The inevitable result of "excessive skill" in a handicapped league

[APA Operator]

Folks:

The real reason why I'm responding here, is I FIRMLY and VEHEMENTLY disagree with APA Operator's "excuse-in-a-can" stating the reason why a handicap limit exists is to prevent "super teams" from being built that overrun everybody else. This is corporate "here, give 'em this" drivel that is passed on from L.O. generation to L.O. generation.

What I FIRMLY and VEHEMENTLY disagree with is the practice of using terms like "excuse-in-a-can" and "drinking the Kool-Aid" by those who have absolutely no knowledge of how things work between APA corporate and it's network of L.O.'s. The whole "brainwash" and "conspiracy" theories are old and are extremely laughable. They also set up your built-in defense - "you can't tell me otherwise because you're part of the conspiracy." To me, that's the same as calling me a liar, something to which I take great offense.

I'm second-generation L.O., and I can honestly say no one has ever instructed me to give canned answers to any question. Ask anything you want, and I'll give you a straight-up, honest answer, as long as it doesn't involve me divulging any trade secrets. And I'll tell you if that's the case.

I can just envision this fictitious scene, which seems to sum-up the APA-corporate excuse facade:

1. A crowd is outside the APA headquarters, bashing at the huge steel-reinforced door, picketing and shouting how the "23" handicap limit is such an achilles heel to the enjoyment of the league.
2. Instead of someone answering the door and opening it, a William F. Buckley or Bill Stein droll voice appears over the door's intercom system, and monotonously gives this "excuse-in-a-can" for the 23 rule -- again, without anyone ever answering the door. And then tells the crowd to go away. "Go away please... go away please... go away please" (in "Bueller... bueller... bueller" style).

1. 
   
   For someone who doesn't like to pile on, you sure seem to be enjoying yourself this time. Funny, but completely inaccurate.
   
   

The fact is, you can stack a team with the "best" players (which I'm assuming APA Operator means a bunch of 7s [in 8-ball] or 9s [in 9-ball]), but that's no guarantee that they'll win. In fact, most APA 7s (or 9s) that I know, absolutely abhor the idea of being matched up with a 3 or a 4. And team captains know it! I occasionally go to Big Shot Billiards in East Windsor, CT for the Eastern Regionals often, and I walk around, listening to the teams strategizing the matches. There's a trick they call "cutting the 7 off at the knees" -- matching up a strong "3" against the "7" that was just put up by the opposing team. More often than not, the 7 gets killed in this match. He/she gets cut-off at the knees.

Before I became an operator, I played in the APA. I've heard the term "cutting the 7 off at the knees", and it always referred to an UNDER-RATED lower skill level player taking advantage of a larger-than-deserved spot.

And, let's assume worst-case scenario as a hypothetical situation for a moment. Bear with me on this one: "the APA secretly knows the 'Equalizer' handicap system is broken in that it doesn't adequately equalize the difference in skill between, say, a 7 and a 3 [i.e. they think the 7 still has the advantage]."

If that's secretly true, why not fix the damn thing?!? Why not introduce a ball spot into the "Equalizer" handicap system? Introduce a ball spot in that system (e.g. "a difference in handicap of two or more between the opposing players" [e.g. a 7 plays a 5] invokes a ball spot for the lower-skill-level player), and you *watch* what happens! It will change the game. Now instead of the "23" rule, teams can stack their team with 7s/9s all they want, but they risk being chopped-off at the knees by this considerable advantage the lower-skill-level player has with this change to the handicapping system. The lower-skill level players will learn how to use the ball spot to their advantage, making sure (in 8-ball) to tie-up the higher-skill-level opponent's category of balls with one of his/her own, and it becomes a different game.

Hypothetically speaking, it does become a different game - a completely different game. In the hypothetical rules for your hypothetical game, the "how to win" a GAME becomes completely different. Before anyone else mentions it, this is different from the case of APA 9-Ball, where the scoring and handicapping make WINNING GAMES a secondary concern. In APA 9-Ball, you win the game when you sink the 9 on a legal shot, just like in any other version of 9-Ball. In your hypothetical scenario, you've changed how the actual game of 8-Ball is won. You've hypothetically bastardized the rules and the hypothetical players on here would have a field day with it.

Besides, all your hypothetical "fix" does is extend the handicap system where the highest level is not 7, it's "7 by two". There are plenty of players who could play at the new max and still dominate. However, that's not even necessary. Suppose "7 by two" makes the match between a 7 and a 3 a toss-up. A team full of 7's would then be as average as any other team in the league. EXCEPT FOR THE OTHER TEAM OF BETTER 7'S WHO CAN DOMINATE THEM. No "by two"'s in those matchups, so this team of super-7's will still win the league. Extend the handicap system as far as you want, and this will still be true.

