APA screwed our very own sleinen out of a national championship

sixpack said:

It’s an objective system. If that’s what the formula is that’s what he is. Although given that I don’t understand why APA officials had to watch their matches to make a decision as someone noted about this incident.

There are a lot of things that don’t add up here. Could be just that the information is incomplete.

Click to expand...

The reason officials watch certain players is because the scoresheets don't tell the whole story sometimes and there is nothing lime the good old eyeball test in determining exactly how well some one is playing.

After skunking my first opponent in vegas i had an observer watching every one of my matches the next 3 rounds before we were put out. It did not bother me at all to have some one watching .

lorider said:

The reason officials watch certain players is because the scoresheets don't tell the whole story sometimes and there is nothing lime the good old eyeball test in determining exactly how well some one is playing.

After skunking my first opponent in vegas i had an observer watching every one of my matches the next 3 rounds before we were put out. It did not bother me at all to have some one watching .

Click to expand...

But if it's an objective formula it doesn't matter what observers think.

We've been told competing things in this thread:
1) They were raised because the formula said they should be raised
2) They were watched and judges determined they should be raised

Which is true?

Is the formula accurate and objective or not?

I played in a tournament one time. I told the TD I should be a 10 (out of 12). The pockets were really, really tight (3 7/8"). So I only tried to run out if I had a very easy out and let my opponent tangle with it if there was any trouble.

I won 4 matches before I lost. Single elimination.

The TD after the tournament told me no way I was a 10. He's seen 10s play and I play too poorly to be a 10...etc...

But I beat 2 other 10s in the 4 matches I won...

But if I had lost shooting at everything and making some hero shots while eventually getting out of line or missing...he probably would have thought I was a 10 even if I lost. Ironically that's what I let the 10s I played do. I had many, many 2 and 3 ball outs for wins.

The point is, no matter how experienced a judge humans are notoriously bad at assessing skill levels in games like pool. If we were better at it gambling wouldn't really exist.

So. Is it a system or is it people?

sixpack said:

But if it's an objective formula it doesn't matter what observers think.

We've been told competing things in this thread:
1) They were raised because the formula said they should be raised
2) They were watched and judges determined they should be raised

Which is true?

Is the formula accurate and objective or not?

I played in a tournament one time. I told the TD I should be a 10 (out of 12). The pockets were really, really tight (3 7/8"). So I only tried to run out if I had a very easy out and let my opponent tangle with it if there was any trouble.

I won 4 matches before I lost. Single elimination.

The TD after the tournament told me no way I was a 10. He's seen 10s play and I play too poorly to be a 10...etc...

But I beat 2 other 10s in the 4 matches I won...

But if I had lost shooting at everything and making some hero shots while eventually getting out of line or missing...he probably would have thought I was a 10 even if I lost. Ironically that's what I let the 10s I played do. I had many, many 2 and 3 ball outs for wins.

The point is, no matter how experienced a judge humans are notoriously bad at assessing skill levels in games like pool. If we were better at it gambling wouldn't really exist.

So. Is it a system or is it people?

Click to expand...

While an accurately filled out scoresheet can come close to rating a player it is blind to several factors regarding the outcomes of matches.

An observer can keep track of several things that determine how well someone is playing ....such things as how many bih's a player recieved......how many hangers were left for an opponent.....two way shots. A knowledgeable observer can tell if you played great or if it was a case of your opponent playing bad..

I menetioned in a previous post of having an observer watching all of my matches after skunking another 5 in vegas in my first match. Yea i played great but truth be told my opponent did not play like a 5 ....in my opinion.

My second match was a 19-1 win vs another 5. Again i was not raised afterwards.....probably due to it being a sudden death match and my opponent obviously could not play under pressure.

In my next match i faced a 7 and and was down 18-0 before i ever got to the table . once i got to the table i scored 37 points to my opponents 37 and lost only needing one point to win the match.


Now just reading the above or looking at the scoresheets that were turned in you would think i played above my handicap. However .....whoever was observing obviously determined i was getting good leaves from my opponents misses and several desperation kicks that were succesfull when the 7 kept playing safe on me that i was not a sandbagger despite my lopsided wins and an almost come from behind win against a 7 and consequently i was never raised.

Again ....properly filled out scoresheets do a good job but when there are doubts about just how well a certain player is playing the apa will have a set of eyeballs out there to determine if a player is playing above their handicap or not insteqd if arbitrarily raising some one like its being accused of in this thread.

How are these "observers" qualified?
I have seen some of them( mostly l.o.'s) that
I would NEVER have handicapping a match
I was betting in.
Simply put they haven't the slightest clue what
they are watching.
There is no doubt in my mind that their intentions
are good but "qualified", I'm not so sure about all that.

lorider said:

I do not think an apa representative needs to come on here and explain their actions to anyone....particularly to non members.

If they chose to post on here it would cause a feeding frenzy of epic proportions from the league hating mob.

Threads like this are exactly why mark griffin chose to quit posting. The more he explained his leagues actions on any particular incident the more he and his league was trashed and bashed.

