APA Rules Question - Intentional Forfeit

[ctyhntr]

New male players usually start off as SL4 and new female players start off as SL3. Skill level can swing wildly in the first 10 matches.

On the system, your handicap is calculated to the tenth place. So, your SL2 could be a SL 2.9 and after the latest results entered, new team sheet could show your player now as a SL 3.

It's my understanding a league operator can over-ride and change/lock a player's handicap.

On average, how many innings does it take for your SL 2 to finish one game? Games won/loss is one measure of skill, innings and number of safeties are also included.

If your SL 2 consistently finish his/her games in 2-3 innings, regardless whether she won/not, then that anomaly will make that player's profile stick out.

Sandbagging,
I've played APA, BCA and other in-house leagues. There will always be sandbaggers and accusations of sandbagging.

I know of one player, currently FargoRated at 652. He told me when he played APA, he didn't lose a single match in two years (6 seasons) as SL 7. SL 7 is the terminal skill level for APA 8-ball, they can't raise him any higher, so there is no incentive to sandbag.

I'd like to know how APA goes about assigning skill levels in detail. I am unclear whether it is the local league operator who assigns the skill level (SL) or do they simply plug the number from a match into the computer and some algorithm decides what the SL should be. Last week I played in an APA doubles tournament with a girl that I thought was a SL-2 because that is what she was rated the prior week. She did not play that week and was moved up to a SL-3. Can anyone explain how she moved up from a SL-2 one week to a 3 two weeks later without playing any additional matches?

 

[pogmothoin]

I'm a bit confused about APA stuff, how is playing a match before playoffs bad? There is no way one match in a season or seasons will move a player enough to change skill ratings. And if it can, that is a horrible system.

Happens all the time. While one match alone won’t get a player raised it just might be enough to push them up at the most inconvenient time. I’ve sat people for that reason, couldn’t afford to take the chance.

Right before the LTC’s I played a 3 against a really bad 2 just because it’s what I had. Beats the snot out of her and gets moved to a 4. Doesn’t matter that the 2 had no concept of where the cue ball was going to go, or the object ball for that matter.

While I have a great time playing pool with my teammates I’m seriously considering leaving the APA. Happens every year. If you play to win your players go up. That’s their system, they own it, it’s their league. Doesn’t matter that the new 5 can’t make 3 balls in a row, or that new 4 plays 30 Innings to win 2 games. Change players, same stuff happens.

I know I can’t change it so I’m ready to call it quits. Very frustrated. It no fun being the captain of a team when you can’t even play half the games.

 

[Hinekanman]

I don't see the point of only getting one game with that person as a 4. Once you get to regionals and states you have to win like 6 or 7 matches to go to vegas. So the player is going to have win regardless. I agree just play the person against a higher level and that person should win. If they don't, you at least learn that your player can be a killer in regionals who can take out a higher handicap.

 

[WillyCornbread]

Anything done with the goal of affecting or managing a player's skill level is manipulation. The only thing you can do is not help them improve.

If you think your player is better than their number, and do things like not play them to keep them from demonstrating that ability, it is manipulation. If you play them with the hope that they will get destroyed by a far superior player, it is manipulation as you are trying to manipulate the data in the system. Sometimes you can't avoid a match up with a world-beater, and in those cases you are not manipulating, but if you're actually setting your player up to take a big loss, you're cheating. If you play them against a better player to see how they will do, it's not manipulation - you don't know what the outcome will be, and that information is useful to us, too.

Many LO's distinguish in their bylaws the difference between a forfeit and a concession. If you have a player available to play who doesn't put you in jeopardy of breaking the 23 rule, but you choose not to play them, it is a concession and could be a sportsmanship issue (depending on the reason, like not wanting to give up more than the 15 forfeit points to your opponent, or not wanting your player's skill level to change, or not wanting to affect their MVP standing). It also could result in a different score than the standard forfeit. You are depriving someone on the other team of the opportunity to play a match, so you better have a good reason.

Fair point about depriving someone else a match, and thanks for the rule clarification. I will have enough people to sit this person and still get all five matches in. At that point I would argue that this is simply roster management.

Thanks,

b

 

[Celophanewrap]

The players are part of the system. When you create a system that requires so much close attention be paid and so much subjectivity, it's flawed. I would venture to say more than 75% of APA players have no clue how to properly score a defensive shot per APA guidelines. Or the two drunken score keepers lose track of innings. And all of that doesn't account for all the sandbagging, cheating and other crap that goes on. The system is horribly flawed.

OK, the system's flawed. Thanks for helping me see the light

 

[Celophanewrap]

Anything done with the goal of affecting or managing a player's skill level is manipulation. The only thing you can do is not help them improve.

If you think your player is better than their number, and do things like not play them to keep them from demonstrating that ability, it is manipulation. If you play them with the hope that they will get destroyed by a far superior player, it is manipulation as you are trying to manipulate the data in the system. Sometimes you can't avoid a match up with a world-beater, and in those cases you are not manipulating, but if you're actually setting your player up to take a big loss, you're cheating. If you play them against a better player to see how they will do, it's not manipulation - you don't know what the outcome will be, and that information is useful to us, too.

