Pay attention. That's my job. Have a Handicap Advisory Committee and players who alert me when someone is being mindful. We all review skill levels weekly, we see everyone who played a match. Corporate also knows who is spending time reviewing and who isn't. But Corporate doesn't know who is just passing time and who is paying attention. The majority pay attention, but not all. But I keep in mind that it is possible to repeat, but it's very hard. So preventing repeats is not the objective, getting the numbers right is.
APA/Fargo cut off?
- Thread starter benjaminwah
- Start date
You're saying you manipulate players scores outside of the equalizer system?
How does that affect the matches that person played? If you believe someone is sandbagging is there sanctions or do you just move them up a skill level?
How many players are in your region?
I'm saying I pay attention. Anybody who expects a computer to get all the numbers right is an idiot. Anybody who doesn't expect a computer to get most of the numbers right is also an idiot. If I think someone is sandbagging, I will try to get proof. If I get that proof, they're gone. I don't slap anyone on the wrist for sandbagging. I tell them they're no longer welcome in my league, very publicly so everyone knows what happens to cheaters who get caught. I'm sure there are some who get away with it, but the point is to discourage the behavior in the first place.
I have a top 25 franchise in terms of team count (a couple of thousand active members), and I have a reputation for sending honest teams to Vegas, mostly because I pay attention and have developed a good culture here. It can be done.
If I think someone is sandbagging, I will try to get proof. If I get that proof, they're gone. I don't slap anyone on the wrist for sandbagging. I tell them they're no longer welcome in my league, very publicly so everyone knows what happens to cheaters who get caught.
After reading this, this crossed my mind. Do you intentionally keep someone at a higher skill level than their play dictates? Sandbagging to keep a SL lower is one thing, but keeping someone’s SL higher on purpose is another. I hope you’re as quick to lower a skill level as raise one.
After reading this, this crossed my mind. Do you intentionally keep someone at a higher skill level than their play dictates? Sandbagging to keep a SL lower is one thing, but keeping someone’s SL higher on purpose is another. I hope you’re as quick to lower a skill level as raise one.
If you have a team that consistently plays there 3 against good fives and sixes so they lose do you consider this sandbagging
I know , right.
Being mindful of handicaps is literally built into the system and it's more than just straight up throwing matches.
I can't lower a skill level. I can let a player go down one level below the highest they've ever been, and sometimes I can appeal that "highest they've ever been" to get them lower. But in those cases as in the case of raising a player I have to be pretty sure the number needs to change to be right. Since the discussion here is focused on sandbagging, if I'm pretty sure the player can play at a higher number but is 'mindful', I have to be convinced they're actually trying to win before they ever get to come back down. APA provides us best-in-class tools and training which often makes it easy to tell if someone is trying to win or trying to get lowered. I also won't raise a player if I think that player will eventually get there themselves. In some cases it's not sandbagging at all but a case perhaps of not enough defense being marked, nothing intentional. If I raise someone because I think they can play at a higher number (but are actually making an honest effort), I will watch them at that number (again, paying attention) to see how competitive they are. It's all about trying to get the numbers right. When they're right, it's hard, but not impossible, to repeat.
It might be. It also might not be. It tells me that one or both of two things is true. It tells me the team thinks the player is better than their number (regardless of whether they expect that player to win some of those matches) or it tells me the player is being sacrificed to make the other matches easier. Looking at the performance of the rest of the team, the history of the team (have they done similar things before?), the performance of that player when they do play players of similar skill levels, and the performance of the player on other teams they might play on might give me a clue about that player's true ability. I also might ask someone from the HAC to watch that player and give me their feedback. That's one reason why my HAC is anonymous. I can also consider performance in other leagues outside APA (even
Fargo ratings). Again, paying attention and doing what I can to get the numbers right. These are all tools available to all APA League Operators, and anyone who doesn't use them all is doing their league a disservice. We all know the League works best when you get the numbers as close to right as you can. None of this is a trade secret.
How would that higher level player be sure to lose? While the other player needs to win less games, they are the worse player, that is how handicapps should work. I have no issued playing a 5-3 or even a 5-2 game if the skill level warrants it, and I win at those at least as often as I lose even if they need just two games in 9 ball. And in 8 ball I'm even more likely to win since missing the 8 is not that big of a deal often against a player that can't run out.
The way I see those matchups is more of a respect thing, I often see matchups with even or one level skill differences. I know a good player will tend to win against any fair handicap more often than not since the other guy just won't have a chance to shoot their balls in, they are either racking or facing a tough shot.
