The Biggest Flaw of APA's Handicapping

[chasrwest]

There is a point where you outgrow the APA. You should play elsewhere if you want to compete on that level and/or get better.

IMHO, the biggest flaw in APA is the 23-point rule, capping a team's combined skill level. Discourages players from getting better, if they want to stay on. You could say that about pretty much all handicap systems/tournaments. Fargorate at least goes all the way up and is a nice number to track progress.

APA is good at keeping recreational players coming back to the table and have a good time.

That is all built into the companies growth and marketing plan. It is a design feature, not a flaw.
They want players to advance, forcing a team to split into two teams, then bring in new players to fill out the teams. Organic growth is achieved with little effort from the L.O. or St Louis. It is a league designed to bring new players to the sport and new money to the APA.
In my experience, the vast majority of APA players are there for socializing with friends and drinking, not serious pool playing.

 

[surffisher2a]

But isn't the break part of the skill set? If you have two players of identical skill, with the exception that one is a weak breaker and one is strong, wouldn't you say one is better than the other? In fact, when I talk to highly-skilled players who just played a very close match or just lost, the #1 reason they give me is "my break wasn't working".

I think the fact that you can point out that difference and state that the weaker player might be "rewarded" with a lower SL number says a lot.

I think the problem here isn't two people of the same skill level, its a 6 playing a decent 4 who can't break the rack for anything and you end up fighting a big cluster the whole rack, giving the lower level player more chances at the table because the higher level player can't run balls.

 

[chasrwest]

i quit APA after having to split a team i enjoyed playing with. Also APA isnt that great .....

The APA greatness (or not) factor is largely a function of the league operator's attitude and actions. The L.O. can be amazing or can run off players faster than new ones can come along.
My first team is now four teams, any one of which I would be happy to be a member.

 

[APA Operator]

I agree with this, I don't think I played one full match in Tri cups or Cities that didn't end in sudden death. It's kind of lame to have those important tournaments end in a single sudden death match. All session long teams play on at least two table every week, but come tournaments we can only play on one table. One match that gets into a safety battle between two 6's can take and hour and half or more (I been there). I shot a 2 hour+ match once in tri cups and neither of us shot slow, we just played very conservatively because both of us were shooting really good and not missing much. Any iffy shots were not taken and played defense instead.

Last Cities tournament we started friday night and we didn't get out of there until after midnight, had to be back there at 8:00am the next morning, played until 1:30am and lost (in SD) in the quarter finals. If we would have won that match we would have had to be back in there at 8:00am on Sunday to play the semi finals and finals. That last match for me on Sat night into Sun morning was rough. I played another 6 and I honestly don't know how I made it through the match, I was just DONE... I even fell asleep in my chair at one point, I ended up winning that match, but I have no idea how, I don't even remember playing most of it. That was NOT fun, we aren't pro's who are used to playing 15+ hour days tournaments.

Slow is a matter of perspective though. I'll give you an example. Let's say that tricup match took 60 innings and ended 5-4. That's 60 misses for both players. Let's also say you made all the balls in every game. That's 15 makes in 8-Ball. Furthermore, let's say you each used your time out in every game. That's 120 misses and 135 makes, or 255 shots total. At the 20-second average, that part of the match should take 45 minutes. Add in the time outs and you have 18 more minutes. That leaves almost an hour for racking and walking to the table (really shouldn't count at all but we'll give 5 extra seconds to get there every time) so 10 minutes. That leaves 47 minutes for racking 9 racks. You're doing something slowly, even if you feel like you're not. Most likely it's shooting those defensive shots. Just because you're playing defense doesn't mean you get extra time to shoot the shot, even to think. You still need to observe the 20-second average shot duration.

Your example of cities and rounds finishing late then starting early the next day sounds like poor planning on the part of the tournament director. Sounds like too many teams in cities for the number of tables available and a format resulting in too many matches, leading to rounds four hours apart instead of five, which is really the only reason to start a round at 8 am. Some LO's send half their teams to tricups, which leads to tournaments like that. Not very smart, IMO.

 

[APA Operator]

I think the problem here isn't two people of the same skill level, its a 6 playing a decent 4 who can't break the rack for anything and you end up fighting a big cluster the whole rack, giving the lower level player more chances at the table because the higher level player can't run balls.

The higher level player gets more turns too, so where's the reward?

 

[CocoboloCowboy]

The higher level player gets more turns too, so where's the reward?

