handicaps from different regions

[ctyhntr]

This was my experience when I played in two different APA territories. I joined the APA, started out as a SL4 and was dropped down to a SL3 in a strong territory. If I scratch on the break, the SL4s with BIH could run out. Two/Three years later I join APA in NJ, as it was closer to work. Started as SL3, quickly moved up to SL4 and peaked at SL5 and bounced back to SL4.

I also recalled on AZ, an APA league operator posting that the system calculates a person's ranking to the tenth percentage place, meaning 5.1 to 5.9, but only shows 5 as the skill set on the printed score sheets.

This was posted by a former APA league operator in a similar thread. I think it answers the question of the seeming lack of consistency from one APA league to another. For example take 2 players (or even the same player who plays in two leagues) who play at the level of a baseline 5. They could be ranked differently. One from strong league may be a 4 while one in a weak league could be a 6. The 4 looks like a sandbagger to the 6 because they both play at the same speed, only circumstances separate their S/L, not their play and neither are cheating and the LO's aren't playing favorites. At least that's how I read it.

 

[ctyhntr]

On a national level, APA offers 8-ball, 9-ball, & Masters (no 23 team limit). If your local league operator only offers 8-ball (a beginner/intermediate league product) , it makes as much sense as blaming McDonalds as a whole because one of their local franchisees didn't choose to participate in the All Day Breakfast specials.

In my area we have between 9 and 12 teams on average for 8 and 9 ball. These teams generally remain the same for years. You probably play the same person 7-9 times a year. In larger leagues how often do you play the same person. Playing different combinations of people allows the scores to even out over the local league. In my area, if there are 80 people you could really only compare about 25 -30 to eachother due to who played who. If there were 160 people you could probably compare each person to about 80 due to who has played who. In a smaller group people are more likely to head towards the extremes. The guy who beats everyone is going to be a 7 regardless of how well he shoots. It is designed to be competitive at the local level so people have fun most of the time they are shooting. It is also a pyramid scheme deisgned to move people up so teams have to break up and get new players to join increasing the number of teams and the money paid in. Sorry just had to mention that.

 

[Skippy27]

This was posted by a former APA league operator in a similar thread. I think it answers the question of the seeming lack of consistency from one APA league to another. For example take 2 players (or even the same player who plays in two leagues) who play at the level of a baseline 5. They could be ranked differently. One from strong league may be a 4 while one in a weak league could be a 6. The 4 looks like a sandbagger to the 6 because they both play at the same speed, only circumstances separate their S/L, not their play and neither are cheating and the LO's aren't playing favorites. At least that's how I read it.

I'm going to say that LO didn't have a clue or that individual that stated that wasn't really a LO.

The quality of the players you play in any given area have no place in the formula that is used to calculate your rating. You can actually lose matches and still go up if you are winning games while doing it as it is your winning games, not matches, that are used. The single biggest factor in your rating is your average innings in games that you win, not matches.

Also, the entire statement by that LO was proven incorrect with approximate 100 matches against people from all over the country and Canada in which I have come across 2 people that are under rated and one of them knew she was and is expecting to be raised anytime now.

I also just spoke with my sister that shoots with me on Wednesday as does her fiance. They both started another team on Thursdays across the river which so happens to be a different LO area. They did not have to pay another $25 fee and she believes they are using the same player number for her. She is going to check and let me know.

 

[Skippy27]

The guy who beats everyone is going to be a 7 regardless of how well he shoots. It is designed to be competitive at the local level so people have fun most of the time they are shooting. It is also a pyramid scheme deisgned to move people up so teams have to break up and get new players to join increasing the number of teams and the money paid in. Sorry just had to mention that.

No, the guy that beats everyone is not automatically going to be a 7, unless of course that person averages less then about 1 inning a game.

Your second statement shows you have a beef with APA which is why you would spew such nonsense. I have been with the same team for over 2 years now. We have replaced 3 people and it had nothing to do with their ratings or us trying to stay under 23. Our team consist of 7,6,6,5,4,3,3,2 and it has been this way for a while. Will the lower players get moved up some day? Probably, but that is a good thing as we want people to get better, which is both a good and bad thing for the league. It is good for the league and pool in general because as they get better they will develop their own teams and hopefully recruit lower levels that they will mentor and develop. It is bad because then they have morons claiming the league is a pyramid scheme designed to force teams to break up. If you don't like the rule of 23, then get in a Super division that allows for 30pts or the masters that is unlimited.

 

[Cornerman]

I'm going to say that LO didn't have a clue or that individual that stated that wasn't really a LO.