Haters gonna hate no matter how many logical explanations are given.

Click to expand...

There shouldn't be a "feeding frenzy" if they simply post the criteria used. Team kicked out of the national tournament when a player who was 2-2 and others who were 1-2 had their handicap raised. They must have violated a lock tight rule.

alstl said:

There shouldn't be a "feeding frenzy" if they simply post the criteria used. Team kicked out of the national tournament when a player who was 2-2 and others who were 1-2 had their handicap raised. They must have violated a lock tight rule.

Click to expand...

I don’t know if it was here or Facebook but someone mentioned that they had many games given to them via ball in hand on 9-ball, etc...which resulted in low innings.

alstl said:

There shouldn't be a "feeding frenzy" if they simply post the criteria used. Team kicked out of the national tournament when a player who was 2-2 and others who were 1-2 had their handicap raised. They must have violated a lock tight rule.

Click to expand...

Just to be clear, a player may be 1-2 or 2-2 in the tournament, but that’s only a small
portion of the matches taken into consideration. You’re talking about their last 20
matches, so if you have a player that’s 2-2 in the tournament, the matches taken into
consideration may have that player at 18-2, then taking only the 10 best of those, that
player could be having their skill level based on a 10-0 record, you just don’t know.
What’s a lock tight rule?

sixpack said:

I don’t know if it was here or Facebook but someone mentioned that they had many games given to them via ball in hand on 9-ball, etc...which resulted in low innings.

Click to expand...

Yes, that’s definitely a possibility, and a strong possibility, but it’s still low innings.
I’m reasonably sure the system doesn’t really take into consideration why you have low
innings, only that you have low innings. I am also of the impression that the system
doesn’t really consider how you may have won or lost, only that you did. But I could be
wrong, I have heard they’ve been trying to revise some parts of the system, maybe some
other things figure into it now

Celophanewrap said:

Yes, that’s definitely a possibility, and a strong possibility, but it’s still low innings.
I’m reasonably sure the system doesn’t really take into consideration why you have low
innings, only that you have low innings. I am also of the impression that the system
doesn’t really consider how you may have won or lost, only that you did. But I could be
wrong, I have heard they’ve been trying to revise some parts of the system, maybe some
other things figure into it now

Click to expand...

So if it’s the system why the observers?

sixpack said:

So if it’s the system why the observers?

Click to expand...

I believe the observers ensure an accurate score sheet more than anything else.
I believe they also record additional notes and have more statistical categories
that might tell the story of the match in more detail then even an accurate score sheet.
I pretty sure the APA’s hope is to have enthusiastic LOs that are experienced players
and have some background in pool. These are the people that are the observers. There
are times I’d also like to know what qualifies an observer to be be an observer.
I’m pretty sure there is at the very least a clinic or series of clinics or classes or
workshops that are required before an LO is certified as an observer

Why do they need to.. the rules are pretty clear.

I wouldn’t come here. You would treat them the same way ignorant liberals treat anything President Trump does. You’ll scream and kick your feet and get angry no what they say so why bother. Look how dis respectful we are to every pro that comes on here... We’ve chased them off. They come on to give some advice or something that worked for them and a bunch of half ass no nothing gamblers scream them down with 1 terrible post after another. This forum needs a major house cleaning to make it a place pro’s and teachers actually want to come and post. Until they stay a way and I don’t blame them.

alstl said:

"our 4 had a 2-2 record and was raised anyway. Others had a 1-2 record and were raised"

That's from Sleinen.

This is the biggest pool website in the nation. APA is the biggest pool league. You would think a representative of the APA could explain how players with those records in the tournament got raised and what the criteria is for raising the handicap during the national tournament.

On its face it appears to be asinine and I agree the team got screwed and will continue to believe that until a national representative explains exactly what happened and then compares that with the other teams which made it deep in the tournament but were not kicked out.

Click to expand...

I have been a long time APA player. I was also in Vegas during this last Team Championship. I have tried not to post on this thread. But I felt I needed to.

First off, the APA did not screw them out of anything. They make you certify your handicaps before hand and our league operator even warned us we had 2 players on the verge of going up before we even played the Qualifier to go.
They could have easily gone ahead and marked those players a skill level up so no questions would have been asked.

Secondly, the Scoresheets do matter. People can have 2 good games and bad game. The system should recognize this. Plus almost everyone knows when you go out there. Some people handle the pressure better than others and play better than their ranking. I always do. But the extra watchers are a great thing. They are looking for things that the scorekeepers may miss. Better players know how to manipulate the system. So they are there as added measure of safety and to keep things even as far as rankings. I personally watched a 2 and 3 play lock up safeties that those skill level players should never have even seen, much less executed.

Thirdly, the APA is a business. They own this tournament. They do everything they can to maintain the integrity of it. Everyone bashing the APA for doing their job should step back and think about it. If your mechanic tells you that you need new tires, you look at the tread and think he’s an idiot. You don’t go back. However, maybe that mechanic saw something besides just tire wear. Maybe he’s concerned about dry rot.

