How Does an APA 7 Go Down to a 6?
- Thread starter Logandgriff
- Start date
I habe mentioned a couple times about how gargo can be manipulated just lile any other handicap system.
I happened to just look up a dew Fargo ratings again instead of going by memory.
These are apa 7"s .
576
452
467
Me ? 480 and i am an apa 5/6
Downright laughable i was spotting apa 7's when i played usapl.
I happened to just look up a dew Fargo ratings again instead of going by memory.
These are apa 7"s .
576
452
467
Me ? 480 and i am an apa 5/6
Downright laughable i was spotting apa 7's when i played usapl.
Very true... However I major difference is that APA rankings are solely based on the pond you play in. A '7' at one pool room could have a drastically different spd then a '7' down the block.
It doesn't mean he wouldn't have won anyway, or that he is any less of a 7. Maybe he had a bad day and won anyway, and the match was closer than it should have been, so his rating was already low and now you might adjust him lower, making his rating even less accurate. Maybe the 7-turned-6 was in a zone and really was playing 7 speed at the time (that's what the rating system said anyway). There are lots of maybes, and automatically adjusting one person based on the changes in another is just as much a guess as the original rating was in the first place. Each system gets it right sometimes and each system gets it wrong sometimes.
7 is a bad example. What you say here could be true of two 7's anywhere, even if they play in the same pond. If you could equate a lower speed in one area (say 4) with a different speed in another (say 5), then you would have a point. But history and statistics show that to be untrue, especially in current times.
I have heard that many times but i can just go by what i have actually seen playing in state regionals and vegas one time. I never saw anyone who i would think was below their assigned handicap except for a 2 i encountered in vegas.
I think almost eveey one agrees an apa 7 could range anywhere from a c+ to a semi pro. Therefore i judge a 7 in 8 ball playing abilities by their 9 ball ranking.
As for your same pond comment. All these guys i memtioned have played each other several times over the years ...heck i have played 3 of rhem several times in apa and have played rhe orher 2 in money tournaments also.. So there is no way an apa 7/8 and a 7/9 should have a lower fargo rating than an apa 5/6 unless they sandbagged when they joined usapl at the same time i did.
From what I’ve read, a LOW ranked seven could be (numerically) a 7.0001 and a high ranked six could be (numerically) a 6.9999. If that’s the case, two players of almost exact skill levels are playing. Yet the 7 has to spot the 6 one game. If APA is truly using a numeric rating based on some combination of innings, safes, wins, etc., even with rounding, an unfair matchup could occur. If the LO’s comment about being the “lowest” ranked seven is true, then that 7 is at a disadvantage. Why not rank players based on winning %? As I’ve stated before, if you can’t beat a 7, how can you be a 7. Accounting for good days and bad days (we all have them), you should be able to beat others in your SL at least 50% of the time. Stop typing, if you are 50% or higher against a higher SL, then yes, your SL should be adjusted.
I'll add that a 7 that loses more than 50% of the time to other 7s should be lowered. However that makes too much sense... Also counter intutitive to the business model.
There are only "maybes" if you choose to introduce them. Math is math, plain and simple. Math based on a small sample size fluctuates wildly. As that sample size increases the numbers stablize. Beauty of fargo, downfall of "The Equalizer". The example of my fargo dropping because of a prior opponent's dropping is a great example. If my sample size was larger then the effects of his poor play wouldn't have effected me as much. Digging deeper..., his recent poor play wouldn't have effected him as badly if he had more in the system as well. So you have two players with small samples in the system. Our performances as a whole can easily be equated to playing above our heads, (again small sample, so who knows our real spd).
The reality is the APA individual rankings are broad in ability, and it's required to be to support the "race to XXX" format.
I don't think that makes as much sense as you're suggesting. If a 7 could be anywhere from Fargo 500 and up, shouldn't a below average 7 lose a majority of his matches against other 7's? Like someone stated earlier, someone has to be the worst 7.
7 is the extreme merely because there's nothing higher. A player's APA handicap will always only be relative to their particular league. A 5 in one pool room could be a 3 in another, depending on the depth of quality play. Take for example a Master's league populated with nothing but would otherwise be considered 7s in a standard handicapped APA league. Now introduce handicaps to that group. After the dust settles, not everyone is going to be a 7, and you would have more 5's then anything else. Probably nothing less than that, but I think I made my point. You could do the same by segregating large group of any APA rank and pressing the reset button. Twenty 3s would end up with a couple of 7s, bunch of 6s,....etc. That's the way it works....
All that said, of course the APA reserves the right to arbitrarily alter a player's handicap on a whim if it suits their purposes.
You can't equate fargo to APA... There's a chart courtesy of Dr Dave but that's as close as those two systems are related to one another. I think I read somewhere that a 100 point gap between fargos equates to being 2x as strong a player. The gaps between APA ranks is nowhere near as expansive.
However yes, someone needs to be the worst 7. Just like someone needs to be the best 6. If you make a habit of feeding on 6s as a 6, then you should become a 7. If you're being eaten by 7s as a 7, then you should be lowered to a 6. The 50% benchmark was just a number I grabbed from the quote I used. Apply whatever you think it should be. Personally I think if you're +/- 15% of that the 50/50 mark, then you're right where you need to be. The point was, if you can't compete in the skill level you are at, then it should be adjusted. I've always wondered why I haven't seen players continually fluctuate between the 6/7 threshold. If it was based purely on unbiased math then every pool room should have a few players that ride the bubble.
I think I see where you're coming from, but it leads me to the next question. If you're being eaten as a 7, then move down to a 6, won't you then be feeding on the 6's? Especially since the "best" 6's just got bumped to a 7?
That doesn't follow. The could have precise ratings like Fargo and still do races to xxx but using the rounded difference and not the difference of two rounded numbers. That would give matches that are fairer on average. The Fargo site provides handicapped matches (games on the wire) based on the rating difference.
Yep you should be... eating 6s when you're a 'bubble player". That's the nature of handicapped league though. Eventually you'll end up being a 7 again. Handicaps should be fluid in both directions.
My point was... The APA system runs 2 thru 7, and uses those numbers to award games on the wire to the lesser player. If a 7 plays a 6 in APA, the 6 gets a game on the wire to a race to 5. Do you think that 1 game on the wire is fair handicap between a 700 and 600 in fargo...?
I just looked at Dave's chart again... It looks as though he equate a 50 gap (with +/- ?? overlap) in fargo to a skill level in APA and maxes out at 600. So a player that 50% stronger needs only give a single game on the wire. Still doesn't sound right to me.
Last edited:
No, but then I don't think the intent of The Equalizer (or whatever the APA may be calling it these days) is to make matches a 50-50 proposition. Most 7s will not stand for a spot to a 2 large enough to make the match fair.
I don't think they're all THAT far from the 100 point gaps. I don't have much experience, but 370 being a midrange APA4, 450 being a midrange APA5, and 530 being a midrange APA6 sounds kinda ballpark to me. That's an 80-point gap.
I suspect that is the reason the APA kicked one of our azbilliards member team out of the national tournament in the late stages a few years ago. The time to clean up their rating system is before you have to kick a team out of the national tournament.