The quality of the players you play in any given area have no place in the formula that is used to calculate your rating. You can actually lose matches and still go up if you are winning games while doing it as it is your winning games, not matches, that are used. The single biggest factor in your rating is your average innings in games that you win, not matches.

Also, the entire statement by that LO was proven incorrect with approximate 100 matches against people from all over the country and Canada in which I have come across 2 people that are under rated and one of them knew she was and is expecting to be raised anytime now.

I also just spoke with my sister that shoots with me on Wednesday as does her fiance. They both started another team on Thursdays across the river which so happens to be a different LO area. They did not have to pay another $25 fee and she believes they are using the same player number for her. She is going to check and let me know.

There's a piece of the formula that you're not taking into account. And this isn't some new topic. It's pretty old and pretty well known.

Because the handicap system is based on total innings vs wins, you will win more games than you should against weak players, and lose more games against stronger players.

Take it to an extreme where you move to an area that every player can barely hold a cue. Or, there isn't a single player that can really put a hurt on you. This is a real world example whether it's a senior community that decided to get into an APA league, and none really had that one super player, or in a previous example, a college town where the players were generally transient and were there just to drink, and again with no real big player. Guess what? Week after week, you don't play anyone that hits back, you win more games than you would have against an average division. Consequence: your handicap falsely raises.

It happens, and it absolutely has everything to do with the strength of the league.

Let's take it the other way: you join an in house league where every team has at least one Jesse Bowman or Dave Matlock or Jeff Sargent or Billy Thorp. You as the best player of your team get to play one of those guys every week. Your handicap is going to go down because your total innings bye per win goes up (assuming you're not the caliber of Jesse or Billy).

It happens all over the country, even just from one town to the next.

Freddie

 

[Celophanewrap]

I'm going to say that LO didn't have a clue or that individual that stated that wasn't really a LO.

The quality of the players you play in any given area have no place in the formula that is used to calculate your rating. You can actually lose matches and still go up if you are winning games while doing it as it is your winning games, not matches, that are used. The single biggest factor in your rating is your average innings in games that you win, not matches.

Also, the entire statement by that LO was proven incorrect with approximate 100 matches against people from all over the country and Canada in which I have come across 2 people that are under rated and one of them knew she was and is expecting to be raised anytime now.

I also just spoke with my sister that shoots with me on Wednesday as does her fiance. They both started another team on Thursdays across the river which so happens to be a different LO area. They did not have to pay another $25 fee and she believes they are using the same player number for her. She is going to check and let me know.

I think one thing to remember when you talk about losing and skill level being raised is that only your last 20 matches count in your S/L calculation and of those last 20 only the best 10 count so win or lose you may be dropping a score from 20 matches ago that was god-awful and was holding you down. If you play on more than one team it's likely that your LO inputs data once a week and sometimes circumstances might dictate that it happens only once every two weeks or 10 days so instead of one score you may have played several matches and those all get added at the same time. If you don't ever sit with your LO or the staff when they do the the administrative work it would be difficult to say why things work the way they do.

 

[Skippy27]

I think one thing to remember when you talk about losing and skill level being raised is that only your last 20 matches count in your S/L calculation and of those last 20 only the best 10 count so win or lose you may be dropping a score from 20 matches ago that was god-awful and was holding you down. If you play on more than one team it's likely that your LO inputs data once a week and sometimes circumstances might dictate that it happens only once every two weeks or 10 days so instead of one score you may have played several matches and those all get added at the same time. If you don't ever sit with your LO or the staff when they do the the administrative work it would be difficult to say why things work the way they do.

Straight from someone at the APA office.... losing games do not count for or against your rating so someone trying to sandbag can throw every game for the next 2 years and it will have no affect on them so let them do it and just be sure to mark their defensive shots as then it won't matter either way.

Interpret that as you will.

 

[Celophanewrap]

Straight from someone at the APA office.... losing games do not count for or against your rating so someone trying to sandbag can throw every game for the next 2 years and it will have no affect on them so let them do it and just be sure to mark their defensive shots as then it won't matter either way.

Interpret that as you will.

I think you may be misunderstanding what they might have said, but hey, that's just me.
I'm sure you know better

 

[Skippy27]

There's a piece of the formula that you're not taking into account.

Not sure what you are referring to but my sister just confirmed she has the same player number in the other league with a different beginning digit.

Both of the leagues she currently shoots in show up under her history and though the lifetime history of them are off they must include both as this is the very first time she has shot in any league other than the one with me and she only has 7 matches with them but the lifetime shows 70+. Not sure why there are 10 less when you switch between the 2, but none the less the new one does not show only 7 as it should if it was completely separate.

