chefjeff said:
Sorry to see you've lost your head.
8 ball improved handicap suggestions
- Thread starter pete lafond
- Start date
Sorry to see you've lost your head.
MrLucky said:
Don't forget, the players are human also. Many of them lowlife humans. The bottom of the barrel humans. Crooked humans. Humans that other humans distrust. etc etc.
chefjeff said:
You guys just don't get it. A computer can only process what's put into it. Garbage in garbage out.
Until you input data is valid, your output isn't valid.
If you can't trust the league operator, that's another story. Deserves another thread.
But, to assume you can trust the players is a far bigger stretch than trusting the league operator.
chefjeff said:
I still can't see where you've shown any league system. All I read is don't handicap until after the second week.
And, BTW, it's impossible.
Teacherman said:
In league play, the opponents are the safeguard. They won't allow the incorrect score to be recorded, unless they want to penalize themselves by helping another team's player(s), which, being "lowlife humans" (your term, not mine), they don't.
The exact score is the exact number to be used for calculations, therefore the input data are accurate. No pretending here. AND...and if a player decides to sandbag the first two weeks of play, he'll never make it "back out of the hole" to help his team later on, so he's only hurting himself and his team. That's the beauty of it. And it automatically resets itself every season, regardless of a player's changing abilities.
Jeff Livingston
chefjeff said:
What hole? Is there a playoff at the end of league?
This is the biggest improvement in the new system in APA anyway yes you can hold back during the season and lose enough matches to be a 5 instead of a 6 or 7 but your team is also losing pointsand being penalized each match you lose and then in playoffs if you now play as a 7 you will be adjusted !!!chefjeff said:
Until some better plan is devised this does equal out to be the fairest way to do it at this time !
MrLucky said:
Who does the adjusting?
Teacherman said:
So is heavier than air flight.
Sorry for the confusion, but I mentioned the current BCA and VNEA system as the base of this handicapping. For those who don't know about it, it simply counts the win as 10 and the opponent gets one point for each ball made (not perfect but not bad in the long run). A player's average is figured by his total points divided by the number of games he has played. This accumulates over the season and is the running average. Each team adds up their players' averages and compares it to the opponent's total. The difference is added/subtracted to each round of play.
By waiting until the third week of play to have a handicap, everyone is playing scratch until then. This means that sandbagging early in the season doesn't work (that's the "hole" I'm talking about).
Jeff Livingston
MrLucky said:
What about the teams that do this and don't lose sufficient points to hurt themselves?
How do you deal with the competition in one division being completely different than in another?
When you bring the two divisions to a playoff, there is no guarantee a Division A 7 will equal a Division B 7. They've played different competition all session long. One division is likely to be weaker than the other. The weaker division 7's are likely to be weaker than the stronger division 7's.
Impossible.
MrLucky said:This is the biggest improvement in the new system in APA anyway yes you can hold back during the season and lose enough matches to be a 5 instead of a 6 or 7 but your team is also losing pointsand being penalized each match you lose and then in playoffs if you now play as a 7 you will be adjusted !!!
That is about as UNfair a system as I could imagine. So ONE good day of play and BAM! you jump from a 5 to a 7.
Not fair, buty stupid and destructive to the average player.
Jeff Livingston
chefjeff said:
How can you play without handicap the first 3 weeks and not have the better teams get an advantage? If I'm the better team, playing a weaker team, and we're playing scratch, we are going to win whether we play up to our speed or not. Therefore, we have the ability to get the victory and still keep our handicap down.
Finally, giving 3 points for the eight ball makes no sense. From a purely statistcal standpoint, the better player wins more than he loses. So, now you want to give him 3 points for the 8 ball, which means he will outrun the handicap by simply winning the game. In other words, the ball count is often rendered meaningless because the player can simple win the game and get 3 points and outrun the count.
If I'm a 7 playing a 5, there is a 2 count difference. If I simply win the game which, statistically speaking, the 7 will do a very high percentage of the time, I outrun the handicap. How does that help the 5.
But, if he only gets 1 point for the 8 ball he has to beat his opponent and keep him from getting to 6. Now, there is a handicap. There is a challenge which requires more than winning the game.
Also, using ball counts for averages will put a wide range of players in the same handicap category.
Last edited:
chefjeff said:
In the case were it would be difficult to manage a high volume of players, it would be best to consider peoples handicaps much higher at first. Use golf's rule by dropping the lowest and highest performances week by week. This would at least minimize. Clearly sandbagging is better caught by peers and reported.
I played in a league once that locked in 20% of the strongest players. Why handicap then? In which case what Teacherman says works by letting the local operator dictate might be fair. If it is a large league, then delegate this responsibility. Still track stats and compute averages, just put someone in charge to make corrections.
handicapping ...
Anyone that has played league for a few years will tell you that it is all about the money for the good players, and fun times for the lessor players. Any good player will tell you that if you set too high an average to begin with, that it will punish you later on in the session, or in the playoff tournaments.
Handicapping is good for participation, but to a certain extent it is detrimental because it decreases the desire in the lessor players to become better, i.e., someone that is a top 5 handicap (like a 5.8 or 5.9) will be more comfortable there than becoming a low 6 (like a 6.1 or 6.2) in a league system, even though there skill level would have increased because they will win more games as a 5 than a 6 because of the 'spot' handicapping provides.
In better players (usually the ones that gamble) their 'money' skill level will be the truest indicator of their true skill. In lessor players you do not have that.