Will do not know how it works in other places, but in Arizona.

The better you got under AZ Rating, now Fargo.

The fewer event you were allied to play in.

Most event were for recreational player, not the player who were rack runners.

 

[surffisher2a]

The higher level player gets more turns too, so where's the reward?

The point is the 6 usually finishes out a rack is 3 - 4 innings and the 4 usually takes 6 or 7, so in a typical rack with a well spread out break, the SL6 is usually through the rack before the SL4 gets enough chances at the table to finish their rack, extending the game give the lower level player an advantage they wouldn't otherwise have, the longer the match goes, the more and more the odds get closer to 50/50 for the winner of the match, Whereas in the beginning the SL6 probably had a 75% or 80% change to win the match.

I have seen players in our league intentionally soft break (yes I know its technically not allowed, but its not worth a fight on league night) when they play higher level players who can run out, I myself when playing good SL 7's use a 2nd ball break because it often leads to a cluster on the side of the table and might give me an extra chance or two at the table (along with maybe getting a free rack win 8 on the break). When I play people who aren't as skilled as me, I never use the 2nd ball break and opt to straight on break because I get a better spread and can control the cue ball better.

 

[Justaneng]

The higher level player gets more turns too, so where's the reward?

A general rule here is chaos favors the underdog. If you’re, say, a 4, there is some weakness (or likely many) driving your inning count up. The best weakness to have playing other, only marginally better, amateurs is a weak break - because at least that weakness adds chaos to the game.

A player that breaks a ton, but is prone to scratching or losing the cue ball 2 shots later is a goner handing the ball over to a better player, compared to a player that hits most of their open shots, but there’s a giant cluster in the middle of the table, inherently extending the rack a few innings given APA quality of play.

This becomes doubly good, because even if your shot making goes really hot for a few weeks, you’re not prone to a bunch of 1 and 2 inning racks and a promotion that takes an act of congress to come back from.

 

[Ģüśţāṿ]

My perspective on this - every LOs ideal world would be for every team to have 3 or 4 players at the highest skill level. If they want to keep playing, they’ll need to start another team with new players. Within limits, the league grows and the LO makes a lot of money. Now the real world; this will never happen. People will quit APA. I’ve seen this for over 20 years.

You have just described the APA Masters format which is much more enjoyable for better players. You have 3-4 people per team, no handicaps, and you play 8 and 9 ball in a race to 7 wins. Good fun in competitive regions.

 

[ctyhntr]

You have just described the APA Masters format which is much more enjoyable for better players. You have 3-4 people per team, no handicaps, and you play 8 and 9 ball in a race to 7 wins. Good fun in competitive regions.

APA Masters league isn't available in every APA league territory, as its up to the local league operator's discretion. Which is why you have lots of folks unaware, and based their experience and opinions thinking APA 8-ball is the only format APA offers. When in actuality, it's the only format their local APA league operator chooses to offer.

 

[ctyhntr]

The APA greatness (or not) factor is largely a function of the league operator's attitude and actions. The L.O. can be amazing or can run off players faster than new ones can come along.
My first team is now four teams, any one of which I would be happy to be a member.

I fully concur. Where I live, there are three to five APA league territories within driving distance. First one only offers APA 8-ball and no patches. 2nd offers Double Jeopardy (8-ball and 9-ball), patches, and qualifiers. 3rd offers all the above, plus Masters and Singles leagues, and they used to offer Super 30. A format where the team cap is 30 instead of 23. This one is offered as a cash league, as there is no road to Nationals in Las Vegas.

 

[APA Operator]

The point is the 6 usually finishes out a rack is 3 - 4 innings and the 4 usually takes 6 or 7, so in a typical rack with a well spread out break, the SL6 is usually through the rack before the SL4 gets enough chances at the table to finish their rack, extending the game give the lower level player an advantage they wouldn't otherwise have, the longer the match goes, the more and more the odds get closer to 50/50 for the winner of the match, Whereas in the beginning the SL6 probably had a 75% or 80% change to win the match.

I have seen players in our league intentionally soft break (yes I know its technically not allowed, but its not worth a fight on league night) when they play higher level players who can run out, I myself when playing good SL 7's use a 2nd ball break because it often leads to a cluster on the side of the table and might give me an extra chance or two at the table (along with maybe getting a free rack win 8 on the break). When I play people who aren't as skilled as me, I never use the 2nd ball break and opt to straight on break because I get a better spread and can control the cue ball better.