 

[Skippy27]

I think you may be misunderstanding what they might have said, but hey, that's just me.
I'm sure you know better

Maybe so, but he made it clear the guy won't get moved down by throwing matches no matter how hard or how long he tries.

With around 100 matches against people from all over and seeing how consistent the ratings are, I will say that the national rating system would not be as consistent as it is across the entire country (and Canada) if it were using an inconsistent variable like the quality of the area people shoot in. With that, they could not consider it to be a NATIONAL rating system if they allow area or regional factors to alter the rating system. By its very nature then it would be setup for failure when you get to a NATIONAL tournament that has REGIONAL qualifiers all based on localized rating variables. It simply would not work as well and consistent as it has per my pretty extensive experience.

 

[Cornerman]

Not sure what you are referring to

Sorry, I must have completed my post after you posted this.

To add to what I wrote, here's one of the posts I made on this subject a few years ago. You should be at least familiar with one of the areas in question, a division area that for years would get to the Nationals and be accused of sandbagging. A lot of the accused "sandbaggers" had a tough time competing against the big competition in the Gardner/Fitchburg area where we had all 8' and 9' tables for competition as well as several A players that decided that league play was where they wanted to be.

...
Here's how it works. This is a very real world example.

Let's say a player always goes for the runout, but always falls short, leaving the 8-ball. Against weak players, he's still has a chance to win. Against weak players who can run several wide open balls but can't close the deal, he has a good chance to win at his next turn up. Therefore, he will have many opportunities to win games and keep his overall inning low.

The same player, same style, against a region full of above average players, he'll lose a higher percentage of games if he continues his run-to-the8-ball style. Result? He loses more games, and his innings go up. It would be easy to see this if you had to play Jeff Sargent, Scott Tolefson or a Jesse Bowman every week.

Again, this is a very well known and completely understood regional "problem" that really has no easy solution.

Anecdote: I've told this story in the past, but I'll tell it again because you need it. A friend of mine played on my team in a heavy pool area. The area {Fitchburg/Gardner, MA} was home to three of the best players Massachusetts has to offer. Two of them are/were Joss cashers, and the third is the four-time New England 14.1 Champion. So, overall, the play was simply better. The champions teach their students well just by example. Players will see better patterns, see better safeties, etc. My friend who is an above average player was struggling as an average player for that particular division. He was about a 50% player as an SL-4 in that division.

He moved to a college town, where the best player in that area had a skill level of SL-7, but would doubtfully be an SL-7 in Fitchburg/Gardner. That is, that area's best player was a weak SL-7. Most of the players were/are transient college students, and no consistent play is passed on from the better players. My friend ended up playing players that simply had no concept of running a wide open racks. He always was in every game, won a lot more games than he should have, and consequently had less innings than he would have if he had played anyone decent. Result: he was/is an SL-6 in that area, and was always one of the highest winning percentage players.

But, he knew/knows very well that he'd get killed as an SL-6 against stronger regions. He's experience in APA, afterall.

Regional difference are responsible for much of the perceived sandbagging. It's simply because the players don't know how strong or weak their area is.

Hope this clarifies a bit. There is no doubt that regional differences will and does affect handicaps, often times significantly.


Freddie

 

[Celophanewrap]

Maybe so, but he made it clear the guy won't get moved down by throwing matches no matter how hard or how long he tries.

With around 100 matches against people from all over and seeing how consistent the ratings are, I will say that the national rating system would not be as consistent as it is across the entire country (and Canada) if it were using an inconsistent variable like the quality of the area people shoot in. With that, they could not consider it to be a NATIONAL rating system if they allow area or regional factors to alter the rating system. By its very nature then it would be setup for failure when you get to a NATIONAL tournament that has REGIONAL qualifiers all based on localized rating variables. It simply would not work as well and consistent as it has per my pretty extensive experience.

It's my thought that losing game probably doesn't count but the system really doesn't see it as a game loss. I believe the system sees matches and not individual games so I think you're right as to that point, but still, the system counts your last 20 matches and then only the best 10 of those matches and unless you would have "special circumstances", ie - loss of a limb, some debilitating accident or illness, you would only ever be allowed to drop one level below your highest skill level for that category - either 8 or 9 ball.

As to the ratings on a national scale, I have found them to be reasonably accurate from place to place. However in company as large as The APA with as many clients or customers (users), it's only natural that every now and then some one will sort of fall through the cracks and mistakes will be made from time to time. It's the human element that occurs whenever a human would be involved or there is perhaps a glitch in the system if you should enter "W/NA_99)" (for example) or some other unknown character combination. That being said I would love it if my LO would somehow enter the character combination that would make me a 2 again :smile:.

