New APA Scoring system

whitewolf said:

If you keep trying to 'maximize your shutouts as much as humanly possible', your players are going to go up faster than if you managed your team putups properly. It's called handicap management and is not cheating. Using your method will leave a team with too many over-rated players and too many under-rated players (the ones who get their clocks cleaned). You will not have a balanced team where anyone is capable of winning. IMO, you need a balanced team so you can maximize your possibilities of who you can put up and win. Suppose, for example, that some of your under-rated players get sick, then you will be SOL cause all the players you have left are over-rated.

I like this new scoring method - it does keep down sandbagging. And being a 7 is great because the other team will be much more reluctant to dumping on you.

Someone was right in that SL2s will have a bigger target on their back, but we all know that the best teams usually have SL2s on the team. So all teams will have the same problem. And we all know that it's the female SL2s that bring excitement into the pool hall, so who cares if they have a big target on their back. It's just part of the 'New Deal'. Maybe you will have to actually train your SL2 :grin: to play better/decent rather than hoping they lose every game to keep their handicap down forever.

PS I just starting using this ES three weeks ago now that I joined the APA again. If nothing else is does THROW A LOT MORE DECISION MAKING INTO YOUR PUTUPS!

Click to expand...

Ummmm how is "sandbagging" any different than "handicap management". You mentioned that players who shutout will move up faster. How do you propose somebody avoid shutting out another player without cheating? It is one thing to throw a player in a situation where they don't have a great chance of winning. It is another if a player loses a game to avoid shutting out the opponent.

Quick to judge

I don't understand how you come to the phrase "Managed your team putups properly." If I don't put up players the way you would them some how I'm not doing it properly?

To your idea that player skill levels are going to be min/maxed: That's nonsense. SL5's,6's, and 7's should be shutting out SL2's,3's, and 4's, respectively. If my players continuously win then they SHOULD go up. If you're "managing" your teams specifically so players are not moving up that is sandbagging.

I also don't understand this:
"You will not have a balanced team where anyone is capable of winning. "
On any given team any player is capable of winning any given match.

" Suppose, for example, that some of your under-rated players get sick, then you will be SOL cause all the players you have left are over-rated."

You're using terms like over-rated in a dangerous way. I think what you mean are lower ranked and higher ranked.

Having players out due to illness or work or personal reasons are a part of league play for everyone, right? That's why we keep a full roster instead of the minimum. Not every night will have ideal matchups.

"I like this new scoring method - it does keep down sandbagging. And being a 7 is great because the other team will be much more reluctant to dumping on you."

I'll rarely if ever proactively put up my SL6 or SL7. I'll put them up in reaction to the other teams throw.

" And we all know that it's the female SL2s that bring excitement into the pool hall, so who cares if they have a big target on their back."

What in the sweet chocolate jesus does this mean?

" It's just part of the 'New Deal'. Maybe you will have to actually train your SL2 :grin: to play better/decent rather than hoping they lose every game to keep their handicap down forever."

No one on my team cheats. That includes but isn't limited to keeping someone's skill level down. My SL2 and SL3 get coaching and instruction. It also happens to be true that not everyone has the potential or drive to be a 7/9.

Hypocrite?

I don't understand how you come to the phrase "Managed your team putups properly." If I don't put up players the way you would them some how I'm not doing it properly?

To your idea that player skill levels are going to be min/maxed: That's nonsense. SL5's,6's, and 7's should be shutting out SL2's,3's, and 4's, respectively. If my players continuously win then they SHOULD go up. If you're "managing" your teams specifically so players are not moving up that is sandbagging.

I also don't understand this:
"You will not have a balanced team where anyone is capable of winning. "
On any given team any player is capable of winning any given match.

" Suppose, for example, that some of your under-rated players get sick, then you will be SOL cause all the players you have left are over-rated."

You're using terms like over-rated in a dangerous way. I think what you mean are lower ranked and higher ranked.

Having players out due to illness or work or personal reasons are a part of league play for everyone, right? That's why we keep a full roster instead of the minimum. Not every night will have ideal matchups.

"I like this new scoring method - it does keep down sandbagging. And being a 7 is great because the other team will be much more reluctant to dumping on you."

I'll rarely if ever proactively put up my SL6 or SL7. I'll put them up in reaction to the other teams throw.