No one system is all complete or encompassing ...
Here is my suggestion:
If one barometer has to be used, then I would suggest using a 10 ball
average. 300 is possible in 10 ball and can be coverted for BCA (75 for 5 man, 60 for 4 man) or VNEA (13 here locally).
Then to prevent sandbagging, I would make all players pay $10, play 1 game of 10 ball, and pay back 10 cents for each point over 100, 20 cents each point over 150, and 50 cents for each point over 200, and $1 for each point over 250. The idea is not to make or lose money doing this, but to just about break even when all players had completed this, lessor players and better players. The 10 ball averages would be converted to BCA, like a 120 average would convert to a 30 5 man BCA average or a 24 4 man BCA average. A 244 average would convert to 61 5 man or 49 4 man (rounded).
Next, you consider average competition level of the league by taking the average 10 average for the whole league. Say, it is 130. Convert it to a
26 4 man average BCA or 33 5 man average (rounded).
If the individual's averages are above the league averages (61 > 33), then reduce the individuals average by 10% (competition factor) to equal 55 for 5 man, 44 for 4 man.
If the individual's average is below the league average (30 < 33), then reduce the individual's average by 20% (competion factor) to equal 24 for 5 man, and
19 for 4 man BCA.
Note: rule is that better than average players averages will be affected 10% by competition (10 ball has no competition like 8 ball or 9 ball), and less than average players averages will be affected 20% by competition.
Averages can be self adjusting afterwards as league play continues.
This is the fairest way I can think of, provides incentive to not sandbag (money paid back when setting 10 ball average for higher average), converts to particular league system, and adjusts fairly for better and lessor players for competition factor. Then moves up or down as league play continues.
Note that 10 ball average would only have to be set once even if player played in league on 4 different nights as it could be compared to a particular nights league average to adjust for competition factor. Say a player had a 45
BCA 5 man average, and 3 league nights average was below that, then the players average would adjust to 40 (4.5 rounded to 5 subtract from 45), but he played in an advanced league where the league average was 50, then his average for that night would be 45 * 20% = 9 from 45 = 36 average for the advanced league night. (most players would be better than him, probably beating him, and holding his average lower than would normally be).
I am open to suggestions, but consider mine first ... okay ...
Anyone that has played league for a few years will tell you that it is all about the money for the good players, and fun times for the lessor players. Any good player will tell you that if you set too high an average to begin with, that it will punish you later on in the session, or in the playoff tournaments.
Handicapping is good for participation, but to a certain extent it is detrimental because it decreases the desire in the lessor players to become better, i.e., someone that is a top 5 handicap (like a 5.8 or 5.9) will be more comfortable there than becoming a low 6 (like a 6.1 or 6.2) in a league system, even though there skill level would have increased because they will win more games as a 5 than a 6 because of the 'spot' handicapping provides.
In better players (usually the ones that gamble) their 'money' skill level will be the truest indicator of their true skill. In lessor players you do not have that.
No one system is all complete or encompassing ...
Here is my suggestion:
If one barometer has to be used, then I would suggest using a 10 ball
average. 300 is possible in 10 ball and can be coverted for BCA (75 for 5 man, 60 for 4 man) or VNEA (13 here locally).
Then to prevent sandbagging, I would make all players pay $10, play 1 game of 10 ball, and pay back 10 cents for each point over 100, 20 cents each point over 150, and 50 cents for each point over 200, and $1 for each point over 250. The idea is not to make or lose money doing this, but to just about break even when all players had completed this, lessor players and better players. The 10 ball averages would be converted to BCA, like a 120 average would convert to a 30 5 man BCA average or a 24 4 man BCA average. A 244 average would convert to 61 5 man or 49 4 man (rounded).
Next, you consider average competition level of the league by taking the average 10 average for the whole league. Say, it is 130. Convert it to a
26 4 man average BCA or 33 5 man average (rounded).
If the individual's averages are above the league averages (61 > 33), then reduce the individuals average by 10% (competition factor) to equal 55 for 5 man, 44 for 4 man.
If the individual's average is below the league average (30 < 33), then reduce the individual's average by 20% (competion factor) to equal 24 for 5 man, and
19 for 4 man BCA.
Note: rule is that better than average players averages will be affected 10% by competition (10 ball has no competition like 8 ball or 9 ball), and less than average players averages will be affected 20% by competition.
Averages can be self adjusting afterwards as league play continues.
This is the fairest way I can think of, provides incentive to not sandbag (money paid back when setting 10 ball average for higher average), converts to particular league system, and adjusts fairly for better and lessor players for competition factor. Then moves up or down as league play continues.
Note that 10 ball average would only have to be set once even if player played in league on 4 different nights as it could be compared to a particular nights league average to adjust for competition factor. Say a player had a 45
BCA 5 man average, and 3 league nights average was below that, then the players average would adjust to 40 (4.5 rounded to 5 subtract from 45), but he played in an advanced league where the league average was 50, then his average for that night would be 45 * 20% = 9 from 45 = 36 average for the advanced league night. (most players would be better than him, probably beating him, and holding his average lower than would normally be).
I am open to suggestions, but consider mine first ... okay ...
What does your silence mean, chefjeff?
Have you seen the light on "valid data"?
Have you seen the light on "valid data"?
Last edited:
Here's a question for the board......Why is it much easier to handicap bowling or golf than it is pool?