So every now and then as percentages go you will draw someone that has fallen through the cracks.

A couple of other things to maybe consider is that you may encounter someone that has a "well managed" skill level. That is lets' say you have an S/L 3 that you know practices almost daily and you can see them improving, but as the captain you play them mainly against the other teams better shooters pretty regularly insuring that they lose most of their matches. What you have by the time cities or NTC rolls around is a legitimate 3 that probably plays as well as a strong 4. or....

You have a 3 that is a little weak, but your division is full of 3's. So you 3 has a win percentage of near 90%, they will likely be a 4 and maybe a 5 if it's a weak division.

As well, some areas are just stronger than others. If you're an S/L 6 and the very best player in the South West corner of Northern Nebraska in the town of Small Town, NE and you win all your matches because you're the only one in town that can run 3 or 4 balls at a time, you might move to Chicago and have a pretty hard time as a 6.

The S/L calculation has several elements, win percentage and applied score are just a couple of them.

 

[Cornerman]

A couple of other things to maybe consider is that you may encounter someone that has a "well managed" skill level. That is lets' say you have an S/L 3 that you know practices almost daily and you can see them improving, but as the captain you play them mainly against the other teams better shooters pretty regularly insuring that they lose most of their matches. What you have by the time cities or NTC rolls around is a legitimate 3 that probably plays as well as a strong 4. or....

You have a 3 that is a little weak, but your division is full of 3's. So you 3 has a win percentage of near 90%, they will likely be a 4 and maybe a 5 if it's a weak division.

As well, some areas are just stronger than others. If you're an S/L 6 and the very best player in the South West corner of Northern Nebraska in the town of Small Town, NE and you win all your matches because you're the only one in town that can run 3 or 4 balls at a time, you might move to Chicago and have a pretty hard time as a 6.

The S/L calculation has several elements, win percentage and applied score are just a couple of them.

This is exactly correct. And it can happen in one county where the north of the county has much fewer heavy hitters because they all play in the south of the county.

And here's the other post above:
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=5540665&postcount=25

Freddie <~~~ BTDT

 

[Skippy27]

All of us are now talking in circles.

I am saying that your loses do not count and the quality of the opponent has extremely little impact on your rating, if any at all and the single biggest factor of your rating is your average innings per games you win, not matches. I believe this to be the SINGLE BIGGEST FACTOR, period. Better players (thus higher SL) shoot less innings and they have a higher defensive shot to inning %. This is going to be true and consistent no matter how good their opponent is and no matter how good the pool of players are in their area.

The 2 of you keep countering this saying quality of opponent is factored with a bigger influence no the rating thus giving the average innings and safeties have less bearing. This would clearly be affected by the quality of the pool of players.

I am not going to agree with you and you clearly are not going to agree with me.

The facts that back me up and invalidate your claims:
1.) I, as a 6, can walk into a place that has hundreds of people from all over the country and Canada whom are rated the same as me +/- 1 and can randomly select anyone of them and shoot them knowing that it is going to be a fairly even match (with a 5 or 6 as 7's are always questionable).

2.) A particular area does not dominate the team or the individual championships.

The single reason people are accused of sandbagging and are getting raised at the national level is because their team/league/operator have all failed them at teaching them what a defensive shot is and when to mark them. I would be willing to bet, if there was a way for us to actually validate, there has never in the history of the APA been a person that has been raised at the national level for sandbagging and had a high average of defensive shoots.

 

[pogmothoin]

I'm going to say that LO didn't have a clue or that individual that stated that wasn't really a LO.

The quality of the players you play in any given area have no place in the formula that is used to calculate your rating. You can actually lose matches and still go up if you are winning games while doing it as it is your winning games, not matches, that are used. The single biggest factor in your rating is your average innings in games that you win, not matches.

Also, the entire statement by that LO was proven incorrect with approximate 100 matches against people from all over the country and Canada in which I have come across 2 people that are under rated and one of them knew she was and is expecting to be raised anytime now.

I also just spoke with my sister that shoots with me on Wednesday as does her fiance. They both started another team on Thursdays across the river which so happens to be a different LO area. They did not have to pay another $25 fee and she believes they are using the same player number for her. She is going to check and let me know.

Here is the a link to the previous thread about this topic. I didn't get the idea that the poster was lying or didn't know what they were talking about.

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=419765

It goes off course some but there is some good info from people who should know a little about the topic.

