Go Back   AzBilliards.com > Main Category > Main Forum
Reload this Page Table Difficulty Factor (TDF) for measuring table "toughness"
Reply
Page 3 of 44 123 4513 Last »
 
Share Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 35 votes, 4.89 average.
Old
  (#31)
SpiderWebComm
HelpImBeingOppressed
SpiderWebComm has a reputation beyond reputeSpiderWebComm has a reputation beyond reputeSpiderWebComm has a reputation beyond reputeSpiderWebComm has a reputation beyond reputeSpiderWebComm has a reputation beyond reputeSpiderWebComm has a reputation beyond reputeSpiderWebComm has a reputation beyond reputeSpiderWebComm has a reputation beyond reputeSpiderWebComm has a reputation beyond reputeSpiderWebComm has a reputation beyond reputeSpiderWebComm has a reputation beyond repute
 
SpiderWebComm's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 9,917
vCash: 1275
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Wilmington, DE
   
06-21-2013, 10:19 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by dr_dave View Post
I think your formula has an attitude problem. Maybe you should try something simpler and more mature.

I hope you reconsider. I thought you were into this sort of thing (playing ability tests and rating systems ... not formulas). You certainly have been in the past with other playing-ability drills posted. I guess it must be me you don't like.

Catch you later,
Dave
Relax - I was just yanking your chain.

I would be inclined to do the test if I really felt it served the purpose you're trying to have it serve.

I think to grade playing ability, you have to grade people "playing" --- something like:
Ghost scores race to 50 (then x2 for effective score)
Cue Skills - set of 10 games (out of 200 possible points)
Start with a 14.1 break shot and take 10 attempts. Average your scores.

^ Something like that. Drills cannot accurately determine one's exact playing level, at least not with the same accuracy as one of the above methods. Therefore, when you say you're awarding masters / doctorate degrees based on drills, it's misleading.

Nobody should have a doctorate unless they're a pro-level player. No one should have a masters unless they're a "competitive" open-level player. Bachelors should be a B+ to A level... you get the idea.

I told you in the post from the other thread, I kind of like your concept as it can hold a lot of promise and application within the sport. However, basing such achievements on your set of drills doesn't make any sense. You should base it on "playing."

I was just picking on ya w/ the equation comment because you have a total inability to "K.I.S.S." Coming up with equations for this stuff is really pointless.

It's WAY easier to just have 10 people play the 9ball ghost on a barbox (ANY barbox), the same 10 people play it on a 8'er (ANY), the same 10 people play it on a 9'er (ANY), the same 10'er (good luck finding one) and a finally 12'er (good luck finding one). Average their scores on each table type and you have your basic table factor. Will some tables of a class be easier than others - yeah, sure -- but it's way simpler than figuring a million factors and coming up with equations to describe stuff that's subjective.

K.I.S.S.,
Dave


*******************


Viffer: The Movie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JFIy2ebJIE
  
Reply With Quote

Old
  (#32)
SpiderWebComm
HelpImBeingOppressed
SpiderWebComm has a reputation beyond reputeSpiderWebComm has a reputation beyond reputeSpiderWebComm has a reputation beyond reputeSpiderWebComm has a reputation beyond reputeSpiderWebComm has a reputation beyond reputeSpiderWebComm has a reputation beyond reputeSpiderWebComm has a reputation beyond reputeSpiderWebComm has a reputation beyond reputeSpiderWebComm has a reputation beyond reputeSpiderWebComm has a reputation beyond reputeSpiderWebComm has a reputation beyond repute
 
SpiderWebComm's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 9,917
vCash: 1275
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Wilmington, DE
   
06-21-2013, 10:23 AM

Just to expand:

In golf, one's playing ability is determined by their handicap -- which is figured from their average SCORE for PLAYING a full round as well as the slope rating (course difficulty).

In bowling, one's playing ability is determined by their average.

In darts, one's playing ability is determined by their average.

Tennis, one's playing ability is determined by w/l average and stats.

In race car driving, one's ability is determined by average lap time.

Why is pool's degree program figured on Dr. Dave's drills? Why wouldn't it be based on one's average score while playing an equal-offense model?


*******************


Viffer: The Movie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JFIy2ebJIE
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#33)
dr_dave
Instructional Author
dr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond repute
 
dr_dave's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 8,229
vCash: 1700
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Colorado
   
06-21-2013, 10:27 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by bstroud View Post
Dr. Dave,

Something you seem to be missing are the balls.

