APA skill level review--advice wanted

[APA Operator]

What I find interesting is that I play APA as a 7 in 8 ball and a 9 in 9 ball and I go out to Vegas as a vendor and set up in the Mini-tournament room. While out there for 15 hours a day next to the registration booth I see many of the players from around the country who give me weight and beat me. So I ask them how they are doing and they say GREAT. Winning plenty of the minis and getting in action. Then I see that many of them are playing as 5s and 6s in these minis and one of them was even a 4.

It was explained to me that no one gets moved in the minis, whatever you came to Vegas as in the computer is where you are locked in as far as the minis go because no one is keeping stats or watching the games.

Thus they have set up the perfect little system for the hustlers of the world to bleed off plenty of money from the legitimately handicapped players. These guys sandbag in league to set their handicaps - don't go to Vegas with a team - and go out and rob the minis since the minis are open to any card-carrying APA player.

I have no idea if things have changed but that was a pretty sweet deal for the really good sandbaggers.

Also for those who have never been there imagine a big ass ball room filled with about 50-60 bar tables. On all the tables are mini-tournaments happening with 8 players winner-take-all or maybe 1-2 paid (can't remember). This goes on all week for like 15 hours a day or so (feels like that). So lots and lots of money to be won. I am not entirely sure but they would have all kinds of minis like $20 ones and $50 ones and 5s and lower ones, scotch doubles and so on.....

They do keep stats. Players who do abnormally well can and do get raised (usually after being observed). The statistics also make their way back to the local LO, so they are being made aware of these players.

Reagarding the handicapping in league.....well if there is a lowest rank that the software spits out and that can only be adjusted upward manually but not lower then why not allow the following;

Let the players in a session rank each other. A team can't rank itself but they can go through all the names on the list of players for all the other teams in their division and rank them with a number or a "don't know". Toss out the don't knows and tally up the averages for each player and see how they compare to the software's number.

The advantage here is that people are likely to be more thoughtful and attempt to be genuinely accurate since they know everyone else is ranking them as well.

Then the LO can compare the software # to the general consensus # and deal with any glaring disparities.

Just a thought.

That's an interesting thought. It's not that different from what many LO's do with their handicap advisory committees. I would be concerned about vengeance, spite, collusion, and campaigning, though. Plus, many people just can't seem to grasp the concept that he may be better than you, but that doesn't mean you're not both 5's.

 

[barking]

gee im glad i dont play apa. lol recently all the apa players ive met here are sandbags who try to hustle lesser players like they need the f'n rent or something. a friend of mine who owns a club where they used to have events has stopped letting any of them play at his room. he got sick of their shit. i really dislike the type of people they are, at least the ones ive met. ymmv

 

[laserbrn]

Not a joke, a hypothetical scenario. Unlikely, yes, but possible, and only used to illustrate the point that you HAVE to be able to handle the abnormal cases.

If the guy who plays drunk shoots at a higher level when not drunk, then he needs to be at the higher level, period. If he chooses to drink and play lousy, that's his choice. But it's not fair to any of his opponents if he gets to play at the lower level, since he gets to decide when to be drunk and when to be sober. He's not elevating his game or playing his heart out, he's drinking water. You can let him come to your tournaments and run over people with ease. If he comes to mine, I'll put him where he needs to be. If he can elevate THAT game, good for him.

This will be my last reply to you. I'm pretty certain I know your agenda, and I don't feel like playing that game.

My Final Thoughts on the subject...

I don't know what agenda you think that I have. I can't even think of what one could be, we're having a discussion about the APA and it's handicapping system so I'm sharing my thoughts and experiences. It seems like they are echoed by many current and past players.

From this discussion I have gathered at least one very basic problem. You allow LO's to raise handicaps, but not lower them(which wouldn't matter), if they are raised they can't be lowered by the computer because it's on "override". So if an LO makes a judgement call and says that a player is a 6 even though the computer says 5 it's not as if the time will tell and he'll go back to a 5 if he really should be one.

