APA ratings

Challenge Accepted

Snapshot9 said:
yes, I will accept that challenge, but understand, I will have to give it some thought. I said the calcs would result in better calcualtions, which means truer to the skill level, but they might have to be more complex to get there.

But, I can tell you it has to do with variances, standard deviations, and the number of occurences outside of the standard deviations. I'll be the first to admit it has been a lot of years since I have actively practiced higher math and statistics. The last time was when I was assigned to statisticians to develop linear regression models for them about 11 years ago in a pharmaceutical company.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I understand exactly what you mean... with the variances, standard deviations...

I understand that it's not necessarily a simple challenge. But it could be a fun and maybe even useful mathematical discussion for some. So, I'm ready and willing too... Hopefully it'll prove interesting...
 
juggler314 said:
....
Click to expand...
I agree with alot of what you say... We'll never know the true formula and that's fine with me... And even if you learn it at one level, there will still be other levels which will render that knowledge useless. It could be interesting just to inquire about what factors would be useful to consider when engaging in such an endeavor.
More of a general understanding (a bit more specific), than an actual secret formula threatening activity.
 
RunoutalloverU said:
Reading all these posts makes me realize I am really really lucky not to be in the APA.
Click to expand...

(this is NOT directed at RunoutalloverU)

Thats funny, for me, reading these posts confirms for me the average persons hopelessness when it comes to understanding statistics and even simple averages. Please rethink your opinion on the APA based on these things:

1) All the examples of particular performances of various players at various skill levels really means almost NOTHING. The handicap system is designed to be an AVERAGE. This means that there is NO LIMIT to how well you can shoot, as long as you have enough bad scores to offset this performance. A 3 can break and run 2 racks and out, as long as his average score is a 3 level. This is the simple version. There are however "limits" imposed by the Equalizer system. This means that for a 3 with a particular average, there is a score for him that if he exceeds it, he will automatically be raised independent of his average.
2) In order for the average to be accurate, the average must be calculated using many scores. 20 is the magic number for the APA. Your average is computed based on the best 10 of your last 20 scores. You average is primarily based on your innings/game. You win % factors in, but not too much. You could lose every single week, but if you win a couple of games with low innings in each of these matches, you will have a high skill level.
3) Almost every single statement on here about how the handicap system is wrong is wrapped around TOTALLY flawed logic. "I played this guy and lost. My SL went up and theirs stayed the same..." What were the numbers? What exactly was your average going into this match? How many scores were on each of your records? What exactly were the innings/game for the match? If you don't know the answers, then it would be best NOT to criticize the system that you clearly do not understand.
4) Correct scorekeeping is the best way to essentially eliminate sandbagging. If the player did not intend to pocket a ball, it is a defensive shot. This concept is crystal clear, but people refuse to follow it. The scorekeeper is the person who decides whether or not the player was trying to pocket a ball. The two team's scoresheets don't have to match. If you diligently mark all intentionally missed shots as defensive, you will not allow people to get away so easily with sandbagging.

If people follow this system, it works fairly well. There are two problems. One is that many people are either deceitful or stupid. Sandbagging requires deceit on behalf of the sandbagger AND stupidity on the part of the scorekeeper. The other problem is that (see above) people are ..ahem...stupid. They don't understand this type of thing--but the part that I feel qualifies one as stupid is when even though one doesn't understand the system, they spot condemnations of the system based on reasoning that sounds good to them but is actually not well thought out. This causes many negative beliefs about the APA and systems like it, and potentially promotes the concept that the only way to succeed is to cheat.

Not trying to target anyone here. This is a general plea to everyone to learn a little more about averages, statistics, and the way they work in real life examples before making under-researched claims about an otherwise adequate system.

Thanks,
KMRUNOUT
 
Just out of curiosity, if someone posts a link to the APA formula does that get them banned here?
 
poolcuemaster said:
Your wife won in a higher level APA tournament and that locks her in as a 2 and she should never go back to a 1 unless she writes a letter to APA home offices with a doctors proof she has health problems now that will prevent her from playing at a number 2 skill level. And the local operator will have to sign off on the request.--Leonard
Click to expand...

This exemplifies one bad thing with the APA - the lack of any response at higher level to things that are obviously "flukes". I had a 2 (8 ball) on my team. We go to vegas. First match she beats a 4 2-0. Usually this would be a great thing, but here's the deal. My 2 won both games by the opponent scratching on the 8 ball. My 2 only made 4 balls total the entire match. My 2 did not safety her opponent to create a situation where a scratch on the 8 might be likely, the 4 screwed up and went for difficult 8 ball shots and accidentally scratched both times.

The rub is that they raised my 2 to a 3. Admittedly she was "close" to going up. But to be raised off of a basically "null" win (that is something like this should not affect your stats) is ridiculous. And now she's stuck as a 3 no matter what.