Perhaps it's just me (I quit playing for 30 so years) but the Aramith balls play completely different than the original Centennials.

They kick or skid ALL the time. They turn over much more and the cut angle needs to be much thinner.
Agreed. The condition of the balls (among many other things) have an effect, but I had to draw the line somewhere and stick to the factors easily measurable that relate specifically to the table and pocket geometry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bstroud View Post
If there is a trick to playing with them I would sure like to know.
One of the bars I used to play at in a league had terribly "clingy" balls (because they were very old, beat up, and filthy). Whenever I played there, I used "gearing outside english" whenever possible and avoided slow and stunny shots as much as possible.

Catch you later,
Dave
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#34)
SpiderWebComm
HelpImBeingOppressed
SpiderWebComm has a reputation beyond reputeSpiderWebComm has a reputation beyond reputeSpiderWebComm has a reputation beyond reputeSpiderWebComm has a reputation beyond reputeSpiderWebComm has a reputation beyond reputeSpiderWebComm has a reputation beyond reputeSpiderWebComm has a reputation beyond reputeSpiderWebComm has a reputation beyond reputeSpiderWebComm has a reputation beyond reputeSpiderWebComm has a reputation beyond reputeSpiderWebComm has a reputation beyond repute
 
SpiderWebComm's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 9,917
vCash: 1275
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Wilmington, DE
   
06-21-2013, 10:29 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by bstroud View Post
Dr. Dave,

Something you seem to be missing are the balls.

Perhaps it's just me (I quit playing for 30 so years) but the Aramith balls play completely different than the original Centennials.

They kick or skid ALL the time. They turn over much more and the cut angle needs to be much thinner.

If there is a trick to playing with them I would sure like to know.

Bill S.
I'll tell you the trick to playing with them if you tell mhaimi what the trick is to getting the cue he won.

Add on: The only thing that really-really skids are your contests.


*******************


Viffer: The Movie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JFIy2ebJIE

Last edited by SpiderWebComm; 06-21-2013 at 10:33 AM.
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#35)
dr_dave
Instructional Author
dr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond repute
 
dr_dave's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 8,229
vCash: 1700
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Colorado
   
06-21-2013, 10:38 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpiderWebComm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr_dave View Post
Have you tried the BU Exams yet. If so, please consider posting your score (and videos if available) on the BU thread. Thanks!
I would be inclined to do the test if I really felt it served the purpose you're trying to have it serve.
What purpose do you think the BU Exams are trying to serve?

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpiderWebComm View Post
I think to grade playing ability, you have to grade people "playing" --- something like:
Ghost scores race to 50 (then x2 for effective score)
Cue Skills - set of 10 games (out of 200 possible points)
Start with a 14.1 break shot and take 10 attempts. Average your scores.
Sounds good to me, for the people who have that sort of time and dedication.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpiderWebComm View Post
Drills cannot accurately determine one's exact playing level, at least not with the same accuracy as one of the above methods. Therefore, when you say you're awarding masters / doctorate degrees based on drills, it's misleading.

Nobody should have a doctorate unless they're a pro-level player. No one should have a masters unless they're a "competitive" open-level player. Bachelors should be a B+ to A level... you get the idea.

I told you in the post from the other thread, I kind of like your concept as it can hold a lot of promise and application within the sport. However, basing such achievements on your set of drills doesn't make any sense. You should base it on "playing."
Thank you for the input. After you try both BU Exams and see how you do, I'll be curious to see what your think then. Only a top-level player can do really well in the exams; and it is impossible for a low-level player to get a high score. The system might not be perfect, but I think it does a decent job in a short amount of time (while being fun and challenging at the same time). Again, I look forward to getting more feedback from you after you spend time with the exams.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SpiderWebComm View Post
It's WAY easier to just have 10 people play the 9ball ghost on a barbox (ANY barbox), the same 10 people play it on a 8'er (ANY), the same 10 people play it on a 9'er (ANY), the same 10'er (good luck finding one) and a finally 12'er (good luck finding one). Average their scores on each table type and you have your basic table factor. Will some tables of a class be easier than others - yeah, sure -- but it's way simpler than figuring a million factors and coming up with equations to describe stuff that's subjective.
If I had 10 people willing to do this test for different tables as your have suggested, I agree that this would be the best way to rate a wide variety of tables. But that isn't very practical. However, by knowing only the table size, and 3 simple pocket measurements, you can get a rough and fairly reliable estimate for table difficulty with a very simple and fast calculation (using the TDF system). To me, that's much simpler (but not better) than your approach.

