APA Ranking System / % of players in each ranking

Cornerman said:
I acknowledge reading your reasoning. I disagree wholeheartedly.
Click to expand...
I also disagreed....at first. Then I looked into my local league's stats for a few 7/9 players, and it appears to be accurate. Very interesting.

This assumes they are not the top level players, but the "average" 7/9 players, if you know what I mean. The guys that win regularly at nationals are excluded from this logic.
 
Tom1234 said:
“ It was 8-Ball, and if you pit two 7's, either one can win”. Typical LO - I have seen Grand Canyon wide differences between 7s in my area APA. There are SL 7s around here that win National tournaments!!!!!!!! There are SL 7s that lose 3 to 0 against good 5s. More and more 5s and 6s were raised to 7s hoping to break up teams so they would recruit more players. If a SL7 is the highest rating in APA 8 ball, then there should be just a small number of them, based on who plays APA in a given area. A top rated player in my area told me that 95% of SL 7s cannot beat the top 5% of SL7s in this area. How is this fair?
Click to expand...
In nearly 30 years, I've never raised a skill level to grow even one team. You go ahead and believe what you want to believe though, that's your prerogative.

I never said any two 7's play even - I said the best 7's are more likely to lose more 8-Ball matches than 9-Ball matches even though they give up weight as 9's in 9-Ball. They'll still win more than they'll lose in both formats.

There will always be a best player. You tell me, what do you need from that player to make it "fair"? Maybe it's ok that not all matchups are "fair", as long as they're fun.
 
There are a couple things to remember in APA 8b: the reason there are no SL1s is they would need to win only one game which means they start on the hill and have one point by default; also, a SL2 must win two games which means that players opponent must win a number of games equivalent to their SL number, i.e.a SL7 must win seven games to win.
 
NathanDetroit said:
There are a couple things to remember in APA 8b: the reason there are no SL1s is they would need to win only one game which means they start on the hill and have one point by default; also, a SL2 must win two games which means that players opponent must win a number of games equivalent to their SL number, i.e.a SL7 must win seven games to win.
Click to expand...
You are correct. APA 8-ball handicapping is exactly why there are no SL 1's. They use "game-race" handicapping system.
APA 9-ball, on the other hand, uses a "ball count-race" handicapping system.
 
The only real issue I have with the handicap system is the massive disparity in level between 7's. I have played some 7's even up in APA 8 Ball, but in other local leagues have had to play the same player giving them 5 games on 10 and should win. I am not a super 7 (639 Fargo) by any stretch of the imagination, but that seems to be a bit unfair to me. - I am not complaining, it just seems out of wack.

On a side note, I also see self proclaimed women WPBA pro's play in the APA at a skill level 5 or 6. If you are a "pro" shouldn't you be barred from the APA, which by definition is an amateur league?
 
Last edited:
FastManners said:
The only real issue I have with the handicap system is the massive disparity in level between 7's. I have played some 7's even up in APA 8 Ball, but in other local leagues have had to play the same player giving them 5 games on 10 and should win. I am not a super 7 (639 Fargo) by any stretch of the imagination, but that seems to be a bit unfair to me. - I am not complaining, it just seems out of wack.

On a side note, I also see self proclaimed women WPBA pro's play in the APA at a skill level 5 or 6. If you are a "pro" shouldn't you be barred from the APA, which by definition is an amateur league?
Click to expand...
I'm a super 7 and I'm still not playing SVB even. LOL

I seen a women at the Kamui 9 ball Championship in January. She had something of a 400 fargo rating and she was in the "pro" women's event. I think that is the equivalent of an APA4. She didn't win a single game. She would of struggled in the armature event across the room.

I thought it was a freaking joke. Are they just grabbing any woman to fill spots.
 
Zerksies said:
I'm a super 7 and I'm still not playing SVB even. LOL

I seen a women at the Kamui 9 ball Championship in January. She had something of a 400 fargo rating and she was in the "pro" women's event. I think that is the equivalent of an APA4. She didn't win a single game. She would of struggled in the armature event across the room.

I thought it was a freaking joke. Are they just grabbing any woman to fill spots.
Click to expand...
I know an SL6 that has started entering pro events. They are open so why not? It gives her good experience. She can't win the tournaments of course, but just seeing other ladies play some good pool is a good experience and gives her a reason to travel around a bit. Power to her....even if it doesn't make her a pro just because she has entered some pro events.