" And we all know that it's the female SL2s that bring excitement into the pool hall, so who cares if they have a big target on their back."

What in the sweet chocolate jesus does this mean?

" It's just part of the 'New Deal'. Maybe you will have to actually train your SL2 :grin: to play better/decent rather than hoping they lose every game to keep their handicap down forever."

No one on my team cheats. That includes but isn't limited to keeping someone's skill level down. My SL2 and SL3 get coaching and instruction. It also happens to be true that not everyone has the potential or drive to be a 7/9.

I dunno if y'all are misreading wolf's comments purposely, or honestly don't get what he's saying.

In a nutshell: The goal in APA is to try to encourage players of similar rank to face each other.

If I read wolf right, he's saying this change discourages 'maximizing shutouts' because if you arrange a complete slaughter (your player is way stronger than the other guy) then your player's handicap will go up quickly.

You can't keep sending your six up against the 2's, 3's and 4's looking to get that 'skunk bonus'. Because he'll get a monster win rate and go up to a 7. Then your team is hosed.

Your best bet is to put up players who are supposed to win, but not necessarily 3-0.
The system can't be gamed as easily as people think.

TheNewSharkster said:

Ummmm how is "sandbagging" any different than "handicap management". You mentioned that players who shutout will move up faster. How do you propose somebody avoid shutting out another player without cheating? It is one thing to throw a player in a situation where they don't have a great chance of winning. It is another if a player loses a game to avoid shutting out the opponent.

Click to expand...

To me and my way of thinking, there is a method of "handicap management", to a small degree, that doesn't involve sandbagging of cheating. I do this, and it is completely understood by everyone on my teams that everyone plays to win, every time. (Not that my saying that is necessary, since none of my players ever want to lose.)

You simply choose your players opponents carefully. If you have someone who you think is on the bubble, or near it, you play them against tougher opponents. That way, if they "go up", they earned it by beating someone you wouldn't expect them to. If they lose, well, you've put if off for a while.

Again, I do this NEVER wanting them to lose, but sometimes it's inevitable that we're going to lose a match or two. We don't often go 5-0. So you "manage" that, to your advantage.

How often do I do this, rarely. Usually near the end of a session, before playoffs, if at all. There is no sense in trying to maintain a lower Skill Level all session, and that's not the point anyway. We celebrate any of our players going up, because it is an accomplishment. But if the timing is close to playoffs, and I can "manage" that for a week or two, well, I will.

Just so you know, we had both our SL2's go up to 3's this past week, and that is going to make our lineups a lot more difficult for the rest of the session, and going into states. ESPECIALLY if our 4's go up, and they very well may. But we all expected it to happen. We aren't upset or mad or anything, and congratulations were had by all concerned.

I don't feel I'm cheating by choosing my players opponents carefully. Especially when we are all playing to win.

justadub said:

To me and my way of thinking, there is a method of "handicap management", to a small degree, that doesn't involve sandbagging of cheating. I do this, and it is completely understood by everyone on my teams that everyone plays to win, every time. (Not that my saying that is necessary, since none of my players ever want to lose.)

You simply choose your players opponents carefully. If you have someone who you think is on the bubble, or near it, you play them against tougher opponents. That way, if they "go up", they earned it by beating someone you wouldn't expect them to. If they lose, well, you've put if off for a while.

Again, I do this NEVER wanting them to lose, but sometimes it's inevitable that we're going to lose a match or two. We don't often go 5-0. So you "manage" that, to your advantage.

How often do I do this, rarely. Usually near the end of a session, before playoffs, if at all. There is no sense in trying to maintain a lower Skill Level all session, and that's not the point anyway. We celebrate any of our players going up, because it is an accomplishment. But if the timing is close to playoffs, and I can "manage" that for a week or two, well, I will.

Just so you know, we had both our SL2's go up to 3's this past week, and that is going to make our lineups a lot more difficult for the rest of the session, and going into states. ESPECIALLY if our 4's go up, and they very well may. But we all expected it to happen. We aren't upset or mad or anything, and congratulations were had by all concerned.

I don't feel I'm cheating by choosing my players opponents carefully. Especially when we are all playing to win.

Click to expand...

