Should All Skill Levels Have an Equal Chance to Win a Weekly 9-Ball Handicapped Tournament?

[stewie]

Side question, why is the mentality there that you have to have a chance at winning or you wont go? We have all open tournaments and they are always full. I and others lose every week and we become stronger players for it, iron sharpens iron is the general attitude. Could this be why the us is producing weak players?

The big reason you always hear is: players won't come, if no handicaps. And if all you want is filling your room on a slow night, that's fine.

There is, here in NYC for example, way more handicapped stuff than even races. I wish at least the bigger ones on the weekend were even races and only the weekly ones would have handicaps. That would be true competition. Of course you could say, learn to beat the handicap. But for 500-600s it's hard to do that consistently. It's more frustrating than it needs to be, IMHO.

 

[Atorontopoolplayer]

I think those that claim the above aren't being attentive enough. I was steamrolled the other week by a ~715. Dude crushed me 7-1. I learnt several things from how he broke, shot selection and alternative patterns to deal with clusters. Sure that doesn't mean every "steamrolled" situation reveals such knowledge, but I made it a point to watch, and I subsequently learned.

This is you speaking as like a 680 ish player though is it not? Playing like 50 points above isn't really what people are referring to here, it's the 700 vs a 400 or lower kind of steam rolling

 

[dquarasr]

I didn't read all the responses in this thread, but I saw lots of posts that say better players should have the advantage. As a banger myself, I don't disagree. It's part of the thrill of competing, trying to overcome odds stacked against us.

Spitballing here:

Is participation fairly consistent? Do you have good percentage of return entrants at lower levels? If so, don't change anything, there's your answer.

Handicapped bowling leagues are typically 80%, more commonly 90%, rarely 100% handicapped. I'd say your match goals are about right but if you feel the need to change....

If you really do want to try to equalize things, you might consider leaving the match goals alone, but tier (very slightly!!) the entry fees. Lower levels pay x, medium levels pay x*1.1, high levels pay x*1.2. This might no go over vey well, though.

If you have enough entrants, you can have multiple divisions, maybe divided in half or thirds; lower levels play each other, mids play each other, highs play each other. Then at some point they converge for quarter- semi- or finals. If you don't have enough entrants for a class, they get rolled up to the next higher group. Harder to implement and manage, and might not be well received.

I think the answers to my first two questions will tell you what to do. If you get good numbers, don't change anything.

I hope this helps otherwise I'll slink back to my dark corner now.

 

[Jobear]

I agree that most of the time a better player will win, regardless,

 

[tomatoshooter]

I didn't read all the responses in this thread, but I saw lots of posts that say better players should have the advantage. As a banger myself, I don't disagree. It's part of the thrill of competing, trying to overcome odds stacked against us.

Spitballing here:

Is participation fairly consistent? Do you have good percentage of return entrants at lower levels? If so, don't change anything, there's your answer.

Handicapped bowling leagues are typically 80%, more commonly 90%, rarely 100% handicapped. I'd say your match goals are about right but if you feel the need to change....

If you really do want to try to equalize things, you might consider leaving the match goals alone, but tier (very slightly!!) the entry fees. Lower levels pay x, medium levels pay x*1.1, high levels pay x*1.2. This might no go over vey well, though.

If you have enough entrants, you can have multiple divisions, maybe divided in half or thirds; lower levels play each other, mids play each other, highs play each other. Then at some point they converge for quarter- semi- or finals. If you don't have enough entrants for a class, they get rolled up to the next higher group. Harder to implement and manage, and might not be well received.

I think the answers to my first two questions will tell you what to do. If you get good numbers, don't change anything.

I hope this helps otherwise I'll slink back to my dark corner now.

I like the tiered entry fees. I want to play the game straight up but I prefer to limit how much money I lose. I can't throw $60/week away worth no hope of breaking even. And I don't want to learn how to play a low percentage game that can get me 2 wins before my opponent gets 6.

 

[zetetikos]

I think those that claim the above aren't being attentive enough. I was steamrolled the other week by a ~715. Dude crushed me 7-1. I learnt several things from how he broke, shot selection and alternative patterns to deal with clusters. Sure that doesn't mean every "steamrolled" situation reveals such knowledge, but I made it a point to watch, and I subsequently learned.

I think you answered your own question. Maybe older generations care(d) more about winning because it was celebrated as unique. Now that we live in the days of everyone being a hero just for showing up. It has dimmed the luster from actually being special on that day...?

Personally I think it's the leagues, mainly apa but other offenders, Outside of 7s and 2s it's basically taught everyone that they should win around 50% of the time, or their handicap adjusts until they do so.