It's really no different than the dead money that shows up at the US Open just so they can shake hands with Earl and have a front row seat to watching a world champ obliterate them. The experience is worth the entry fee for them.
 
WobblyStroke said:
I know an SL6 that has started entering pro events. They are open so why not? It gives her good experience. She can't win the tournaments of course, but just seeing other ladies play some good pool is a good experience and gives her a reason to travel around a bit. Power to her....even if it doesn't make her a pro just because she has entered some pro events.

It's really no different than the dead money that shows up at the US Open just so they can shake hands with Earl and have a front row seat to watching a world champ obliterate them. The experience is worth the entry fee for them.
Click to expand...
With the $750 entry fee playing cash games is the better/smarter option. You're getting more mileage and value for your money then getting blown out playing 2 matches.

You're learning more paying $20 sets over time against an SL6 or SL7 and might have the opportunity to make $$
 
Zerksies said:
With the $750 entry fee playing cash games is the better/smarter option. You're getting more mileage and value for your money then getting blown out playing 2 matches.

You're learning more paying $20 sets over time against an SL6 or SL7 and might have the opportunity to make $$
Click to expand...
I agree with you. They don't. Some people have money to burn.

Reminds me of Bill Gates playing the 4/8 poker tables in Vegas. He was asked why with all that money he doesn't play the nosebleeds. His answer was, "I have so much money, 4/8 and 1000/2000 makes no difference to me monetarily. This is the level my game is at so this is the level I play". Not related, but thought I'd share out of sheer boredom anyway lol.
 
FastManners said:
The only real issue I have with the handicap system is the massive disparity in level between 7's. I have played some 7's even up in APA 8 Ball, but in other local leagues have had to play the same player giving them 5 games on 10 and should win. I am not a super 7 (639 Fargo) by any stretch of the imagination, but that seems to be a bit unfair to me. - I am not complaining, it just seems out of wack.

On a side note, I also see self proclaimed women WPBA pro's play in the APA at a skill level 5 or 6. If you are a "pro" shouldn't you be barred from the APA, which by definition is an amateur league?
Click to expand...
At close to 650 Fargo, you would be a strong 7/9 and approaching super 7/9 status in most APA territories.

From what I've seen I think it goes something like:

525-550 is a weak 7/7, 50-55% win rate

550-575 is a standard 7/7 or weak 7/8, 55-60% win rate

575-600 is a standard 7/8 or weak 7/9, 60-65% win rate

600-625 is a standard 7/9, 65-70% win rate

625-650 is a strong 7/9, usually 70-75% win rate

650-675 is a super 7/9, 75%+ win rate

675-700 is a super, super 7/9, 80%+ win rate

700+ is essentially pro level when playing amateurs, 85%+ win rate, absurd break and run stats and should probably be banned from APA, lol. These are guys who have collected many scalps of actual touring pros in local and regional tournaments, but they aren't favorites to win any regional events.

I'm sure there are guys deep into the 700s in APA (Brian Parks, Abe Schaad, etc.), but I haven't encountered any. I would imagine they have 90-95% win rates and have probably had a few nights where their opponents never even left their chairs.

Of course, everything I said is area/territory/room-dependent.
 
APA Operator said:
In nearly 30 years, I've never raised a skill level to grow even one team. You go ahead and believe what you want to believe though, that's your prerogative.

I never said any two 7's play even - I said the best 7's are more likely to lose more 8-Ball matches than 9-Ball matches even though they give up weight as 9's in 9-Ball. They'll still win more than they'll lose in both formats.

There will always be a best player. You tell me, what do you need from that player to make it "fair"? Maybe it's ok that not all matchups are "fair", as long as they're fun.
Click to expand...
I’m really glad that you made that statement; many LOs could not do that with a straight face. I’ve seen several lower hcp players moved up and then quit because their matchups were never “fair”. Fair in my book is FEWER SL7s in any given league. As I’ve said before, if you can’t win at least half your matches as a 7 against other 7s, then you ARE NOT a 7. I’m glad you’re not raising hcps unfairly, but I’ve seen other LOs doing so.
 