Creating a bad matchup is one thing but losing on purpose so you don't go 3-0 is another.

TheNewSharkster said:

Creating a bad matchup is one thing but losing on purpose so you don't go 3-0 is another.

Click to expand...

i did not read anywhere in dubs post where anyone loses on purpose. he stated he matched up where they likely would not go 3-0.

let me give you an example; not too long after i joined apa i was a 4 and was matched up against a 3. it was one of those days wher that 3 could not make anything and gace me ball in hand almost every time she got to the table.

well i won 3-0 in a few innings. i was promptly raised to a 5. well due to be a higher level i usually matched up against 4's and 5 s all the time after that.

was i a legit 5 ? hell no ! i could not spot 4's a game and 5's blew me away.

i went the entire rest of the session without a win. i am talking 12 games in a row.

handicap management means you dont put a pretty decent 4 against a weak 3 unless you want your 4 to go up.

TheNewSharkster said:

Creating a bad matchup is one thing but losing on purpose so you don't go 3-0 is another.

Click to expand...

True.

No one on my team cheats, and everyone plays to win. It's a matter of pride to us. We've won our division championship a few times, and compete for it every time. You can't compete for the championship if you throw games.

Will we ever advance to Vegas, doubtful, the odds are against us. Though we will try. But we won't cheat to get there. (And yes, if we get there, we may very well face teams that have cheated to get there. That is on them, not on us.)

I tend to agree with this while at the same time being extremely against any sort of sandbagging.

Here are some examples of "handicap" management that make perfect sense.

You have a strong player on your team, you know he/she is bound to go up sooner or later. You also know you are playing in the city championships in a couple of months. You play this player only enough to keep them eligible. They still play to win as hard as they can, you will just play them only 4 times (or whatever it is in your local league). Turns out you win your matches and go to vegas because of this players strong play. Is that sandbagging? I think not.

You have a new player on your team, this player has played a bit before but is definitely in the "true beginner catagory". You have many choices of who to play this player against - but clearly choosing carefully who he/she plays based on how badly you think he/she will lose will have a drastic effect on that players early handicapping. It can make the difference between someone starting out as a 4 and quickly sliding down to a 2 or even 1 and then slowly rising back up to a 2. We all know the early handicapping is bad because there are no scores to be used for the equalizer algorithm. I don't know anyone who wants their brand new, beginner players to win the first match they play. The sad truth is that if you start at a 4 and win your first match you are either staying a 4 or going up (I won my first ever apa match 3-0 in 6 innings against another 4, I was a 7 the next week, in reality I should have been an SL5, which is what I settled in as for the first year or two), if you lose your first match - you might stay a 4 if it's a close match, but any serious loss will take you down to a 3 (in 8 ball) and a 2 in 9-ball. Is this sandbagging - again I think not.

I do think the new scoring system will have the effect of limiting sandbagging by this type of handicap "management". As many have pointed out getting a single won game in by a low ranked player, or having a higher ranked player shut someone out will be a bigger draw. I heartily support *anything* that will help to prevent sandbagging. I have played many people that were clearly under-handicapped - not all of them were really "on purpose" sometimes teams just don't properly mark defensive shots as well.

I've always played my best game in the APA, and can you believe it I've actually been criticized for it by some. People will actually wonder why I don't try and maintain a lower skill level - sad. I'm only an 8 in 9-ball, but I don't do anything that would stop me from being a 9 - I wish I was winning more 9-ball matches and winning them convincingly!

The only downside to being a 7/9 is once you hit that rank, you are kind of screwed until you get MUCH better. I regularly have to play other 7's that are far better players than myself at singles regionals - it makes winning in the 7 bracket much harder. I'm nowhere near A/open speed - but I have to play people that are for that shot at going to vegas. In all the other SL categories, theoretically your counterparts will also be somewhere within that SL band, but not at the top, there it's "just good enough to be a 7/9" through "probably should be banned from playing in the APA".

justadub said:

To me and my way of thinking, there is a method of "handicap management", to a small degree, that doesn't involve sandbagging of cheating. I do this, and it is completely understood by everyone on my teams that everyone plays to win, every time. (Not that my saying that is necessary, since none of my players ever want to lose.)