Here's another hypothetical scenario. Bear with me (there, now I can apparently say anything I want without having to stand behind my words). Say you could create a handicap system with NO highest level. It might not even be that difficult to come up with a way of assigning numbers with no max. Then you'd be able to establish a fair, even spot between any two players, right? In this hypothetical system, there would be no need for a limit. Every match is a toss-up. I believe that the only thing that prevents this hypothetical scenario from becoming reality is time. Races would be so long you couldn't fit them into the time allotted. When someone invents a time stagnation device that generates a field where an hour inside the field is just a few minutes outside of it (hey, I'm speaking hypothetically and you're bearing with me :wink, then you can have a handicapped league where there's no need to limit the team handicap. Prices will go way down too :grin:.

Just in case any of the APA advocates may question my experience in league operations, let me present my credentials. My name is Sean Leinen, and I used to run the Boston Billiards 8-ball and 9-ball leagues for 3 years at a particular Boston Billiards location (the Danbury, CT location -- the largest one), before Boston Billiards closed it in January 2009. Back when I ran that league, we used ball spots to equalize the difference in skill between players. Depending on the difference in skill level between the two opponents, there can be up to a 3 ball spot! (E.g. if a "7" plays a "3", it was a 7 - 3 race with a 3 ball spot for the 3. On the big 9-foot tables, this multi-ball spot system worked out really well, since it took into consideration that the distance on the table itself was a disadvantage for the weaker player. However, on the small barboxes, a single ball spot will do just fine.) I can tell you that when the teams were submitting their scoresheets to me after the matches were over, the lower skill-level players were beating the high skill-level players (and vice-versa) at an equal rate.

I know that the APA is exponentially larger than the Boston Billiards leagues ever were even in their heyday, but guys, come on, fix the system! Isn't the growing rancor outside that huge steel door starting to cause that steel door to rattle off of its hinges?

Are you still speaking hypothetically? If you're not, then this is where I've been conditioned to say "why fix something that's not broken"? Oh wait, I HAVEN'T been conditioned at all, but you don't believe that because you know everything that goes on inside that huge steel door, even though you've never been on that side. Seriously, you don't know how offensive that is to me. I don't need your credentials, and I won't question your ethics. Please, return the favor.

APA Operator, the only turing machine is the very one you're offering -- that pop-top "excuse-in-a-can" (being passed out by APA Corporate in huge truckloads) that the "23" rule exists to prevent teams being stacked. From what I've seen and experience (as an L.O.), nothing could be further from the truth. The "cutting the 7 off at the knees" technique is very real and actively used. Don't you think a team "stacked," as you call it, with 7s (or 9s in 9-ball) would be a target that other teams with lower-ranked players would lick their chops over?

No, I don't. Perhaps you mean "under-ranked players"? The question I have to answer often is "Why is such-and-such allowed to play in the league? He's so good nobody else can beat him, not even other 7's." Lots of players welcome those matches, but none of them expect to win.

You know what terms I hear way more often than "cutting the 7 off at the knees"? "Sacrificial lambs" and "throwing off".

That's exactly right, hence my point/discussion above. "Cutting the 7/9 off at the knees" is a very effective technique, and I think APA corporate knows it. But they continue to airlift and truckload out those huge pallets of pop-top "excuse-in-a-can" to cover up the real reason for why the "23" rules exists: capitalism. Now, there's nothing wrong with capitalism. If the reason for the 23 rule is as we expect, to fragment the team to form new teams (and thus grow the APA), then plainly state that. There's nothing wrong with honesty. Secretly, "we all know" that there's revenue involved, but we also know that the APA strives, at least from the corporate marketing effort (not necessarily at the regional level) to pump more dollars back into the sport with tournament/sponsorship deals, etc.

It IS a nice side-effect, but it has nothing to do with why the 23 rule exists. APA has been around for 32 years, and I've been an operator for more than half of that, and not once has that been mentioned to me as a strategy for growth. Not once have I ever changed a skill level for any reason other than I thought the new level would more accurately reflect the player's ability. I'm inside those doors, and THAT's what I hear APA corporate preaching. Choose to believe me or not, it doesn't really matter to me. The only sure way to endure is to do things the right way, and one group is the CLEAR leader in the endurance contest. Interpret that how you will.

I think what the APA does in striving to keep pool alive and in the mindset of the general public is laudable. I have no issue with the APA other than the evasive and weasely excuses given for the existence of a particular rule. Be honest/upfront, guys. Stop the excuse facades!

Respectfully,
-Sean

You know what's funny? Every time (and I mean EVERY time) one of my teams starts bumping up against the 23 rule and complains about how unfair it is, I am able to point out to them how dominant they have been in their division. Most of the time it is for multiple years, but sometimes a new team over-handicaps themselves from the start. I can look at division standings over the course of five or six sessions (without knowing a thing about skill levels of the players on any of the teams) and point out which teams will or do have trouble with that rule. Coincidence? Again, believe what you will, I know I'm doing it right and I don't need your approval.