I brought this up to the TD onsite, he basically said "well she was close and this just pushed her win record up enough to tip her over". I said, fine I understand how the thing works, but given the particular situation it seems slightly ridiculous. He said "too bad, that's what the computer said". I think that is a *textbook* example of when to override the computer, but they didn't.

Now I will probably have to kick her off the team because she was only hovering at a 50% win record as is, as a 3 she's winning about 16% and does not practice outside, and basically has no hope of ever getting better. This sucks because I don't like to kicke people off my team for reasons beyond anyone's control.
 
Blah blah blah

Ok, a lot of people seem to be (intentionally?) forgetting a few things.

First, if an SL2 (etc) breaks and runs and is obviously playing like a 6+, you should be making notes on your score sheet.

Second, how many games have you had that went in your favor or during which you were shooting lights out (for you) and then have to deny to others that you were sandbagging? This easily goes the other way and I have to remind people of it fairly regularly.

Third, ratings have hidden decimal points in there. You could have been barely holding onto your 4 rating for a year before going down to a 3 or up to a 5. You can argue that with someone all day, with them saying they should be a 6 and you saying they should be a 7, yadda yadda yadda.

If I remember correctly, if you were a 5 in a higher-level-tourney, you may go back down to a 4 during league play, but you will be required to play again as a 5 (unless you receive an exception) if you play in another HLT. I've seen someone do "well" in an HLT and go down - it is possible.
 
kaznj said:
Juggler brings up a perfect example of a big flaw in the system.
Click to expand...
Yep... It has flaws. The system is not perfect. Nor is any other system out there. I wouldn't expect any system ever in existence to ever be perfect. Even playing 100% straight up even races, isn't perfect either.

So, it has a flaw. Other systems do too. Many other systems have much bigger or worse flaws.

Does it really matter that much?
 
you can publicly publish any information you have legally obtained.....this is not Cuba.

If you find the formula for Coke on a sidewalk in atlanta, you can post it on the internet and there is nothing that can be done about it.


Jude Rosenstock said:
First, the APA (nor Kaznj) is interested in loose interpretations of the handicap system. What they are protecting (and what Kaznj is seeking) are the specifics of how handicaps are calculated. The APA is a multimillion dollar business that has hundreds of people who have invested quite a bit of money into its success. A court may just make you shut-up but trust me, you'll be forced to shut-up. It's not public information. It's deliberately kept secret. The APA can easily argue that their success relies on this formula's secrecy.


The only reason why someone would be interested in the specifics of a handicap formula is if they were interested in exploiting it. Good luck with that.
Click to expand...
 
I have read most of the post and I am supprised that no-one has mentioned anything about an applied score! No matter what you shoot, spacifically if it is really really bad you are going to get an applied score somewhere within you range for your skill level. It is an easy caculation that fits into the so called magical formula. This is why you can loose a lot and never go down, because your apply score is keeping you in you skill level bracket.
 
bubsbug said:
I have read most of the post and I am supprised that no-one has mentioned anything about an applied score! No matter what you shoot, spacifically if it is really really bad you are going to get an applied score somewhere within you range for your skill level. It is an easy caculation that fits into the so called magical formula. This is why you can loose a lot and never go down, because your apply score is keeping you in you skill level bracket.
Click to expand...

Absolutely correct. I goof with my LO once in a while asking him when I will go down to a five. He laughs and said that I will NEVER see a five again. He knows I am joking around but did explain the applied score to me.

Edited to add: If more people knew about this there would probably be less sandbagging as it's doing a lot of people no good anyway.
 
rope_one said:
Just out of curiosity, if someone posts a link to the APA formula does that get them banned here?
Click to expand...
It has been posted before and I do not believe anyone was banned for it.

Steve
 
sde said:
It has been posted before and I do not believe anyone was banned for it.

Steve
Click to expand...


I was just curious as I don't think that post is on the board anywhere I could find. I sent a pm to Wilson to see what he said.
 
bubsbug said:
I have read most of the post and I am supprised that no-one has mentioned anything about an applied score! No matter what you shoot, spacifically if it is really really bad you are going to get an applied score somewhere within you range for your skill level. It is an easy caculation that fits into the so called magical formula. This is why you can loose a lot and never go down, because your apply score is keeping you in you skill level bracket.
Click to expand...

The way I understand it the applied score is only applied in a match that you win.

As an extreme example let's say that you are a 6 playing a 5 and the 5 wins 4-2 in 42 innings :eek: with no defensive shots marked.

Your data to be entered into the system 42/2 = 21.0, but I believe the highest number of inning allowed is 7.0

The 5 would receive the applied score for a 5 which I believe is between 3 and 4 depending on the win %, could be 3.1 or 3.9 or anywhere in between.

