Potential pro caliber players in APA league

[AtLarge]

While I'm not at liberty to discuss the details of the math, I can tell you that it is possible to beat the best 7 on the planet every week and not mathematically go up. That's where review practices come in, 'cause even with a one-game spot a 6 probably shouldn't beat THAT player every time (most likely a scorekeeping issue in this case).

I'm ignorant of APA goings-on.

Why isn't the handicapping system totally transparent to league members? It seems like there is constant carping about handicapping and sandbagging. Is the theory that full disclosure would worsen that situation? If the method for determining skill levels is rational, I would think that league owners and operators should have no reluctance nor fear of disclosing fully how it is done. State the formulas and also state exactly when and how "qualitative judgment" is applied.

I see that the APA website says this about The Equalizer handicapping system: "You are asked to refrain from attempting to keep your own records as it is generally a disruptive practice. The APA appreciates your cooperation with this policy." Well, I'd certainly want to keep my own records and verify whether "the office" was calculating things properly for me.

But, hey, keeping people (tens of thousands? hundreds of thousands?) in the dark about this seems to have worked swimmingly for the owners and some league operators. I doubt they'll take my advice.:smile:

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

Here are the scores from Jeff Crawford's 5 matches in the round-robin portion of the 2012 Predator World 14.1 Tournament (Crawford's score first):

M. Immonen.......32-100
M. Dechaine........31-100
S. Wilke..............59-100
S. Morgan.........100-37
C. Eames..........100-71​

I'm from New York City and know both Charlie Eames and Sean Morgan very well. Although these results do not rule-out the possibility that Jeff is pro-caliber, they definitely couldn't be used to suggest he's one. If he beat Wilke, Dechaine or Immonen, I would definitely raise an eyebrow. If he went 5-0 or 0-5, I'd be more inclined to pass judgement.

 

[cardiac kid]

Why isn't the handicapping system totally transparent to league members? It seems like there is constant carping about handicapping and sandbagging. Is the theory that full disclosure would worsen that situation? If the method for determining skill levels is rational, I would think that league owners and operators should have no reluctance nor fear of disclosing fully how it is done. State the formulas and also state exactly when and how "qualitative judgment" is applied........

But, hey, keeping people (tens of thousands? hundreds of thousands?) in the dark about this seems to have worked swimmingly for the owners and some league operators. I doubt they'll take my advice.:smile:

It's the "mystery" that keeps the majority coming back. The belief in the unbelievable. If they told you the truth would you be happier? Would your world really change if you found out the Earth was really flat, not a sphere? What if the Earth was at the center and the entire Universe rotated around us? What would change for you? NOTHING! Telling someone who has never picked up a pool cue in their life they have an equal chance to win using the APA "mystery" handicapping system is just another fairy tale! Albeit an extremely successful one. For the owners and operators. Again JMHO.

Lyn

 

[Maniac]

I'm from New York City and know both Charlie Eames and Sean Morgan very well. Although these results do not rule-out the possibility that Jeff is pro-caliber, they definitely couldn't be used to suggest he's one. If he beat Wilke, Dechaine or Immonen, I would definitely raise an eyebrow. If he went 5-0 or 0-5, I'd be more inclined to pass judgement.

Even a 5-0 or an 0-5 score means little. It is just the scores of one tournament during one week or on one weekend.

Play the exact same players in the exact same order on the following weekend, and the scores could very well turn out vastly different.

A persons ability can only be determined through the results of many matches, IMO. How many? I cannot answer that, but 5 certainly will not be enough. Like you said though, it might raise some eyebrows if he beat all 5 of those opponents.

Maniac

 

[KMRUNOUT]

Oooooooooh, the big, deep, dark secret of the APA handicapping system .

Truth is, it's no secret that there really is no system. If there was one there would be hundreds of people associated with APA leagues that would have figured it out by now (hell, we broke Japanese/German codes during WWII ). I've seen things happen in APA handicapping that defies logic. Something that could NOT possibly happen if there was a system. If I had to describe the APA handicapping system to a non-poolplayer, I'd probably say "They use wins/innings/safeties to establish your skill level until you have a certain amount of matches played, then who knows what the hell goes on after that."

I cannot think of any other way to describe it :sorry:!!!