 

[zetetikos]

The big reason you always hear is: players won't come, if no handicaps. And if all you want is filling your room on a slow night, that's fine.

There is, here in NYC for example, way more handicapped stuff than even races. I wish at least the bigger ones on the weekend were even races and only the weekly ones would have handicaps. That would be true competition. Of course you could say, learn to beat the handicap. But for 500-600s it's hard to do that consistently. It's more frustrating than it needs to be, IMHO.

500-600s, myself included are dead money, it's players at tosti and Mika level who take home the cash for our cheap tournaments.

 

[maha]

for those that want the competition and think no handicaps. what is the amount of entry fee that you are willing to donate to watch a better player run through you every single tournament you play in..
10$ 50$ 300$ 1000$

and those that take off all the money what is the minimum tournament you will play in to make it worth your while.
will you play in a 5$ tournament then. if not then you really know what you are doing and not saying.

and take this from someone who gambles and always has the best of it or i dont play.
those that play are suckers for action, or people that are willing to lose for entertainment. both personal decisions.

 

[rexus31]

for those that want the competition and think no handicaps. what is the amount of entry fee that you are willing to donate to watch a better player run through you every single tournament you play in..
10$ 50$ 300$ 1000$

and those that take off all the money what is the minimum tournament you will play in to make it worth your while.
will you play in a 5$ tournament then. if not then you really know what you are doing and not saying.

and take this from someone who gambles and always has the best of it or i dont play.
those that play are suckers for action, or people that are willing to lose for entertainment. both personal decisions.

I’m confused. Are you for or against handicaps?

Sounds like you would be against them if you only gamble when you have the nuts.

 

[DeeDeeCues]

and take this from someone who gambles and always has the best of it or i dont play.

That isn't gambling, that is bottom feeding.

 

[garczar]

That isn't gambling, that is bottom feeding.

Trying to get the best of it is part of pool but stone cold nuthunting is the worst. I know guys that would not get out of their chair unless they thought they were a 70/30 favorite. People finally just ignored their begging and they drifted off.

 

[zetetikos]

for those that want the competition and think no handicaps. what is the amount of entry fee that you are willing to donate to watch a better player run through you every single tournament you play in..
10$ 50$ 300$ 1000$

and those that take off all the money what is the minimum tournament you will play in to make it worth your while.
will you play in a 5$ tournament then. if not then you really know what you are doing and not saying.

and take this from someone who gambles and always has the best of it or i dont play.
those that play are suckers for action, or people that are willing to lose for entertainment. both personal decisions.

Here the 700s only show up if there is at least 100 for the winner. There really isnt any gambling to speak off. Just for perspective 100 almost pays for someone health insurance for a month or groceries for the week. Our pros dont make 150-200 a lesson, so 100 is good money for them.

 

[DeeDeeCues]

I’m confused. Are you for or against handicaps?

Sounds like you would be against them if you only gamble when you have the nuts.

Sounds like most people who want an equal handicap--just wants his to be more equal than his opponent's.

 

[maha]

anyone that bets on something they know they have the worst of the bet is a sucker for that bet at least. not necessarily a sucker at everything, to be clear.

and to be smart and only do bets that you believe you have the best of it, is not being a bottom feeder, or a lock artist, or nut job. but being a smart gambler. but likely to be called that by non gamblers and losers.

i am all for handicaps in tournaments as they make it fun and accessible for all stages of a players ability. so the tournament can grow and more players keep an interest in the game. lose every time and it gets old. handicaps are good for pool.

and for me i am also a nut hunter if i can get it why not. but i will bet all i have in my pocket on any bet i feel i have the best of the bet even if its a small edge. and i have bet very large amounts with less than a 5% edge and routinely do so.

 

[jeagle64]

The better players usually win no matter the spread. It would be almost impossible for a beginner to win a tournament undefeated with only games on the wire. They would need additional spots like multiple pay balls and all the breaks. The beginner would need to have a chance to run the set once they got the break. Just like a advanced player can. The best solution may be to have separate boards or flight the tournament according to handicap.


Sent from my iPad using AzBilliards Forums

 

[Mensabum]

As the room owner / manager / tournament director, this is the dilemma I ponder in our weekly handicapped 9-ball tournament.

Despite game handicaps that go as high as a 6/2 race for the highest vs the lowest ranked players, our highest ranked players still win over 80% of our tournaments even though they represent only 20-25% of the players. All our handicaps are game spots and I will not consider incorporating ball spots in to our handicaps.

