APA ratings

[StormHotRod300]

No. That should be enough, right?

All the information that people put down on the scoresheet is entered into the software. It is certainly possible that one of your best matches happened in loss.

Fred

Like I said earlier " what determines what your best matches are? "

Because if a SL6 is playing a SL5 and the 6 breaks and makes several of his balls and is left only with the 8ball and the SL5 runs down and misses the 8ball, and the 6 wins, ok thats one inning. Now repeat this, over 10 games, and they might average 1 to 3 innings per game, not counting saftey's or w/e But if someone leaves the table wide open, for a SL5 to shoot away at, and the games end with 0 - 1 inning's does it show that the Breaker ran down to the 8ball? No. Does it show that the SL5 only had 4 balls to actually make after the break on a open table when his opponent cleared off the table? No

All it shows is the game ended with 0 - 1 inning. How is that to show someones skill level?

Now take this on the flip side, a SL3 breaks and runs all of thier balls off the table but misses the 8ball, a SL5 gets to the table and runs out the table and wins. Now repeat this for thier match and what does it show? If you end up with 10 innings or less it looks like a good match, but, the SL3 could have misses a easy shot on several of the games only to leave the SL5 with two easy shots for the win. So your still only getting 1 inning a game, maybe 2. And in the book that is consider'd a SL6/7 level.

What the score sheet doesnt show is the games that the SL3 is running 4 or 5 balls off the table when they get to the table. only to leave the SL5 a easy out.

Does this mean you are suppose to raise the SL3 to a SL4 because they MADE the match look closer than it actually looks?

 

[Jaden]

I will state that that's incorrect.

I wish somebody knew the law well enough to explain the law theory there. It doesn't make sense to me. I can see it being illegal to have worked for them signing an agreement then revealing the "secret", finding out the "secret" and using it for a competing league, breaking in somewhere and stealing the "secret"; but I just can't see what law theory is that would make it illegal to print the "secret" if I found it out by some unknown means. I'm not saying you're incorrect, I just don't see a viable theory.
At any rate, I don't think it works very well anyway because of all the sand-bagging.

There is no judge in this country that will or can rule that proprietary information cannot be publicised by someone who is not contractually required to keep that information secret. The only exception is classified government information, but in most cases the government wouldn't make a case of it because that would legitimize the information.

I know specifically of a book that was published by a former US intelligence operative (sorry I'm not going to reveal the title), who published a book with lots of classified information and because it was published and already out there before the government realized it, they didn't prosecute him and didn't try to have it removed because that would notify the public that the information was accurate.....

 

[Cornerman]

Like I said earlier " what determines what your best matches are? "

Unfortunately, you're asking two (or three) questions in your one question. Without the answer to the first, nothing will makes sense to your second or third.

You're asking how the Equalizer handicapping system works, and then asking whether it truly answers anything about a person's handicap all in one question.

The first part of the question can be answered through careful searching. At least, it can be reasonably answered, and it can make reasonable sense. The Equalizer basis its handicap on total innings per win, with a limiting factor based on things like winning percentage, opponent strength, table size, etc. Win or lose, this final number for that particular match is what it is. The lower the number, the "better" your match was. They (the APA) push towards keeping the handicap as high as possible by formulating the handicap based on the players best games (based on that number they just calculated), as opposed to their average game.

The second part of the question is then an easy answer: you have to pick your method of handicapping and go with it. If anyone has to ask the legitimacy of why a league corporation chooses to use XXX as the basis of their system, then they need to find a different league. The APA chose a long time ago to use innings per win as their base and gone forward from there. End of Story. Love it or leave it.


Fred

 

[trustyrusty]

your best matches are when you break and make the eight, your opponent breaks makes the eight and scratches, or you break and run (followed by your opponent breaks dry or scratches and you run out, of course). I've had the situation in a match where I won because of a 8 ball break and scratch followed by an 8 ball break by me, and then a 1 inning game (when I was a four).....I wasn't immediately raised, but I knew it'd be soon. 2 of the games were PURE LUCK, but I asked in Vegas if that was taken into consideration...the answer was NO.

 

[d_flash]

I've read all that is available on the APA and here's my take...

I played APA for years. I quit because there is no rhyme or reason to the so-called equalizer handicap system.

I was a SL3, had not won in the first 3 sessions, played a SL2 who beat me pretty good. that should have made that person move up, since the SL's move around a lot early on (this person was new; 4th match...). NOT !... next week my SL was a 4, the SL2 was still a 2 !