Maniac (is rapidly tiring of handicap league BS)

Maniac,

There most certainly is a system. For 8 ball, it really isn't even very complicated. Innings per game average, that's it. It is absolutely based on innings, safeties, and win % (which only comes into play when you win but do so with a score less than your average.). However, League Operators have the liberty to circumvent this system at their own discretion. Some are qualified to do this, both from a rational and a moral standpoint, and some are not. League Operators are people. As such, they make mistakes, errors in judgement, succumb to moral weakness, and are susceptible to thinking they know something that they don't know. Introducing a human component into this system is in my opinion, a mistake. In my area, I have seen players raised based on *beliefs* held by league office personnel that were flat out wrong. Frequently they didn't have all the info, based their conclusions on here-say or only a match or two. My teammate is (was) one of the top 6's in our area. She lost rarely, and showed a decent skill set. She was raised to a 7, where she is about 50%. Thing is, her scores were almost NEVER 7 level. By the numbers, she is one of those players that could have stayed a 6 for many many years. I can virtually guarantee that she was raised because she is on *my* team, and I am one of the strongest players in our area. So with me as a 7 and her a 6, it was a near automatic 2 points...and made for a tough team to beat.

If she was manually raised to a 7, the only justifiable reason would be that the league office believed she was sandbagging. *THERE IS NO OTHER JUSTIFIABLE REASON TO RAISE SOMEONE MANUALLY*. Our team keeps meticulous score, marks all safes diligently, and most of all, *DOESN'T* sandbag. She really wanted to go to a 7, it was an important goal of hers. She tried to win the match on every shot. Therefore, I find it pretty insulting that the league would raise her manually. I never reviewed her scores, to see if she may have actually made it by the numbers. However, I know what a 7 level score is (exactly) and she only turned those in on RARE occasion.

One other thing...if she gets raised to a 7, the chances of our team splitting up and recruiting new members goes up. I have heard LO's say things like "after reviewing her history I believe she can play as a 7", or whatever skill the person in question was. Now if this is acceptable, you will have a league full of weak 7's that create the exact situation the original poster is asking about. I think most players in my area are ranked too high.

Hope this helps,

KMRUNOUT

 

[APA Operator]

....why not?

Because I signed a franchise agreement that says I agree not to divulge the details of the handicapping system. Those details are considered trade secrets by APA, and regardless of whether the information is actually a well-kept secret, I could lose my franchise for discussing it.

 

[Maniac]

Maniac,

There most certainly is a system. For 8 ball, it really isn't even very complicated. Innings per game average, that's it. It is absolutely based on innings, safeties, and win % (which only comes into play when you win but do so with a score less than your average.). However, League Operators have the liberty to circumvent this system at their own discretion. Some are qualified to do this, both from a rational and a moral standpoint, and some are not. League Operators are people. As such, they make mistakes, errors in judgement, succumb to moral weakness, and are susceptible to thinking they know something that they don't know. Introducing a human component into this system is in my opinion, a mistake. In my area, I have seen players raised based on *beliefs* held by league office personnel that were flat out wrong. Frequently they didn't have all the info, based their conclusions on here-say or only a match or two.

Hope this helps,

KMRUNOUT

Believe you me, you haven't told me anything that I didn't already know.

This ain't my first rodeo :thumbup:!!!

Maniac (been at it awhile, in two different league areas)

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

Even a 5-0 or an 0-5 score means little. It is just the scores of one tournament during one week or on one weekend.

Play the exact same players in the exact same order on the following weekend, and the scores could very well turn out vastly different.

A persons ability can only be determined through the results of many matches, IMO. How many? I cannot answer that, but 5 certainly will not be enough. Like you said though, it might raise some eyebrows if he beat all 5 of those opponents.

Maniac

Yeah, anyone can go 0-5. Stinking up the joint is easy. As well, this is 14.1 and many of the seeded participants might be seeded based on their reputation in 9-ball so the strength of the group could be an illusion. In this instance, I can say with certainty that Immonen is no walk in the park. This was no easy group. Beating Mika to 100 points requires a skill-set greater than most amateurs possess at least 90% of the time. The only reason I say 90% is that it's only a 100 point game. So yeah, if he beat Immonen, I'd reckon him a player, not sure if I'd call him a pro, yet.

 

[CoachDitka2001]

In regards to the APA ranking system being transparent, if everyone knew exactly how the formula worked, it would be VERY easy to sandbag. In fact, I find it humerous to watch people try and sandbag, having no idea that they generally are wasting their time trying to run up innings while still winning the match.

-Dave

 

[gpeezy]

The whole reason for playing league is to get better and compete. maybe it should be more like little league where they don't keep score. then no one has to lose. they can just bang balls around for 5 games, pay 8 bucks and go home

 

[APA Operator]

I'm ignorant of APA goings-on.

Why isn't the handicapping system totally transparent to league members? It seems like there is constant carping about handicapping and sandbagging. Is the theory that full disclosure would worsen that situation? If the method for determining skill levels is rational, I would think that league owners and operators should have no reluctance nor fear of disclosing fully how it is done. State the formulas and also state exactly when and how "qualitative judgment" is applied.

