Funny thing is, lots of pool was played on that table with not one person complaining about it rolling off. Looks like the 8 ball started wobbling on it's way back. Could it have been the ball and not the table
APA screwed our very own sleinen out of a national championship
- Thread starter ShortBusRuss
- Start date
Funny thing is, lots of pool was played on that table with not one person complaining about it rolling off. Looks like the 8 ball started wobbling on it's way back. Could it have been the ball and not the table
right on jeff..glad to see you back in the mix..not sure how much you missed
had to look up american rotation tho..only ever heard of it, but will check it out
a league sounds interesting..let us know how it goes if you get into it
good rolls to you and yours,
sean
The AR league I spoke of should be a good one because I heard their was absolutely no weight given or ask for by anyone.
(Memory lol)...I think they told me their matches:
Goes to 150
Use the Joe Tucker Vervion of rotation.
I like it almot as much as 14.1. Its a little harder game than 9, 10 ball etc...
I've been playing AR for about three days and have only run four or five racks from break. That's not many considering I've played probably ~25 racks in last few days.
Most good to really good 9 ball players hate it at first but learn to love it after they see how beneficial it is to other games.
Last edited:
i didn't read this lengthy, tedious thread, however, i recall a blurp that as many as 5 members of the team had their skill level raised
if that's the case the apa didn't screw them, they screwed themselves
the apa is what it is, a bane to some while salvation to others
imo the idea of incorporating "fargo" (not FERGUSON) has merit
if that's the case the apa didn't screw them, they screwed themselves
the apa is what it is, a bane to some while salvation to others
imo the idea of incorporating "fargo" (not FERGUSON) has merit
It seems more likely that the apa system failed them. They played as they played and had their ranks, then they get somewhere with players from other regions..whose ranks had the same type of numbers but totally different meanings, now all the sudden they’ve been sandbagging the whole time. “You got caught, deal with it” lol whoever kept saying that over and over.
The whole thing is embarrassing, adults needing someone to watch over them to make sure they’re playing fair. Anyway, hopefully something good comes of it all :grin:
If they bring Fargo into their equation, it will help but, APA would still suck.
IMO, APA was doomed from the getgo to higher skill level players.
APA, like some others believe, it's for weekend warriors and housewives.
I am no expert on how apa does their handicapping but here is what i believe happened. This team played great through tri cups.....played great through ltc's. ....played great through 9 rounds of nationals . the end result is your handicap is reformulated after ewch match. You play your best through all that and chances are great that your hwndicap will be raised to your current level of play. Highly unusual for 5 members of the same team to be raised though. That is definite proof that no one on that team was sandbagging during qualifiers or during the nationals itself.
By the way......i read earlier by the alledged victim himself that apa never accused them odlf sandbagging.....they just raised them wccording to the level of play they were displaying during their matches.
One time during 9 ball tri cups i was raised after my match on a friday night. After my first match saturday morning i was lowered. When i showed up sunday morning i saw i had been raised again.
I dont think fargo rate....while a good system in my opinion answer either.
I played usapl for a while before it folded . sandbagging went on in that league also or how else do you explain an apa 5-6 like me having a higher rating than an apa 7-9 and another 7-9 only spotting me 3 points. I definitely was not playing like a 7-9 in usapl and i do not sandbag in apa. Also had a 7-8 joking about playing me even in usapl . like i have said every time apa comes up....apa does not have a monopoly on sandbagging players.....they are in all handicapped leagues and it will always be like that when you have certain players who will try to gain an edge over their opponents any way they can.
In general, we call it being smart at matching up.
You know that a good player can most certainly lose to a much lesser player simply because he didn't know how to match up.
Well, sandbagging is just one more way of trying to control the matchups.
Think of APA sandbagging as a "long con". Its no more, no less.
Thing to ke is, lol....hiw hard up do you have to be to play that long of a con for literally nothing?
Complete jokes trying to scam another scammer.
I think they all deserve one another.
Jeff
There is a big issue with APA ratings, they are set locally, then play finals nationally.
I was watching a stream of NJ APA and they were bringing out 4s and 5s that shot as good as what I would have thought 6s would be. Running out with good patterns, not missing much. Of course this could all be sandbagging but who knows, the commentators seemed to put that off as "they are our local 5s, which are stronger than other 5s". I've seen 4s shoot better than 6s with better position and patterns and thinking. Sandbagging, maybe, but could be area difference.
You take a team that plays their matches on in a place with 9 footers and maybe tight pockets, with good players in their area and go against a team from some remote place with 3 bars with 7 footers that wobble and have 5.5 inch pockets, there will be a huge difference between the players ranked a 5 in both areas.
To win any tournament you need to play good and get some rolls, so of course a team that gets to finals or close to finals of that may teams would have been the team that played best. If you play good, that means you are better than your average.
I had an idea and rules written up for a local league that would make cheating moot, divide up money for best performance as well as how you do in the end of season playoffs. Top ranked team gets 1/3rd of the money, rest of teams play for 1/3rd and 1/3rd goes to individual performances. Top team is not qualified to play in play-offs. You sandbag to get low rankings for playoffs, you lose out on the best team money and maybe money for you being the top player. You sandbag, then miss out on money for being most improved or whatever other individual awards we would do. No incentive to cheat, much less chance there will be cheating. Players are not just trying to jockey for position for the end of session play offs, they are trying to actually play good and improve since there is a reward for that. You can be a top team with top players, and get 1st in standings and you can be a middle of the road team that does well in play offs and get the same money for doing different things.