I have no proof of this but from what I have read and been told I believe this to be true.

Steve
 
Last edited:
jcrack_corn said:
you can publicly publish any information you have legally obtained.....this is not Cuba.

If you find the formula for Coke on a sidewalk in atlanta, you can post it on the internet and there is nothing that can be done about it.
Click to expand...


You can see what Wikipedia has to say about Trade Secrets. There are other links regarding intellectual property which may also cast some insight as to what the APA can use to legally protect itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_secret

Look, I'm not a lawyer nor am I going to claim that I've done any real research. All I know is, I have heard of situations where the APA has taken successful legal action against persons who have made such information public. Based on other more famous trade secrets with companies such as Coca-Cola, I can't see why it would be a problem for the APA to protect its system in similar legal fashion.
 
What does it take to be an APA SL 7 in 8-ball?

I just finished playing my third session as a SL 6 in 8-ball.
Out of 13 matches I played last session, I lost only 2 for an 85% match winning percentage. The 2 matches I lost went hill-hill.
Out of those 13 matches, I played 82 games and lost only 22, for a 73% game winning percentage.
I had 4 shutouts playing SL 6's and 7's, & 4 matches where I won 5-1.
I averaged just under 16 innings per match, with 13 being my best & 22 being my worst.
Only 2 break & runs though.:(
90% of the time I play the strongest player on the opposing teams.
People tell me all the time that I should be a SL 7 and have actually been accused of being a sandbagger!
I really want to be a SL 7- in fact it was my goal to be one by the end of 2007.:(
So I'm just wondering what the hell you have to do to be a 7?
 
Wazuela said:
I just finished playing my third session as a SL 6 in 8-ball.
Out of 13 matches I played last session, I lost only 2 for an 85% match winning percentage. The 2 matches I lost went hill-hill.
Out of those 13 matches, I played 82 games and lost only 22, for a 73% game winning percentage.
I had 4 shutouts playing SL 6's and 7's, & 4 matches where I won 5-1.
I averaged just under 16 innings per match, with 13 being my best & 22 being my worst.
Only 2 break & runs though.:(
90% of the time I play the strongest player on the opposing teams.
People tell me all the time that I should be a SL 7 and have actually been accused of being a sandbagger!
I really want to be a SL 7- in fact it was my goal to be one by the end of 2007.:(
So I'm just wondering what the hell you have to do to be a 7?
Click to expand...

Well, just briefly looking at ya... You didn't express your average innings/game. But based on the info, you played (82 + 22) 104 games in 13 matches providing an average of 8 games per match. With just under 16 innings per match, you would have an average of about 2 innings per game. Which according to those charts would put you right on the borderline of 6 / 7. And you have to overcome your rolling history of matches where you've played 6 level. So, seems like you're right on the brink.


Aside: This is one of those examples where people use the term sandbagger very inappropriately.
First of all, if you were an actual sandbagger, you'd be a bad one, because your rating is already too high. A true sandbagger is trying to keep their rating low, clearly you are not. Next of all if you were an actual sandbagger you wouldn't have such a high win % (beating everyone). You'd want to lose some, which would help you achieve the ultimate goal, keeping your rating down. Next of all, you wouldn't win so badly. You're slaughtering some of your opponents (considering that you always try to play opposing teams best, thus you aren't playing too many 2's and 3's and the like) and you've had shutouts against high level players, which of course is obviously counter to sandbagging because if a sandbagger wins, they don't want to win big.
 
Last edited:
FLICKit said:
Well, just briefly looking at ya... You didn't express your average innings/game. But based on the info, you played (82 + 22) 104 games in 13 matches providing an average of 8 games per match. With just under 16 innings per match, you would have an average of about 2 innings per game. Which according to those charts would put you right on the borderline of 6 / 7. And you have to overcome your rolling history of matches where you've played 6 level. So, seems like you're right on the brink.
Click to expand...
Actually I averaged 2.65 innings per game. A total of 82 games- 60 wins and 22 losses. I keep track of it on an Excel Spreadsheet.
I just read the chart that was provided by rope_one, and I see they don't count innings when you play safeties. I didn't know that.
I say I usually play 4-5 safeties per match; usually early safeties in the game, but when I look on the score sheet I'm only put down for a few, or none at all.
I don't think this is done intentionally, for some of the low skill level players who are keeping score might not realize that I played safety.
Now I know & I'll be sure to be marked down for them!
 
Wazuela you are correct.... I quickly and wrongly read it as 82 wins with 22 losses, instead of 82 total with 60 wins and 22 losses. Looks like you made all the proper adjustments and figured the rest out...

Looks like you're on the right path and it shouldn't take you long...

Properly marking the defenses can have a big impact... Correcting that should help you as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top