I see that the APA website says this about The Equalizer handicapping system: "You are asked to refrain from attempting to keep your own records as it is generally a disruptive practice. The APA appreciates your cooperation with this policy." Well, I'd certainly want to keep my own records and verify whether "the office" was calculating things properly for me.

But, hey, keeping people (tens of thousands? hundreds of thousands?) in the dark about this seems to have worked swimmingly for the owners and some league operators. I doubt they'll take my advice.:smile:

In an ideal world, it would all be 100% transparent. Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world. Believe it or not, in the early days of APA the handicapping formula was published in the team manual. That didn't work out too well, giving the cheaters the formula. If APA doesn't take your advice, it's because experience tells them otherwise.

I believe most people are honest and wouldn't use the information to cheat. But the cheaters would, and they ruin it for everyone. As a consequence, you keep everyone in the dark to keep the information from the few dishonest ones. It's the same principle that has me taking off my shoes and walking through a metal detector when I want to fly on an airplane.

 

[AtLarge]

In an ideal world, it would all be 100% transparent. Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world. Believe it or not, in the early days of APA the handicapping formula was published in the team manual. That didn't work out too well, giving the cheaters the formula. If APA doesn't take your advice, it's because experience tells them otherwise.

I believe most people are honest and wouldn't use the information to cheat. But the cheaters would, and they ruin it for everyone. As a consequence, you keep everyone in the dark to keep the information from the few dishonest ones. It's the same principle that has me taking off my shoes and walking through a metal detector when I want to fly on an airplane.

So the thinking is that secrecy will reduce the number of cheaters. That really sounds weird to me (despite what you say about the early days). The league has been operating since 1979; lots of people must have figured out the key factors by now. Surely there is a better way to minimize cheating than to try to hide how skill levels are determined.

 

[APA Operator]

Telling someone who has never picked up a pool cue in their life they have an equal chance to win using the APA "mystery" handicapping system is just another fairy tale!

True, but we don't tell anyone they have an equal chance. We tell them they have a chance.

I've met a ton of people who had never picked up a cue before joining the league, and I have yet to meet the person who has NO chance. Telling them they have a chance is simply the truth.

 

[APA Operator]

So the thinking is that secrecy will reduce the number of cheaters. That really sounds weird to me (despite what you say about the early days). The league has been operating since 1979; lots of people must have figured out the key factors by now. Surely there is a better way to minimize cheating than to try to hide how skill levels are determined.

No, the cheaters are still there. They just have less information to use, and the information they do have (or think they have) doesn't come from us.

Keeping the formula private is only one thing that we do to minimize cheating. There are many others, including rules, policies, practices, and tools. By far, the most important is to be vigilant as an operator. When the operator becomes complacent in his/her duties, the sandbaggers thrive.

The only question you need to ask is whether it would be easier to cheat if you know the formula or easier to cheat if you don't know the formula. Then you know why we try to keep it under wraps.

 

[APA Operator]

I do not believe that is correct. Win percentage very much plays a factor in APA handicaps. I can say from personal experience there were times where my innings were consistent with my skill level, however i was raised because my winning % exceeded the standard deviation allowed for that skill level.

Are you saying you believe I'm mistaken, or that you believe I'm not being truthful? I hope it's the former.

I never said winning percentage isn't a factor, and I never said it is. I said it's possible to beat the best 7 on the planet every week and never go up. That statement is accurate.

Your statement about your personal experience, as written, can very well be accurate too. The two situations are not mutually exclusive. Unfortunately, I'm not at liberty to discuss how that can be. I know, it sounds like a cop out, but it's my business and my livelihood, so you'll have to just believe me or not and leave it at that.

 

[APA Operator]

Can you say if win rate directly affects your rating, or if it's strictly math based on balls and innings etc?

No, I can't. And by "can't", I mean "won't".

Do you manually tweak ratings ever, when the win rate doesn't seem to jibe with the balls per inning / opponent rating / whatever?

Yes, I do. Not often (probably less than 1%), but until someone comes up with a perfect way of modeling human behavior (drunk/sober, honest/dishonest, happy/sad, tired/fresh, etc.), there will always be reasons why a computed number could be off.

The number I'm looking for is the honest/sober/fresh... number. Unfortunately, that stuff isn't recorded on the scoresheet, nor can it be accounted for in a computer system that measures playing ability.

 

[APA Operator]

Here is an example: I captained a 9-ball team that had a new female player on board. She starts life as a SL2 as per the rules. This girl couldn't make three balls in a row if you gave her BIH, and could only make two in a row if the second ball was almost hanging in a pocket. She lost her first 5 matches before she was moved down to a SL1. And....for sure she put up many high-inning matches due to her incapabilities. If any of her matches were ever medium-inning affairs, it was because my girl got the crap beat out of her and the other players shooting was the cause of mediocre innings. I can't remember, but I'm not sure my player EVER won a single match in the 2 sessions she played for us. If she did, it was only one, and IF it did happen, I can assure you it was because she stumbled across another SL1 that was as bad a shot as she was.