 

[Celtic]

1) Why does the APA have a (team) handicap limit?
Because if we didn't, the strongest players would form super teams and dominate the league until everyone else decided to quit.

Unless you create divisions, then you end up with the "masters" division, the "A" division, the "B" division, and so on. The BCA does this, they "DON'T" have to deal with handicaps, and they are very successful and get players of all calibres that don't "quit". And on top of that the BCA encourages improvement alot more then the APA which is almost at the point of penalizing improvement.

Any league system that forces a team to fold or "quit" or reorganize if they get too good instead of stepping up into a new more competitive division should "REALLY" take a closer look at their system with open eyes and ask themselves "is this really the best way?"

 

[Celtic]

To be honest, I don't hear very much complaining about the APA handicap system. Most of the complaints I hear are on AZB, and most of the time from people who don't even play APA...

Wow, shocking. They don't like the league system so they don't play it.

 

[Scott Lee]

Come on Bryan...it's APA 9-ball. It's supposed to be skewed against the better player. APA is not geared to benefit the better player...never was, and never will be (and shouldn't be, imo). Like you said...it's a social league...a fun night out with friends. People who play APA thinking it's about making money are just nuts. I disagree with your last statement, but that's okay...we're still friends! :thumbup:

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

Once you start hitting the handicap ceilings, its less fun and more BS. Particularly in the 9 Ball (I used that term loosely, as its a game with 9 balls, but it is not 9 ball.) The rules are so skewed against the better player. Couple that with having to run 2x as many balls as most players you will encounter, it can get pretty brutal.

It is a social league. Take it for what it is: A fun night out w/ friends.

IMO, if you are looking to become an 'A' player, I would suggest moving on.

 

[justadub]

I don't really understand the negativity against handicapping especially from the stronger players. Most gambling matches have weight involved. Are those not valid contests?

In league, I look at it as a battle against expectation... much like trying to beat your average week in and week out in bowling league. The table is the real opponent better to play as if it were the ghost. If my opponent goes on a tear and exceeds their 'rating'... congratulations and more power to them. We all have those days and a few when you can't hit the broad side of a barn.

The few cases I have seen of 6's or 7's losing to 3's and 4's is due to frustration. Some players apparently expect to win just by showing up. Better players have a slight advantage in expected results but there is nothing to stop them from giving it away to nerves, bad decisions, or just an off night.

This is perhaps the best post in the thread.

I repeat what I said earleir. In APA 8-ball where I play, there ain't no "cutting off 7's at the knees with a 3". Sure, the 7 has to pay attention and still play his game, but the 7's here don't get beaten by our 3's, or 4's (extreme rarity). Occasionally by 5's, though not often. What that speaks to I'm not sure, but the difference is stark. At least in our world, out here in the woods.

Note that I'm saying this is in a week where the team we're about to play has a guy who was just lowered from a 6 to a 5. I was flabbergasted. He is a tough 6, in my opinion. I usually like to play 6's from the other team (I'm a 5) but with this guy I was thinking we might want to run our 7 against him. (They don't have a 7 on their team.) Now as a 5.... wow. Certainly must be an anomaly, cuz I expect him to be back as a 6 in short order. All that having been said, I'll still try to be the one playing him, cuz I'm looking forward to the challenge.

 

[Williebetmore]

Like you said...it's a social league...a fun night out with friends. Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

Scott,
Just one point of disagreement here (the rest I certainly agreed with).

If you and even one of your friends are good players, you will NOT be playing on a team with them (unless you also know a lot of very feeble players). I tried and tried to field a team with friends of mine; but could not find any combination that allowed even two of us to play together. I was told in no uncertain terms that we all needed to recruit our own teams.

From my experience, there is no question in my mind that the primary goal of APA is making money; a secondary goal being to maximize the number of participants; a tertiary goal being to try to make the outcome of all matches fairly random/"fair"; and a quaternary goal to "advance the sport." I hear lots of lipservice given to the last goal, but suspect that drinking is the "sport" being advanced the most, not pool. Just my opinion.

Mark Wilson has always said that when pool is played casually it is a "game", and when it is played seriously it is a "sport." I think VNEA and BCAPL do a much better job of "advancing the sport," allowing for players and teams to benefit from increasing their skill level. I think APA treats pool as a "game." To each his own.

P.S. - no bashing intended, I just wanted to share this with Scott. Everyone else please disregard, its just my opinion; it would be hard to dissuade me from this view.

P.P.S. - I also think VNEA and BCAPL have profit as their primary goal - nothing wrong with that - these entities are all businesses and should be run as such. Didn't mean to imply a criticism in having that as their main goal.

