket walls, the properties of the cloth and rubber on the pocket facings/walls and points, the speed and cleanliness of the cloth, the level of humidity, etc.). I think the approach we have taken is the only reasonable approach. Although, I am open to other ideas.

Thanks again for your input,
Dave
Click to expand...

Fatboy said:
i aint trying to cause a problem-i'm just asking a simple question. there has to be a coefficient built into the scoring for table conditions-I would think or a multiple. 7' and 9' tables are 2 very different animals. I'm sure there is a 30% difference in scoring between the 2 for any given player.
Click to expand...
That's one possible approach, to have a multiplier for table size. For example:
(adjusted score) = (table multiplier) x (total score)
It would be nice to have some actual data on this before deciding what the multiplier values should be. You are suggesting 0.7 for a 7' table. I think that might be a bit low, but I don't know. What would you and others guess would be appropriate numbers for 7' and 6' tables? I plan to run the exams on a 9' table soon. Maybe others can try different table sizes also.

We could also include a factor for pocket size and shelf depth, but some people might not like the added complexity and math. We could use:
(adjusted score) = (table multiplier) x (pocket multiplier) x (total score)

Then we would need to decide what to use for the "pocket multiplier" (hopefully, based on a large collection of reliable data).

Maybe in the future, after we have a large amount of data, we can add multipliers to the scoring equation.

Fatboy said:
its a great program, well thought out and presented.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the positive feedback and input. Please consider posting scores (and videos if available).

Catch you later,
Dave
 
JC said:
dr_dave said:
I suggest that everybody who has submitted BU scores also try the 10-ball "playing the ghost" drill so we can see how well a practiced BU score compares to an average "playing the ghost" score. I recommend doing the ghost drill 3 or more times (10 racks of 10-ball each) and using the middle (median) value of the 10-rack scores to help deal with the inherent (and sometimes extreme) variability. I will add these scores and ratings to the BU rating list for comparison and correlation purposes.
Click to expand...
The ten ball ghost is too seriously flawed to use as any kind of a ratings measure. I gave it a shot and the first round shot a 33. Immediately after I scored 71. I was the same exact player both times, only minutes apart. I did not shoot better the second time than the first, I just broke better. In my 33 round I got out just as often when the layout didn't demand safety play. No test that can vary this much due to rolls can be taken seriously as a skill level indicator without way too much data included. I've said it before and I'll say it again. Fargo will tell a more accurate story. Ten ball ghost is ten ball practice. Plenty fun but, nothing more and nothing less.
Click to expand...
I agree that the 10-ball ghost drill scores can have tremendous variability, but people seem to like the simplicity compared to Fargo. If you do 3 or more trials and take the middle value (not the average), I think the score will be fairly representative of your skill level. Please do a couple more and report your middle score so I can add it to the list.

Regards,
Dave

PS: I also like Fargo better, but I'm going with what seems to be the consensus here.
 
RobMan said:
This is true, but there is a table pocket taring that I think Bob Jewett put out? Takes the pocket opening x the throat opening / shelf to get a number.

7-11 Extra Tough
12-16 Tough
17-21 Easy
22-27 Extra Easy

I measured pockets on some nine footers I play on. I can't guarantee the measurements, but they are close.

So a Brunswick with a 5" pocket, 4 1/4" throat, one inch shelf = 21 easy. An Olhausen with the same pocket and throat but 1 1/2 shelf = 14 tough. A Kim Steele with 4.5 pocket, 4 1/8 throat and one inch shelf is 18. So in this case, a smaller pocket is easier due to the shelf.

I can attest that shots hit down the rail on that Olhausen with pace will jar much easier than the other tables.
Click to expand...
This might be a good way to handle the "pocket multiplier" in the future. Thank you for posting it.

A possible formula for the pocket multiplier could be:

(pocket multiplier) = 12 / [(pocket size) x (shelf depth)]

That way, an "easy" table would be penalized (multiplier < 1) and a really "tough" table could get a bonus (multiplier > 1).

Thanks again,
Dave
 
dr_dave said:
This might be a good way to handle the "pocket multiplier" in the future. Thank you for posting it.

A possible formula for the pocket multiplier could be:

(pocket multiplier) = 12 / [(pocket size) x (shelf depth)]

That way, an "easy" table would be penalized (multiplier < 1) and a really "tough" table could get a bonus (multiplier > 1).

Thanks again,
Dave
Click to expand...

Here's a thread on pocket ratings- http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?p=1863828&highlight=pocket+rating#post1863828 Especially read post #40.

With those ratings, mine came in as very tough (11.55). Not your typical Valley table.
 
