Best Handicapping System

Ghosst · Dec 18, 2012

There are enough leagues out there, so which one has the "best" handicapping system? Best as in accurate and easy to understand, and fairly represents the player's ability.

Do you want to wait on a magic formula from a computer to figure it out like APA?

Does VNEA's average points make the most sense?

What about BCAPL and the USAPL? TAP?

.

Ghosst · Dec 18, 2012

Our league might be different, we play a single game per round and whomever wins gets their 10. The other play gets 1 point per ball down. The handicapping comes in for the round points to see who won based on the number of points plus their team's handicap.

The players themselves still have to win their games, but with a "big" spot of 3-5 points over 5 games, it still works out to only a few balls. Maybe the VNEA is more fair because the handicap doesn't make much of a difference?

I'm not sure, that's why I asked. You guys have more leagues to play in, so I'm interested in what people favor.

Bob Jewett · Dec 18, 2012

Ghosst said:
There are enough leagues out there, so which one has the "best" handicapping system? Best as in accurate and easy to understand, and fairly represents the player's ability.

Do you want to wait on a magic formula from a computer to figure it out like APA?

Does VNEA's average points make the most sense?

What about BCAPL and the USAPL? TAP?
.

If you want least paperwork, simplest to understand and more or less guaranteed to give 50-50 games in the long run, see
http://www.sfbilliards.com/articles/1996-12.pdf
http://www.sfbilliards.com/articles/2003-06.pdf
http://www.sfbilliards.com/NPL_info.txt
http://www.sfbilliards.com/argonne8.pdf

Also see Mike Page's handicapping system at
http://www.fargobilliards.com/pool-leagues/fargo-ratings/

Any system that follows some simple principles will be reasonably fair and also relatively immune to sandbagging. Those are: only win/loss counts for rating adjustment; if you win, your rating goes up; if you lose your rating goes down; the larger the rating difference between two players, the larger the spot. The slightly complicated part is figuring out the tables for fair matches based on player ratings. Even if those tables are not quite right, matches will still be fair on average.

Some people don't like handicapped matches. I don't mind them. I know I have to play above my average game to win. Another factor is that if the matches were not handicapped, the weaker players would likely not play. Everyone wants some chance to win.

cardiac kid · Dec 18, 2012

Ghosst said:
There are enough leagues out there, so which one has the "best" handicapping system? Best as in accurate and easy to understand, and fairly represents the player's ability.

Do you want to wait on a magic formula from a computer to figure it out like APA?

Does VNEA's average points make the most sense?

What about BCAPL and the USAPL? TAP?.

Ghosst,

In any given session, I play BCAPL, ACS, VNEA and APA. Each handicapping system has it's faults. And its advantages. As much as I hate to agree with DD, no handicap is the best system. For the best players that is. For the rest of the great unwashed (including you and me), some type of system is required. Having one player "teams" ain't going to work! Never played in a scratch league. Not sure if one really exists. If one does, sure wouldn't want to play in it. Nice to win a game every now and then

. Just kidding you know.

Lyn

Only ERO's · Dec 18, 2012

DoubleD said:
The only handicapping system that is guaranteed to be 'fair' and not cause problems is no handicapping at all.

It is perfect, it weeds out the non-competitors and leaves the rest of us to focus only on the game, not how many balls we can put in the pocket before our horrible opponent makes the two that he needs in order to 'win'.

dld

Exactly. Simple and straight to the point.

sfmc-x1 · Dec 18, 2012

DoubleD said:
The only handicapping system that is guaranteed to be 'fair' and not cause problems is no handicapping at all.

It is perfect, it weeds out the non-competitors and leaves the rest of us to focus only on the game, not how many balls we can put in the pocket before our horrible opponent makes the two that he needs in order to 'win'.

dld

That about says it.

For leagues:
A no handicap system divided into groups (A thru E) of known or assumed playing ability, so that players have a general and usually accurate expectation of who they'll compete against.

Formation of teams would request what group they'd like to play in. Brand new teams rostering brand new players will start at the bottom unless requesting otherwise.

Lesser skilled player/teams will stay down until they improve or be adjusted down by right of refusal if initially grouped to high. If the opposite were to occur teams that excel in the lower groups are readjusted higher.

Player/teams of greater playing ability would be placed in the higher groups. Individual player ability is a generally known commodity based on previous season statistics. League directors usually have a good idea of the teams and player ability within the league community.