 

[justadub]

From my experience, there is no question in my mind that the primary goal of APA is making money; a secondary goal being to maximize the number of participants; a tertiary goal being to try to make the outcome of all matches fairly random/"fair"; and a quaternary goal to "advance the sport." I hear lots of lipservice given to the last goal, but suspect that drinking is the "sport" being advanced the most, not pool. Just my opinion.

I realize you intended this for Scott, but I'll just chime in and point out that the players who actually buy drinks are supporting the pool rooms that host these league sessions. As opposed to the "serious" players who drink water.

Just a thought.

Having these pool rooms open and available for the "serious player" is a good thing, right? Those free glasses of water don't usually pay the bills.

 

[Williebetmore]

I realize you intended this for Scott, but I'll just chime in and point out that the players who actually buy drinks are supporting the pool rooms that host these league sessions. As opposed to the "serious" players who drink water.

Just a thought.

Having these pool rooms open and available for the "serious player" is a good thing, right? Those free glasses of water don't usually pay the bills.

Dub,
You are absolutely correct. There is a bit of value there.

 

[justadub]

Of course, if we could get some of these folks to drink more after their matches, as opposed to before they play, it would be a win all around...

{That's my usual method of operation. Nurse one till I play, then loosen up after I'm done.}

 

[midstroke]

I enjoy the apa as a night out. But the problem i ran into this year is. My team has been playing together for years. Of course we are all close friends. After years skill levels starts going up and boom cant make 23. We split team up after last session due to this. The team is not that good but the core group cannot meet 23 rule. This team is about long time friends hanging out one night a week. The main five went from threes and fours to 3 sixes and 2 fives in eightball.

 

[Taco]

I've played in an APA league for almost 2 seasons (we're now in the playoffs) & BCA leagues for a couple of years. Like everybody else, I came into APA as a 4. I was seriously under-handicapped. Despite a lot of complaints (we played the division rep the first week & he was screaming "defensive play" every time I missed a shot), it took until the playoffs before I got bumped to a 5. I wasn't sandbagging - I'm incapable of it. I've invested too much time & passion into the game to lose a match on purpose, and I'm too proud. I won every match I played the first season. I finally lost a match a few weeks ago, not because I threw it but because I dogged it. It's bound to happen sometime.

There's still a lot of snickering around because by all rights I should be a 7. I'm a BCA B+ in a very tough 9-ball league. But somehow, I'm still a 6 in APA. I played a 7 recently & shut him out. I thought for sure I'd get bumped but I didn't.

I think, computerwise, it's all about the innings, and I play conservatively. I'd much rather duck after a couple of balls in a tricky rack and leave the opponent hooked than make the worst mistake you can make in 8-ball, at least against a decent player, which is to sink 6 or 7 balls then leave yourself nothing on the 8.

IMO, the 7's in APA are the ones who play break & run regardless & usually lack finesse. When they're hot, they're hot. The only two 7's in our league aren't nearly as skilled as three 6's I can think of off the top of my noggin.

The biggest difference in APA vs BCA handicapping is the gradation at the higher levels. A BCA C+ is probably a 7 in APA 8-ball. But there's a long way between a C+ & an A+, or an O+, in BCA.

Just sayin'.

 

[justadub]

I enjoy the apa as a night out. But the problem i ran into this year is. My team has been playing together for years. Of course we are all close friends. After years skill levels starts going up and boom cant make 23. We split team up after last session due to this. The team is not that good but the core group cannot meet 23 rule. This team is about long time friends hanging out one night a week. The main five went from threes and fours to 3 sixes and 2 fives in eightball.

I understand the frustration of not being able to play with your friends. My team is getting close to having to make a change. (One 7, three 5's, three 4's and a 3.) But after 18 months of playing in our division, I've made a lot of "friends", people who I would gladly play with. Most of us in the division have gotten to know each other, so teams are shifted around into different groupings quite often. Add in a few new people every so often, or people who have taken a session or two off, or someones new girlfriend/wife/co-employee...and folks manage to keep playing and having fun. Hell, sometimes I like playing against my friends as much as playing with them. We pretty much all have fun. (With a few exceptions, of course, but stuff happens.) But that's just us, I guess.

 

[APA Operator]

Unless you create divisions, then you end up with the "masters" division, the "A" division, the "B" division, and so on. The BCA does this, they "DON'T" have to deal with handicaps, and they are very successful and get players of all calibres that don't "quit". And on top of that the BCA encourages improvement alot more then the APA which is almost at the point of penalizing improvement.

Any league system that forces a team to fold or "quit" or reorganize if they get too good instead of stepping up into a new more competitive division should "REALLY" take a closer look at their system with open eyes and ask themselves "is this really the best way?"

You might want to take a look at page 74 in the APA's Official Team Manual, where "Super Divisions" are described. So in APA you have Open, Super, and Masters. It's really hard in many areas to maintain a Super or Masters division (teams dominate in both), but they do exist. My point is a group can get "too good" for the division they're in. When that happens they will dominate, and APA doesn't want dominant teams. Apparently neither does BCAPL or USAPL, otherwise they wouldn't have multiple divisions and "encourage different levels of competitive play".

