Getting rid of handicap in the league

donuteric

donuteric

always a newbie
Silver Member
I manage an in-house 8-ball league with 6 teams, about 50 players. We follow the typical numerical system ranging from 3-8. All matches are played on GC-like tables with 4.25 pockets. The strongest players average about 10-15% runout whereas the weakest players have troubles running 3 balls on an open table.

I'd like to get rid of the handicap at the play level and thought I'd post here to hear some critics and feedbacks.

I'm thinking:

Converting the numerical system to alphabetical.
3-4: C ($60 league dues per season + $10 calcutta)
5-6: B ($90 + $10)
7-8: A ($120 + $20)

Each player is required to bid his own calcutta at the starting price. Then the auction continues as usual.

For team match:
1. 20 racks will be played between 2 teams using a single table
2. Team must put up who will be playing the 1st to the 20th rack before the match starts.
3. Each player can play either 2 racks or a max of 4 racks per match
4. Each alphabetical class can play up to 8 racks per match

The second table will be action table. For each rack, C pays $2, B pays $4, and A pays $5 to play.

At the end of season,
1. Top 2 teams will play the 20 racks for 55% of the league pot.
2. Top 2 players in each alphabetical class will play heads up for 15% of the pot each

C: Race to 4
B: Race to 5
A: Race to 6

There are other intricacies, but this is a short version. What do you think?
 
Yes, the handicap technically still exists, but it is at the money, not at the play. Lower ranks pay less to win equal money at end of season.

During the 20 racks play between 2 teams, if a C player ends up playing an A player for 2 racks, they just play against each other with no handicap.
 
donuteric said:
Yes, the handicap technically still exists, but it is at the money, not at the play. Lower ranks pay less to win equal money at end of season.

During the 20 racks play between 2 teams, if a C player ends up playing an A player for 2 racks, they just play against each other with no handicap.
Click to expand...


Edit.. I did not really notice about the team thing, that would make the playoffs different than just 2 ranks of players I had at the end.

All you are doing is giving the better players less money from the weaker players and removing the weaker players chance to win. Basically you are letting them play for cheaper but with pretty much no chance of a payout.

This seems like a handicapped league to me:

At the end of season,
1. Top 2 teams will play the 20 racks for 55% of the league pot.
2. Top 2 players in each alphabetical class will play heads up for 15% of the pot each

C: Race to 4
B: Race to 5
A: Race to 6

Pretty complex thing when a much simpler thing would work. And a C to an A would be more like a 3-6 race if not 3 to 7. I'm a B+ and I usually beat C players 6-0, 6-1, 6-2 in a weekly tournament I play.
Reminds me of the crazy rules the flat earth believers make up to try to prove the world is flat and there is no space travel, they would rather believe a hugely complex web of lies and fake data by millions of people rather than just a simple fact, world is round, space it there, gravity works.

If there are enough players of each skill level what you can do is have a end of the year playoffs in two tiers, high levels and low levels, that way it's a bit more fair with more play. D and C in one playoffs and B and A in another with handicaps between them. So a C player does not sit and watch an A run 3 racks on them before they can shoot. 3 for D, 5 for C, 5 for B and 7 for A should be fair races.
 
Last edited:
I agree that it still sounds like a handicap league. I also agree that it sounds like a penalty for lower ranked players. I am sure this will make your top shooters happy, but in the long term it will likely stifle new player sign ups.

Why are you getting rid of them and what problem are you trying to solve?
 
Last edited:
donuteric said:
I manage an in-house 8-ball league with 6 teams, about 50 players. We follow the typical numerical system ranging from 3-8. All matches are played on GC-like tables with 4.25 pockets. The strongest players average about 10-15% runout whereas the weakest players have troubles running 3 balls on an open table.

I'd like to get rid of the handicap at the play level and thought I'd post here to hear some critics and feedbacks.

I'm thinking:

Converting the numerical system to alphabetical.
3-4: C ($60 league dues per season + $10 calcutta)
5-6: B ($90 + $10)
7-8: A ($120 + $20)

Each player is required to bid his own calcutta at the starting price. Then the auction continues as usual.

For team match:
1. 20 racks will be played between 2 teams using a single table
2. Team must put up who will be playing the 1st to the 20th rack before the match starts.
3. Each player can play either 2 racks or a max of 4 racks per match
4. Each alphabetical class can play up to 8 racks per match

The second table will be action table. For each rack, C pays $2, B pays $4, and A pays $5 to play.

At the end of season,
1. Top 2 teams will play the 20 racks for 55% of the league pot.
2. Top 2 players in each alphabetical class will play heads up for 15% of the pot each

C: Race to 4
B: Race to 5
A: Race to 6

There are other intricacies, but this is a short version. What do you think?
Click to expand...

