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

[JDB]

I really don't understand why the 23 rule is even an issue anymore. The APA heard the complaints and developed a non-handicapped league (Masters) for those that have issues with the 23 rule. Now friends can stay on the same team no matter what their handicap is because Masters is not handicapped. Just a race to 7 combination of 8 ball and 9 ball.

Masters is the best format that I have played in by far; and yes I have played BCA before. The BCA is great, too, I just don't happen to like the format where you play each player on the other team one game. I would much rather play a race and also play a lot more 9 ball.

Prior to the Masters being developed I can understand people's feelings about the APA 23 rule; however, if Masters is available, I don't understand why people are still *****ing.

 

[cuesmith]

I really don't understand why the 23 rule is even an issue anymore. The APA heard the complaints and developed a non-handicapped league (Masters) for those that have issues with the 23 rule. Now friends can stay on the same team no matter what their handicap is because Masters is not handicapped. Just a race to 7 combination of 8 ball and 9 ball.

Masters is the best format that I have played in by far; and yes I have played BCA before. The BCA is great, too, I just don't happen to like the format where you play each player on the other team one game. I would much rather play a race and also play a lot more 9 ball.

Prior to the Masters being developed I can understand people's feelings about the APA 23 rule; however, if Masters is available, I don't understand why people are still *****ing.

Problem is there are VERY FEW areas where there are "Master Divisions". It's counter productive for the LO's to promote Master Division Teams because they lose that "Divide and form 2 new team" growth. There's never been a Masters Division in my area and I'm sure you'll find that true in 90% of the league territories. Beside, if they did have such a division, you'd have exactly what they claim would happen if there were no "23 rule", loaded teams that would be unbeatable. If the handicap system worked, there would be no need for a "23 Rule" or Master's Divisions. If it doesn't work, maybe they should tweak it so that it does! But that would cut into the bottom line and they aren't interested in making it work or making it fair, just making more and more money!

 

[JDB]

Problem is there are VERY FEW areas where there are "Master Divisions". It's counter productive for the LO's to promote Master Division Teams because they lose that "Divide and form 2 new team" growth. There's never been a Masters Division in my area and I'm sure you'll find that true in 90% of the league territories. Beside, if they did have such a division, you'd have exactly what they claim would happen if there were no "23 rule", loaded teams that would be unbeatable. If the handicap system worked, there would be no need for a "23 Rule" or Master's Divisions. If it doesn't work, maybe they should tweak it so that it does! But that would cut into the bottom line and they aren't interested in making it work or making it fair, just making more and more money!

I guess I am lucky; I play in (3) different counties with (3) different LO's that all offer the Master's format. Therefore, I thought it was available everywhere.

I agree that stacked teams can happen in Masters just like it can happen in the BCA. I don't have a problem with it and I see very few teams quit Masters because of it.

 

[APA Operator]

I'm not going to read through the pages and pages of debate, so I dont know if this has been mentioned..if so, sorry.

If you really believe what you typed below then it further signifies that the entire APA is a sham, and the handicap system is ONLY meant to split teams so LO's can further profit (and nothing wrong with that, but it SHOULD be presented as such). What you said below is IMPOSSIBLE if the "Equalizer" truly works.

If you have a team of all 7's playing a team of all 2's, according the the APA's public statements regarding the equalizer, each match should be a 50/50 tossup.

Therefore there is no LOGICAL reason to have a team handicap limit except to split teams.

It's ok, I can understand you not wanting to read pages and pages of debate. The response to your comment is in those pages and pages. Sorry.

 

[APA Operator]

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

Yeah, that comment was a bit of sarcasm. It loses its effect when you split it from the sentence that followed it.

Where did I question your ethics?

When you called the reason I gave for the 23 rule "foolish and senseless deception". Again, if you meant something else by "drivel" and "facade", then you need to clarify.

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.

Sorry, but that's not the way I see it. Question validity all you want, all I can tell you is the truth and it's up to you to believe it or not. HOWEVER, when you use words like "drivel" and "facade", again in context where they seem to mean "foolish or senseless deception", you bring both ethics and credibility into play.

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?

I disagree with you here. First, a 4 of any kind is a tough match for a lot of 7's, especially the "newly minted" ones. But even these 7's will beat the strongest properly-ranked 4's more than half the time, so no, a team full of properly-ranked 4's would not "lick their chops" over the prospect of facing a team of 7's. The only ones who would "lick their chops", in my opinion, are the improperly-ranked players. And no, not once has anyone come up to me and asked me why that 4 is allowed to play in the league. They ask why that 4 isn't a 5 yet.