Last edited:
Cory in DC said it best. Ratings/skill level can vary a good bit, depending on the level of play of the local players. If you have stronger players at the top, then your 6's will not get to be 7s, even though they would be 7s in a weaker area with no one to beat up on them (in a nutshell).
APA 6s in my area play around c+/b speed. I'd guess around 530 fargo (still not too familiar with Fargo, yet).
Eric
APA 6 should be a B or B+ from watching a lot of players and going by some simple logic, about right to be a 500-550 Fargo, B- to about a B, maybe a weaker B+ which leaves some room for B+ and A players to be 7s. APA is 2-7 in 9 ball, a 2 is pretty much you know where the pool table is and you can pick up a cue. So that is a D-. DCBA ratings, 2,3 is a D- to D+, 4,5 is a C- to C+, 6,7 is B- to B+ and A for 7s. I used some B+ as 7s as well as As because I have seen some B+ players that are 7s in APA. Anything else you end up with weirdness or needing to add a lot more ranking numbers, which is exactly what Fargo does with going by performance against a world of players and going into 800s rankings by single numbers.
The DCBA ratings are based on player skill, Fargo ratings are based on player skill (vs a large sample world-wide). APA and really any other league not using Fargo ratings is based on local area skill, sometimes within only a few pool halls. I play in quite a few pool halls, in half I would be in the top 10% or 5% of the regular players, in other half I would be mid-pack. If I played APA I can be a 6 or a 7 depending on which part of the area I played in most. I go to Vegas as a 6, playing on bucket 7 footers when I play on 9 footers and some tight tables, I would sure seem like a 7 to other players if I was on and comfortable.
Last edited:
Geographical location WOULD NOT be a factor if APA's system was truly a mathematical formula, and not arbitrary manipulation of SL's for the sake of team busting and expansion. None. Zip. Nadda. 5 innings is 5 innings, whether you're playing SVB on the 99th floor of the Empire State Building, or a road weary midwife in the back of a service station on Route 66.
The notion that skills between two players with the same rating can vary greatly because their competition varies sounds like a good argument on the surface, but it doesn't hold water.
And therein, a glaring truth about APA's ranking is revealed.
The notion that skills between two players with the same rating can vary greatly because their competition varies sounds like a good argument on the surface, but it doesn't hold water.
And therein, a glaring truth about APA's ranking is revealed.
Actually it does hold water. It’s flat out due to the market size. Larger markets will push certain players lower. A player could be a 2.0 inning/game average, but still have a 5% winning record in a larger area. In a smaller area they’d still average 2.0 innings/game but their winning % would go up drastically. They’d be rated higher in a smaller area. It’s all about innings in wins.
And properly marking defenses. This is where the green shirts really screw people over. A defense is marked any time a player has no intent to pocket a ball. Well due to overzealous captains/lazy LO’s, defenses won’t get marked because of many reasons. There’s a combo of errors done by the team captain to allow this stuff to happen. There’s a reason the LO was hit with a $25,000 fine too. But none of the truth matters.
You cant.
This problem exists in other sports that have handicap systems for the masses in team play.
For example:
Tennis (USTA) They have 14 levels and it is still a problem in national amateur events.
They also have the same problem of regional imbalance in rankings. A level 3.5 player from CA, FL is way better than a level 3.5 from Nebraska or Iowa.
Disagree...
Sure, if winning pct is a factor, it will vary... That's why win% shouldn't be factored at all. It's an independent, uncontrolled variable in an otherwise simple equation. It only serves to obfuscate the results, whether unintentional, or by design...
NCAA—strength of schedule (i.e., more weight given to SEC) is a huuuge factor in ranking.
Not always. I used to play in a league that counted innings. The room I played at had a table that nobody ran out on. A ball shot perfectly along the foot rail would reject if you shot it too hard. The other tables were not so impossible but they were tough.
The players from that room took a lot of innings to finish their matches. They ended up being underrated. That was fine with them.
This is one of the several reasons it's a lousy idea to use inning count to establish skill level across a wide area.
Apples and oranges. Tracking pool uses a different, easier set of quantifiable variables. And even in the NCAA, the "strength of schedule" variable is far from scientifically sound. There's entire TV programs devoted to debating the results, week in and week out...
Last edited:
If you're going to say things like this, you probably should have your facts straight. If a team is DQ'ed at the Championship Event, the LO is given the choice of a fine or loss of a slot in the next Event and is required to undergo training on handicap review. The fine is nowhere near $25K, though.
No one has addressed that since Russ first posted it.
If you don't know the tables in your region, sure. But APA has come up with a tool LOs can use to distinguish these tables and assign different table factors to them. A good LO knows the tables in his/her region and has already done most of that work.
Handicaps that DON'T consider a table factor are also skewed. For example, the handicaps of players who play on generous equipment will be closer, in general, than those of players who play on tougher equipment (good players will post a little better score but weaker players can post a lot better score). For that reason, it's a flaw to consider only how two players do against each other without considering equipment when calculating relative skill levels. This is why the better player in a match-up wants to play on the toughest table possible.