8 ball improved handicap suggestions

[FLICKit]

Here's a question for the board......Why is it much easier to handicap bowling or golf than it is pool?

Here's one simple answer of many...

Bowling and golf have no interaction with other players. You're score in those game is essentially your score. The only way to determine a winner is to compare who's score is higher.

In pool, the way you play, has an impact on the lay of the balls and table for your opponent. You also have variables in addition, i.e. 8 ball - 1 set of balls is usually in a better position than the others or 9-ball - game changes as balls are removed from the table (less obsticles). Then add in the additional factor of pool, that some people would rather hustle than to win straight out. Or even on the legitimate side, sometimes you'd rather setup your opponent to handle trouble situations, in order to improve your chances of winning. There are even styles of play to consider - offensive, defensive, balanced. All of this interplay has a direct effect on the ability to rate someone accurately in pool.

 

[FLICKit]

Here's a question for the board......Why is it much easier to handicap bowling or golf than it is pool?

Maybe here's a better question. Why is it easier to rate someone in chess, rather than pool?

 

[FLICKit]

Maybe another idea is to develop or utilize some 1 player game variations for pool in order to rate a player without any interaction from an opponent. That could be used as a baseline, then some minor adjustments could be made for when they face an opponent (some will play better against an opponent, some will do the same, some will play worse).

 

[Jack Flanagan]

Maybe here's a better question. Why is it easier to rate someone in chess, rather than pool?

??,,,chessplayers don't sandbag, hoping for an advantage...!

 

[pete lafond]

??,,,chessplayers don't sandbag, hoping for an advantage...!

They would if there were enough players and tounaments. You can also handicap chess just as you handicap everything else. There are ways if you think about it, one less pawn.

 

[pete lafond]

Maybe another idea is to develop or utilize some 1 player game variations for pool in order to rate a player without any interaction from an opponent. That could be used as a baseline, then some minor adjustments could be made for when they face an opponent (some will play better against an opponent, some will do the same, some will play worse).

I understand what you are saying though pressure is part of the skill you would be eliminating.

What you are saying is that with enough structure you could create a baseline. This would require a lot of work though.

 

[Teacherman]

I understand what you are saying though pressure is part of the skill you would be eliminating.

What you are saying is that with enough structure you could create a baseline. This would require a lot of work though.

Just as easy to sandbag a "rating" by using no opponent as with an opponent.

 

[Rickw]

I think one of the reasons it is so tough to handicap pool is that there are a lot of players that are so inconsistent, I'm one of them. I can play at a pretty high level for a while and then, for reasons that I don't fully understand, my game will drop dramatically. I think one of the reasons for that is that I work long hours and I just don't have the psychological stamina to keep playing at that high level. From what I've seen, there are many players that share my plight. If you rate someone at either end of their performance, the rating will be off. So, how do you arrive at an accurate rating? The only way that I know is over time and during competition.

 

[Teacherman]

...for reasons that I don't fully understand, my game will drop dramatically...

Could make a lot of money if we could answer this question.

 

[Rickw]

I provided one answer, I can't do it all!

Could make a lot of money if we could answer this question.

 

[pete lafond]

I think one of the reasons it is so tough to handicap pool is that there are a lot of players that are so inconsistent, I'm one of them. I can play at a pretty high level for a while and then, for reasons that I don't fully understand, my game will drop dramatically. I think one of the reasons for that is that I work long hours and I just don't have the psychological stamina to keep playing at that high level. From what I've seen, there are many players that share my plight. If you rate someone at either end of their performance, the rating will be off. So, how do you arrive at an accurate rating? The only way that I know is over time and during competition.

I imagine like anything else, if the handicap is calculated correctly it should put you at 80% of your ability.

 

[chefjeff]

What does your silence mean, chefjeff?

Have you seen the light on "valid data"?

It means I typed out a whole response and it got eaten by the computer.

Also, I've been watching basketball...go Hawkeyes!

IF a good team wins in the first two weeks, they'll have a high handicap when it is figured before playing week three's match and this will then even out the league. Likewise the poorer teams' handicaps will help them later on. A team can't win a match without winning games. Winning games makes one's handicap higher. Sandbagging won't work, I tell ya.

As to your complaint about the "10 for a win and one point per ball made to the loser," take it to the leagues. This system has proven itself, in probably millions of trials, and needs no defense. It works very, very well.

What "valid data?" ...I must've missed something.

Jeff Livingston

 

[Teacherman]

It means I typed out a whole response and it got eaten by the computer.

Also, I've been watching basketball...go Hawkeyes!

IF a good team wins in the first two weeks, they'll have a high handicap when it is figured before playing week three's match and this will then even out the league. Likewise the poorer teams' handicaps will help them later on. A team can't win a match without winning games. Winning games makes one's handicap higher. Sandbagging won't work, I tell ya.

As to your complaint about the "10 for a win and one point per ball made to the loser," take it to the leagues. This system has proven itself, in probably millions of trials, and needs no defense. It works very, very well.

What "valid data?" ...I must've missed something.

