APA 3 point 8Ball scoring ?
- Thread starter cmb
- Start date
I was an APA LO 20 years ago, but I've never heard of this 3-point scoring. Can you elaborate?
Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com
Scott Lee
http://poolknowledge.com
The wife came home last night an made a comment, that there was
going to be a new scoreing system..or something added..
I think she had to wait a few weeks for the info..flier came
out in her packet..nothing like getting the mass's to taking.
wonder what it is myself..
going to be a new scoreing system..or something added..
I think she had to wait a few weeks for the info..flier came
out in her packet..nothing like getting the mass's to taking.
wonder what it is myself..
Sounds like a local bylaw. I would contact the league owner.
In my Google travels, I recall coming across a trial run of a new point scoring system for 8-ball.
I don't remember the specifics, but I believe each 8 ball matchup was worth 3 points; resulting in a 15 point night. A close match was 2-1, whereas a blowout was 3-0. Seems like the goal is to reward close 8-ball matches (e.g. like 9-ball), instead of the all-or-nothing approach.
I don't remember the specifics, but I believe each 8 ball matchup was worth 3 points; resulting in a 15 point night. A close match was 2-1, whereas a blowout was 3-0. Seems like the goal is to reward close 8-ball matches (e.g. like 9-ball), instead of the all-or-nothing approach.
Test Program
I believe it was last year the APA in my area MD,VA,DC asked for division volunteers to test this program. Instead of 1 point per match there would be a possible 3 points per match. Winners would receive 3 points for a shut out win or 2 points for non shut out. The losing player receives 1 point if they make it to the hill.
I don't know of any divisions that tried it to give me their opinions on the format. Not sure what problem the APA is looking to correct with this change but it just seems wrong to me that you could win 3 matches and still lose the overall match.
I believe it was last year the APA in my area MD,VA,DC asked for division volunteers to test this program. Instead of 1 point per match there would be a possible 3 points per match. Winners would receive 3 points for a shut out win or 2 points for non shut out. The losing player receives 1 point if they make it to the hill.
I don't know of any divisions that tried it to give me their opinions on the format. Not sure what problem the APA is looking to correct with this change but it just seems wrong to me that you could win 3 matches and still lose the overall match.
This sounds like what we were told. You can win 3 matches and still loose the night. 2-1, 2-1, 2-1, 0-3, 0-3 lose 6-9.
Interesting.
Not sure if I like it of not, not having taken a lot of time to think about it. But it is certainly interesting.
It would give value to not giving up, even if you were getting run over. And those lopsided 7-3 matchups would be worth more, since the 3 usually gets one win, thus being on the hill....
Different match up strategies, certainly.
Interesting.
It's a way of awarding team points at the end of an 8-Ball match based on how close the match was, instead of the 1-0 score you get now. It's fairly simple to understand. A hill-hill match gets a 2-1 score, a shutout gets 3-0, and everything else gets 2-0.
Right now the system is being test-marketed by league operators all over the country. Some areas have been testing it for more than two years. The test markets have uncovered a few issues, which have been addressed, but overall we're seeing pretty much the same thing everywhere. Standings aren't really affected much at the top, but we get a positive reaction from the players. I can't say for sure, but it may become the official scoring system for 8-Ball as early as 2014.
This system also generated a seven-page thread in this forum two years ago (in which you actually participated, Dub). Here's the link:
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=208508&highlight=8-Ball+scoring
Lots of thoughts in that thread. I imagine many of the "issues" will be mentioned again in this one. Suffice it to say, after two years of testing the system I have no reason to believe it won't generate the same positive response when fully implemented throughout the APA network.
Right now the system is being test-marketed by league operators all over the country. Some areas have been testing it for more than two years. The test markets have uncovered a few issues, which have been addressed, but overall we're seeing pretty much the same thing everywhere. Standings aren't really affected much at the top, but we get a positive reaction from the players. I can't say for sure, but it may become the official scoring system for 8-Ball as early as 2014.
This system also generated a seven-page thread in this forum two years ago (in which you actually participated, Dub). Here's the link:
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=208508&highlight=8-Ball+scoring
Lots of thoughts in that thread. I imagine many of the "issues" will be mentioned again in this one. Suffice it to say, after two years of testing the system I have no reason to believe it won't generate the same positive response when fully implemented throughout the APA network.
They are doing a trial in my area of this (they said we were selected for it). They also said by 2014 this will be how APA 8 ball is scored will be scored by everyone/everywhere.