You simply choose your players opponents carefully. If you have someone who you think is on the bubble, or near it, you play them against tougher opponents. That way, if they "go up", they earned it by beating someone you wouldn't expect them to. If they lose, well, you've put if off for a while.

Again, I do this NEVER wanting them to lose, but sometimes it's inevitable that we're going to lose a match or two. We don't often go 5-0. So you "manage" that, to your advantage.

How often do I do this, rarely. Usually near the end of a session, before playoffs, if at all. There is no sense in trying to maintain a lower Skill Level all session, and that's not the point anyway. We celebrate any of our players going up, because it is an accomplishment. But if the timing is close to playoffs, and I can "manage" that for a week or two, well, I will.

Just so you know, we had both our SL2's go up to 3's this past week, and that is going to make our lineups a lot more difficult for the rest of the session, and going into states. ESPECIALLY if our 4's go up, and they very well may. But we all expected it to happen. We aren't upset or mad or anything, and congratulations were had by all concerned.

I don't feel I'm cheating by choosing my players opponents carefully. Especially when we are all playing to win.

Click to expand...

I don't see how a 6 slaughtering a 2,3 every week will make them go up to a 7. Aren't they supposed to slaughter them?

CreeDo said:

I dunno if y'all are misreading wolf's comments purposely, or honestly don't get what he's saying.

In a nutshell: The goal in APA is to try to encourage players of similar rank to face each other.

If I read wolf right, he's saying this change discourages 'maximizing shutouts' because if you arrange a complete slaughter (your player is way stronger than the other guy) then your player's handicap will go up quickly.

You can't keep sending your six up against the 2's, 3's and 4's looking to get that 'skunk bonus'. Because he'll get a monster win rate and go up to a 7. Then your team is hosed.

Your best bet is to put up players who are supposed to win, but not necessarily 3-0.
The system can't be gamed as easily as people think.

Click to expand...

that happens a lot around here and people get to hating pool and worry more about their rank than having fun. that's a rough 14-16 weeks...

lorider said:

i did not read anywhere in dubs post where anyone loses on purpose. he stated he matched up where they likely would not go 3-0.

let me give you an example; not too long after i joined apa i was a 4 and was matched up against a 3. it was one of those days wher that 3 could not make anything and gace me ball in hand almost every time she got to the table.

well i won 3-0 in a few innings. i was promptly raised to a 5. well due to be a higher level i usually matched up against 4's and 5 s all the time after that.

was i a legit 5 ? hell no ! i could not spot 4's a game and 5's blew me away.

i went the entire rest of the session without a win. i am talking 12 games in a row.

handicap management means you dont put a pretty decent 4 against a weak 3 unless you want your 4 to go up.

Click to expand...

I am brand new to APA pool this session but I am not new to pool. I have played 5 matches now ranked as a 4. I have won 2 matches against 4's and lost my other 3 matches. I lost to a 5 two weeks in a row in the rubber match and Wednesday I lost to a 2.

I won the lag, broke the rack and ran 6 balls. I played defense on my next shot and she managed to run 7 balls and stick me behind the 8 ball with no look at my object ball so she got ball in hand on the 8. She wins in 1 inning. Next game I win but not by a large margin. 3rd game I win again not by a large margin. 4th game she wins by running all her balls in like the 3rd inning and makes a near impossible shot on the 8. I was pissed.

My captain came over and told me not to worry because I played good pool. He says he knows the girl and she always sandbags. She will win a ton of games against higher ranked players and then lose a ton against lower ranked players to go back down. The team keeps her to throw on higher players or they throw her in the last match when they know the team is going to throw up on her and she will only have to win a few games.

Being new to this and having only played a few weeks, I was really turned off by this idea. This new system seems like it would prevent just such things and I like the idea.

I could be way off base here but when I joined the APA I was expecting to play some friendly pool with a few evenly matched opponents or even opponents a bit better than me which would improve my game and so far it doesn't seem that is how the league works at all.

I don't know the exact formula for s/l ratings in APA, however I do know it is based on more factors than simply winning or losing. In fact, I've been told by numerous involved people that balls/inning, innings/game, etc. is a more significant factor than winning or losing. IMHO, therein lies the REAL weakness in APA. Perhaps it's different elsewhere but from my own experience, the score keeping is extremely sloppy. When there is a dispute over innings in a game between the two team's respective score keepers for that game, they seem to invariably agree on the higher number. Safeties/Defensive shots are most often missed and this has a direct impact on the innings stats.