Move ahead a year later. My team was playing a team that had the league operator on its roster. They had a woman SL2 on the roster that took 4th place in Vegas in 8-ball singles and was locked-in as a SL4 in 8-ball (I'm only telling you this part because her being a SL2 in 9-ball was a bit "iffy" in our opinion). If she didn't show up every night, her team had a problem playing 5 people without breaking the 23-rule. On the night they played us, the LO didn't show up. They had a player who brought his girlfriend with him and since they only had 7 people on their roster, signed her up to play that night. She ended up playing another one of our SL2's and beat her in 27 innings by a score of 19-14 (not sure if this is completely accurate, but I am sure it is close). So basically 33 of balls were made in 27 innings, about 8 innings per game, which is normal for a SL2. Guess what? When I checked our leagues website the following week before league play, I saw that their new girl that WON her first match (in a normal amount of innings for her skill level) had been dropped to a SL1.

Now tell me Mr. APA League Operator with the deep, dark secret handicapping formula, how does my crappy-shooting SL2 have to lose her first 5 matches to drop down, and this other woman gets to WIN her first match (in normal innings) and get to go down??? and I emphasize ???.

There cannot be any explaining anything within a system that would allow this. Period!!!

I am over it now because I simply do not give a sh*t about it anymore (or anything else league-related). But at the time, our whole team was baffled by this.

Maniac (system my a**)

I didn't mean to set you off there, Maniac.

I can think of at least four explanations for what you observed. None of them involve the mathematical formula. A purely mathematical formula wouldn't produce this result, and if someone told you it did they would be lying.

The first explanation is the one you hinted at, that the LO was doing something shady to favor his/her team. That's a no-no, and I have no respect for an operator who would do that, but unfortunately there are some less-than-reputable operators in the network. Oh, and the shadiest thing they could do is to not let the player on your team drop to a 1 earlier. They couldn't force the player on their own team down (and it is possible to win a match and go down).

The second explanation is technically the same action as the first (not let the player on your team go down), but for a different reason. It may have been the operator's policy not to let new players drop immediately. This would require that the policy had been changed prior to the other player joining the operator's team, or that the operator simply didn't catch it with his/her own player.

Third, perhaps the operator had reason to suspect that your team was trying to "make" your new player a 1. Whether the suspicion was justified or not, in this case (and in the policy case above) the operator is trying to protect the system. I have teams in my league who know that if they bring on a new player, that player will never be a 1 in 9-Ball or a 2 in 8-Ball. They know it because I've told them. If they want a player with the lowest skill level possible, they have to find one that's already established.

The fourth reason involves some entry error, but I can't describe it without divulging information I'm not allowed to divulge.

It's entirely possible that your team got the short end of the stick from a less-than-reputable operator. It's also possible that the LO was trying to do the right thing and because you didn't understand it, it looked shady. I don't know enough about the specifics to say either way. I just wanted you to know that there are multiple POSSIBLE legitimate explanations.

 

[cardiac kid]

True, but we don't tell anyone they have an equal chance. We tell them they have a chance.

I've met a ton of people who had never picked up a cue before joining the league, and I have yet to meet the person who has NO chance. Telling them they have a chance is simply the truth.

Hey Op, doesn't APA call their handicap system the "Equalizer"? :shrug: :scratchhead: Just couldn't resist!

Lyn

 

[BasementDweller]

In an ideal world, it would all be 100% transparent. Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world. Believe it or not, in the early days of APA the handicapping formula was published in the team manual. That didn't work out too well, giving the cheaters the formula. If APA doesn't take your advice, it's because experience tells them otherwise.

I believe most people are honest and wouldn't use the information to cheat. But the cheaters would, and they ruin it for everyone. As a consequence, you keep everyone in the dark to keep the information from the few dishonest ones. It's the same principle that has me taking off my shoes and walking through a metal detector when I want to fly on an airplane.

I loathe sandbagging about as much as anybody. However, I wouldn't say it's morally equivalent with flying planes into buildings.

**Edit**

I guess I was reading a bit into that statement. You didn't say they were morally equivalent I suppose, but I don't even think the same principle applies. Oh well...I get your point. Carry on.

 

[Maniac]

True, but we don't tell anyone they have an equal chance. We tell them they have a chance.

Hell, they have a "chance" in a non-handicapped league.

You're marketing a false sense of security.

Maniac