I always suspected the the LO has a lot more control over skill levels than any handicap system. My verification is as follows: I complained to my team captain, no help. I complained to my LO, no help. I complained to the APA in a series of emails, no help. then I told the LO that I was not going to win any until my handicap was adjusted/corrected. guess what ? a week later my level was back to a three. I know in that time nothing that I did by winning or losing changed anything. the LO changed my ranking at will and can change any other members in his league area at will.

before we go to the competition before Vegas, the LO always asked each captain if anyone's SL needed adjusting (either up or down) and their SL was adjusted on-the-spot.

these stories are only a few that I witnessed....sandbagging, arbitrarily changing SL's up or down...where's the "equalizer" ?

 

[poolcuemaster]

Locked in APA

I wish I knew this same information, because I don't see how some of the rankings are fair. There are guys who have played pool for 20 years, and only "come with it" when they absolutely have to.

My wife had one good match during our City Championship, she basically broke in or the opponent hung up every point she made. She moved from a 1 to a 2. Since then, 12 matches later, she has not won once as a 2 and only 2 of those matches would she have won as a 1.

I have the same problem of fielding a team of 23, because all of my players actually try to improve. The 23 rule might be better served by a limit of the number of players above a certain rank, just my 2 cents.

Your wife won in a higher level APA tournament and that locks her in as a 2 and she should never go back to a 1 unless she writes a letter to APA home offices with a doctors proof she has health problems now that will prevent her from playing at a number 2 skill level. And the local operator will have to sign off on the request.--Leonard

 

[poolcuemaster]

Partial Quote From D flash
before we go to the competition before Vegas, the LO always asked each captain if anyone's SL needed adjusting (either up or down) and their SL was adjusted on-the-spot.

This is asked of all captains so if they need to raise a players handicap before the City or National tournament to keep the team from being disqualified, and they never ask if the captain wants to lower the players skill level. That ain't happening.--

APA higher level referee-Charlotte NC -Leonard

 

[RRfireblade]

Sure it does.

It shows who started the rack (Break) ,

How many balls made by each ,

The innings of the total game.

Any change in innings that was not defensive was a miss.

Like I said earlier " what determines what your best matches are? "

Because if a SL6 is playing a SL5 and the 6 breaks and makes several of his balls and is left only with the 8ball and the SL5 runs down and misses the 8ball, and the 6 wins, ok thats one inning. Now repeat this, over 10 games, and they might average 1 to 3 innings per game, not counting saftey's or w/e But if someone leaves the table wide open, for a SL5 to shoot away at, and the games end with 0 - 1 inning's does it show that the Breaker ran down to the 8ball? No. Does it show that the SL5 only had 4 balls to actually make after the break on a open table when his opponent cleared off the table? No

All it shows is the game ended with 0 - 1 inning. How is that to show someones skill level?

Now take this on the flip side, a SL3 breaks and runs all of thier balls off the table but misses the 8ball, a SL5 gets to the table and runs out the table and wins. Now repeat this for thier match and what does it show? If you end up with 10 innings or less it looks like a good match, but, the SL3 could have misses a easy shot on several of the games only to leave the SL5 with two easy shots for the win. So your still only getting 1 inning a game, maybe 2. And in the book that is consider'd a SL6/7 level.

What the score sheet doesnt show is the games that the SL3 is running 4 or 5 balls off the table when they get to the table. only to leave the SL5 a easy out.

Does this mean you are suppose to raise the SL3 to a SL4 because they MADE the match look closer than it actually looks?

 

[frankncali]

Tap, tap,tap, Frank. Real valid points. I don't know how many times I have watched someone break and clear most of the obstructions off a table, and give up the wide open table to a decent SL 4 who runs out a rack that Ray Charles could have run out, and they start crying about how they are sandbagging. And yes, you find out much better what your true skill level is at the national tournament. I am 8-ball SL7, and once in Vegas, a team played a SL3 against me who won the lag, broke and ran, then made 8 on break...game over...doo-doo occurs...that wasn't as bad as the 9 ball SL 2 who played my youngest son, a 9 ball SL6 at the time, broke and ran first rack, broke and ran 6 balls second rack...my son was down 16-0 before he shot. A 46-3 race is a tough one to win.
Joe

Sorry Joe I have been gone

I agree with you. Very similiar to your SL 3 match I played a SL once and he broke and ran and everyone was hollering about his level. I was asked and said that I could care less and we will see what happens now. He breaks and runs a couple and misses. I win that one and keep the next racks kind of tight instead of wide spread and I win 5 in a row. Now we are hill-hill and he gets a chance to win but makes a position error and I win. All in all he could have been bagging but that one game didnt kill me.
Truthfully I thought he could have been a 4 but not a five and if he doesnt get a great spread again then I have a chance.