Lower rank players are who bring in the most "beer" money to a bar. They play because they like the game and having a lower handicap rank, they "have a chance". Higher rank players spend little , if any, on alcohol. They are there to stay focused and prove to everyone there, they are the best.... When you make it tougher, not cheaper, for the lower ranks to win, they won't enter and keep their money at home. My opinion only. I have seen this over the past year at a local N.C. venue. Now, no tournaments.
 
drv4 said:
This sounds like a perfect league to implement Fargo ratings into.
Click to expand...
In the handicap system that Mike Page has set up with FargoRate, you can select the percentage advantage that the better player has. For example, the better player may be limited to 60-40 by the handicap. Or 70-30 -- you pick it.

But the main advantage of the Fargo system is that the ratings are adjusted fairly and impartially (by the program) after each match is entered.
 
Thanks for all the responses!

DCS_SF said:
I agree that it still sounds like a handicap league. I also agree that it sounds like a penalty for lower ranked players. I am sure this will make your top shooters happy, but in the long term it will likely stifle new player sign ups.

Why are you getting rid of them and what problem are you trying to solve?
Click to expand...

Several things many players have expressed concerns over the years.

1. Long night. It can go into the 4th hour with 2 tables.
2. Players often play the same players over and over again.
3. A team with more than 5 players can only play up to 5 players.

And I'm sick of people constantly complaining about handicap.

I want to encourage more mix-and-match of plays from different skill levels. I agree the proposed format certainly favors higher skilled players throughout the season, but I think some exposure to good players at short even race makes them better players in the long run.

Their "equalizer" is at the shot of 15% of the league pot by finishing top 2 shooters in their handicap class.
 
captainjko said:
Lower rank players are who bring in the most "beer" money to a bar. They play because they like the game and having a lower handicap rank, they "have a chance". Higher rank players spend little , if any, on alcohol. They are there to stay focused and prove to everyone there, they are the best.... When you make it tougher, not cheaper, for the lower ranks to win, they won't enter and keep their money at home. My opinion only. I have seen this over the past year at a local N.C. venue. Now, no tournaments.
Click to expand...

While this might be true for some bar leagues, I think you're making quite a bit of assumptions about league in general.
 
hang-the-9 said:
Edit.. I did not really notice about the team thing, that would make the playoffs different than just 2 ranks of players I had at the end.

All you are doing is giving the better players less money from the weaker players and removing the weaker players chance to win. Basically you are letting them play for cheaper but with pretty much no chance of a payout.

This seems like a handicapped league to me:

At the end of season,
1. Top 2 teams will play the 20 racks for 55% of the league pot.
2. Top 2 players in each alphabetical class will play heads up for 15% of the pot each

C: Race to 4
B: Race to 5
A: Race to 6

Pretty complex thing when a much simpler thing would work. And a C to an A would be more like a 3-6 race if not 3 to 7. I'm a B+ and I usually beat C players 6-0, 6-1, 6-2 in a weekly tournament I play.
Reminds me of the crazy rules the flat earth believers make up to try to prove the world is flat and there is no space travel, they would rather believe a hugely complex web of lies and fake data by millions of people rather than just a simple fact, world is round, space it there, gravity works.

If there are enough players of each skill level what you can do is have a end of the year playoffs in two tiers, high levels and low levels, that way it's a bit more fair with more play. D and C in one playoffs and B and A in another with handicaps between them. So a C player does not sit and watch an A run 3 racks on them before they can shoot. 3 for D, 5 for C, 5 for B and 7 for A should be fair races.
Click to expand...

Our current handicap is as follow:
1. Play to one rack less handicap. When both players are 6 or above, play 2 racks less handicap.
2. If a player is 4 or below, a player has an one-ball option if the opponent is 2 levels more and two-ball option if the opponent is 3 levels or more

So when an 8 plays a 3, the race is 7-2 with the 3 having the option to remove 2 balls off the table after the group has been established.

The handicap system works fine. We're playing 8-ball, so any system will basically favor the higher ranked players.
 
donuteric said:
Thanks for all the responses!

Several things many players have expressed concerns over the years.

1. Long night. It can go into the 4th hour with 2 tables.
2. Players often play the same players over and over again.
3. A team with more than 5 players can only play up to 5 players.

And I'm sick of people constantly complaining about handicap.

I want to encourage more mix-and-match of plays from different skill levels. I agree the proposed format certainly favors higher skilled players throughout the season, but I think some exposure to good players at short even race makes them better players in the long run.

Their "equalizer" is at the shot of 15% of the league pot by finishing top 2 shooters in their handicap class.
Click to expand...

Long nights is going to be an issue for sure. However that could still happen even with the new system.

I am not sure the players playing the same people will change either. Once you are familiar with an opponents play, as a captain I usually would match the same regardless. Sometimes I will switch things up by throwing a lower or higher rank on a specific player to try an get points, or save a stronger player for someone else.

I am confused about your point #3 a team with more than 5 players can only play 5 players? How would getting rid of handicap allow for more games? That doesn't sound like it will shorten your nights either.