Thanks again for your input,
Dave
  
Reply With Quote
Hahahaha
Old
  (#36)
Jaden
Dun w/da bullshit 4awhile
Jaden has a reputation beyond reputeJaden has a reputation beyond reputeJaden has a reputation beyond reputeJaden has a reputation beyond reputeJaden has a reputation beyond reputeJaden has a reputation beyond reputeJaden has a reputation beyond reputeJaden has a reputation beyond reputeJaden has a reputation beyond reputeJaden has a reputation beyond reputeJaden has a reputation beyond repute
 
Jaden's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 9,092
vCash: 5875
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Southern California
   
Hahahaha - 06-21-2013, 10:39 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpiderWebComm View Post
I'll tell you the trick to playing with them if you tell mhaimi what the trick is to getting the cue he won.

Add on: The only thing that really-really skids are your contests.
You beat me to it Spider.....

Jaden
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#37)
Fatboy
AzB Silver Member
Fatboy has a reputation beyond reputeFatboy has a reputation beyond reputeFatboy has a reputation beyond reputeFatboy has a reputation beyond reputeFatboy has a reputation beyond reputeFatboy has a reputation beyond reputeFatboy has a reputation beyond reputeFatboy has a reputation beyond reputeFatboy has a reputation beyond reputeFatboy has a reputation beyond reputeFatboy has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 14,142
vCash: 2400
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Join Date: Nov 2006
   
06-21-2013, 10:41 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by dr_dave View Post
Based on ideas from previous threads on this topic (tight pockets thread and pocket answers thread), and based discussion in the Billiard University (BU) thread concerning how to account for table difficulty in scoring and rating drills like the BU Exams, I decided to create a system for determining how difficult a table plays. It is described in detail in the Table Difficulty Factor (TDF) document, which is convenient if you want a printed copy.

Here's how it works:

The Table Difficulty Factor (TDF) is a percentage measure of how difficult or easy a particular table plays. It is based on table size and the three corner-pocket measurements illustrated below. Four factors are used to account for table size, pocket size, pocket wall angle, and pocket shelf depth. Each factor is a number less than, equal to, or greater than 1, where 1 indicates average or standard. By multiplying the four factors, you get the TDF which is a good measure of table “toughness.” If TDF=1, the table has an average level of difficulty; if TDF>1, the table plays more difficult than average; and if TDF<1, the table plays easier than average.


The four factors are defined as follows:







The total Table Difficulty Factor (TDF) is then calculated by multiplying the four factors:

TDF = TSF x PSF x PAF x PLF

The TDF can be used to adjust numbers from any scoring or rating system like the Billiard University Exams, “playing the ghost” drills, Hopkins Q Skills drill, or the Fargo rating drill or handicapping system. An effective score, taking table difficulty into consideration, can be calculated with:

(effective score) = (raw score) x TDF


Here's an example of how the TDF system is used. Let’s say two players (“A” and “B”) got an identical Billiard University (BU) score of 130. Player “A” took the exams on a fairly “easy” table with the following measurements:
Table “A”
table size = 8’, mouth = 5”, throat = 4 1/2”, (mouth-throat) = 1/2”, shelf = 1 3/8”
TDF = TSF x PSF x PAF x PLF = 0.90 x 0.95 x 1.00 x 0.95 = 0.81

Therefore, table “A” is about 19% easier than average, and the effective BU score on this table would be 130 x 0.81 = 105 (much lower than 130).

Player “B” took the exams on a fairly “tough” table with the following measurements:
Table “B”
table size = 9’, mouth = 3 7/8”, throat = 3 1/4”, (mouth-throat) = 5/8”, shelf = 1 7/8”
TDF = TSF x PSF x PAF x PLF = 1.00 x 1.15 x 1.05 x 1.05 = 1.27

Therefore, table “B” is about 27% more difficult than average, and the effective BU score on this table would be 130 x 1.27 = 165 (much higher than 130). This helps put the BU scores in better perspective based on table difficulty.


I will be curious to see what you guys think, and I look forward to your suggestions and feedback.