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.

I answered your question in my reply to your other post. With regard to growth being the ultimate goal (and I agree that it is), I would like to ask you a question. As with your question, mine is not intended to be malicious. Do you think that it's possible that the APA strategy for growth is to provide a great product and terrific service? IF you think that's possible, then it isn't much of a stretch to envision the handicap system (including the 23 rule) as one piece of that great product. If you were designing a handicap system and you wanted it to be great, what qualities would it have? The first one I would want is fairness. Create a handicap system that's as fair as it can be and you're well on your way to providing a great product, which is at the core of your strategy for growth. Why can't it be that simple?

One part of the "behind the steel doors" operation that I am directly involved with, in case you haven't figured it out, is changes to the handicap system. It might surprise you to find out that changes to the handicap system (including the 23 rule) are pretty much all decided by league operators (yep, us "field" guys). When we discuss potential changes, there is *never* discussion of how these changes might affect APA's growth. We just try to figure out if the changes would make the system more fair. Two of our most recent changes were made to keep certain players from going up too soon. That doesn't jive well with the concept of a handicap system designed to grow members and teams.

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!

I'm glad you acknowledge that. Most people who buy the [myth, urban legend, conspiracy theory, choose your own term] that the 23 rule exists to force teams to split and make more teams also believe the operators are instructed to raise skill levels to facilitate the split. I'm glad to see that you only "drank half the Kool-Aid".

To be fair, though, I only mentioned manipulating individual skill levels ONCE. I didn't "go on and on", I wrote one sentence. Perhaps you should be more thorough when you read/reply to posts in this forum.

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.

I don't know why you keep going on about my performance related to managing individual skill levels. You mention it three times, I only mentioned it once (twice now), so if I'm going on you're going on!

Seriously though, if you want to talk about someone going on and on about something, maybe you should go back to your initial reply and count the number of times you question APA Corporate's honesty/integrity. When you do that, you are doing one of two things. You are questioning MY honesty/integrity (I know what they are doing and am following along) or you are calling me an idiot (how can I not know what "we all know"?). And before you accuse me again of putting words in your mouth, you DID question the honesty/integrity of APA Corporate several times, using words like "drivel", "facade", "weasely", "evasive", and ***GULP*** "honest".

 

[one stroke]

Yeah, that comment was a bit of sarcasm. It loses its effect when you split it from the sentence that followed it.




When you called the reason I gave for the 23 rule "foolish and senseless deception". Again, if you meant something else by "drivel" and "facade", then you need to clarify.




Sorry, but that's not the way I see it. Question validity all you want, all I can tell you is the truth and it's up to you to believe it or not. HOWEVER, when you use words like "drivel" and "facade", again in context where they seem to mean "foolish or senseless deception", you bring both ethics and credibility into play.



I disagree with you here. First, a 4 of any kind is a tough match for a lot of 7's, especially the "newly minted" ones. But even these 7's will beat the strongest properly-ranked 4's more than half the time, so no, a team full of properly-ranked 4's would not "lick their chops" over the prospect of facing a team of 7's. The only ones who would "lick their chops", in my opinion, are the improperly-ranked players. And no, not once has anyone come up to me and asked me why that 4 is allowed to play in the league. They ask why that 4 isn't a 5 yet.




I answered your question in my reply to your other post. With regard to growth being the ultimate goal (and I agree that it is), I would like to ask you a question. As with your question, mine is not intended to be malicious. Do you think that it's possible that the APA strategy for growth is to provide a great product and terrific service? IF you think that's possible, then it isn't much of a stretch to envision the handicap system (including the 23 rule) as one piece of that great product. If you were designing a handicap system and you wanted it to be great, what qualities would it have? The first one I would want is fairness. Create a handicap system that's as fair as it can be and you're well on your way to providing a great product, which is at the core of your strategy for growth. Why can't it be that simple?

One part of the "behind the steel doors" operation that I am directly involved with, in case you haven't figured it out, is changes to the handicap system. It might surprise you to find out that changes to the handicap system (including the 23 rule) are pretty much all decided by league operators (yep, us "field" guys). When we discuss potential changes, there is *never* discussion of how these changes might affect APA's growth. We just try to figure out if the changes would make the system more fair. Two of our most recent changes were made to keep certain players from going up too soon. That doesn't jive well with the concept of a handicap system designed to grow members and teams.