Well, I agree the table conditions will make a differnce. As will the practice time devoted (or not devoted) to the individual components. However, I believe the biggest hurdle will actually be to get people to try these tests, on ANY size and pocket table:)

So, lets get to it boys, post up your numbers and/or videos:grin-square::grin-square::grin-square:
 
Neil said:
Here's a thread on pocket ratings- http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?p=1863828&highlight=pocket+rating#post1863828 Especially read post #40.

With those ratings, mine came in as very tough (11.55). Not your typical Valley table.
Click to expand...
Here's another good thread on this topic. Some day, I'll work out a formula for a "pocket multiplier" that takes pocket mouth size (point to point), throat size (at back of pocket, to account for the wall angles), and shelf depth into consideration. The mouth size is obviously the most important factor (and the shelf depth might be the least important factor, but I'm not sure).

Catch you later,
Dave
 
iusedtoberich said:
Well, I agree the table conditions will make a differnce. As will the practice time devoted (or not devoted) to the individual components. However, I believe the biggest hurdle will actually be to get people to try these tests, on ANY size and pocket table:)

So, lets get to it boys, post up your numbers and/or videos:grin-square::grin-square::grin-square:
Click to expand...
Amen to that.

Thanks,
Dave
 
Fatboy said:
i still want to know how to account for different equipment,

the table i play on has 3.98" pockets at the points and 3.80" at the shelf, its a 9' table.

I'm sure I could score much higher on a barbox or a B-Wick home style table like my biz partner has with no shelf and 5" pockets
Click to expand...
BTW, you actually might not score higher on a smaller table, even if it has bigger pockets. Your score will be higher on Exam I; but if don't take the exams on a 9' or larger table, you are not allowed to take the Doctorate version of the Exam II. You would have to take the Master level instead, which has fewer points available.

This happened to me when I took the Exams on my 8' table at home. I did well enough on Exam I to qualify for the Doctorate version of Exam II, but I was required to take the Masters-level Exam II instead. I could have gotten a higher total score if I were allowed to take the Doctorate Exam II, which has a higher number of points available.

So table size does matter, even in the current version of the BU scoring. But pocket geometry is important too. That's why we collect and publish the other data.

Regards,
Dave
 
dr_dave said:
iusedtoberich said:
Dr Dave, slight error on scoring spreadsheet for bachelor's. The max points for S6 should be 3, not 6. Total possible points of 54 seems correct.

Also, I think it would be nice if on the log tab of the spreadsheet it would show the maximum point value for each column. This could be in the same cell as the text description as I've quickly typed in the below screenshot as a rough example. When reviewing the scores, this would help show what areas were strong, and what were weak.

View attachment 279440

View attachment 279441
Click to expand...
Thank you again for spotting the error and for your excellent suggestions. Both changes have been made.
Click to expand...
Originally, the changes were made only in the auto-score and logging spreadsheet file. FYI, now the PDF versions are also updated and available on the BU Exam Resources Page.

Thanks again for the suggestion,
Dave
 
I have a question on your scoring methodology. Some of the drills take a median value, some take the highest values, and some take the lowest values. Why is there so much variation in the mathematics chosen to score? I was using the spreadsheet to score, but was asking myself why each test had a different method. I just thought it was a bit all over the place, and wondered why you did it that way.
 
Thanks for doing this Dr. Dave. I just finished with the second exam. I did the fundamentals last night. It was fun and shows what I need to work on for sure!

I was playing on a Pro8 gold crown with the following specs:
4.5 in. Mouth
4 in. Throat
1.6 in. Shelf

I scored a 63 on the fundamentals and a 62 on the Masters exam.

I will be working to better that. Definitely show where some flaws are. Thanks again.
Nat

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk 2
 
iusedtoberich said:
I have a question on your scoring methodology. Some of the drills take a median value, some take the highest values, and some take the lowest values. Why is there so much variation in the mathematics chosen to score? I was using the spreadsheet to score, but was asking myself why each test had a different method. I just thought it was a bit all over the place, and wondered why you did it that way.
Click to expand...
For difficult challenges like the line-of-balls and rail-cut-shot drills, where an early mistake is likely and costly, we thought a 2nd try was appropriate (hence the max of the 2 scores). For the 8-ball and 9-ball patterns, where a good player should run out every time, we thought there should be very little forgiveness for errors (hence the 2 of the 3 lowest scores). Anything like a break shot (or 10-ball ghost drills) that involves lots of potential randomness, the best approach is to throw out the best and worst scores (hence the median or middle value of the 3 scores).

I know it might seem a little complicated to some people, be it is all for good reason.

Regards,
Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top