Have the guy play and tell him to try his hardest to win. Just have him play the entire ,arch opposite handed. It's good prat ice for him AND he wouldn't be sandbag ginger because he IS TRYING his hardest.
APA Rules Question - Intentional Forfeit
- Thread starter WillyCornbread
- Start date
My division rep does this on occasion believe it or not...
A division rep ? Man that is a classic case of sandbagging . I know a guy that was raised 2 levels after pulling that stunt.. well that and winning a money tournament around the same time.
My lo dont play when he sees crap going on.
This is what I meant when I said "without the insults". The dictionary thing came from YOUR first response to me, in the same paragraph where you used the word "ignorant". I don't believe you were calling me ignorant, but you were calling SOMEONE ignorant, so it's insulting to someone (even though ignorance, like manipulation, isn't always a negative thing). You continued throughout that response and this one to use language that is condescending in nature, without directly coming out and saying the things the readers might infer from your comments. I see it, and others see it. "Apologies" that basically say "I don't know what you're talking about, but here, I'm sorry" mean nothing to me. I believe it to be intentional.
I think you (intentionally or not) have left out an important piece of what it is we are actually discussing. I'm discussing whether it's ok to forfeit a player SPECIFICALLY TO PREVENT THEM FROM GOING UP IN SKILL LEVEL, as was the case in the OP's example. You seem to want to ignore that part of the question in your replies. So no, we don't have a mutually agreed upon premise.
The definition doesn't specify, but the context certainly does. Did I *ever* use that word in a positive context? I don't know how you don't see this.
Actually, you didn't. You used the word as a synonym for "affect" or "impact" in one place, and as a synonym for "use" in another. The former usage is the one with which I disagree when I say I think it's not entirely correct as it often takes zero skill to affect or impact something. The latter is the most broad usage possible. At best, your usage is inconsistent, and at worst, it's completely wrong. Even your fork example is wrong, because "skillful" and "well enough" are oxymoronic (to me, at least). I think my suspicion has come to fruition on this point.
Here you counter the phrase "someone you think is better than their number" with "I never have a reason to think anyone on my team is better than their number." Well good for you. But that was a statement about captains in general. Certainly you can't be claiming that captains in general NEVER have a reason to think anyone on their team is better than their number. You're a smart guy, but you're not really smart enough to know what every captain thinks, are you? And even if you are that smart, and no captain ever has a reason to think anyone on their team is better than their number, you can't dispute the validity of "If A, then B" with "Not A". You have offered no logical argument against the validity of my claim.
Why do you assume that there are NO reasons for a player to be ranked improperly besides improper scorekeeping or dishonest play? What about the guy who is three sheets to the wind every time he plays on league night, then shows up for an 11 AM tournament match and shoots like God? Even though there was no monkey business involved in arriving at his skill level number, it might not reflect his *true* ability. Instead of hypotheticals, though, I'll give you a real life example. I had a lady in the league who always seemed to play better than her number in tournaments. She did quite well in the Singles program a few years back. Since tournaments were pretty much the only opportunity I had to watch her play, I could tell the number was off but couldn't figure out why, and I knew she wasn't doing anything dishonest. She had the occasional good match on league night, but mostly losses. So I dug through the score sheets, and figured out that when she played first or second she did well, but when she played later (after she'd had a few) she did poorly. Since she was the captain's wife and always stayed to the end of the night, she played late a lot more than she played early. Nothing dishonest, accurate scorekeeping, but the calculated skill level was low.
What about the older guy who is just tired at night and doesn't play as well as he might play before noon? Might his skill level number be lower than his true ability?
Please, please, PLEASE do not try to argue that the performance of these players is their true ability. Performance and ability are not always the same. The computer part of the Equalizer system (oh gosh, are there other parts?) attempts to measure ability through performance, but if there are factors regularly influencing performance that can't be captured on a score sheet, the calculation could produce an inaccurate number.
Now who's playing both sides of the fence? You claim that, by definition, the number reflects their true ability, but you don't want it to change because the new number would be less accurate? So the new number wouldn't also, by definition, reflect their true ability? No, you don't want the number to change because it's currently favorable to you and your team. However, this point is moot because once again you've completely ignored the "someone you think is better than their number" part of what I'm saying. If you don't think they're better than their number, then you don't have to worry about going to hell for holding them out.
I don't know where you got "difficult matches" from "a match they will most certainly lose badly". I also don't know why you continue to ignore the complete statement and focus on just the part you want to argue against. I said "just to make their number 'accurate'? I say no, if you have no other reason to play them in that match." You counter with reasons why you would put them in difficult matches. This time you've countered "If A, then B" with "Not C".
If that's what you think, then you know WAY less about the computer part of the Equalizer system (oh no, there it is again!) than you claim to know. It's not uncommon at all for a player to go up, lose one match, and go back down. It's also not uncommon for a player to go up, lose a bunch of matches in a row, and not go back down.