That's one perspective, but it demonstrates limited thinking. Everything is a component of skill. I would expect the higher-skilled player to be better at shooting around or breaking up clusters when desired, so saying that player is at a disadvantage on a clustered table is bogus. Sure, it takes them longer, but it takes the 4 longer too, and they're likely to make more mistakes so the delta is likely bigger. So for that clustered rack, it might take the 6 7-8 innings, but for the 4 that one might be 10-11 innings.

What you're essentially saying is that a 4 takes 6 or 7 innings to finish ANY rack, but a 6 needs a good spread to do it in 3-4. In fact, I think you've got it backwards. Given a wide open table, the 4 can run out sometimes. Those are the racks where he/she can run balls like a 6 and get an advantage. The first thing people learn in pool is how to make balls, so if you have a rack where all you need to do is make balls, the lower players eat it up because that's all many of them know how to do. The harder the rack is, the more a difference in ability will show. That's why the better players prefer tight pockets and larger tables.

In fact, when I played (I'm a 7), I used a break that would leave clusters on the table against everyone, knowing that most often I was better at clearing a clustered-up rack than most. The thing I wanted most to avoid was a dry break and a wide-open table for the incoming player, no matter what their SL was. The second-ball break, as hard as you can with control (without scratching) was ok with me.

 

[APA Operator]

A general rule here is chaos favors the underdog. If you’re, say, a 4, there is some weakness (or likely many) driving your inning count up. The best weakness to have playing other, only marginally better, amateurs is a weak break - because at least that weakness adds chaos to the game.

A player that breaks a ton, but is prone to scratching or losing the cue ball 2 shots later is a goner handing the ball over to a better player, compared to a player that hits most of their open shots, but there’s a giant cluster in the middle of the table, inherently extending the rack a few innings given APA quality of play.

This becomes doubly good, because even if your shot making goes really hot for a few weeks, you’re not prone to a bunch of 1 and 2 inning racks and a promotion that takes an act of congress to come back from.

I think you need to define "chaos" in a way that makes this make sense. Chaos favors the one who is better able to create order from chaos, no? Consider every break as introducing a degree of chaos. With a higher degree of chaos, wouldn't the better player be favored by a larger margin?

 

[TWOFORPOOL]

As most of us know, APA league is the biggest recreational league in the US, and consists of both 8 and 9-ball leagues.
APA uses a somewhat complex handicap system they call the Equalizer System.
It uses handicapped formulas that rate players by their actual game-play performance (mostly innings/game), and wins/losses don't really factor much.
And their formula is actually pretty solid, accept for one huge variable: TABLE DIFFICULTY.
APA's standard table is supposed to be Valley 7 footers, and these are what are used at the World Championships.
Now the problem is (and it happens in my town) that many pool rooms use the much tuffer 7-foot Diamond tables for league play.
And since the APA formula only bases skill levels (mainly) on innings per game, I have come to the conclusion that an APA SL5 that plays primarily in a league that uses 7-foot Diamond tables is actually more skilled, by about a level, than a SL5 that plays on the easier 7-foot Valley tables.
So guess what happens when these two SL5's meet up at the World's and play against each other? That's right, Diamond table SL5 player plays better than the Valley table SL5 player.
Trust me, I know. My good friend- an average-ish player who is rated on a league that primarily plays on Diamonds- won it all (easily) not to long ago at World's. $15k, and frankly it wasn't even close lol.
So attention APA League Administrators, you might really want to factor table difficulty into your formula, because Diamond 7's are becoming more and more widely used in APA leagues, and they play about a skill level more difficult than Valleys in my experienced opinion.

7' Diamond vs 7' Valley? This is nothing compared to APA players who consistently play in 9' tables vs 7' tables. The APA states they have a conversion rate for table size differences but I guarantee you that an APA 4 on any bar box compared to an APA 4 on a 9' table the APA 4 on a 9' table is a much better player.

 

[APA Operator]

7' Diamond vs 7' Valley? This is nothing compared to APA players who consistently play in 9' tables vs 7' tables. The APA states they have a conversion rate for table size differences but I guarantee you that an APA 4 on any bar box compared to an APA 4 on a 9' table the APA 4 on a 9' table is a much better player.

This is pure speculation on your part. I have plenty of players in both camps and when they meet it's a toss up. Now, the best of the 7's and 9's are usually found on the 9' tables, but that's because they hang out in the pool halls and not in the bars.