I don't know if I like it but it's to try to lower the sandbagging. They think since you can get a point for your team if you get to the hill that people will try harder. We'll see!
I don't know if I like it but it's to try to lower the sandbagging. They think since you can get a point for your team if you get to the hill that people will try harder. We'll see!
My league area (APA of Tarrant County) is going to use this system starting next session. I think it is going to give a person losing a match SOME odds of at least contributing points to their team's overall effort, much the same as APA 9-ball does.
Should be interesting when teams start losing the night's points, but winning three matches to two. I can already hear the b*tching and whining.
Maniac
Should be interesting when teams start losing the night's points, but winning three matches to two. I can already hear the b*tching and whining.
Maniac
It's quite interesting to see how one's perspective can change. In the 2.5 years from that thread till now, I've jumped 2 skill levels, joined the 9-ball division and became a team captain. And my opinions have changed on this subject, too...
Now i can see the strategic advantages/disadvantages better, and how to better utilize beginning players to both their benefit, and the teams (which aren't always one and the same). I'm still not sure I would make that change on my iwn, but I'm certainly not as dead set against it as I was back then.
This has been a fun mental exercise. The only downside is not having any recollection if that whole thread. Sheesh.
Now i can see the strategic advantages/disadvantages better, and how to better utilize beginning players to both their benefit, and the teams (which aren't always one and the same). I'm still not sure I would make that change on my iwn, but I'm certainly not as dead set against it as I was back then.
This has been a fun mental exercise. The only downside is not having any recollection if that whole thread. Sheesh.
It is Official, starting 2014 it will be the New National Scoring System. Leagues that want to start early may do so at the LO's choice. We were one of the first in the country to test it, I liked it. My Division will be starting in January for the Spring 2013 Session no reason to wait a year.
It's very simple to score the matches....
Player A Get's Shut Out Scores 3 Points for Team Player B gets 0 Points.
Player A Get's Win's Match but gives up a game, Scores 2 Points for Team Player B gets 1 Point for Team
Player A Get's Win & Player B gets on the Hill then it's Player A 2 Points Player B 1 Point.
Makes the Matches far more competitive and important. We saw a lot less dumping in Matches on SL matchups. And, the so called lower level players played a lot harder to at least get a point for the Team. Trust me when I say this Teams that don't play to win will find themselves so far behind point wise they never catch up.
Black Cat
It's very simple to score the matches....
Player A Get's Shut Out Scores 3 Points for Team Player B gets 0 Points.
Player A Get's Win's Match but gives up a game, Scores 2 Points for Team Player B gets 1 Point for Team
Player A Get's Win & Player B gets on the Hill then it's Player A 2 Points Player B 1 Point.
Makes the Matches far more competitive and important. We saw a lot less dumping in Matches on SL matchups. And, the so called lower level players played a lot harder to at least get a point for the Team. Trust me when I say this Teams that don't play to win will find themselves so far behind point wise they never catch up.
Black Cat
What is the contingency for the (albeit rare) occurrence where the matches end up scoring like this:
Home-Away
2-1
2-1
2-1
0-3
0-3
Final Split 6-9. Away team loses three Hill-Hill matches, but sweeps the last two and comes away the winner?
I'm curious how they've covered this scenario...
Home-Away
2-1
2-1
2-1
0-3
0-3
Final Split 6-9. Away team loses three Hill-Hill matches, but sweeps the last two and comes away the winner?
I'm curious how they've covered this scenario...
I would assume its just like 9-ball, in that you accumulate points all season, and the only time ties are of any concern are playoffs. Winning the week isnt critical. Beyond that, there isnt any scenario that needs covering, by my best guess.
I guess you might be on to something...
9 ball splits
12-8
12-8
12-8
0-20
0-20
Match Score: 36-64
Just seems contrary to the concept of the APA concept of 'anyone can play'. I'll use this analogy:
In horseracing, weights are assigned to entrants based on the relative strength of their likelihood of winning. More likely = more weight. The goal is to weigh down the favorites so all horses cross the finish line at the same time. In effect, giving everyone a fair shot at winning.
In APA, the Equalizer is intended to have the same effect. Hill-Hill matches indicate that the handicapping system is working.
Now they're giving points to Hill-Hill matches. I would argue that it's double dipping on the handicap system. Giving the over-performing underdog another 'leg up' in a system already designed to result in the Hill-Hill scenarios.
Weird.