A scenario like this works rather well in a non payout type setting. Meaning: The teams participating in the league are competing for rank and end of season trophies, not cash payouts.

A system like this is fundamentally secure in the realm of possible sandbagging. The end of season awards are based on prestige, the higher your group the more prestigious the award. Teams of individuals are less likely to defraud the system if there is no cash payout. How many people do you know that will purposefully sandbag for just a plastic trophy?

Just my opinion.

Snapshot9 · Dec 18, 2012

Handicapping

First off, let me say that I believe that handicapping should only approach the 90% mark. That way, the lessor player has to improve, or shoot above 'their head' a little to win, and does not 'punish' the better player for being better. After all the better player has spent the time on the table, and learned to be better, and we should not punish them for doing so. Lessor players need incentive to keep improving and not just be satisfied to be the best they can be for 'their handicap'.

I have played all three leagues, APA (only when it was called the Busch league), VNEA, and BCA. It is not rocket science people, the best handicapping system is the one with the most discrete handicapping system, in other words, the one with the most levels of handicaps. And when I shot league, that was the BCA system, 1-75 for 5 player teams, 1-60 for 4 player teams. There was no sandbagging in the BCA leagues, there was in the VNEA (I believe 1-13 handicapping now), and the APA (1-7 in 8 ball, no 9 ball existed when I played it).

What existed before league handicaps was 'money ratings', and when I started they were from 1-10. Money ratings have progressed to be from 1-12, and even 1-15 when you include Efren's speed. These money ratings were clocked and used to determine match ups, and what would be any spot that might be included.

Now, people use handicap levels from leagues to determine money matchups, which I believe you should not do 100%. Although they can be used as a guide only, they do not tell you how strong the league they shot in really was to begin with, and if the player shoots better or worse for money, and that might include they shoot good for $20 a set, but not so good for a $100 a set and up.

When I clock a player's speed, by watching them play for a period of time and I am pretty good at it since I have played for 50 years and I am an old money player, I rate them from 1-15 (15 being Efren's speed) with one decimal place, 9.2, 10.7, 12.6. If I get 2 players that come out the same, say as 8.5, then I extend the decimal place to 2 places, 8.52, 8.58, and I would sidebet on the 8.58 rather than the 8.52.

You also have to consider whether they have been in a zone lately, because I have seen some 8's and 9's shoot like a 10 or 11 if they are in a zone. Some players have a lot more upside potential than other players.

Okie · Dec 18, 2012

Bob Jewett said:
If you want least paperwork, simplest to understand and more or less guaranteed to give 50-50 games in the long run, see
http://www.sfbilliards.com/articles/1996-12.pdf
http://www.sfbilliards.com/articles/2003-06.pdf
http://www.sfbilliards.com/NPL_info.txt
http://www.sfbilliards.com/argonne8.pdf

Also see Mike Page's handicapping system at
http://www.fargobilliards.com/pool-leagues/fargo-ratings/

Any system that follows some simple principles will be reasonably fair and also relatively immune to sandbagging. Those are: only win/loss counts for rating adjustment; if you win, your rating goes up; if you lose your rating goes down; the larger the rating difference between two players, the larger the spot. The slightly complicated part is figuring out the tables for fair matches based on player ratings. Even if those tables are not quite right, matches will still be fair on average.

Some people don't like handicapped matches. I don't mind them. I know I have to play above my average game to win. Another factor is that if the matches were not handicapped, the weaker players would likely not play. Everyone wants some chance to win.

Pure gold right here!

A handicap system based on the odds of winning the game is perfect. The factors used to determine the odds of winning is the magic. The perfect set of factors are yet to be discovered.

I never agreed with systems based on points per ball and innings. Too much interaction from the player required. I believe that makes it too easy to manipulate by the player.

Ken

CreeDo · Dec 18, 2012

What's your definition of 'best'?

1. The better overall player wins?
2. The guy who shoots better than his usual wins?
3. The majority of players have about a 50% win rate after lots of matches?

The last is probably the best if you want to keep everyone feeling like they can compete. But it can be frustrating to strong players who shoot great and still lose half the time.

I kind of like leagues where the better player usually wins, but the spot is big enough that if he plays subpar he can lose. In other words his B game is good enough, but not his C game. I think the APA's system usually does this. It's hard for a 7 to lose to a 3 in eight ball, and that's how it should be. Players should be rewarded for getting better. Why work hard to improve my game if I end up with a steady 50% win rate no matter what I do?