Last edited:
I think you misunderstood the misused reference of the word "they" in cookie man's post. It was referring to the 3, giving them a match they are expected to lose to "anchor" their skill level at 3. It's my job in that case to make sure the 3 is legit, and to make sure the rest of the team is legit.
Another question; if that “3” loses 10 - 12 matches in a row to SLs 2 and 3, would you still consider them a 3?
That's looking at only part of the picture. What does the HAC say? Like I said, once I'm suspicious I exhaust all my resources before becoming "unsuspicious", including talking to the player themselves. You'd be surprised how much info you can get from a seemingly innocent conversation. Eventually, they're gonna have to perform in front of me. I once raised three people on one team from watching them in one round of a tournament, even though two of the three lost. There are aspects of a persons game that you just can't measure on paper, and are hard to hide if you know what you're looking for. I guess I'm saying if you rely only on wins and losses, or other "measurables", you're missing some of your best resources.
I've always said that the best handicapping system is one person who knows everyone and rates them accordingly. But that doesn't scale, so you rely on a hybrid system of measurements where you can and local knowledge where your measurements fail (and they WILL fail at times, no matter what you're measuring). The key is to know your people well enough to know where your measurements might be failing. That's the "secret sauce" that makes any large-scale rating system successful. Again, no trade secrets there, just paying attention. That's a big part of my job. Anyone who doesn't pay attention isn't doing their job. Do I think it's infallible? Absolutely not, but until I hear of one that is, my opinion remains.
You raised three people after watching them play one match. That just seems wrong on all levels. I’m a 625 fargo, rated a 7/9 in apa and I’ve beaten 700+ rated fargo players and lost to under 600 rated players at times. How could you justify manually adjusting ratings after watching one match.
What I can't stand about APA is this line that I hear a LOT.
"So, we have this really good 4 looking for a spot on a team or for the doubles tournament."
The people who are usually a really good/really strong # are usually the next level up.
Doesn't sound like a big deal, but if there is a tournament where there is a hard cap on 2 or 3 people, fudging 1 or 2 people's numbers puts them in a huge position.
"So, we have this really good 4 looking for a spot on a team or for the doubles tournament."
The people who are usually a really good/really strong # are usually the next level up.
Doesn't sound like a big deal, but if there is a tournament where there is a hard cap on 2 or 3 people, fudging 1 or 2 people's numbers puts them in a huge position.
Think about this.....
That really good 4 may actually be a 4 not a 3 that apa operator watched play 1 match and moved them up to a 4. It is all relative.
Again, that's only part of the picture, and for some people who will always see just the part of the picture they want to see, I can understand how it might not make sense to them. That match came after complaints from players/teams, feedback from HAC members, etc., and was the last piece of getting info you can't measure (hence raising after a loss). You can't take just one piece of info and make a complete picture out of it. Nothing happens in a vacuum. You just don't see it all, and that's ok with me as long as I'm doing everything I can. And yes, you can get some info about a person's game from one match. One match isn't enough to give you all the information, but it can be enough to make the right decision when combined with the other information you already have. It's the same thing that happens with observers at the national tournaments. We can only provide one piece of the information, it has to be combined with the other information the Handicap Review Committee already has. And that's a lot more information than the casual observer has or needs to have. The casual observer who sees you beat a 700+ player or lose to a lower rating might think your Fargo rating is too high or too low. Do you feel obligated to show them all the other matches you've played? No, you expect that whomever is in charge of your 625 has been paying attention and that's good enough.
Cookie man and myself only reacted to what you posted. Now that you have gone Paul Harvey and told " the rest of the story " it makes more sense.
To be fair to computers... They're only as much an idiot as the person that told programmed them to do whatever.
It may have been after others have been complaining about the play of the person for several weeks, someone was put on to watch the player and then raised them.
I was just at a handicapped tournament where a player with a Fargo of 500 won. Before I saw his Fargo I would have thought he was at least a 600, maybe 650 even. 4-5 people also watching were talking about him as well shooting like a 650. Of course he won without a loss, beating a 680 3-0 or 3-1 on a very tight fast table in the finals. Another person that go to the final 6 or 4 was a 480ish, and him I thought was near 600 skill level as well, ended up that high as well, due to being too low for his skill.
It's not so much that someone played good that one event, it's how the player shot in general, shot selection, the stroke, position play. A 500 just does not play like a 600+ and look like one that smooth and easy if they are really a 500 playing good.
Did the players have established Fargo ratings? If they do, how do you explain them having that 500 rating if they are really playing like a 650? If they consistently play like a 650, wouldn't they have the results a 650 would and be an actual 650?