The only reason an LO should modify ratings is if he believes a player is sandbagging. If your handicapping computer system is at all worthwhile (which I'm thinking not so much) then the computer WILL work it out, unless the player is sandbagging. It may not be 100%, but believe me, your human intervention method is FAR from 100%. If a player is sandbagging maybe there should be a committee to investigate the claim that a player is sandbagging. If they find a player is sandbagging, why not eliminate them from the comptetition?

I think this 'adjustment' method is either a cop out for a poor computer system, scorekeeping policy, or rampant cheating.

When you artificially raise someone's handicap, and permanently at that, you are accusing that person of cheating. By only raising their handicap instead of removing them from the league you feel it's a lesser punishment, because, eh, maybe you're wrong. But by not allowing the computer to ever correct the score back down as you stated, you just have a guy that's been kicked around without justification and now comes out to play and loses week after week.

I have seen that scenario FAR more times in the APA and heard more stories of this then of actual cheating and sandbagging. Investigate, and deal with cheaters, don't just lower the punishment so you feel better about doling it out willy-nilly. Far more false aligations of cheating than real ones. People lose, they have to cry cheater.

So while maybe this discussion was uncomfortable for you, I enjoyed the opportunity to learn about how the APA system works and enjoyed discussing the challenges. I do believe that the people who run it are well intentioned. Thanks for listening and playing along.

 

[justadub]

Reagarding the handicapping in league.....well if there is a lowest rank that the software spits out and that can only be adjusted upward manually but not lower then why not allow the following;

Let the players in a session rank each other. A team can't rank itself but they can go through all the names on the list of players for all the other teams in their division and rank them with a number or a "don't know". Toss out the don't knows and tally up the averages for each player and see how they compare to the software's number.

The advantage here is that people are likely to be more thoughtful and attempt to be genuinely accurate since they know everyone else is ranking them as well.

Then the LO can compare the software # to the general consensus # and deal with any glaring disparities.

Just a thought.

I love the idea. I think it would be useful, just for comparisons sake, for the LO. Not to come off like it's going to actually be an official review or anything, but a tool for the LO to use if it appears that there is a big disparity on a couple of players.

APAOperator is correct, though. There are those who wouldn't fill it out properly, for any number of reasons, none of them good.

He has stated something that I find interesting. Unidentified players, giving him input.... very interesting. When done properly, this is no doubt the best answer. Of course those unidentified players need to be very carefully selected, and trustworthy....

Interesting.

 

[APA Operator]

I love the idea. I think it would be useful, just for comparisons sake, for the LO. Not to come off like it's going to actually be an official review or anything, but a tool for the LO to use if it appears that there is a big disparity on a couple of players.

APAOperator is correct, though. There are those who wouldn't fill it out properly, for any number of reasons, none of them good.

He has stated something that I find interesting. Unidentified players, giving him input.... very interesting. When done properly, this is no doubt the best answer. Of course those unidentified players need to be very carefully selected, and trustworthy....

Interesting.

It's just input. In fact, it's nothing that any other member couldn't do. We have facilities in place for any member to provide input on the skill level of any member, including themselves. The main difference is that we know the input from the group we've selected isn't just sour grapes.

 

[Total_Chaos13]

I love the idea. I think it would be useful, just for comparisons sake, for the LO. Not to come off like it's going to actually be an official review or anything, but a tool for the LO to use if it appears that there is a big disparity on a couple of players.

APAOperator is correct, though. There are those who wouldn't fill it out properly, for any number of reasons, none of them good.

He has stated something that I find interesting. Unidentified players, giving him input.... very interesting. When done properly, this is no doubt the best answer. Of course those unidentified players need to be very carefully selected, and trustworthy....

Interesting.

The unidentified players could work but they need to observe more than 1-2 times to judge handicaps. We know we have all had that one night we just shoot lights out, everything works, position play is perfect and you just playing the best game in a while. If that happens to be the night someone is observing you you will look like the biggest sandbagger in the world.