Bob Jewett · Dec 18, 2012

CreeDo said:
What's your definition of 'best'? ...

The expected win/loss percentages in every match should be close to the intended goal (maybe 50-50, but not always). The system should be hard to sandbag. The adjustments should be by a rule or formula and not subjective. The system needs to be simple enough that you can explain the whole thing to a new player in two minutes. A player should understand after every match why his rating changed by as much as it did. The system should be trivial to maintain -- possible to do easily on paper with no computer. There should be no score sheet other than the win/loss result -- no innings/misses/etc.

The more of these goals that are met, the better the handicapping system is.

Mark Griffin · Dec 19, 2012

Best handicapping system

I think a lot of bob Jewett.

And we used to use this system in some of the pool halls for weekly tournaments and such.

The problem with this type of system is that it is 'closed'.

What that means is that it works within the players that interact with each other. In other words the top players in one town might be the top winners because they are the best in their area.

BUT if they go to an area with much stronger players, they will get beat. But the scoring will recalculate as long as they people play each other.

Someone from Seattle cannot know how they play against someone in Miami. That is why some type of info is needed - like balls per inning etc. but there are a lot of other factors - like table size, pockets size etc.

It is not easy to make it all work!

Mark Griffin

Bob Jewett · Dec 19, 2012

Mark Griffin said:
I think a lot of bob Jewett.

And we used to use this system in some of the pool halls for weekly tournaments and such.

The problem with this type of system is that it is 'closed'.

What that means is that it works within the players that interact with each other. In other words the top players in one town might be the top winners because they are the best in their area.

BUT if they go to an area with much stronger players, they will get beat. But the scoring will recalculate as long as they people play each other.

Someone from Seattle cannot know how they play against someone in Miami. That is why some type of info is needed - like balls per inning etc. but there are a lot of other factors - like table size, pockets size etc.

It is not easy to make it all work!

Mark Griffin

If you don't have play between groups they may be mismatched, but it is possible to adjust small groups against each other before regional or national play. A first cut can simply be done by matching the average rating across groups. For example if one group has ratings from 500 to 800 and another has ratings from 700 to 1000, bump all the first group up by 200. That does not change the matches within the bumped group because matches are determined by rating differences and if two players both go up by 200 points their rating difference remains the same.

I used to play in a league that counted innings at nine ball. In my home room we played a lot of matches on table 10. Table 10 had pockets the size of button holes. No one ran out on table 10. According to the system, we all played like chumps, but we did pretty well in regional tournaments. Except against the rooms where the TD padded the inning count before sending in the score sheets. My point is that detailed scoring is a lot of trouble and probably less accurate that "mean rating matching" for lining up geographically separate groups.

I think you can expect the first national event to be a little uneven, but it is fairly easy to use the total results there to establish better adjustments by region. Until you have national events, there is not much point in doing the leveling.

Ghosst · Dec 19, 2012

Mark Griffin said:
In other words the top players in one town might be the top winners because they are the best in their area.

Ahh, so here is the source of, "She's an 8 around here, but in NYC, she'd be a 4", speech. Interesting, because I thought the leagues that were being referred to were a national system with a lot of stats tracked.

Bob Jewett said:
Table 10 had pockets the size of button holes. No one ran out on table 10. According to the system, we all played like chumps, but we did pretty well in regional tournaments.

One thing about a league is that you expect some standardized equipment so this doesn't happen.

So where's the balance in a system that is easy for people to score (no threads about "having to write down scores") and fairly establishes your skill level?

Pidge · Dec 19, 2012

Best league I ever played in was an 8 ball league.

It was played in a Mosconi style format with NO handicaps.

5 players per team
5 singles matches (race to 5), and 2 doubles (race to 5), which gives a total of 7 matches. The team with the most match wins gets 3 points, losing team gets 0.
Team with the most points at the end of the season wins the league.

It was so simple, and forced the teams into having no weak links. Players were given a position to play (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ) at the start of the season and it could not change. If a player quit the team then the person replacing them had to play in that position. 1 vs 1, 2 vs 2 etc and the captains choice on who played doubles.

Its a shame we didn't have 2 or 3 leagues in the area. Like in a football (soccer) style promotion and relegation style battle. That would have been awesome.

Ratta · Dec 19, 2012

Just my personal opinion:

Any handicap system which was invented is crap. I don t like handicap systems-no matter which one. Just pushing the wrong attitude.