 

[evanlockhart]

IMO, if you are looking to become an 'A' player, I would suggest moving on.

That's what I learned after two seasons of my first run with leagues.

I started playing pool early 2008 and league by October 2009. By August 2010 with a six month break, I went from being a 3 to a 6, and on the top gun list both seasons. And a trip to Cities on two separate teams, reaching the semi finals on one of them.

Just like Bryan said, it's super social. Some people only play pool on league nights. There were 2's and 3's on my team who had been 2's and 3's for 8 years.

I almost joined a Master's league, but ended up deciding against it due to work. BCA's another option.

 

[justadub]

That's what I learned after two seasons of my first run with leagues.

I started playing pool early 2008 and league by October 2009. By August 2010 with a six month break, I went from being a 3 to a 6, and on the top gun list both seasons. And a trip to Cities on two separate teams, reaching the semi finals on one of them.

Just like Bryan said, it's super social. Some people only play pool on league nights. There were 2's and 3's on my team who had been 2's and 3's for 8 years.

I almost joined a Master's league, but ended up deciding against it due to work. BCA's another option.

Of course you have to have plenty of other options available to you if you want to still be able to play competitively on a regular basis. In many areas, APA is about it. Some small local tourneys occasionnaly, but not much else here. I expect that is common in many other areas, too.

(And please, don't start with the "match up and gamble" method. That's worse than the handicap issues everyone cries about, and I'm not about to go broke in order to try and improve. Sorry, not a single 20-something anymore, I have responsibilities and am not interested in gambling away what little dispensable cash I can allot to pool oother recreations. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against gambling, it's just not my thing personally. Someone once said don't gamble anything you can't afford to lose. That's me. I don't have much that I can afford to lose.)

 

[sfleinen]

What I FIRMLY and VEHEMENTLY disagree with is the practice of using terms like "excuse-in-a-can" and "drinking the Kool-Aid" by those who have absolutely no knowledge of how things work between APA corporate and it's network of L.O.'s. The whole "brainwash" and "conspiracy" theories are old and are extremely laughable. They also set up your built-in defense - "you can't tell me otherwise because you're part of the conspiracy." To me, that's the same as calling me a liar, something to which I take great offense.

First, apologies I'm seeing this only now -- just got back from a long 3-day weekend.

Second, in your zeal to try to stick words in peoples' mouths, be sure to read the original post thoroughly before doing so. You'll notice NOWHERE did I ever use the words/phrases "brainwash," "conspiracy theories," setting you up to call you a "liar," etc. I never even alluded to brainwashing or conspiracy theories of any kind, but knowing what goes on in these threads (one of the reasons why I usually don't participate in them), I can see why these words/phrases roll off your tongue like water.

The only issue I pointed out in your whole post (and you'll notice I did a HUGE amount of "[...]" snipping in it), was the one point about the "reasons" given for the existence of the 23 rule. The rest of the stuff defending the APA I either didn't care about, or agreed with, or else thought what you wrote was more than enough and I had nothing to contribute on those fronts.

So, before you start painting me with the same broad brush that you use to paint the "anti-APA" crowd, I ask you to be more thorough when you read / reply to posts.

I'm second-generation L.O., and I can honestly say no one has ever instructed me to give canned answers to any question. Ask anything you want, and I'll give you a straight-up, honest answer, as long as it doesn't involve me divulging any trade secrets. And I'll tell you if that's the case.

When you say you're a second-generation L.O., that to me means someone that is still in the field -- i.e. you're not physically working at the APA Corporate HQ offices. If that's the case (and that's a big IF -- obviously I don't know for sure, because you haven't revealed where you work), respectfully, you are not privy to what goes on in those offices. By saying that, am I saying there's a "conspiracy" going on there because you're not physically there? No. What I'm saying is that unless you've worked in corporate HQ-level offices -- as I have, nearly all of my working life (30+ years) -- you have no idea what the highest-level management is discussing -- what policies are put on the table, what's being discussed to grow the business, what the business's waterfalls / shortfalls look like, what the motivations of upper echelon management are, whether they are actually true-blue pool players or just business-oriented talking heads interested only in the almighty dollar (i.e. I'm not talking about Larry Hubbart nor Terry Bell here, whose pool pedigree is not in question -- rather, I'm talking about the high-level management people working for them).

In other words, what I'm trying to say is that, as a regional-level person, you have NO IDEA what goes on in an HQ-level office. It is much different than what goes on in the field. Field people may *think* they know what goes on, but it only skins the surface. The field is completely shielded from the HQ goings-on, by design, until policies are ready for distribution / consumption.

Now having said that, if you *do* work in the APA corporate HQ, obviously my words don't apply to you specifically.