 

[Winston846]

handicaps are what they are. they can not always reflect someones ability. i am a APA 6. a good one. ill play anyone. over the last 15 years i have complained about sandbaggers. a couple of years ago my mind changed on this.

i played a 4 one night. should smoke him. he beats me 3-2, in 6 innings. I am pissed. well i figure if you can beat them join him. i talked him in to joining our team. let him sandbag for us i figured. turns out, he was a weak 4 that played up to me as a 6, and play the game of his life. everything just rolled right for 3 games, but looked like he know what he doing. he didnt last long on our team. thats when i learned that its not always the handicap thats wrong. dont get me wrong sandbaggers are out there, but not like i thought.

Yes, they are there. I was a 7 when I played APA and the one night we played this team at their bar and I arrived a little early with one of my teammates. He told me that this team also had a 7 and that's who I'd probably be playing. When we walk in, 2 of the opposing players are playing a warm-up game and I watch this guy flawlessly and effortlessly run the table. His positions were all spot on, he opened up a cluster perfectly, and I could tell from just his stance, bridge, and stroke that he could play. So I whispered to my teammate that this was the guy I was going to be playing, and he said, "No. He's a 3. The 7 is the guy he ran out on.". A 3!!! Anyway, when the time comes, this guy goes up against one of our 3s and it wasn't even a match. He effortlessly "dumbed down" to the level of a 3 or 4, but you could see that he was in total control of the table and there was no way our legit 3 was going to beat him. I ended up playing and beating a 6 (the 7 didn't play), but I said afterwards to my teammate that the "3" would have been the best matchup for me outside the APA - playing even. I doubt I could have beat him giving him 7 vs 3 weight.

 

[lorider]

Yes, they are there. I was a 7 when I played APA and the one night we played this team at their bar and I arrived a little early with one of my teammates. He told me that this team also had a 7 and that's who I'd probably be playing. When we walk in, 2 of the opposing players are playing a warm-up game and I watch this guy flawlessly and effortlessly run the table. His positions were all spot on, he opened up a cluster perfectly, and I could tell from just his stance, bridge, and stroke that he could play. So I whispered to my teammate that this was the guy I was going to be playing, and he said, "No. He's a 3. The 7 is the guy he ran out on.". A 3!!! Anyway, when the time comes, this guy goes up against one of our 3s and it wasn't even a match. He effortlessly "dumbed down" to the level of a 3 or 4, but you could see that he was in total control of the table and there was no way our legit 3 was going to beat him. I ended up playing and beating a 6 (the 7 didn't play), but I said afterwards to my teammate that the "3" would have been the best matchup for me outside the APA - playing even. I doubt I could have beat him giving him 7 vs 3 weight.

i believe there are sandbaggers out there but you have to look at their playing over a session or 2.

the guy you are talking about thats a 3 could be me on certain nights. if you had watched me practicing with a teamate the other night you would swear i was a 7 instead of a 4 which i currently am. he broke dry and i ran out. the next game we played went 4 innings then i scratched on the 8. thats 2 completely levels of play from me in back to back games.

during those 2 practice games in the 1st game i played like a 7, in the 2nd i played like a 4, which s/l do you think i should be ?

another example; i play in a double jeapordy league. my 1st match i played our lo in 9 ball who is a s/l 8. i beat him 31-48. after the 1st 3 racks we were almost even in points then he started playing a lot of safties, every time i was able to make contact avoiding giving him ball in hand, several time i made a ball and was able to continue shooting. if you were to watch that game you would think i was a 6 or 7.

the 2nd match which was 8 ball i played a girl who is a 3. she is a decent shot maker but is lousey at position play. she darn near beat me. the score was me up 2-1, the 4th game she was on the 8 before me and i had to play 2 safeties in the last 2 innings til i could get on the 8, making it and winning the match. if you watched this game you would think i was no better than her.

no i am not a sandbagger , i am just inconsistent as hell.

i think a guy who i used to play with a few years ago who happens to be a 9 in my money league is right. he told me the other week that i am a damn good player who happens to play at the level of my competition.

wish i could get out of that. lol

 

[OneIron]

The unidentified players could work but they need to observe more than 1-2 times to judge handicaps. We know we have all had that one night we just shoot lights out, everything works, position play is perfect and you just playing the best game in a while. If that happens to be the night someone is observing you you will look like the biggest sandbagger in the world.