I NEVER saw any house-tournament here in germany, which uses a handicap-system......

Just my personal opinion,

lg from overseas,

Ingo

Bob Jewett · Dec 19, 2012

Ratta said:
... I NEVER saw any house-tournament here in germany, which uses a handicap-system...

Maybe you have a solution to the following problem then. The room owner wants to run a 14.1 league. There are about 15 regular players with a very wide range of abilities. A fair match between the two players at the extremes is about 120-20. How can the room owner arrange a league that is not handicapped in such a situation?

CreeDo · Dec 19, 2012

Ghosst said:
Ahh, so here is the source of, "She's an 8 around here, but in NYC, she'd be a 4", speech. Interesting, because I thought the leagues that were being referred to were a national system with a lot of stats tracked.

Haha, are you talking about this?

Ryan: You should come into town this weekend man. Yeah, we'll hang out Scranton style.
Michael: Hey you said you were gonna be out of town this weekend.
Ryan: Please don't listen to my phone calls. Yeah, she's like um, she'd probably be a Six in New York, but she's like a Seven here in Scranton. And then uh, my boss is my old boss from Dunder Mifflin. It's a small space.

APA Operator · Dec 19, 2012

Mark Griffin said:
I think a lot of bob Jewett.

And we used to use this system in some of the pool halls for weekly tournaments and such.

The problem with this type of system is that it is 'closed'.

What that means is that it works within the players that interact with each other. In other words the top players in one town might be the top winners because they are the best in their area.

BUT if they go to an area with much stronger players, they will get beat. But the scoring will recalculate as long as they people play each other.

Someone from Seattle cannot know how they play against someone in Miami. That is why some type of info is needed - like balls per inning etc. but there are a lot of other factors - like table size, pockets size etc.

It is not easy to make it all work!

Mark Griffin

Mark is right, it's not easy. There are two factors that play against each other, except in the (small) closed system Mark mentions. Those factors are accuracy and simplicity.

Bob is a proponent of simplicity. Simplicity and accuracy work together in a small arena. The most accurate system I can think of is one guy who knows every player in the system and how they play. This guy doesn't even need win/loss statistics to rate players. No measurement involved, simple, accurate, and 100% subjective.

Simplicity and accuracy start to diverge when your population of participants gets too big for that one guy to know everyone. You now need measurements (objectivity) to maintain some level of accuracy. The more you measure, the more complicated the system becomes. Then you have to balance simplicity and accuracy.

In an ideal world, there would be a way to measure every aspect of a person's game and get the same answer that the one guy in the simplest scenario gets. But then nobody would play, because the score keeping would be too tedious.

Different people have different views on where the balance between simplicity and accuracy lies. As I mentioned, Bob leans heavily toward simplicity. He may not remember, but he and I had a short discussion of this balance over a decade ago. Mark is correct in that the simple win/loss system breaks down when you have two populations with no cross play. Bob's answer is to adjust everyone in the "stronger" area to even it out. There are two issues with that. First, you can only do it after you find out one area is stronger, meaning when you start having competitions between multiple exclusive areas, like a national tournament, it may take several iterations (several years, not just one as Bob suggests) to "balance" all of the areas. The other issue is that the "weaker" teams in the "stronger" area may not necessarily be better than the "weaker" teams in the "weaker" area, and a blanket adjustment to the "stronger" area would in fact hurt those "weaker" teams when they participate in cross-area play.

These are just some factors to consider when trying to create balance between simplicity and accuracy. There really isn't a single right answer, and nobody here is wrong. Again, as Mark said, it isn't easy.

Well, at least not until someone comes up with a video analysis system that can do what the one guy in the simple scenario can do...

Okie · Dec 19, 2012

APA Operator said:
Mark is right, it's not easy. There are two factors that play against each other, except in the (small) closed system Mark mentions. Those factors are accuracy and simplicity.

Bob is a proponent of simplicity. Simplicity and accuracy work together in a small arena. The most accurate system I can think of is one guy who knows every player in the system and how they play. This guy doesn't even need win/loss statistics to rate players. No measurement involved, simple, accurate, and 100% subjective.

Simplicity and accuracy start to diverge when your population of participants gets too big for that one guy to know everyone. You now need measurements (objectivity) to maintain some level of accuracy. The more you measure, the more complicated the system becomes. Then you have to balance simplicity and accuracy.