Thank you,
Dave
Very good work, your not a Dr for no reason!!! NEver doubted ya for a minute. This IMO will give a balance to the equipment as good as can be done-for all potable balls. very impressive.


very best regards
eric


OG member of the Lock Society members or OG-LS;

Just call me Fat-Lock

im getting old and sloppy....
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#38)
SpiderWebComm
HelpImBeingOppressed
SpiderWebComm has a reputation beyond reputeSpiderWebComm has a reputation beyond reputeSpiderWebComm has a reputation beyond reputeSpiderWebComm has a reputation beyond reputeSpiderWebComm has a reputation beyond reputeSpiderWebComm has a reputation beyond reputeSpiderWebComm has a reputation beyond reputeSpiderWebComm has a reputation beyond reputeSpiderWebComm has a reputation beyond reputeSpiderWebComm has a reputation beyond reputeSpiderWebComm has a reputation beyond repute
 
SpiderWebComm's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 9,917
vCash: 1275
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Wilmington, DE
   
06-21-2013, 10:43 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by dr_dave View Post
What purpose do you think the BU Exams are trying to serve?

Sounds good to me, for the people who have that sort of time and dedication.

Thank you for the input. After you try both BU Exams and see how you do, I'll be curious to see what your think then. Only a top-level player can do really well in the exams; and it is impossible for a low-level player to get a high score. The system might not be perfect, but I think it does a decent job in a short amount of time (while being fun and challenging at the same time). Again, I look forward to getting more feedback from you after you spend time with the exams.


If I had 10 people willing to do this test for different tables as your have suggested, I agree that this would be the best way to rate a wide variety of tables. But that isn't very practical. However, by knowing only the table size, and 3 simple pocket measurements, you can get a rough and fairly reliable estimate for table difficulty with a very simple and fast calculation (using the TDF system). To me, that's much simpler (but not better) than your approach.

Thanks again for your input,
Dave
You might be right --- but that lends to the question -- why create a test that replicates the approximated outcome of playing when you can just play? Sent you a PM, btw.


*******************


Viffer: The Movie
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JFIy2ebJIE
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#39)
Roger Long
Sonoran Cue Creations
Roger Long has a reputation beyond reputeRoger Long has a reputation beyond reputeRoger Long has a reputation beyond reputeRoger Long has a reputation beyond reputeRoger Long has a reputation beyond reputeRoger Long has a reputation beyond reputeRoger Long has a reputation beyond reputeRoger Long has a reputation beyond reputeRoger Long has a reputation beyond reputeRoger Long has a reputation beyond reputeRoger Long has a reputation beyond repute
 
Roger Long's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 1,687
vCash: 1225
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Apr 2008
   
06-21-2013, 10:44 AM

Dave,

I like your formula for determining pocket toughness. It's very similar to the one I offered in an article I wrote, and was published here on AZ Billiards, a couple of years ago. Our two formulas are very similar in that they both consider pocket opening, throat opening, and shelf depth. Of the two, I think I like your formula best. Good job.

Roger


Extra fine players' cues made from desert-aged hardwoods. http://www.sonorancues.com
Also visit us at Maestro's Pro Shop, offering Certified Instruction, Custom Built Cues, Expert Cue Repairs and more:http://www.maestrosproshop.com
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#40)
Fatboy
AzB Silver Member
Fatboy has a reputation beyond reputeFatboy has a reputation beyond reputeFatboy has a reputation beyond reputeFatboy has a reputation beyond reputeFatboy has a reputation beyond reputeFatboy has a reputation beyond reputeFatboy has a reputation beyond reputeFatboy has a reputation beyond reputeFatboy has a reputation beyond reputeFatboy has a reputation beyond reputeFatboy has a reputation beyond repute
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 14,142
vCash: 2400
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Join Date: Nov 2006
   
06-21-2013, 10:44 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by bstroud View Post
Dr. Dave,

Something you seem to be missing are the balls.

Perhaps it's just me (I quit playing for 30 so years) but the Aramith balls play completely different than the original Centennials.

They kick or skid ALL the time. They turn over much more and the cut angle needs to be much thinner.

If there is a trick to playing with them I would sure like to know.

Bill S.

buy a new set, your a better player than me, however i played long enough to know what your talking about and i have played with worn out balls. horrible experience-especially when the one is the smallest ball.


OG member of the Lock Society members or OG-LS;

Just call me Fat-Lock

im getting old and sloppy....
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#41)
dr_dave
Instructional Author
dr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond repute
 
dr_dave's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 8,229
vCash: 1700
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Colorado
   
06-21-2013, 10:47 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpiderWebComm View Post
Why is pool's degree program figured on Dr. Dave's drills?
The drills in the BU Exams are not "Dr. Dave's." They came from a wide range of sources, but mostly from the Video Encyclopedia of Pool Practice (VEPP), for which Bob Jewett was co-author and a major influence. Also, the BU Exam drills and scoring system were developed with input from the founding professors of the BU:


Again the BU Exams are not just from me.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SpiderWebComm View Post
Why wouldn't it be based on one's average score while playing an equal-offense model?
That would be a good alternative system. Why don't you pursue this with your own set of founding professors and website development effort. I would be happy to take your exams if you did.