As for you revealing that you are a straight-up person, willing to give straight-up answers to questions as long as they don't divulge trade secrets, I believe you. As for you claiming that noone has ever asked you to give canned answers to questions, you can't rationally claim that. You are told all the time to give canned answers, just as any corporation does. It's called the rule book. It's called the bylaws. It's called the company policy. There are other documents by other names, but you get my meaning here. Answers are laid down for you ahead of time, and you are required to "follow along" and to "encourage others." You may not think so, and probably honestly think noone is telling you to give canned answers. But you are doing it all the time, without realizing it. Merely by following company policy. By being a representative of your company, you are giving those canned answers, all day long. If you didn't (or if you were a conscientious observer / didn't believe them), you wouldn't be working there. It's that simple.

For someone who doesn't like to pile on, you sure seem to be enjoying yourself this time. Funny, but completely inaccurate.

Did I get your attention? Good. A little comedic license was used for the purposes of clarification by exaggeration.

Before I became an operator, I played in the APA. I've heard the term "cutting the 7 off at the knees", and it always referred to an UNDER-RATED lower skill level player taking advantage of a larger-than-deserved spot.

Your version of this assumes (or alludes to) foul play on the part of the lower skill-level player. My version does not.

Hypothetically speaking, it does become a different game - a completely different game. In the hypothetical rules for your hypothetical game, the "how to win" a GAME becomes completely different. Before anyone else mentions it, this is different from the case of APA 9-Ball, where the scoring and handicapping make WINNING GAMES a secondary concern. In APA 9-Ball, you win the game when you sink the 9 on a legal shot, just like in any other version of 9-Ball. In your hypothetical scenario, you've changed how the actual game of 8-Ball is won. You've hypothetically bastardized the rules and the hypothetical players on here would have a field day with it.

Wait a minute. You seem to be mixing and matching 9-ball and 8-ball. I was only talking about 8-ball in that hypothetical situation. At first you say, "this is different from the case of APA 9-Ball, where the scoring and handicapping make WINNING GAMES a secondary concern." But then you say, "In APA 9-Ball, you win the game when you sink the 9 on a legal shot, just like in any other version of 9-Ball." These are two contradictory statements. The first one is correct -- APA scores 9-ball by ball count: successfully-pocketed balls. The only difference that sinking the 9-ball makes, is that it gives two points instead of one point. Like you say, one opponent can sink all the 9-balls in every single rack, yet still LOSE the match!

Besides, all your hypothetical "fix" does is extend the handicap system where the highest level is not 7, it's "7 by two". There are plenty of players who could play at the new max and still dominate. However, that's not even necessary. Suppose "7 by two" makes the match between a 7 and a 3 a toss-up. A team full of 7's would then be as average as any other team in the league. EXCEPT FOR THE OTHER TEAM OF BETTER 7'S WHO CAN DOMINATE THEM. No "by two"'s in those matchups, so this team of super-7's will still win the league. Extend the handicap system as far as you want, and this will still be true.

You seem to make the following assertions:

1. That not all "3"s play at the same skill level.
2. That not all "7"s play at the same skill level.

If that's true (and I'm glad you acknowledge this, if so), then what makes you think that team of "super 7s" (as you call it) will dominate the league? The inherent "scalability" (or variability) of the differences in skill level at the "7" level also extends downward into the lower skill levels. So the same variability you find in "7"s, can also be found in 3s/4s/etc. If a team can be "stacked" with strong 7s, why can't a team of "super 4s" be created that nullify the "stacked 7s" domination? I'm thinking it's already being done.

Here's another hypothetical scenario. Bear with me (there, now I can apparently say anything I want without having to stand behind my words).

Oh, struck a nerve, I see. So proposing a hypothetical scenario and a way to solve it (and using a concrete example where this scenario actually solved a problem, as I did with the Boston Billiards league), to you, is "saying anything one wants without having to stand behind it"? Lashing out at everyone now -- including those actually trying to help, versus gratuitous whiners -- aren't we? There's that broad brush again...

Say you could create a handicap system with NO highest level. It might not even be that difficult to come up with a way of assigning numbers with no max. Then you'd be able to establish a fair, even spot between any two players, right? In this hypothetical system, there would be no need for a limit. Every match is a toss-up. I believe that the only thing that prevents this hypothetical scenario from becoming reality is time. Races would be so long you couldn't fit them into the time allotted. When someone invents a time stagnation device that generates a field where an hour inside the field is just a few minutes outside of it (hey, I'm speaking hypothetically and you're bearing with me :wink, then you can have a handicapped league where there's no need to limit the team handicap. Prices will go way down too :grin:.

First, I never mentioned actually manipulating the highest skill level ratings of the APA (i.e. I never mentioned altering the max of "7" in 8-ball or "9" in 9-ball). There you go sticking words in my mouth again.