Tom1234 said:
I’m really glad that you made that statement; many LOs could not do that with a straight face. I’ve seen several lower hcp players moved up and then quit because their matchups were never “fair”. Fair in my book is FEWER SL7s in any given league. As I’ve said before, if you can’t win at least half your matches as a 7 against other 7s, then you ARE NOT a 7. I’m glad you’re not raising hcps unfairly, but I’ve seen other LOs doing so.
Click to expand...
The thing about APA is the 7 level in 8 ball is artificially low. A team can't really have more than 1. Posting more than 1 a night is tough because of the math of the skill level handicap.

Being that 7s also include those that would be 8s or 9s if the handicaps were similar to 9 ball, you will have lots of 7s,as long as they can find a team to play on.
 
BlueRaider said:
We At close to 650 Fargo, you would be a strong 7/9 and approaching super 7/9 status in most APA territories.

From what I've seen I think it goes something like:

525-550 is a weak 7/7, 50-55% win rate

550-575 is a standard 7/7 or weak 7/8, 55-60% win rate

575-600 is a standard 7/8 or weak 7/9, 60-65% win rate

600-625 is a standard 7/9, 65-70% win rate

625-650 is a strong 7/9, usually 70-75% win rate

650-675 is a super 7/9, 75%+ win rate

675-700 is a super, super 7/9, 80%+ win rate

700+ is essentially pro level when playing amateurs, 85%+ win rate, absurd break and run stats and should probably be banned from APA, lol. These are guys who have collected many scalps of actual touring pros in local and regional tournaments, but they aren't favorites to win any regional events.

I'm sure there are guys deep into the 700s in APA (Brian Parks, Abe Schaad, etc.), but I haven't encountered any. I would imagine they have 90-95% win rates and have probably had a few nights where their opponents never even left their chairs.

Of course, everything I said is area/territory/room-dependent.
Click to expand...
Thank you. This is a brilliant post.
Really informative and gives me a good idea of what I can aspire to, now that I am just starting to play regularly again.
 
Zerksies said:
I'm a super 7 and I'm still not playing SVB even. LOL

I seen a women at the Kamui 9 ball Championship in January. She had something of a 400 fargo rating and she was in the "pro" women's event. I think that is the equivalent of an APA4. She didn't win a single game. She would of struggled in the armature event across the room.

I thought it was a freaking joke. Are they just grabbing any woman to fill spots.
Click to expand...
It is definitely open season to grab a spot on the WPBA. What I find a little laughable is the level of players seeded and then you get the likes of known players like Fefilova, Tkasch, etc being unseeded and needing to "qualify" even though they are known players. Once you are seeded, you basically have to win a single match to cash. To keep your seeding you simply need to turn up to events, it hardly matters whether you win or lose.
It seems to me that it would be fairer to have a hybrid system (similar to tennis) that is based on rankings, known level and recent tournament achievements would make more sense.

I realize the current system is to encourage participation, but in my opinion it makes a mockery of the WPBA calling itself a professional pool organization.
 
I'm not saying LOs raise ratings to create new teams.
The fact is, raising ratings will have only two possible outcomes in the end.
It makes a team disband or bring new low level players into the league to allow them to fit the cap.
It makes people quit because they can no longer play on the same team as their friends -due to the cap.
Years ago I was a 7/7. I was on a 9ball team with a 7/8. It was a strong team that did well in Vegas.
I got raised to an 8 so I retired from the APA. No loss for me. I had no interest in playing on a different team, without my friends.
I was sure as heck not going to bring 5 new people into that nightmare and do it all over again.
For us, the APA was a fun drinking game with friends.
All of MY serious pool has been played outside of bars.
 
Tom1234 said:
I’m really glad that you made that statement; many LOs could not do that with a straight face. I’ve seen several lower hcp players moved up and then quit because their matchups were never “fair”. Fair in my book is FEWER SL7s in any given league. As I’ve said before, if you can’t win at least half your matches as a 7 against other 7s, then you ARE NOT a 7. I’m glad you’re not raising hcps unfairly, but I’ve seen other LOs doing so.
Click to expand...
You do realize that your suggested determination would eventually result in just one 7, right? Every match between 7's has exactly one winner and one loser. If ANY of them are over 50% against other 7's, some of them HAVE to be under 50% (no matter how many there are), or they go down. You would be better off saying under 50% against 6's. I probably would agree with that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top