I agree with everything you say here about "difficult" matches. In fact, I EXPECT most players who "graduate" to end up in matches against better players than they were playing previously. Some for the reasons you mention, but more importantly, the composition of the team is now different and those players may HAVE to play in more difficult matches. I see it a lot when a player goes from a 4 to a 5. That's the transition where they start to eat up more than their share of the 23 rule and have to be "balanced" in the roster by a lower-skilled player. Hence, they have to play more difficult opponents than they were playing before. I also don't expect them to do that well, since the transition for established players is from "strong X" to "weak Y". It's all normal. However, it has NOTHING to do with anything I've said (except when I, apparently completely illogically, said "If you play them against a better player to see how they will do, it's not manipulation - you don't know what the outcome will be, and that information is useful to us, too." in my original reply).
Again, good for you. I never said you ever said or thought that. I said "If you do it simply because your player 'needs a bad loss', then...". Again, you can't challenge the validity of "If A, then B" with "Not A". The challenge has to be "A, but not B". I'm beginning to think you're not as good at this logic stuff as you claim to be.
Really? Is there any part of your responses where you DON'T completely ignore pertinent parts of the statement? The next two sentences (the ones you omitted) explain EXACTLY why that sentence undermines nothing.
I think if we continue the quoted style of response, the discussion will become harder and harder to understand. This one is hard enough. Is there a better way to do this?
APA Operator, I appreciate your attempt here and taking the time.
I believe that I've seen enough to get an idea what your position is and what sort of "reasoning" you're bringing to the table.
I think I will bow out of this conversation at this time. Your first paragraph extinguishes the value of any further conversation.
Take care and good luck with your league.
KMRUNOUT
I believe that I've seen enough to get an idea what your position is and what sort of "reasoning" you're bringing to the table.
I think I will bow out of this conversation at this time. Your first paragraph extinguishes the value of any further conversation.
Take care and good luck with your league.
KMRUNOUT
I agree - it's pointless trying to discuss anything with someone who wants to argue apple and oranges and call it logic (or nonsense, depending whether he's talking about the apple or the orange).
Enjoy your time in the APA and your other pool playing endeavors. That's really what's important, anyway.
Thanks for the additional confirmation.
Have a great holiday!
I will hold out hope for the APA.
KMRUNOUT
Sent from my iPhone using AzBilliards Forums
This is a different discussion, and I think we can make some progress here without being dismissive. Please don't make the mistake of thinking that my determination and effort in one area subtract from my determination and effort in the other. I have time and energy to do both.
To me, this discussion was never about people who break the written rules. It was about captains who think they're doing nothing wrong when they try to steer a skill level in a certain direction, simply because there's no written rule against it. There's also no written rule against laying a house cue on the table with the butt end in the pocket, to help your object ball go in, but nobody would think that's ok. This example is extreme and obvious, I know. I completely understand captains who believe it's ok to do these things, and I intended for the scope do be as narrow as it could be in explaining that it is not. In the forfeit example, I would be extremely surprised if I found out that you personally forfeited when you had a player available. I don't get that vibe from you - I appreciate your efforts to keep everything honest and accurate, I reallly do. I'm just trying to point out that some things shouldn't be done, even if there's nothing dishonest about doing them and no written rule prohibiting them. It's not how I wish the rules were, it's how they are.
As far as my desire to manipulate the skill levels in my area, I do so with the express purpose of making them accurate. I am the only person in my area authorized to do such manipulation, and you'll just have to trust me when I tell you I have the knowledge, skill, and tools to do it. I'm speaking specifically of myself here, not of LO's in general. Many other LO's are equally capable, but there are some not as skilled or knowledgeable. But the LO is part of the Equalizer system, as are members, to the extent that they do what they can to play honestly, keep score properly, and provide feedback (solicited and unsolicited) on handicaps. The Equalizer isn't just a computer formula. This is explained in the Team Manual, beginning on page 54.
Again, thanks for the patience, and for being the upstanding member I know you are.
Or you simply have no clue how it works.
If you did understand it it you understand how it makes perfectly good sense for someone to lose a match and still go up.
I suspect you were one of those people. You weren't gonna stay a 3 forever what did you expect?
Stop sandbagging, stop whining and play.
That would be a flaw in your thinking. Him beating this 3 is not what caused it. It was just another stepping stone that contributed to it. This same player could have played an 8 and got beat pretty bad but still moved up as it is HIS performance while shooting that matters, not the match win and not the skill of his opponent.
I am going to guess based on this comment you have very limited experience in playing other people from other areas.
I personally have played several dozens of people from all over coming from Canada, big cities and small towns you have never heard of. I have had 2 issues in all those matches and one of them knew they were on the cusp of being raised because they have improved greatly over the last couple months.
There are 3 things all of you that complain about handicaps fail to consider.
1.) People have good nights and bad nights. There have been days I shoot like a 7 and days I shoot like a 3.
2.) At higher level tournaments everyone's game is typically going to appear to be better because everyone is going to try to do their best for their team. Players that don't play many safeties may play more safeties, players that don't take coaches make take more coaches and players may concentrate on making that ball just a little more because it really matters and they don't want to let the team down. That mindset is not present typically during a session match and certainly not long term in a session.
3.) Score keepers matter and if the LO is not doing their job in making sure their players are keeping it like they should be then you may have issues with players getting raised at higher level tournaments because then the system will normalize all the stats that are not maintained as they should be.