As for encouraging different match ups there are other ways to achieve this. In APA it is encouraged by a tiered point system. A win where your opponent loses every match is 3 points. I win where your opponent won at least one match, but didn't get on the hill is 2 points. Getting on the hill but not winning nets 1 point.

I use this system to vary the match ups, since a lower ranked player can get a point even off of the highest ranks as they may only have to win 2 matches as opposed to the higher ranks 5 matches.

Now I will say, that I rarely do stuff like this (only when we really need points for playoffs etc), because lets be honest no higher rank likes to play a much lower rank. It is a shitty night of pool for them.

People will always complain about handicaps in league. Always. The problem with losing them is it kills the "chance" and fun for the lower ranks, and it makes shit way harder even for mid-level players. My worry would be you will help the top level players at the expense of turning away the newbs and mid level players. At that point it's just the top players playing each other and you have your same no variety problem. I could be wrong though.
 
DCS_SF said:
Long nights is going to be an issue for sure. However that could still happen even with the new system.

I am not sure the players playing the same people will change either. Once you are familiar with an opponents play, as a captain I usually would match the same regardless. Sometimes I will switch things up by throwing a lower or higher rank on a specific player to try an get points, or save a stronger player for someone else.

I am confused about your point #3 a team with more than 5 players can only play 5 players? How would getting rid of handicap allow for more games? That doesn't sound like it will shorten your nights either.

As for encouraging different match ups there are other ways to achieve this. In APA it is encouraged by a tiered point system. A win where your opponent loses every match is 3 points. I win where your opponent won at least one match, but didn't get on the hill is 2 points. Getting on the hill but not winning nets 1 point.

I use this system to vary the match ups, since a lower ranked player can get a point even off of the highest ranks as they may only have to win 2 matches as opposed to the higher ranks 5 matches.

Now I will say, that I rarely do stuff like this (only when we really need points for playoffs etc), because lets be honest no higher rank likes to play a much lower rank. It is a shitty night of pool for them.

People will always complain about handicaps in league. Always. The problem with losing them is it kills the "chance" and fun for the lower ranks, and it makes shit way harder even for mid-level players. My worry would be you will help the top level players at the expense of turning away the newbs and mid level players. At that point it's just the top players playing each other and you have your same no variety problem. I could be wrong though.
Click to expand...

I think I did a very bad job at explaining what I'm proposing.

In a given night between two teams, instead of the typical 5 matches, the two teams will play a total of 20 racks. No matches. Just racks.

Captain from both teams are required to turn in their roaster of who is playing the 1st rack, the 2nd, and so on until the 20th. This was all done before two teams start to play.

The restrictions are:

3. Each player can play either 2 racks or a max of 4 racks per match
4. Each alphabetical class can play up to 8 racks per match
Click to expand...

This, in my estimation, should be done in under 2.5 hours using a single table. It also mixes up the players a bit and allows more than 5 players to play in a single night.
 
Price

(Yes, the suggestion still amounts to a handicap league.)

Most pool players I know are cheap, and even the best players are
usually short of cash. Good luck on getting your best players to pony
up $120 in a $60 league. :embarrassed2:

RL
 
donuteric said:
This, in my estimation, should be done in under 2.5 hours using a single table. It also mixes up the players a bit and allows more than 5 players to play in a single night.
Click to expand...

Eight games an hour, each game potentially played by a different pair of players? I think you're closer to four hours than to 2.5.
 
Pool will never grow until Billiard Room Owners unite and form in house leagues and then come together for a national event of Billiard Room Only leagues.

All handicapping would be local. Allstar team is selected from each Room based on their league winning percentage.

Allstar teams from rooms around the country compete for first place prize of $50,000 (or more). Allstar team keeps $25,000. Remaining $25,000 gets divided up among the teams from their room. There is also an in house final session tmnt worth nice money.

This only requires a $40/week/team league fee....if the rooms would unite.

It also provides money to fund a semipro tour and a pro tour.

But it makes too much sense for the IQ that dominates this industry.
 
APA Operator said:
Eight games an hour, each game potentially played by a different pair of players? I think you're closer to four hours than to 2.5.
Click to expand...

You're probably right. The tight pockets do result in slightly longer play per rack, especially when it involves 2 C players. With the estimation of 10 minutes per rack on average, which includes lagging and other misc time spent, I think 3.5-4 hours would be the absolute worst case scenario. The teams always have the option to play 2 tables, but I'd much rather leave one for practice/action.
 
donuteric said:
... The handicap system works fine. We're playing 8-ball, so any system will basically favor the higher ranked players.
Click to expand...

There are several handicap systems where the matches will (eventually) be 50-50 for all players. If a player's rating is raised for each win and lowered for each loss, in the long run he will win close to 50% of his matches regardless of his level and initial error in his rating. One example of this is the NPL which is used in my area. The critical part is that the adjustment must be automatic and based only on win/loss record.

It is also possible to have a system based on FargoRate (or similar system) where the advantage for the better player is set explicitly, such as no more than 60-40.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top