If I'm a 6 playing a 2 or 3 and wanted to shutout the opponent, I would simply mask a few two way shots per game as misses with barely pocket speed, setting up an easy shot for my next turn, blocking that pocket from a weaker opponent and snookering the opponent or at least allowing them only a very difficult shot. By doing this, I'm presenting minimal risk to winning and getting my inning count up.

I guess I am very naive, I struggle to comprehend the big "pot of gold" at the end of the rainbow with APA. What, airfare and hotel for a few days in Vegas? Seriously, people will compromise their integrity for that? I can truthfully say that I've never dogged a single shot purposefully playing APA. I go into each match wanting to shutout the opponent completely. There is absolutely no thought to impacting my s/l rating.

Since the prize money and Vegas stuff doesn't amount to much when you consider the hours you invest, where is the pride in winning when you knowingly cheat? I just don't get that. If you take the hours you invest in league play in a year and multiply by $10 per hour, what you could probably make at McDonalds, you'd have more than enough money to buy a plane ticket to Vegas, get a decent hotel room and have money left over for food and gambling. Even if you went to Vegas and won, in the big scheme of things, what's this mean? It certainly means nothing compared to finishing in the final 4 at DCC or something similar.

nobcitypool said:

I don't know the exact formula for s/l ratings in APA, however I do know it is based on more factors than simply winning or losing.

If I'm a 6 playing a 2 or 3 and wanted to shutout the opponent, I would simply mask a few two way shots per game as misses with barely pocket speed, setting up an easy shot for my next turn, blocking that pocket from a weaker opponent and snookering the opponent or at least allowing them only a very difficult shot. By doing this, I'm presenting minimal risk to winning and getting my inning count up.

Click to expand...

You do realize that as an S/L 6 regardless of how many innings you can draw out your games to you only get credit for a max of like 3.5 and that's if you're a "low" 6 if you win. So those 86 innings you worked so hard to get over 5 or 6 games during your win, after they input the data you get credit for maybe 15 or 18 divided by the 5 or 6 games you won, and your win percentage goes up, so your level of "6" also goes up. Next time you play (and win) your games won will be worth fewer innings

Celophanewrap said:

You do realize that as an S/L 6 regardless of how many innings you can draw out your games to you only get credit for a max of like 3.5 and that's if you're a "low" 6 if you win. So those 86 innings you worked so hard to get over 5 or 6 games during your win, after they input the data you get credit for maybe 15 or 18 divided by the 5 or 6 games you won, and your win percentage goes up, so your level of "6" also goes up. Next time you play (and win) your games won will be worth fewer innings

Click to expand...

I didn't, thanks for enlightening me. As I stated, it is irrelevant to me because I don't consider any of that stuff, I just play.

4onthebreak said:

" And we all know that it's the female SL2s that bring excitement into the pool hall, so who cares if they have a big target on their back."

What in the sweet chocolate jesus does this mean?

Click to expand...

If you are gay, then you wouldn't understand :grin-square:

BTW, where in my post did you hear me say that I ask my players to lay down? I just tell them to do their best. Simple as that. Like other posters have pointed out, it's picking the best optimized matchups in the long run it what it takes to win, other than having some good players.

And let me say just one more thing. If you as a coach are going for blowouts all the time, then you never really have a chance to teach your players anything in tight matches. Anyone who has been to Vegas knows that it takes a LOT of work to train ALL of your players. Have you ever taken a team to Vegas? I very much doubt it. Please note that I have, so I know what it takes.

This week went interesting for us. After the third game we were down 3-6 (1-2, 0-3, 2-1) and I had to play the last two games. First game I play a 5 (I'm a 3) and win in 3 or 4 games bringing the score to 5-6. Basically winner of the last one wins the match. They still had a 7 to put up to lock in a win but they put up a 4. It comes down to me having to make a bank into the corner and I left it just outside the pocket so we lose 6-8 but still overall better pointwise then if we had gotten 2 for the matches we won. It was actually fairly exciting towards the end, too bad everyone cleared out during game 3 (sl2 vs sl2) I was the only one on my team present for the last 2 games, oh well...