Those aren't the players that concerned me. It was the players that I had known personally for years and that I had played in numerous non APA events. Many of these players were under ranked by 2 skill levels and had been ranked that way for years. And after a couple of beers, they would joke about it.

The LO never showed up to view any of the local matches and wouldn't listen to other players. The system is simply not reliable. If a player is cheating (and sandbagging is cheating), ban them from the league.

I don't participate in APA anymore, but I still see the same APA players still playing at the same low skill level and still running up innings. :frown:

 

[OneIron]

It's just input. We have facilities in place for any member to provide input on the skill level of any member, including themselves. The main difference is that we know the input from the group we've selected isn't just sour grapes.

I could live with that system. If you as LO encourage and listen to the input of other members and apply your decisions objectively, you are doing a good job. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way in some territories. And it's a shame for the both the LO's and the players because it limits the players who will participate.

 

[APA Operator]

The unidentified players could work but they need to observe more than 1-2 times to judge handicaps. We know we have all had that one night we just shoot lights out, everything works, position play is perfect and you just playing the best game in a while. If that happens to be the night someone is observing you you will look like the biggest sandbagger in the world.

For my area, it's players in each division, so they are simply paying attention to the players in their respective divisions. They get to see plenty of everyone and can tell me when someone has been improving, etc., not just how good they think players shoot.

 

[APA Operator]

I could live with that system. If you as LO encourage and listen to the input of other members and apply your decisions objectively, you are doing a good job. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way in some territories. And it's a shame for the both the LO's and the players because it limits the players who will participate.

Yep. It does me and my business no good to be anything but fair to everyone. When the numbers are off, for whatever reason, it's unfair to someone, so I do everything I can to get them right. The majority of LO's work the same way, and as I said in my initial post in this thread, the national office is working on the rest.

 

[Total_Chaos13]

i believe there are sandbaggers out there but you have to look at their playing over a session or 2.

the guy you are talking about thats a 3 could be me on certain nights. if you had watched me practicing with a teamate the other night you would swear i was a 7 instead of a 4 which i currently am. he broke dry and i ran out. the next game we played went 4 innings then i scratched on the 8. thats 2 completely levels of play from me in back to back games.

during those 2 practice games in the 1st game i played like a 7, in the 2nd i played like a 4, which s/l do you think i should be ?

another example; i play in a double jeapordy league. my 1st match i played our lo in 9 ball who is a s/l 8. i beat him 31-48. after the 1st 3 racks we were almost even in points then he started playing a lot of safties, every time i was able to make contact avoiding giving him ball in hand, several time i made a ball and was able to continue shooting. if you were to watch that game you would think i was a 6 or 7.

the 2nd match which was 8 ball i played a girl who is a 3. she is a decent shot maker but is lousey at position play. she darn near beat me. the score was me up 2-1, the 4th game she was on the 8 before me and i had to play 2 safeties in the last 2 innings til i could get on the 8, making it and winning the match. if you watched this game you would think i was no better than her.

no i am not a sandbagger , i am just inconsistent as hell.

i think a guy who i used to play with a few years ago who happens to be a 9 in my money league is right. he told me the other week that i am a damn good player who happens to play at the level of my competition.

wish i could get out of that. lol

I agree with you on that point. We have some of the same type of players in our league as well. I know quite a few that have been playing for over 10 years 4-5 nights a week and are still 3's and 4's and some 5's. These are the same ones that are always in cities destroying real 3-4's and never go up.

For my area, it's players in each division, so they are simply paying attention to the players in their respective divisions. They get to see plenty of everyone and can tell me when someone has been improving, etc., not just how good they think players shoot.

Thats cool. I know in my case im highly inconstant. On days i put it all together and my score reflects it im sure people call me a bagger, but other days when its not there or something, i can struggle to beat the worst of the worst. Now im sure if you saw me on a good day you would think im under handicapped and just as overly high handicapped on other days.