I'm glad you acknowledge that. Most people who buy the [myth, urban legend, conspiracy theory, choose your own term] that the 23 rule exists to force teams to split and make more teams also believe the operators are instructed to raise skill levels to facilitate the split. I'm glad to see that you only "drank half the Kool-Aid".

To be fair, though, I only mentioned manipulating individual skill levels ONCE. I didn't "go on and on", I wrote one sentence. Perhaps you should be more thorough when you read/reply to posts in this forum.




I don't know why you keep going on about my performance related to managing individual skill levels. You mention it three times, I only mentioned it once (twice now), so if I'm going on you're going on!

Seriously though, if you want to talk about someone going on and on about something, maybe you should go back to your initial reply and count the number of times you question APA Corporate's honesty/integrity. When you do that, you are doing one of two things. You are questioning MY honesty/integrity (I know what they are doing and am following along) or you are calling me an idiot (how can I not know what "we all know"?). And before you accuse me again of putting words in your mouth, you DID question the honesty/integrity of APA Corporate several times, using words like "drivel", "facade", "weasely", "evasive", and ***GULP*** "honest".

I find it interesting that u don't list ur name and location, should not be a problem since their is all that honesty and integrity going on in the APA

I am clad to see they have a record number of players and to celabrate that , they raised the rates, saying they were on tuff econonic times

Man I wish I lived by such honesty and integrity,,, just like TOYOTA and the APA


1

 

[snookerncards@y]

i didnt read the whole thread, so maybe someone has addressed this already, but why are there the extra SLs in 9 ball? and why does it count towards your handicap more so? i can understand that it is a game geared towards the lower skilled players, and it really gives everyone the chance to win, but with the same 23 rule, i think if youre playing as a 7, 8, or 9, it should still only count as 7 points of handicap. now youre penalizing the team twice, the player needs more balls, as an 8 or 9, and then the team because they have to use more lower handicapped. is that even in the discussion of being modified? because i love the game, even with the ball count system, but i just cant really play on a team in my area unless its all sl2's and sl3s

 

[JolietJames]

I'd like to know the answer to this too. If you're a 9ball player it's really easy to become a 7 or above in the apa. The 23 rule does make it tough.

 

[justadub]

Coming from an APA player, and defender of sorts (actually a defender of civility and being reasonable, but hey, why try that?) I'm kinda curious about that as well. I don't play APA 9-ball currently, so it never really occurred to me. Which is kinda strange in and of itself, as I tend to think too much about this stuff as it is!

Yup, definitely curious.

 

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Williebetmore
APA-O,
You are correct. As long as you are trying to make the results even for all skill levels, then you DON'T have a "real" pool league. You might as well have a coin flipping contest to distribute the money if you don't want skill to be rewarded.

Why on earth would anyone want to play a "game" or "sport" where skill was not rewarded???? Answer: people want to have the illusion of skill without doing the work to develop it. Too bad that so many leagues and tourneys reward such "players."

This is the best post in this entire thread.

Ray

The best part of the post is "distribute the money". Sorry, but the APA doesn't.

If you are lucky, maybe your LO pays your team $100 or $200 for winning a session. If you have a team of 8, then that splits up to $12.50 or $25 a person and you just grinded out 12-16 weeks of play, paying around $10 a week.

Some leagues run Tri-Annuals for teams that won their session. Top placing teams usually pull in around $500 to $1000. That's a little better. However, another APA message is if you win money in your league playoffs then you better hold onto for Las Vegas because they are not going to fund your trip for you.

Regionals pays out more. $2500? Does that sound about right? Maybe a little more. $2500 for a team of 8 breaks out to $312.50 per person that hardly covers expenses to and at Vegas.

Really, the only team that ultimately benefits from any type of APA payout are the Vegas winners and maybe 2nd place. The prestige is nice, but Willie's coin flipping suggestion would be just flipping for air.

I would venture to guess that the APA only pays out 5-10% of the players they have on a yearly basis. I play, but I do it to hang out with friends and not to expect any financial reward for being a member. Even the payout for a weekend handicapped individual tournament sponsored by the APA is poor.

Maybe some LO's have some flexibility to offer larger prizes, but there is definitely a model that is followed to not reward players.

Don't get me wrong though, I'm not intending this to be APA-bashing. I've played BCA and their payout is much better, but they have their own faults and are far from perfect.

 

[justadub]

Originally Posted by Williebetmore
APA-O,
You are correct. As long as you are trying to make the results even for all skill levels, then you DON'T have a "real" pool league. You might as well have a coin flipping contest to distribute the money if you don't want skill to be rewarded.