I would be willing to bet it really wasn't a mystery. Why all of you think that the APA is out to get you or your team is humorous at best.
I would venture to guess one of 2 things if not a combination happened.
1.) The player was observed and a trained eye determined that the player was better than the skill they were at.
2.) The normalization of innings and defensive play came into affect and thus it moved them up.
Welcome back Skippy. :wink:
You quoted that one sentence to base your opinion on and I will have to admit that you are correct as to how the apa.handicap system works.
I did state in my post that i felt that this particular was close to going up. I felt that way because of how the handicap system works....not because of this persons level of play.
Now.don't take my words....level of play out of context ......because I know the level of play is taken into consideration in handicapping.
What I mean by his level of play is that he won several matches pretty convincingly during the session vs 3's ...4's. And some average 5's. The few times I played him against strong 5's and a couple of 6's he did not fare very well.
His level of play vs strong 5's and average to strong 6's indicated to me that he could not be competitive as a 6. Now you can argue that being competitive at a certain handicap should have no basis on being raised or not but i think its very relevant.
The fact that this person was lowered back to a 5 the following week after an 18-2 beat down by a 6 and this person has stayed a 5 for the last 2 years .....amd even lowered to a 4 in 8 ball a while back gives some credence to my opinion on this persons level of play.
Let me put it this way using the letter suffix for handicaps. You take a b player that beats the crap out of c players pretty regularly and a low b player on occasion. Does that mean this person is playing at an a level ? Not when he loses every time he plays an a player which is exactly the case of this 5 every time he played a 6.
That's why I made the statement that skunking a 3....2nd worse 3 in town does not mean that this player was capable of playing at 6 level. I hope you understand the analogy here.
Last edited:
It happens. A strong 5 that beat me (I'm a 6) went up to a 6 the following week. The next week he was back down to a 5.
In my own travels to a 6 the same thing would happen to me. I was a 2 at one point and after several up and down moves, some of which were what seemed to be every other week moves, eventually settled in as a 6.
When you are "between" levels, it just happens. It sucks when you get moved and have to give up a game and it is great when you move down and get it one. I typically don't whine about ratings because 1.) I know it will work itself out 2.) I match up against them as the level I expect them at and not what the paper says. However, if I see someone sandbagging in my opinion, especially if they brag about it, I will bring it tot he leagues attention.
In my own travels to a 6 the same thing would happen to me. I was a 2 at one point and after several up and down moves, some of which were what seemed to be every other week moves, eventually settled in as a 6.
When you are "between" levels, it just happens. It sucks when you get moved and have to give up a game and it is great when you move down and get it one. I typically don't whine about ratings because 1.) I know it will work itself out 2.) I match up against them as the level I expect them at and not what the paper says. However, if I see someone sandbagging in my opinion, especially if they brag about it, I will bring it tot he leagues attention.
How can you lose and go up. While I don't know how all leagues work but here is one example of why it could happen. Some leagues only use a sample size of all your matches. Could be last 10 or could be last 20 matches. Lets say whatever system a league uses a 3 is a range from 2.5 to 3.5. So if your a strong 3 at say 3.4 to 3.5. So whatever sample size a league may use. Lets say your last 10 matches. So when this match is entered whether you win or lose the 11 match gets erased. That 11th match most likely a loss, was worse than the match just entered. Which took you from a 3.4 to 3.5 to a 3.6 or above. Which is now within the range of a 4.
Because your rating is not based on matches you win or lose. That statistic is used in the normalization process, but it has little to no bearing on the stats they use to actually rate you.
As a 4 you can lose every match for the next 2 years and remain a 4, or even go up. Why? Because the stats they do use are based on GAMES you win within the matches, not the matches themselves. Therefore you can keep losing matches,but within those matches you are going to be winning games and that is how they will gather your details that show you are actually shooting.
We can say that the Equalizer system is pretty much a performance based system that uses games (not matches) that you displayed an interest in doing well at. Anyone can shoot bad and lose purposely to run up innings and loses, so naturally those games should be ignored.
As a 6, I can easily shoot a 4 and run up my innings. I can also easily dump my match to that 4. However, chances are that 4 is still going to take about X innings to beat me 3 games and have Y defensive shots even though I am trying to get him to beat me. Regardless, the normalizing will come into play for that 4 so nothing dramatic happens to them.
As a 4 you can lose every match for the next 2 years and remain a 4, or even go up. Why? Because the stats they do use are based on GAMES you win within the matches, not the matches themselves. Therefore you can keep losing matches,but within those matches you are going to be winning games and that is how they will gather your details that show you are actually shooting.
We can say that the Equalizer system is pretty much a performance based system that uses games (not matches) that you displayed an interest in doing well at. Anyone can shoot bad and lose purposely to run up innings and loses, so naturally those games should be ignored.
As a 6, I can easily shoot a 4 and run up my innings. I can also easily dump my match to that 4. However, chances are that 4 is still going to take about X innings to beat me 3 games and have Y defensive shots even though I am trying to get him to beat me. Regardless, the normalizing will come into play for that 4 so nothing dramatic happens to them.