In 9ball once I am playing a 2 as a SL 9 and I break making nothing but leave the 1-2-3 all hung up. She makes them and kicks the 4-8 in and has the 5 roll up dead on the 9. A TO and she makes it. Next rack she
breaks makes 2 with the nine.
LOL now I am thinking its going to be really tough. I never got going and she killed me 19-1 with mainly easy shots and some luck. Worst loss ever.
I watched her for a few weeks and she never ran 3 balls. LOL

 

[RunoutalloverU]

Reading all these posts makes me realize I am really really lucky not to be in the APA.

 

[FLICKit]

Reading all these posts makes me realize I am really really lucky not to be in the APA.

Actually, depending on your level of play and what your pool goals are that may not necessarily be true...
I've read this thread, and many of the negatives aren't credible enough to make a rash judgement about....

First off, as is often common in these kinds of threads, there are the ones that are 100% negative. This is often demonstrated by looking for the absolutely worst case scenarios and act like it's a realistic occurence which then allows them to believe that system (or any other system, if put to that level of scrutiny) can not be plausible.

Stated a different way, if you analyze absolute worst case scenarios of any system (especially when allowed to go to the level of theoretical and without any real proof of actually occuring). And then be allowed to make worst case theories on how that system handles it... And with that as your grounding or starting point, now initiate a debate/argument... And then on top of that, not fully listen to or understand, but instead immediately discard any credible replies... Well I would think the outcome of that argument is already pre-determined.

Often times, the people who are directly involved in any system are more fully aware of all the credible scenarios, than most juvenile short term flunky know it alls (note: not talking about anyone in this thread specifically). Usually they already have either solutions or at the least relative solutions to any realistic scenario, long before the flunky ever came around. And they can implement those measures as a means of handling such situation in a reasonable and fair fashion. Often times, these system managers wouldn't even inform the general public of such prepared resolutions... There are multitudes of reasons... But, the flunky acts like he knows it all... cuz it makes him feel like not a flunky for once.


And then on the other hand, there are many out there, who will take a minor incident and magnify it in order to satisfy their personal crave to argue, complain and bash. Over 90% of the time, the proposed resolution from said arguer, always seems to be something that would magically work out in their favor. This is true, even if the same scenario happens again, but in reverse. Yet they still want the proposed solution to work out in their favor. And that arguer never seems to recognize the conundrum that they create. Pretty difficult for any system to appease that situation and still maintain any shred of credibility or integrity.

And then there are some, who genuinely dislike some facet and have a beef with it. And in many cases, are really just ignorant (not stupid) about the bigger picture of how it really works. So they act rashly or instead prematurely without true knowledge.

And lastly there are the ones that have a complaint and it's legitimate. Some try to handle it in a classy or respectable manner. Others take rage and vengeance and try to tear down and destroy. In those cases, their rage actually controls them, instead of them controlling their rage. Overall, those people are out there... but generally much much fewer than people claim (purely guessing probably less than 10% or even less than 5%).

What evidence is there of this... Well there's one clear, but indirect piece of evidence. The overall success of such business. If that organization is truly so bad all around and in every way, then they usually do not survive. If that business is successful at what they do, and remain successful over time, then the criticizers may not be open minded enough to see the nuances that make it successful.

Oddly enough, sometimes some seemingly obvious negatives, when viewed another way, can actually be brilliant positives.

 

[Snapshot9]

Handicaps

Oh, don't get me started. I have had all the math courses offered in College and Graduate School through Operations Research, the highest math course offered, plus played for 46 years. Here are some of the problems:

1) APA has 9 levels, I believe, in 9 ball, and 8 in 8 ball. This means a larger number of players fall into each handicap level than in other leagues such as Valley (13 levels) or BCA (60 levels in 4 man, 75 in 5 man). This results in more sandbagging. The more discrete the handicap level is, the more the rating is true to the actual skill level.

2) They have people that develop these formulas that are not Math experts.
3) They use add, subtract, multiply, and division only because of software restraints, or a lack of knowledge about higher math functions that would result in better calculations.
4) They put too much emphasis on the start of a new session or setting an average, and not enough of the back end, and the LO is not able or doesn't know enough to be able to equalize it out.
5) Lessor players usually progress faster in handicap than top players do because they can learn what they don't know faster, and they have a lot more to learn.
6) Some inadequate handicap systems progress players above their true skill rating, such as making someone a 6 when an expert money player would rate them a 5 in true skill. (money rating).