Why on earth would anyone want to play a "game" or "sport" where skill was not rewarded???? Answer: people want to have the illusion of skill without doing the work to develop it. Too bad that so many leagues and tourneys reward such "players."



The best part of the post is "distribute the money". Sorry, but the APA doesn't.

If you are lucky, maybe your LO pays your team $100 or $200 for winning a session. If you have a team of 8, then that splits up to $12.50 or $25 a person and you just grinded out 12-16 weeks of play, paying around $10 a week.

Sorry, Derek, but you are wrong. It isn't that way everywhere. I've said this multiple times in multiple threads (and probably earlier in this thread) but I won't let posts like yours go unanswered, for this is one thing I know for certain.

I play APA in one of the least populated states in the union. My team has won our divisional session twice in the last 18 months. Our team received $800 to split, each time. Second place won $400 to split, and third place paid something as well.

That is just in our division. There are approximately 14 or 15 divisions in our league. (I don't know the exact number. There are 7 divisions in the northern part of the state where I live. There must be at least as many in the more populated southern part of the state.) These payouts happen after each of the three sessions, each year, in each division.

That doesn't account for the extra money all the qualifiers for the annual state vegas-qualifier tournament get for each round they stay in the tournament.

If the LO of the APA in a lowly populated and relatively poor state like Maine pays like this, I'm sure there are APA leagues that pay out as well.

All that having been said, if you get into league for the payouts, you're nuts. The payouts are a nice bonus for having a good session, nothing more. The competition is the thing, as it should be.

 

[Derek]

I really don't understand why the 23 rule is even an issue anymore. The APA heard the complaints and developed a non-handicapped league (Masters) for those that have issues with the 23 rule. Now friends can stay on the same team no matter what their handicap is because Masters is not handicapped. Just a race to 7 combination of 8 ball and 9 ball.

Masters is the best format that I have played in by far; and yes I have played BCA before. The BCA is great, too, I just don't happen to like the format where you play each player on the other team one game. I would much rather play a race and also play a lot more 9 ball.

Prior to the Masters being developed I can understand people's feelings about the APA 23 rule; however, if Masters is available, I don't understand why people are still *****ing.

I love the Masters too and I think it's the best league format. Besides the counter production that Cuesmith has noted, the other issue is what can be seen on this forum: high-ranked players become jaded with the APA and have no interest in joining again (or not at all).

For our area, if you take all the league nights and the players interested in a Masters division, my guess is you get 4-6 teams at most, and that might be too optimistic.

Another issue is the APA's goal to grow on players ranked 3, 4, and 5, and there is a surplus of them. So for a Masters division, the likelihood of a Masters team being comprised of 3's or 4's or 5's is slim to none because they see that one team of stacked 7's and want no business losing to them on a weekly basis.

Really, all you will get is 7's and 6's maybe an occasional 5 who would be interested. Yes, it would help the less-skilled players to play higher-ranked foes in a long match, for a chance to grow into a better player, but that's not how most of them think. And to be fair to most low-ranked players, they might have no interest in becoming better and just want to shoot pool and hang out with friends. No fault in that.

 

[Derek]

Sorry, Derek, but you are wrong. It isn't that way everywhere. I've said this multiple times in multiple threads (and probably earlier in this thread) but I won't let posts like yours go unanswered, for this is one thing I know for certain.

I play APA in one of the least populated states in the union. My team has won our divisional session twice in the last 18 months. Our team received $800 to split, each time. Second place won $400 to split, and third place paid something as well.

That is just in our division. There are approximately 14 or 15 divisions in our league. (I don't know the exact number. There are 7 divisions in the northern part of the state where I live. There must be at least as many in the more populated southern part of the state.) These payouts happen after each of the three sessions, each year, in each division.

That doesn't account for the extra money all the qualifiers for the annual state vegas-qualifier tournament get for each round they stay in the tournament.

If the LO of the APA in a lowly populated and relatively poor state like Maine pays like this, I'm sure there are APA leagues that pay out as well.

All that having been said, if you get into league for the payouts, you're nuts. The payouts are a nice bonus for having a good session, nothing more. The competition is the thing, as it should be.

If your league pays that, then that's awesome. We get $100 for winning a division, and I've seen it commented that other APA league division winners get nothing. I'm not calling our LO a "crook", but there is a lack of reward to the players from the APA. I can't see how that can be refuted when I have been playing for over 15 years and all I have to show for it is a pile of patches at home (should make a cool jean jacket some day -- that will be hot!)