Jeff Livingston

Now I'm even more confused. You first talk about ball count and averages. Now you talk about winning games. Which is used to determine handicaps?
Both?

 

[FLICKit]

Now I'm even more confused. You first talk about ball count and averages. Now you talk about winning games. Which is used to determine handicaps?
Both?

He already spelled it out pretty clearly in his earlier post.

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).

Pretty obvious when you look at it.
If a player wins every game, then they'll have a 10 average.
If not, then player will have some average less than 10.
If player loses every match, then they'll have some average less than 7.

 

[turquoisecrazy]

He already spelled it out pretty clearly in his earlier post.



Pretty obvious when you look at it.
If a player wins every game, then they'll have a 10 average.
If not, then player will have some average less than 10.
If player loses every match, then they'll have some average less than 7.[/QUOTE]

 

[FLICKit]

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.

Seems like this method could work in an in-house league. At the same time, it would have an even larger swing based on the level of competition that you play against. Someone who could go undefeated in one area and be a perfect 10, could then go to a different area and never win a game. So, there would be no standard from location to location.

There may not be any system that can maintain perfect ratings from location to locations, but there can be some standards that are used to maintain a relative reference point, as has already been proven. For example, the accu-stats rating system would be able to provide a more consistent rating.

 

[frankncali]

I have a couple questions.

First off I play APA because its here and I enjoy it. I am a pretty good player
as a 7 in 8ball and a 9 in 9ball. I play so that I can hang with buddies and play pool.
Maybe its just my area but I just cant see the amount of sandbagging
happening that is talked about. Again it could be my area.
What I do hear is alot of nonsense that people talk. They look at a 3 run 4 balls and then the 8 twice to win a match and think the player is under rated.
They dont consider the layout at all. Nor do they consider the previous
matches. Heck even Pros in every sport have off days and good days.
I think sandbagging is blown out of proportion.
I do feel that APA 9 ball is fairer than 8 ball. If you sandbag in 9ball it hurts the team directly as where in 8 ball only the wins matter.

questions
Is the BCA handicapped? I always hear people saying I should play because its all even matches and I would not have to give a handicap to anyone.

Also-- Alot of people think that a 7 in APA in NY is not equal to a 7 in LA. Why? Win percentage matters but not drastically. IS it only 7s that this can occur due to tthe ceiling? I agree that the ceiling level in any system can be tough. But what about a NY5 vs a LA 5? How can they vary that much?

The APA or any league tries to handicap a short race for a nights activities.
Thats tough. They can not make the levels go from 2-25 because of points and time with time being the biggest factor.
I think the APA is okay and that if the LOs are honest and take a look at players then most are correct.
As for nationals its even tougher to adjust. PLayers are there that have been
practicing and are getting a months worth of matches in a day. Also
theres not as much drinking in Nationals compared to a league night.
The players are better rested being off work.

Its tough but I still like to play with my buddies. I do feel that in a way it has hurt my game but thats based more on me electing to play more nights
instead of practicing more.

 

[chefjeff]

Seems like this method could work in an in-house league. At the same time, it would have an even larger swing based on the level of competition that you play against. Someone who could go undefeated in one area and be a perfect 10, could then go to a different area and never win a game. So, there would be no standard from location to location.

There may not be any system that can maintain perfect ratings from location to locations, but there can be some standards that are used to maintain a relative reference point, as has already been proven. For example, the accu-stats rating system would be able to provide a more consistent rating.

True about different areas and different overall skill levels. The way it's handled around here during the state tournaments is the teams get no handicap. The team tournament is divided into categories, though: Master's, Open, Ladies Masters, Ladies Open. And the individual play is broken down further: Open, Level I, Masters, Ladies Open, Ladies Masters. These levels keep the play a little closer to even, but hey, it's the state tourney and it requires good play to have a chance...as it should. By the time you're here, you'd better have your game face on or you're going home early.

BTW, our state VNEA tourney starts this Thursday. The BCA is in two weeks.

Jeff Livingston

 

[FLICKit]

True about different areas and different overall skill levels. The way it's handled around here during the state tournaments is the teams get no handicap. The team tournament is divided into categories, though: Master's, Open, Ladies Masters, Ladies Open. And the individual play is broken down further: Open, Level I, Masters, Ladies Open, Ladies Masters. These levels keep the play a little closer to even, but hey, it's the state tourney and it requires good play to have a chance...as it should. By the time you're here, you'd better have your game face on or you're going home early.

BTW, our state VNEA tourney starts this Thursday. The BCA is in two weeks.

Jeff Livingston

OK... and what standards do you have to determine whether a player should be in the Open, Level I, or Masters.

Say for example FrankNCali visits your area and wants to play in a tournament, which group would you put him in and why?

 

[Teacherman]

OK... and what standards do you have to determine whether a player should be in the Open, Level I, or Masters.

Say for example FrankNCali visits your area and wants to play in a tournament, which group would you put him in and why?

If I don't have any credible info on FrankNCali, he plays as a Master (I assume that is the top level)