The obvious contrasting schools of thought for a handicapped tournament are:

1) Every player in the tournament, accurately ranked, should have an equal chance to win any given match as well as winning the entire tournament as any other player in the field.

2) The higher skilled and higher ranked player will always have an advantage and be the favorite to win any given match against a lesser ranked player, and ultimately has a far better chance of a higher tournament finish and in winning the tournament.

There are many varied opinions on this issue. The better players feel they have paid their dues and should have an advantage over the weaker players. The weaker, often newer players feel they must have some realistic chance to win in order to keep donating $ to the stronger players.

Clearly I think we’d all agree the lesser skilled players benefit far more from the opportunity to match up against the skilled players and learn from them than the stronger players benefit from competing against the weaker players. As the TD, I struggle with trying to find the right compromise to satisfy all levels of players - virtually an impossible task. Opinions?

I just tt a young player who frequents a weekly just like you describe. He hasn't played long, but has a good stroke for the short time he's been playing. Problem is, they determined his level and he finishes close to the money every week, but never in it. Always the same core group of players winning each week.
His question is how did they determine how to rank him and if he shows that often but never wins, wouldn't that be a clue that his handicap needs adjustment?? How long will he have to play in these in order to place?? Or is that the point??
Fodder for the cannons??
Just curious.

As the room owner / manager / tournament director, this is the dilemma I ponder in our weekly handicapped 9-ball tournament.

Despite game handicaps that go as high as a 6/2 race for the highest vs the lowest ranked players, our highest ranked players still win over 80% of our tournaments even though they represent only 20-25% of the players. All our handicaps are game spots and I will not consider incorporating ball spots in to our handicaps.

The obvious contrasting schools of thought for a handicapped tournament are:

1) Every player in the tournament, accurately ranked, should have an equal chance to win any given match as well as winning the entire tournament as any other player in the field.

2) The higher skilled and higher ranked player will always have an advantage and be the favorite to win any given match against a lesser ranked player, and ultimately has a far better chance of a higher tournament finish and in winning the tournament.

There are many varied opinions on this issue. The better players feel they have paid their dues and should have an advantage over the weaker players. The weaker, often newer players feel they must have some realistic chance to win in order to keep donating $ to the stronger players.

Clearly I think we’d all agree the lesser skilled players benefit far more from the opportunity to match up against the skilled players and learn from them than the stronger players benefit from competing against the weaker players. As the TD, I struggle with trying to find the right compromise to satisfy all levels of players - virtually an impossible task. Opinions?

 

[The_JV]

This is you speaking as like a 680 ish player though is it not? Playing like 50 points above isn't really what people are referring to here, it's the 700 vs a 400 or lower kind of steam rolling

Good point... So the distinction is that as a 680 player I'm experienced enough to know what to look for, or to make it more universal, that because the gap is <50 that I can comprehend what the stronger player is doing...? So, no difference between a '650 .vs. 700' and a '300 .vs. 350'...?

I don't recall a gap being established earlier on. Just that comments that nothing is learnt by being steam rolled. I definitely got steam rolled, that much is for sure...lol. I like to think I learned something

 

[The_JV]

I like the tiered entry fees. I want to play the game straight up but I prefer to limit how much money I lose. I can't throw $60/week away worth no hope of breaking even. And I don't want to learn how to play a low percentage game that can get me 2 wins before my opponent gets 6.

I don't know a stronger player that doesn't prefer tiered entry over handicaps. At least at that point players can reap from what they actually sow in developing their games. It's been a long time but I would like to think the bottom enders would also enjoy paying less. Of course tiered entry doesn't stop their feelings from getting hurt when the strong bitch slap them in an equal race.

When it gets dumb is when they double whammy the strong with both handicap and tiered entry. At that point is not about engaging the weak but penalizing the strong.

 

[Colonel]

Unless the handicap is ludicrous the better player will generally win anyway. While you can handicap the match to try to even up the game, nothing can be done to handicap the abyss that separates the lesser players mental state vs his battle seasoned opponent.

 

[Atorontopoolplayer]

Good point... So the distinction is that as a 680 player I'm experienced enough to know what to look for, or to make it more universal, that because the gap is <50 that I can comprehend what the stronger player is doing...? So, no difference between a '650 .vs. 700' and a '300 .vs. 350'...?

Yeah , if you can't run 3 balls in a row watching you work out a tricky rack with a lot of cue ball movement or clusters etc doesn't do them much good it's so beyond their capability
But someone that's relatively close in Fargo, even 100 points I think you can learn a lot getting crushed but the massive gaps it's kinda pointless for all involved.