FLICKit said:
Yeah, that was actually part of the reason why I put forth that challenge. It's very easy to talk and say, aw I could it do much better, but when it comes to actually doing it, it becomes quite more involved than one thinks.
The part that could've been interesting, is that sometimes people have some unique concepts of how they'd try to make things more detailed/complex. Sometimes those ideas can be intriguing. But translating from theoretical to actual is still the difficulty.
Hey! I've played in some National Leagues like that... It's especially frustrating when you gather 'excessive & tedious' amounts of information and their handicapping system provides even less accurate results as the APA.
Understanding your point, but that premise is not an automatic fact. We have some rating systems here that have more levels than the APA, which in many ways are less accurate and more prone to sandbagging.
Just saying, I understand your general premise, and at times that can be true. You just seemed to be locked in on that as automatic fact. But, it's definitely not the truth. That premise can be and is false depending on the situation.
One of the things that has surprised me about this thread, is that the APA system (although I'm not saying in any way is perfect, believe you me) is much more detailed and intricate and addresses much more potential issues, than I had imagined that they did. You know the thing that people aren't usually willing to admit, is when one criticizes some aspect of something, and then later discover that the criticism has already been addressed and reasonably handled long before that person came along and complained about it feeling superior, when actually they were just ignorant. I would say I'd fall guilty of that as well, (like many) by over-simplifying how their system works, and not really having enough data to make an accurate conclusion - as has been stated repeatedly by a previous poster.
...
Just noting that you're stating that as fact. I understand your point of view on this. Just saying, without having sufficient details, you nor I know whether or how much this is actually addressed in their system. There are few out there that do. And even if they did know at one time, can't say for sure that it hasn't changed between then and now.
Knowing that the APA system changes, I'd make a logical assumption that it has been developed as an evolutionary process... Thus, it would be very possible to address issues and make improvements along the way, of which could include yours or any other people's pet peeves. So as far as your regional handicap equality, hypothetically (I know it would take a major effort for some to consider that this is even hypothetically possible, but please make an effort. Instead of getting locked in to the opposite point of view...), as I say hypothetically, if the APA included a regional equality (maybe while you were still there, or maybe after you left the league) how would you really know? At the same time, I'm not saying that they have done it, we all can have opinions on whether we believe that they are, just saying that WE DON'T KNOW FOR SURE.
We can all have our points of views, but as was stated in the first paragraph, the proof is often in the nitty gritty details.
NOTE: This is not meant as an attack post (and I know I'm not the one who you say is hounding you)... Just pointing out a different perspective...
No, I understand what you are saying, and I appreciate your comments and point of view, and yes, sometimes I am guilty of making assumptions prematurely or without enough facts, as most people do sometimes.
But, that really is the point, we will never have enough 'facts' to make a conclusive decision whether their system is good or bad, all we see are the aftereffects, but computers are my profession, and I developed lots of mainframe systems, large and small, with many many types of calculations, and I can usually spot deficiencies in systems or calculations within a system just by the results, but more so, if I can actually see the programming. Plus, I have played Pool for a very long time, taught, run tournaments, leagues, etc..
The point you made about levels I can accept, as the 'accessory' calculations they use for each level has some effects also, but I would still
say, as a general rule, the more levels the more accuracy to true skill level.
Evidently, my disparaging words regarding the APA stepped on APA7's toes some, and somehow he felt like I was saying he really wasn't at the skill level he is at, and if that is so, I apologize, that was my not intent at all.
Actually, I do have a handicapping system, but it is based on 10 ball (you will say Bowliards), and once set, it converts over to any other league handicap, so, say for example, it would convert to an APA handicap, or BCA, or Valley handicap for 8,9, & normal 10 ball, but all the information, formulas, etc. was lost as a result of a head crash on my hard drive.
It allows people to get a proper BCA average used for a tournament, when that person only has an APA handicap, or between any of the leagues, which comes in handy for tournaments using 1 particular handicap system for the tournament.
I was tempted to try something though, to establish an 'efficiency' rating
like the Prouty formulas used in Basketball, simply going through the formulas and substituting the billiard equivalent factor for the basketball factor in the formulas. Might be an interesting experiment!
with no defensive shots marked.