Regards,
Dave
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#42)
ideologist
I don't never exaggerate
ideologist has a reputation beyond reputeideologist has a reputation beyond reputeideologist has a reputation beyond reputeideologist has a reputation beyond reputeideologist has a reputation beyond reputeideologist has a reputation beyond reputeideologist has a reputation beyond reputeideologist has a reputation beyond reputeideologist has a reputation beyond reputeideologist has a reputation beyond reputeideologist has a reputation beyond repute
 
ideologist's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 4,201
vCash: 500
iTrader: 100 / 100%
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Rochester, NY
   
Smile 06-21-2013, 10:51 AM

Do you have a way to account for cloth and rail types?


Make sure you check your references before you buy on this site. Even a mod has engaged in tomfoolery!
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#43)
dr_dave
Instructional Author
dr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond repute
 
dr_dave's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 8,229
vCash: 1700
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Colorado
   
06-21-2013, 10:53 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Dixon View Post
The Pocket Angle Factor increases in a level progression from tier to tier of the "mouth-throat difference". I think they should increase geometrically. Not necessarily "much" higher, but higher. But, firguring out what is a correct geometric progression would have to be subjective, I think.

I think an average number for the PAF can be very inaccurate. On a soft table some shots off the point and rail will go that just won't go on a "hard" table. A geometric progression might capture a better approximation but still not tell the whole story.

I'm not a mathematician or engineer so I don't have any specific suggestions for improvement. That's your job. : )
I also had the sense that this factor might vary "geometrically." It also interacts in a fairly complicated way with shelf depth, but this "interaction" would be very difficult describe adequately without a lot of data.

A I get more data in the future, I can easily modify the numbers in the different ranges for the pocket angle factor (PAF). Until then, any changes would be total guesswork. BTW, the little analysis I did seemed to imply that the pocket angle effect was fairly linear (keeping everything else the same), but nothing beats hard data.

Thanks again for you input,
Dave
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#44)
dr_dave
Instructional Author
dr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond reputedr_dave has a reputation beyond repute
 
dr_dave's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 8,229
vCash: 1700
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Colorado
   
06-21-2013, 10:57 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatboy View Post
Very good work, your not a Dr for no reason!!! NEver doubted ya for a minute. This IMO will give a balance to the equipment as good as can be done-for all potable balls. very impressive.

very best regards
eric
Thank you for the positive feedback. I appreciate it.

BTW, I won't feel totally comfortable with my "Dr." title until I earn a Billiard University (BU) "Doctorate." I think it is a realistic goal (in the next year or two), but I still have more work to do. In the meantime, you should probably just refer to me as "Dave" (or "Dean Dave" if you prefer).

Thanks again,
Dave
  
Reply With Quote
Old
  (#45)
BRussell
AzB Silver Member
BRussell has a reputation beyond reputeBRussell has a reputation beyond reputeBRussell has a reputation beyond reputeBRussell has a reputation beyond reputeBRussell has a reputation beyond reputeBRussell has a reputation beyond reputeBRussell has a reputation beyond reputeBRussell has a reputation beyond reputeBRussell has a reputation beyond reputeBRussell has a reputation beyond reputeBRussell has a reputation beyond repute
 
BRussell's Avatar
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 2,858
vCash: 500
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Join Date: Apr 2013
   
06-21-2013, 10:57 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpiderWebComm View Post
You might be right --- but that lends to the question -- why create a test that replicates the approximated outcome of playing when you can just play? Sent you a PM, btw.
I see the BU drills as a way to break pool down into basic skills and practice them. I agree with you and I think it is a mistake to try to translate the scores on his drills to actual competitive playing ability. That's like translating grades in Business school to how successful you are in business. Dave does present some info on translating BU scores to other ratings, but in fairness, I never saw that as the primary purpose of the drills, and I don't think he focuses on that in his presentation.

Maybe I'm wrong and he does see it primarily as a system for rating competitive playing rather than skill development. Dave?

Last edited by BRussell; 06-21-2013 at 11:01 AM.
  
Reply With Quote
Reply
Page 3 of 44 123 4513 Last »

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.