Second, the idea of a handicap system with no individual maximum skill level is patently RIDICULOUS. *Of course* there would be many, many issues with this, not the least of which would be match races and times.

I've stated this before -- there comes a time in a player's evolution when handicapped leagues are no longer "it." One can be too good to play in the APA handicapped leagues, and then it becomes time to take the training wheels off. The solution to dealing with players getting too good, is not to extend or manipulate the maximum individual handicap level itself, but to recognize when a player is too good. The APA already does this. They don't let, say, Mika Immonen, Tony Robles, or Thorsten Hohmann join the APA handicapped leagues, right? Now the issue with sandbagging is another story, and not something I intend or want to get into here. Suffice to say that any handicap league is vulnerable to sandbagging, and we'll leave it at that.

[...continued...]

 

[sfleinen]

Are you still speaking hypothetically? If you're not, then this is where I've been conditioned to say "why fix something that's not broken"?

I thought you said earlier that you don't recall ever being asked to give canned answers?

Oh wait, I HAVEN'T been conditioned at all, but you don't believe that because you know everything that goes on inside that huge steel door, even though you've never been on that side. Seriously, you don't know how offensive that is to me. I don't need your credentials, and I won't question your ethics. Please, return the favor.

Where did I question your ethics? Do I question the validity of canned answers? Yes, I most certainly do. Did I question your credibility by saying you relay them? No, I certainly did not. My point was most people relay things they know not the behind-the-corporate-doors real reasons for. It's called "giving the company line" -- we all do it, for our respective employers.

No, I don't. Perhaps you mean "under-ranked players"? The question I have to answer often is "Why is such-and-such allowed to play in the league? He's so good nobody else can beat him, not even other 7's." Lots of players welcome those matches, but none of them expect to win.

You know what terms I hear way more often than "cutting the 7 off at the knees"? "Sacrificial lambs" and "throwing off".

This can be spun either way. You say "to-MAY-toe," I say "to-MAH-toe." I can say the same thing about a strong "4" that is on the high side of his/her handicap, that a newly-minted "7" would be wise to steer clear of. You may then counter, "but then he/she [the 4] is an UNDER-RANKED player." So we can have variability in skill level at the "7" level, but not at the "4" level?

It IS a nice side-effect, but it has nothing to do with why the 23 rule exists. APA has been around for 32 years, and I've been an operator for more than half of that, and not once has that been mentioned to me as a strategy for growth.

Sorry, but this is corporate-speak. Nice side effect? R-i-i-i-g-h-t. I have a pointed question to ask of you, and the question is not meant maliciously. I know you make a great deal of your self-professed long APA operator experience (meaning, "in the field"), but have *you* ever been behind that huge steel door at APA corporate?

I admit, I have not. But I do know corporations and how they work. Part of my job is business analysis, and a key part of any successful business is a workflow design that not only encourages growth, but has it built-in as part of the life blood. Thus, all methodologies have to have the growth of the business in mind, at its core. You can bet every facet of the APA's successful operations has (and had) growth at its core -- by design -- including the handicapping system itself.

Not once have I ever changed a skill level for any reason other than I thought the new level would more accurately reflect the player's ability. I'm inside those doors, and THAT's what I hear APA corporate preaching. Choose to believe me or not, it doesn't really matter to me. The only sure way to endure is to do things the right way, and one group is the CLEAR leader in the endurance contest. Interpret that how you will.

That is your own personal ethics, from a field perspective, which is laudable and admirable. I wish all L.O.s were just like you. Does the APA also "preach" this? Sure, it's in the manual, and in the recent spate of YouTube videos created to address common problems (e.g. sandbagging and defensive shots). This is the PUBLIC FACE of the corporation. What the APA "preaches" about adjusting skill levels to compensate for individual players' increase in skillsets is not related at all to the reason for the 23 rule. I offer to you this: the very *reason* for a handicap system is to better match players of unequal skill. It has nothing at all to do with a TEAM's maximum handicap level. So why are you going on and on about your reasons (and presumably the APA's reasons) for manipulating individual skill levels? It has nothing to do with what I'm talking about!

You know what's funny? Every time (and I mean EVERY time) one of my teams starts bumping up against the 23 rule and complains about how unfair it is, I am able to point out to them how dominant they have been in their division. Most of the time it is for multiple years, but sometimes a new team over-handicaps themselves from the start. I can look at division standings over the course of five or six sessions (without knowing a thing about skill levels of the players on any of the teams) and point out which teams will or do have trouble with that rule. Coincidence? Again, believe what you will, I know I'm doing it right and I don't need your approval.

There we go again with that "approval" thing. Still painting with that broad brush?