After all that, I don’t think the team had malicious intent. But I do think they were of the mindset. Maybe nothing will happen and we will just slide though.
Were they sandbagging, No. But did they try and manipulate the system, Yes. I saw close to 15,000 people at the event and this team was not the only one penalized. But it would be fair to say.
Less the .005 percent were penalized during the whole event.

trob said:

Look how dis respectful we are to every pro that comes on here... We’ve chased them off. They come on to give some advice or something that worked for them and a bunch of half ass no nothing gamblers scream them down with 1 terrible post after another. This forum needs a major house cleaning to make it a place pro’s and teachers actually want to come and post. Until they stay a way and I don’t blame them.

Click to expand...

The Greenie approves of your message.

It's that awful 23 rule. Sure you could bump your players up just to be safe...I guess. And then not be able to play because all your ratings are too high ; )

I think I rightly deserve to be the last post in this thread and it can now go away forever. The APA has no legal means, as of this time, to force pool players to play in their league. So rest easy for now and let them do whatever it is they're doing over there. But remain vigilant.

Celophanewrap said:

Yes, that’s definitely a possibility, and a strong possibility, but it’s still low innings.
I’m reasonably sure the system doesn’t really take into consideration why you have low
innings, only that you have low innings. I am also of the impression that the system
doesn’t really consider how you may have won or lost, only that you did. But I could be
wrong, I have heard they’ve been trying to revise some parts of the system, maybe some
other things figure into it now

Click to expand...

I have also thought the same as you celo about how you win is never taken into account .

Take my match against that 7 in vegas i mentioned earlier.

Some details are fuzzy but some a re clear as day. He broke and ran 4 balls and played a safe on the 5. I kicked at the 5 at warp speed as the banger in me is prone to do and not only did i manage to make contact but hit it perfectly to fly down table hitting the corner pocket dead center and falling. The 6..7...8..and 9 were laid out perfect to make with simple stop shots..

I looked up after the kick and saw the observer who was in my line of sight making a note on his sheet. I assume he was making a note of a desperate dumb luck shot cause it sure was not skill that made that 5.

That lucky shot allowed me to go up 6-4 that rack in 0 innings whereas it could have easily been him up 10-0 if i had not lucked in that 5 ball. All the scoresheet shows is i won that rack 6-4 making me look better thwn i really am. Several other incidents like that in my match thwt got my opponent shaking his head and obviously frustrwting him and affecting his performance to the point where i dang near beat him after being down 18-0.

Going strictly by the scoresheet you woukd think i am better than a 5 whereas an observer woukd see all the nuances that allowed me to score as many as he did once i got to the table.

I have no doubt that if an observer had not watched my matches i woukd have been raised going strictly by the scoresheets.

JazzyJeff87 said:

It's that awful 23 rule. Sure you could bump your players up just to be safe...I guess. And then not be able to play because all your ratings are too high ; )

I think I rightly deserve to be the last post in this thread and it can now go away forever. The APA has no legal means, as of this time, to force pool players to play in their league. So rest easy for now and let them do whatever it is they're doing over there. But remain vigilant.

Click to expand...

Yea....yall non league players continue remaining vigilant watching for the next apa bashing thread so yall can tell them whats wrong with the most succesfull league thats over 4 times larger than any other league.

lorider said:

Yea....yall non league players continue remaining vigilant watching for the next apa bashing thread so yall can tell them whats wrong with the most succesfull league thats over 4 times larger than any other league.

Click to expand...

I don't mind leagues so much, except when they interfere with me getting a table. As others have mentioned the leagues are a necessary evil to keep the pool halls open. Apa on my friend

Celophanewrap said:

I believe the observers ensure an accurate score sheet more than anything else.
I believe they also record additional notes and have more statistical categories
that might tell the story of the match in more detail then even an accurate score sheet.
I pretty sure the APA’s hope is to have enthusiastic LOs that are experienced players
and have some background in pool. These are the people that are the observers. There
are times I’d also like to know what qualifies an observer to be be an observer.
I’m pretty sure there is at the very least a clinic or series of clinics or classes or
workshops that are required before an LO is certified as an observer

Click to expand...

And...we are back to the system not being objective.

This is an inherent flaw in every handicapping system. Fargo seems like the best so far. Previously the best I witnessed was the old Colorado Billiards Association. Which was completely subjective by a committee of the room owners.

sixpack said:

And...we are back to the system not being objective.

This is an inherent flaw in every handicapping system. Fargo seems like the best so far. Previously the best I witnessed was the old Colorado Billiards Association. Which was completely subjective by a committee of the room owners.

Click to expand...

In The APA the players are charged with keeping score. I think anytime you include a human element
you run the risk of human things, like mistakes, manipulation, perhaps even some cheating.
A great deal is left to a person's honor and integrity.

Celophanewrap said:

In The APA the players are charged with keeping score. I think anytime you include a human element
you run the risk of human things, like mistakes, manipulation, perhaps even some cheating.
A great deal is left to a person's honor and integrity.

Click to expand...

I agree with you. Not objective.