I thought it was interesting. So basically what I learned from it was that, yes, if you have been an APA member in another APA league, you will retain the same player number. But your stats are kept locally by your league operator. Remember, the APA leagues are run by individual franchisee's.

Your stats in one APA league will not influence your rating in the other APA league automatically. Either LO can do a manual lookup but it is not automatically done. So that is why a player from league A can be a 3 for example and the same player in league B can be a 4. (It's happened on one of my teams with a player)

What wasn't discussed is what happens if that player ends up in the nationals. I'm sure at that point the national APA office would make the call to raise that player.

The weak league, strong league analogy makes perfect sense. Can you think of matches where you played against a person who gave no thought to defense or two way shots and just basically handed you games? If you play in a league full of those types of players do you think you might consistently win matches in fewer innings?

Conversely if you play in a league where players are smart enough to leave you difficult shots because they understand the game or have good coaching, you may still win but perhaps it would take an inning or two more, how might that impact your S/L?

After digesting the information in that thread, and from my personal observations, I've concluded that, yes, the system lends itself to some inconsistency. However slight it may be. But if two players of the same ability play in two different leagues there is a real possibility that their S/L's will be different even where both players play by the rules and there is no bad intent.

In the end you have to realize that there is no perfect system and most of us do this for fun. I'm as competitive as anyone and hate to lose but my losses are generally the result of some error I made or, (gasp) the superior ability of my opponent, not the result of somebody else's S/L.

 

[Celophanewrap]

All of us are now talking in circles.

I am saying that your loses do not count and the quality of the opponent has extremely little impact on your rating, if any at all and the single biggest factor of your rating is your average innings per games you win, not matches. I believe this to be the SINGLE BIGGEST FACTOR, period. Better players (thus higher SL) shoot less innings and they have a higher defensive shot to inning %. This is going to be true and consistent no matter how good their opponent is and no matter how good the pool of players are in their area.

The 2 of you keep countering this saying quality of opponent is factored with a bigger influence no the rating thus giving the average innings and safeties have less bearing. This would clearly be affected by the quality of the pool of players.

I am not going to agree with you and you clearly are not going to agree with me.

The facts that back me up and invalidate your claims:
1.) I, as a 6, can walk into a place that has hundreds of people from all over the country and Canada whom are rated the same as me +/- 1 and can randomly select anyone of them and shoot them knowing that it is going to be a fairly even match (with a 5 or 6 as 7's are always questionable).

2.) A particular area does not dominate the team or the individual championships.

The single reason people are accused of sandbagging and are getting raised at the national level is because their team/league/operator have all failed them at teaching them what a defensive shot is and when to mark them. I would be willing to bet, if there was a way for us to actually validate, there has never in the history of the APA been a person that has been raised at the national level for sandbagging and had a high average of defensive shoots.

So hey Skippy, this might be a stupid question, but when you talk about a higher S'L playing less innings are you figuring "applied innings" or just as a better player they play shorter games with less innings?

 

[Cornerman]

All of us are now talking in circles.

I am saying that your loses do not count and the quality of the opponent has extremely little impact on your rating, if any at all and the single biggest factor of your rating is your average innings per games you win, not matches. .

This is where you have the most basic misunderstanding of the system. It's not innings in just the games you win; it's total innings (TOTAL INNINGS since you like capitalizing) compared to games you win. That is the heart of the Equalizer system. If you're making your argument thinking it's the innings only of the games you win, then you're simply incorrect.

The Equalizer system has been shared on the internet for 20 years (yes, it was a breach of confidentiality, but still it was done), so there's not secret that it's total innings, not just the innings of your wins.

Freddie <~~~ old news

 

[Skippy27]

So hey Skippy, this might be a stupid question, but when you talk about a higher S'L playing less innings are you figuring "applied innings" or just as a better player they play shorter games with less innings?

Yes a 6 will shoot less applied innings than a 5 on average.

 

[Cornerman]

Yes a 6 will shot less applied innings than a 5 on average.

By this answer, this tells me you don't know what "applied innings" means.

A player doesn't shoot "applied innings." This is another one of those "basics of the Equalizer Handicapping System."

 

[pogmothoin]

"Applied Innings" = Part of the Equalizer System that ensures you don't go down but doesn't inhibit your ability to go up.

Allegedly used as an anti-sandbagging tool to prevent people with a high winning percentage from running up innings to reduce their true S/L. Unfortunately it also makes it harder for honest players to play at their true S/L by decreasing their innings using a formula based on winning percentage. So if you're a 5 who wins a match in 40 innings the ES will compute Applied Innings to replace your score at somewhere between 3.1 and 4 depending on your winning percentage without regard to actual innings.

At least that's my understanding.