I agree with comments that you should not join a league for the payout. I already stated I do it to hang out with friends and don't expect any financial reward. After 15+ years, I would hope that I would be slightly intelligent to realize that. I merely found Willie's comment humorous about flipping a coin to divvy the funds because there are no funds to divvy to the players.

I don't know what the hard facts are. I see the APA currently claims over 250,000 members. Let's say each member pays $10 a week and there are 50 paying weeks in a year. So potentially, that player could be doling out $500 during the year. $500 times 250,000 players comes out to 125 million. That's not fair though because you can have a team of 8 and only five people play. So let's say 75% of that and that comes out to around 94 million. But factor back in the $25 yearly membership fee and that's 6 million, so the APA might be generating $100 million a year.

Of course, you have to pay the bar owners and LO's. I can't imagine the bars being more than 10% of that profit since a large part of their earnings are food and drink and quarters pumped into the tables. Not sure what LO's earn in general. I do know what a previous one earned and it was decent money. Makes you want to be a LO if you can accept the weekend duty and the local politics. So maybe the LO's get 25% to 40% of that cut.

So then is the APA pulling in around $50 million? Sure, there are going to be many other expenses, but for that possible amount the APA can't dish out more to division winners? And definitely more should be offered for Regional winners and Vegas winners.

Maybe my 10 second facts are way off.

 

[one stroke]

I find it interesting that u don't list ur name and location, should not be a problem since their is all that honesty and integrity going on in the APA

I am clad to see they have a record number of players and to celabrate that , they raised the rates, saying they were on tuff econonic times

Man I wish I lived by such honesty and integrity,,, just like TOYOTA and the APA


1

no name= no credability

 

[JolietJames]

We get nothing for winning our division here. Our area must have over 50 divisions between 8 and 9 ball. Tons of teams and no rewards.

 

[justadub]

We get nothing for winning our division here. Our area must have over 50 divisions between 8 and 9 ball. Tons of teams and no rewards.

Wow, that is too bad. It sucks. Guess there's something to living out here in the middle of nowhere. (Actually just east of the middle of nowhere.) Other than this insufferable snow.

 

[APA Operator]

I find it interesting that u don't list ur name and location, should not be a problem since their is all that honesty and integrity going on in the APA

I am clad to see they have a record number of players and to celabrate that , they raised the rates, saying they were on tuff econonic times

Man I wish I lived by such honesty and integrity,,, just like TOYOTA and the APA


1

You do, unless your last name is really "stroke"...

 

[Maniac]

We get nothing for winning our division here. Our area must have over 50 divisions between 8 and 9 ball. Tons of teams and no rewards.

I shoot APA in Arlington (TX), one of the largest metropolitan areas in the USA. There are 3 Monday 8-ball leagues, Tuesday Masters league, Wednesday 8-ball league, 2 Thursday 9-ball leagues, a Sunday 8-ball league, and a Scotch-Doubles league (I'm not sure what night/day they play on). Except for the Masters and the Scotch-Doubles, all leagues have 14 to 16 teams in them. What do we get for winning our session (both session AND playoffs)??? A friggin' dust-collectin' trophy and a patch. Whoopty-Friggin' Doo!!! Don't get me wrong, I don't expect any big payback for APA leagues, but come on, as much money as my LO is raking in, he COULD be a little more generous with payouts. Some of you APA people that get ANY money make me envious. Hell, I'd rather get whatever money the LO paid for my trophy than get the trophy itself, even if it was only about $5 (which it probably was ).

Maniac

 

[btoneill]

What do we get for winning our session (both session AND playoffs)??? A friggin' dust-collectin' trophy and a patch. Whoopty-Friggin' Doo!!! Don't get me wrong, I don't expect any big payback for APA leagues, but come on, as much money as my LO is raking in, he COULD be a little more generous with payouts. Some of you APA people that get ANY money make me envious. Hell, I'd rather get whatever money the LO paid for my trophy than get the trophy itself, even if it was only about $5 (which it probably was ).

Maniac

I care more about getting the trophies or plaques then I do with the team getting $800 to split 8 ways. They are great decorations for my game room. Buying nice decorations for my game room are not cheap! When they end up having personal meaning, so much the better!

 

[JolietJames]

I've given or thrown away every trophy I've gotten from the apa. They are by far the cheapest, smallest pieces of crap available. I too, would rather have the 4 bucks they spent on it. At least I could have a couple beers with the money. ACS starts next week!