And finally, Leagues today are more interested in Participation, getting people to play, than they are with the quality of play, especially the APA.

The BCA advanced league was the best league I ever played in, and the fairest in terms of handicaps, but even it allowed players in that were not really advanced players just to be able to fill it up for the session. For example, 75 point handicap system for 5 man team, 15 total points for 1 game, 8 ball. Iniatially, the advanced league required you have a 45 handicap to be qualified for the advanced league, then it dropped to 40, and then to 35 because they were not getting enough players for a session of play.

The BCA has always been known as the top league for competition, with Valley 2nd, and APA in last, as long as I can remember, and that directly relates back to how they handicap as I mentioned above.

And a very important fact is, that a good money players, ones that have played for considerable money sets, or hustled in the past, does not ever want to show you everything unless they absolutely have to. They always want you to underestimate their ability. There are those, sometimes, that will drop games in league to you, if they think, they can win $200-$500 off you in a money game after league is over. With Pool players, you have to follow the money, because that is what they are after.

 

[APA7]

Oh, don't get me started. I have had all the math courses offered in College and Graduate School through Operations Research, the highest math course offered, plus played for 46 years. Here are some of the problems:
.

U also forgot to mention that UR brother is a big time lawyer in his podunk town and that makes U an authority on law too

Brian

 

[leehayes]

Truth of the matter is that there is a small perentage of APA players that are two SLs or more underrated but there is a high percentage or APA players that think that they are 2 or more SLs underrated.

The APA is what it is and its good for pool IMO. Many players are playing and having a good time doing so. Friendships are formed.

If anyone thinks that they are going to make any money in the APA then they are mistaken. Very few true hobbys allow you to profit from doing what you like to do.

The handicap system is ok. I think one real problem is that we have players that are legit c-d-e level players out there making assessments on
someones game.
I cant count the times that I have heard players talk about a low rted players run of a few balls like it was Secretariet coming down the home stretch.

I would say that at least 75% of games lost in the APA are do to lack of skill by one of the player rather than too much skill by the opponet.

TRUE TRUE!!! I agree with this 100%. Leagues like the APA have done a great deal to promote pool. I know personally I would not be playing pool now if it wasn't for some guy who asked me to join his team. Most fun I had in pool was those first two sessions in the APA. It's an imperfect system designed to introduce people to pool and one that keeps many people playing because they don't have to be so serious about it. When I decided that I had enough of being mediocre I started going to the hall and joining harder leagues and tournaments. Only been playing a few years and I play much better than alot of the guys that have been around a long time. Why, they enjoy the league for what it is and don't have a drive to get better. Those that sandbag in APA? Well, I totally agree with the poster who said there are only a few players that are 2 SL's off what they are...and alot who think they are.

OH, and let's not forget the biggest issue here....the system is designed to make money....period.

 

[Rubyron]

In 9ball once I am playing a 2 as a SL 9 and I break making nothing but leave the 1-2-3 all hung up. She makes them and kicks the 4-8 in and has the 5 roll up dead on the 9. A TO and she makes it. Next rack she
breaks makes 2 with the nine.
LOL now I am thinking its going to be really tough. I never got going and she killed me 19-1 with mainly easy shots and some luck. Worst loss ever.
I watched her for a few weeks and she never ran 3 balls. LOL

A few years ago I had to play a lady who was SL1 in 9-ball. She barely knew how to hold a cue. I was a SL9 so she needed 14 (I think) to my 75 points. I remember thinking it was guaranteed win.

She wins the lag and breaks and makes a couple balls and has a couple hangers, which she makes. Then she misses and leaves me in jail. I kick and give her ball in hand. She makes a couple more hangers and misses leaving me in jail again. You see a trend here?

After 5 or 6 innings she finally misses and leaves me a shot at an open table. I remember asking the scorekeeper where we stood. He says "she needs 2, you need 66". I apologize to my team in advance for losing.

Then the rolls turn around and all start going my way until I get to 73 when I give her BIH with 2 hangers. She makes the first one and hounds the last one that is about 4" from the pocket. I end up winning 13-75. It could have easily been my worst loss ever.