In an ideal world, there would be a way to measure every aspect of a person's game and get the same answer that the one guy in the simplest scenario gets. But then nobody would play, because the score keeping would be too tedious.

Different people have different views on where the balance between simplicity and accuracy lies. As I mentioned, Bob leans heavily toward simplicity. He may not remember, but he and I had a short discussion of this balance over a decade ago. Mark is correct in that the simple win/loss system breaks down when you have two populations with no cross play. Bob's answer is to adjust everyone in the "stronger" area to even it out. There are two issues with that. First, you can only do it after you find out one area is stronger, meaning when you start having competitions between multiple exclusive areas, like a national tournament, it may take several iterations (several years, not just one as Bob suggests) to "balance" all of the areas. The other issue is that the "weaker" teams in the "stronger" area may not necessarily be better than the "weaker" teams in the "weaker" area, and a blanket adjustment to the "stronger" area would in fact hurt those "weaker" teams when they participate in cross-area play.

These are just some factors to consider when trying to create balance between simplicity and accuracy. There really isn't a single right answer, and nobody here is wrong. Again, as Mark said, it isn't easy.

Well, at least not until someone comes up with a video analysis system that can do what the one guy in the simple scenario can do...

I think we would all agree Mr. Jewett is not only one of the most educated folks we have around here but he is also one of the most intelligent. If he leans heavy to the simple then there just might be something to it.

Collecting statistics and handicapping is drop dead simple...until you insert the human factor. Almost everyone wants an edge. If they can manipulate a system and keep their morals/ethics intact then they will most certainly do so. This means that every system which requires a player to tell the system anything more than games won is going to get worked over.

I have an idea how to make a system work but I have a lot of work to do on it before saying anything about it. Hopefully, I can share it in the near future, but for now it is a work in progress.

Ken

robsnotes4u · Dec 19, 2012

Bob Jewett said:
If you want least paperwork, simplest to understand and more or less guaranteed to give 50-50 games in the long run, see
http://www.sfbilliards.com/articles/1996-12.pdf
http://www.sfbilliards.com/articles/2003-06.pdf
http://www.sfbilliards.com/NPL_info.txt
http://www.sfbilliards.com/argonne8.pdf

Also see Mike Page's handicapping system at
http://www.fargobilliards.com/pool-leagues/fargo-ratings/

Any system that follows some simple principles will be reasonably fair and also relatively immune to sandbagging. Those are: only win/loss counts for rating adjustment; if you win, your rating goes up; if you lose your rating goes down; the larger the rating difference between two players, the larger the spot. The slightly complicated part is figuring out the tables for fair matches based on player ratings. Even if those tables are not quite right, matches will still be fair on average.

Some people don't like handicapped matches. I don't mind them. I know I have to play above my average game to win. Another factor is that if the matches were not handicapped, the weaker players would likely not play. Everyone wants some chance to win.

I play in leagues that use mike page's handicap system and I think it is awesome. Mike has also used it in our straight pool league. It doesn't take very many games for someone to settle into their respective area.

When new people come into the system, mike, does a great job of watching them, and asking questions to get a starting part for their rating. Can someone sandbag at first, yes, but theory rating will adjust quickly.

He has such people as SVB, Jesse Engel, Eric Durbin, Justin Bergman, Gene Albrecht, Bob Jewett, and others across the country, and everyone's ratings along with how many games they have played are on his website.

These are just the top rated guys

Name Rating. Games played

ShaneVan Boening84948
JustinBergman788180
LeeHeuwagen737566
RichieRicheseon73181
RoryHendrickson7142187
VinceChambers70988
MarioParanyo698170
JaredBailey69689
JamiePluta695192
BeauRunningen69458
FelixBeardy693180
TimTonjum69369
JesseEngel687289

Mikes handicap system works perfect with the ratings.

I can say this it sure beats a guy saying you are a .... Without any way to back it.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Best Handicapping System

Broom Handle Mafia

Broom Handle Mafia

AZB Osmium Member

Super Senior Member

AzB Silver Member

I Sell Out.

son of 3 leg 1 eye dog ..

Seeker

Fargo Rating 597

AZB Osmium Member

AzB Gold Member

AZB Osmium Member

Broom Handle Mafia

AzB Silver Member

Hearing the balls.....

AZB Osmium Member

Fargo Rating 597

AzB Silver Member

Seeker

AzB Silver Member