 

[Winston846]

i believe there are sandbaggers out there but you have to look at their playing over a session or 2.

the guy you are talking about thats a 3 could be me on certain nights. if you had watched me practicing with a teamate the other night you would swear i was a 7 instead of a 4 which i currently am. he broke dry and i ran out. the next game we played went 4 innings then i scratched on the 8. thats 2 completely levels of play from me in back to back games.

during those 2 practice games in the 1st game i played like a 7, in the 2nd i played like a 4, which s/l do you think i should be ?

another example; i play in a double jeapordy league. my 1st match i played our lo in 9 ball who is a s/l 8. i beat him 31-48. after the 1st 3 racks we were almost even in points then he started playing a lot of safties, every time i was able to make contact avoiding giving him ball in hand, several time i made a ball and was able to continue shooting. if you were to watch that game you would think i was a 6 or 7.

the 2nd match which was 8 ball i played a girl who is a 3. she is a decent shot maker but is lousey at position play. she darn near beat me. the score was me up 2-1, the 4th game she was on the 8 before me and i had to play 2 safeties in the last 2 innings til i could get on the 8, making it and winning the match. if you watched this game you would think i was no better than her.

no i am not a sandbagger , i am just inconsistent as hell.

i think a guy who i used to play with a few years ago who happens to be a 9 in my money league is right. he told me the other week that i am a damn good player who happens to play at the level of my competition.

wish i could get out of that. lol

I agree with you completely. Players are going to have their "on" and "off" nights where they can either do no wrong or no right. But this guy was different. That's why I mentioned his posture/stance, bridge, stroke, etc. They just weren't the same in his match as they were in his warm-up game. And his table management was far beyond a 3. He never put himself in a position to lose - which is VERY common for a true 3. He was in total control of the table the whole time and our legit 3 never had a chance. I've been playing this game long enough to know this guy was playing nowhere near his true speed - and that his practice game was much closer to it.

 

[KMRUNOUT]

My Final Thoughts on the subject...

I don't know what agenda you think that I have. I can't even think of what one could be, we're having a discussion about the APA and it's handicapping system so I'm sharing my thoughts and experiences. It seems like they are echoed by many current and past players.

From this discussion I have gathered at least one very basic problem. You allow LO's to raise handicaps, but not lower them(which wouldn't matter), if they are raised they can't be lowered by the computer because it's on "override". So if an LO makes a judgement call and says that a player is a 6 even though the computer says 5 it's not as if the time will tell and he'll go back to a 5 if he really should be one.

The only reason an LO should modify ratings is if he believes a player is sandbagging. If your handicapping computer system is at all worthwhile (which I'm thinking not so much) then the computer WILL work it out, unless the player is sandbagging. It may not be 100%, but believe me, your human intervention method is FAR from 100%. If a player is sandbagging maybe there should be a committee to investigate the claim that a player is sandbagging. If they find a player is sandbagging, why not eliminate them from the comptetition?

I think this 'adjustment' method is either a cop out for a poor computer system, scorekeeping policy, or rampant cheating.

When you artificially raise someone's handicap, and permanently at that, you are accusing that person of cheating. By only raising their handicap instead of removing them from the league you feel it's a lesser punishment, because, eh, maybe you're wrong. But by not allowing the computer to ever correct the score back down as you stated, you just have a guy that's been kicked around without justification and now comes out to play and loses week after week.

I have seen that scenario FAR more times in the APA and heard more stories of this then of actual cheating and sandbagging. Investigate, and deal with cheaters, don't just lower the punishment so you feel better about doling it out willy-nilly. Far more false aligations of cheating than real ones. People lose, they have to cry cheater.

So while maybe this discussion was uncomfortable for you, I enjoyed the opportunity to learn about how the APA system works and enjoyed discussing the challenges. I do believe that the people who run it are well intentioned. Thanks for listening and playing along.

Excellent post!! Well reasoned.