I can't speak about how APA deals with differences between tables, because that's part of their "trade secrets" and I'm forbidden by contract to discuss it with anyone not under the same restrictions. I can tell you though that it goes beyond simple table size or even manufacturer. Things like this are studied and discussed ad nauseum before being implemented. It amazes me at the number of people who think the APA just does stuff willy-nilly. We give each item its due diligence.

 

[Tom1234]

Has the APA given any thought to a rolling 10 match performance outcome to help determine true handicaps? I say this because “the past is prologue” saying could have impact here. A player could be hotter than a 3 peckered billy goat for 4 matches, but not be able to make a ball the next 6 matches. On average, he’s really not that good. I’ve seen hcps raised in this scenario, but not lowered when he stinks up the place. You know how a rolling average works; drop match one to replace it with match eleven. There would always be 10 matches used to determine a hcp. I think this would be a fair way to determine a truer hcp.

 

[TWOFORPOOL]

This is pure speculation on your part. I have plenty of players in both camps and when they meet it's a toss up. Now, the best of the 7's and 9's are usually found on the 9' tables, but that's because they hang out in the pool halls and not in the bars.

I can't speak about how APA deals with differences between tables, because that's part of their "trade secrets" and I'm forbidden by contract to discuss it with anyone not under the same restrictions. I can tell you though that it goes beyond simple table size or even manufacturer. Things like this are studied and discussed ad nauseum before being implemented. It amazes me at the number of people who think the APA just does stuff willy-nilly. We give each item its due diligence.

I was told this by an APA player as I recall out of Georgia who has had several teams in nationals. The majority of players play on a barbox in the Portland, OR Vancouver, WA area which is where I am from. You brought up the best 7s & 9s which brings to another short coming of APA. They think their system is so good (which it is) they won't even consider another system like Fargo to check to see if any pros sneak into APA. As a result a Fargo 770 player ranked 13th in the USA and 90TH IN THE WORLD won the Apr 22 8 Ball Singles Classic event. BCA says a pro is 720 and above.I believe the APA should (behind doors) use Fargo to make sure pros don't get in the APA. In the last 5 years (10 singles events) 5 have been won my players over Fargo 720 (one was 730 when he won but is currently 719). Send me a message and I will give you the results for the last 5 years.

 

[APA Operator]

I was told this by an APA player as I recall out of Georgia who has had several teams in nationals. The majority of players play on a barbox in the Portland, OR Vancouver, WA area which is where I am from. You brought up the best 7s & 9s which brings to another short coming of APA. They think their system is so good (which it is) they won't even consider another system like Fargo to check to see if any pros sneak into APA. As a result a Fargo 770 player ranked 13th in the USA and 90TH IN THE WORLD won the Apr 22 8 Ball Singles Classic event. BCA says a pro is 720 and above.I believe the APA should (behind doors) use Fargo to make sure pros don't get in the APA. In the last 5 years (10 singles events) 5 have been won my players over Fargo 720 (one was 730 when he won but is currently 719). Send me a message and I will give you the results for the last 5 years.

The APA's stance, as I'm sure you've read in the Team Manual, is that a person cannot be declared a professional simply because they are a highly skilled player. They have to exhibit other professional characteristics. Those who do not are welcome to play in APA. BCA can define a pro however they want. It doesn't make them right, nor does it even mean the Fargo numbers are right. Fargo is a system, like the Equalizer, that can be and is gamed by some. A Fargo of 719 suggests gaming to me (might be totally legit, but I'm suspicious by nature).

 

[APA Operator]

Has the APA given any thought to a rolling 10 match performance outcome to help determine true handicaps? I say this because “the past is prologue” saying could have impact here. A player could be hotter than a 3 peckered billy goat for 4 matches, but not be able to make a ball the next 6 matches. On average, he’s really not that good. I’ve seen hcps raised in this scenario, but not lowered when he stinks up the place. You know how a rolling average works; drop match one to replace it with match eleven. There would always be 10 matches used to determine a hcp. I think this would be a fair way to determine a truer hcp.

Sure, they've given it some thought. Probably more thought than almost anybody else. That was my point, they put a lot of thought into everything.

 

[Tom1234]

Sure, they've given it some thought. Probably more thought than almost anybody else. That was my point, they put a lot of thought into everything.

This was my point. League Operator’s input would no longer be needed under a rolling average system. Rolling average is a purely objective system; no longer would someone stay a SL 7 when their match outcomes say they are lesser skilled player, just because the LO thinks so.