 

[Snapshot9]

U also forgot to mention that UR brother is a big time lawyer in his podunk town and that makes U an authority on law too

Brian

No, he handles any legal stuff in our family, but I did check with him regarding gambling, and he checked directly with an ADA regarding it.

I did get an A in Business Law in College, does that count?

And why don't you put your location in your profile, so I will know if it is
'his podunk town' of a half a million people or 'our podunk town'???

(and my brother plays your speed or a little better).

 

[FLICKit]

Oh, don't get me started. I have had all the math courses offered in College and Graduate School through Operations Research, the highest math course offered, plus played for 46 years. Here are some of the problems:

2) They have people that develop these formulas that are not Math experts.
3) They use add, subtract, multiply, and division only because of software restraints, or a lack of knowledge about higher math functions that would result in better calculations.

OK, Mr. Math expert. I challenge you to make some positive contributions...

What sort of formulas would a guy of your experience and caliber use to more accurately determine a player's skill level?

Don't lock into the 15 point BCA system... cuz that has its flaws as well. Seen lotsa people's points fluctuate quite a bit, as no reflection of their true ability. On top of that, it's often a 1 game system, where you play various people 1 game only. And the breaker is pre-determined. Sometimes some people do alotta gerry rigging to try to manipulate it so that their better players are breaking against their opponent's better players, because that can cause a big swing in the points. If your teammate breaks and runs-out, and the opponent doesn't get a chance that's a 15-0 in your favor. Whereas if the pre-determined break goes to the opponent, and he breaks and runs for 15-0 against ya. Then overall that's a 30 point swing factor. Of course, the theory is that it evens out over time. Me personally, I'm not saying it's a bad system. But, if you're looking at worst case scenarios of 1 system, you gotta be willing to do the same for others...

But the primary point, is the challenge to the math expert, what calculations would you do to more accurately reflect one's ability?

You have been challenged, do you accept?
YES or NO

 

[leehayes]

A few years ago I had to play a lady who was SL1 in 9-ball. She barely knew how to hold a cue. I was a SL9 so she needed 14 (I think) to my 75 points. I remember thinking it was guaranteed win.

She wins the lag and breaks and makes a couple balls and has a couple hangers, which she makes. Then she misses and leaves me in jail. I kick and give her ball in hand. She makes a couple more hangers and misses leaving me in jail again. You see a trend here?

After 5 or 6 innings she finally misses and leaves me a shot at an open table. I remember asking the scorekeeper where we stood. He says "she needs 2, you need 66". I apologize to my team in advance for losing.

Then the rolls turn around and all start going my way until I get to 73 when I give her BIH with 2 hangers. She makes the first one and hounds the last one that is about 4" from the pocket. I end up winning 13-75. It could have easily been my worst loss ever.

That's why it's called an equalizer system. It's supposed to make it possible for any player to win on any night.

 

[Snapshot9]

Flickit

yes, I will accept that challenge, but understand, I will have to give it some thought. I said the calcs would result in better calcualtions, which means truer to the skill level, but they might have to be more complex to get there.

But, I can tell you it has to do with variances, standard deviations, and the number of occurences outside of the standard deviations. I'll be the first to admit it has been a lot of years since I have actively practiced higher math and statistics. The last time was when I was assigned to statisticians to develop linear regression models for them about 11 years ago in a pharmaceutical company.

 

[juggler314]

"The only reason why someone would be interested in the specifics of a handicap formula is if they were interested in exploiting it. Good luck with that."
Jude, I teach math. I find calculations like this interesting. I also would like to know why some players do not go down even when they consistently lose to lower players. If the APA protects this so some do not try to start their own leagues using someone else's hard work I respect that. You are out of line to suggest that I would only want to exploint their system. You do not know me or why I want this information. This is why in my original post I said I was not interested in opinions. I am only interested in the calculations. If this is not available so be it. Please keep you opinions to yourself.

Well...I majored in math, and if you have enough data you can basically reverse engineer it. There's enough annecdotal evidence of what factors go into it to limit how many variables you'll have. Just get a few dozen teams to forward you there scoresheets every week. Keep track of every stat...there are plenty of people that have already done this and have database models that track SL's fairly closely.

I totally agree with Jude though - while it is "interesting" to know how the formula works. The only real reason to know it is to exploit it. No one is ever going to take this knowledge and go "oh if I do this that and the other thing I can bump my SL *up*"

Also as has been discussed at extreme length before, knowing the actual formula will only help you within your local league setting. Once you get to vegas all bets are off because the SL's are highly dependant on the local level of competition.