KMRUNOUT

 

[photoman79]

Some info, clarification and food for thought

KMRUNOUT,
through my experiences within APA I've learned that the computerized Equalizer system ultimately determines a players Skill Level. Now that being said doesn't mean LO's don't have the power to adjust SL's. They do but when they do it's monitored and seen by Saint Louis (Corporate). All of the LO's I've talked to try never to manually adjust SL's unless absolutely neccessary (Medical or physical reasons affecting a players game). If talking to your league operator is not getting your request to have your players ability reviewed then I'd say contact St Louis. Now, If you do this just be aware that you may be poking the bear. When you go over someones head to a higher power you ruffle the feathers of the person you just jumped over. It's your call whether you should or not.

To answer something else that was mentioned in this thread. At any High Level Tournament (Regionals, City Cup or Vegas, etc.) a player always goes up to their highest established Skill Level. When a player returning from Vegas comes back to league play thay may be lowered 1 SL and only one SL from their highest established SL.

I hope this helps everyone. Have a good day all. J.

 

[KweaSr]

While this might not be the "best" solution, it is one option. I'm not saying it's the correct solution to your issue because I don't know all the variables (the LO personality for one thing). I've played in the APA and have seen similar situations...not exact, but similar so I know your "pain".

The APA is a business. It's designed to make money plain and simple. One option is to figure out exactly how much your team pays to the APA each session/year and take that figure to your LO. Advise him that you are paying for a service...which is what you're doing...you're paying for a "chance" to go to Vegas, provided by the APA, and win some money. If you're dissatisfied with the service you're receiving, then I would advise the LO exactly that...and advise him that unless he and the APA are on the up-and-up, that you can (key word "can") take your business (showing him the bottom-line dollar figure you and your team contributes to the APA) elsewhere...

Again, just an option...but for me personally, I don't like paying for a service and then receiving a "disservice" in return...

Jason

Don't do this.

 

[Tony_in_MD]

This thread was resurrected from the dead.

Appropriate for Easter.

Let me be clear: this is NOT a thread for bashing the APA. I am not complaining about the APA. If you want to post here, please keep these things in mind!

I am seeking advice from people who may have experienced a similar situation:

I have a player on my team who was a 3. She has been a 2 in the last 20 weeks, and actually played a total of 6 matches as a 2 at various times over those last 20 weeks. (She has gone up and down...usually wins as a 2). So at this sessions regional playoffs, she plays the first round as a 3. Her opponent played badly, and served up some nice easy tables for her. She shot the match of her life and won. We come back the next day and they have moved her up to a 4. Believe me, she is NOT a 4. Her skill set is nothing like the typical 4's in our area. She only wins 50% of the time as a 3. Her innings average well above 5, generally over 6 innings per game. I have inquired with my league operator about it. He is a really nice guy, and quite helpful. He would not tell me if the skill level was manually adjusted, or was automatically calculated by the computer. Let's just say that there is no possible chance it was calculated by the computer. We are a very honest team, keep track of every safety shot, mark all innings, and always try our best on every single shot. No suprise that over the years, many people's handicaps have gone up. I have never argued or raised the slightest objection.

However, this time I believe a mistake was made. Someone manually adjusted her score without enough info to do so. She could have shot a 7 level score in the playoffs (she didn't!!) and it still wouldn't have been enough to offset her average.

I am not really interested in debating whether or not the skill level change was justified. Lets just assume for the sake of this thread that it was NOT justified. My LO asked me to submit a handicap review form. I did. He contacted corporate and they told him that NO handicaps would be reviewed for teams qualified for the States (LTC). We played 3 rounds in the playoffs...she played the first round and won, and then sat out the next 2 rounds after she was raised to a 4. I am now told that not only will they not review her handicap being raised, but that her S/L will be locked until the states in June?!?!? Something is fundamentally wrong with this.

My question: has anyone faced a similar situation? How did you handle it? What courses of action resulted in success (having the skill level restored to the correct level). Should I be appealing directly to corporate, since there is a possible conflict of interest with my league office? (They have nothing against me and my team, but they may have something against being "wrong".) I mean, this girl is not good. No offense to her, but she often misses ball in hand. She is NOT a 4 or close to it.

Any advice would be most appreciated,

KMRUNOUT

 

[sixpack]

So what happened with the APA 4 player?

 

[FeelDaShot]

So what happened with the APA 4 player?

The appeal was approved last week and now she's back to a 3.