I don't know why you keep going on about your performance related to managing individual skill levels. You quite possibly may be the best APA L.O. that has ever existed. I don't know, and I also never questioned this. It was not your jugular I was going for. Nope. Rather, it was APA corporate's. I was going after the reason for the 23 rule in the first place. How many times do I need to keep clarifying this, without your diversionary tactics related to your performance in managing individual skill levels? And, if, as a field person (which I suspect you are -- correct me if I'm wrong), you are not the correct person to answer this / don't have an answer, that's ok. Just say so.

Again, I will close by saying that I laud what the APA is doing for amateur pool, keeping pool a viable social (and competitive) activity for the average Jane and Joe, as well as its tournament sponsorships to keep pool in the public eye. I don't have an issue with the APA. Just with the "hear no evil, see no evil" reasons given to the public for one single rule.

Respectfully,
-Sean

 

[justadub]

Sean, not to try and get in the liddle of your current peeing match with APAOperator or anything , but I've worked corporate field level management for over 20 years now. There is a difference between representing your company and giving "canned answers". Just because there is a "company policy" doesn't necessarily make the responses you give a customer "canned", unless you allow them to be. No one in our corporate offices has EVER given me a "canned" response to say regarding anything other than a legal inquiry.

Yes, there will be some instances when the letter of the law has to be followed. (i.e. the 23 rule) And there really isn't any other way to respond to questions regarding that particular "company policy". But just because any company has their "policies" doesn't make the operation bad or poorly run. (Or responses to their "policies" canned.) You make it sound as though that is a bad thing; without company policies, there would be no structure, and there would be no consistency to your product or services from one location to the next - imagine the hue and cry about APA if there was less structure and the LO's could really do anything they wanted! You think there are issues now?

I believe it is you using that broad brush in this instance, Sean. Beyond that little point, I'll step back and let you two continue to has it out without my "canned" APA responses. (Something I'm quite sure certain AZB members must think I have ready and waiting, heh heh.)

 

[sfleinen]

Sean, not to try and get in the liddle of your current peeing match with APAOperator or anything , but I've worked corporate field level management for over 20 years now. There is a difference between representing your company and giving "canned answers". Just because there is a "company policy" doesn't necessarily make the responses you give a customer "canned", unless you allow them to be. No one in our corporate offices has EVER given me a "canned" response to say regarding anything other than a legal inquiry.

Yes, there will be some instances when the letter of the law has to be followed. (i.e. the 23 rule) And there really isn't any other way to respond to questions regarding that particular "company policy". But just because any company has their "policies" doesn't make the operation bad or poorly run. (Or responses to their "policies" canned.) You make it sound as though that is a bad thing; without company policies, there would be no structure, and there would be no consistency to your product or services from one location to the next - imagine the hue and cry about APA if there was less structure and the LO's could really do anything they wanted! You think there are issues now?

I believe it is you using that broad brush in this instance, Sean. Beyond that little point, I'll step back and let you two continue to has it out without my "canned" APA responses. (Something I'm quite sure certain AZB members must think I have ready and waiting, heh heh.)

justadub:

I never said company policy was "bad" -- you are reading something from my post that is not there. (And I love where you go into the stuff about "not" having company policy or "not" having structure -- as if I implied it -- I'm giggling at that one!)

I'm a good soldier, too, and I give my company's line all the time. A successful company *had to have* structure that all abide by. That's not my point -- which you obviously missed. Did you see that part where part of my job includes business analysis?

My point is recognizing what's under the company line. What's behind it. Why it's there, what drives it. That's it in a nutshell.

And, honestly, I'm not interested in a p!ssing contest with anyone. I made my points, defended them, and that's that for me. If I added value, great. If I piqued some thought, great. If not, then just brush what I wrote aside.

-Sean

 

[justadub]

justadub:

I never said company policy was "bad" -- you are reading something from my post that is not there. (And I love where you go into the stuff about "not" having company policy or "not" having structure -- as if I implied it -- I'm giggling at that one!)

I'm a good soldier, too, and I give my company's line all the time. A successful company *had to have* structure that all abide by. That's not my point -- which you obviously missed. Did you see that part where part of my job includes business analysis?

My point is recognizing what's under the company line. What's behind it. Why it's there, what drives it. That's it in a nutshell.

And, honestly, I'm not interested in a p!ssing contest with anyone. I made my points, defended them, and that's that for me. If I added value, great. If I piqued some thought, great. If not, then just brush what I wrote aside.

-Sean

I'm just responding to what I perceive to be the perception that APA LO's will be giving pre-programmed answers, and only those answers, when inquiries are made. That is what I took from the whole discussion of "canned responses".

Then it devolved into discussions of corporate "policies", something I've always been taught not to stand behind as a sheild. Even in corporate field management. There is a company line, but that isn't something that you have to put in someones face. Or to hide behind. Company policies exists, as they must, but aren't something that shouldn't be the point of the conversation.

The rest of the debate is all well and good, and I won't try to speak to it.

Have a good day, welcome back to the working world. (Three-day weekend, huh? Must be nice. My corporate world is different than your corproate world. )