Many LO's distinguish in their bylaws the difference between a forfeit and a concession. If you have a player available to play who doesn't put you in jeopardy of breaking the 23 rule, but you choose not to play them, it is a concession and could be a sportsmanship issue (depending on the reason, like not wanting to give up more than the 15 forfeit points to your opponent, or not wanting your player's skill level to change, or not wanting to affect their MVP standing). It also could result in a different score than the standard forfeit. You are depriving someone on the other team of the opportunity to play a match, so you better have a good reason.

I don't know if I agree with this in it's entirety. as a captain
I think it's part of your job and responsibility to try and create
the match ups you want that are most advantageous to your team.
I really can't say I know any captain that just throws up a random
5 players. Some strategy and planning goes into who plays and when.
It does require some thought, some manipulation

 

[KMRUNOUT]

I'm a bit confused about APA stuff, how is playing a match before playoffs bad? There is no way one match in a season or seasons will move a player enough to change skill ratings. And if it can, that is a horrible system.

APA has discrete handicaps. Integers ranging from 1-9 in 9 ball. When your balls per inning average of your best 10 or your last 20 matches reaches a specific decimal, you have reached the next handicap level. This isn't the slightest bit different than if someone has a particular Fargo number, wins enough racks to go up by 1 point, and that then changes the race they would play. How many decimal places and calculations do you think players should have to perform to determine their race in order to crate the illusion of a continuous non discrete handicap ranking?

KMRUNOUT


Sent from my iPhone using AzBilliards Forums

 

[KMRUNOUT]

The APA rating system is horribly flawed in so many ways. Trying to out think a horribly flawed system is like two monkeys trying to screw a football. Just play the guy and move on. Doing anything else simply isn't worth it.

Can you name a single thing wrong with the APA rating *system*? This means you can leave out any complaints about the people who manipulate that system. I'd like to hear at least one actual complaint about the system. Should be easy right?

KMRUNOUT


Sent from my iPhone using AzBilliards Forums

 

[KMRUNOUT]

Hi - I can't find this information anywhere, so I'm hoping someone can enlighten me.



What is the rule about intentional forfeits in 9 ball. Example is I have a player available but don't want to risk him going up right before playoffs and take a forfeit for the match rather than play him.



Any sportsmanship rules or rules in general that prohibit or punish this?



Thank you,



b

You can forfeit any match you want. In regular season play a forfeit in 9 ball is 15-0. In playoffs or higher, it is 20-0. The APA has no specific rule regarding this. It only states that if you don't have enough players for the night, you have to play who you have continuously. Meaning all your forfeits have to come at the end. You can't take a forfeit in the middle and then play another match after. However, there is absolutely nothing preventing a team from having their player present, putting that player up for a match, and then forfeiting the match and taking the 15-0 or 20-0 loss, then proceeding to play the next match.

I've forfeited matches in both Masters and 8 ball teams to avoid sudden death situations.

I personally think there is nothing wrong with it. A also think if I were a league operator, I'd be watching like a hawk the player you decided to forfeit.

Hope this helps,

KMRUNOUT


Sent from my iPhone using AzBilliards Forums

 

[lorider]

I don't know if I agree with this in it's entirety. as a captain
I think it's part of your job and responsibility to try and create
the match ups you want that are most advantageous to your team.
I really can't say I know any captain that just throws up a random
5 players. Some strategy and planning goes into who plays and when.
It does require some thought, some manipulation

Apa operator makes some valid points but like you , I dont agree with it in its entirety.

I used to keep record of every players win/ loss . Who they played and their handicap. Number of innings...safities. Basically everything that is recorded on the acoresheet. I don't do that now. It just got too much of a hassle and time consuming and all for naught when you get to tri cups and cities facing opponents who are shooting 2 levels above their handicap.

I dont know exactly how the equalizer system works but when I kept records I was usually right on the money when I thought one of my players was going to be raised. I firmly believe the handicap system works but like some one else said and I have said many times on here myself. Scorekeepers have to make sure all innings and safties are correct.

I love apa but i am getting frustrated with quite a few players mentality . I used to captain 4 teams and am now down to 1 and have been seriously contemplating not captain in the team any more.

Its gotten to where all I want to do is show up and play whoever I am matched up with and not worry about...do we have enough people...does every one have their league fee covered....ao and so got raised .

I have a story to share with you about this handicap manipulation. When i kept records I knew one of my 5's was close to being raised in 9 ball. The reason I knew was because he had several lopsided wins against some 3's and 4's. Also a few close wins against some weak 5's. I rated all handicaps in 3 levels. Weak...average and strong. That's another story in itself as far as how I rated.

So with him close to being raised I threw him against an average 6 and he lost. Well the other team only had 4 players and I told them who they could replay and I left since I had to be going out of town early in the morning for work. Well I get halfway home and this 5 of mine who lost to their 6 calls me and said the other team had another player show. I asked who it was. He told me and this guy is the second worse 3 in league and I tell him to throw my weak 4. Well the 5 takes it upon himself to pls this 3 ....to avenge his loss against their 6 and skunks their 3.

Well.next week when I show up for league my 5 comes running up to me and says ....hey ..guess what ...i am a 6 and grinning ear to ear. I am puzzled as to how the heck that happened. Then he tells me about playing that 3 last week after I left and skunking her. I am thinking...wtf ? Then I think....man that's all we need ...bozo here does the opposite of what I say and gets raised to a 6 the week before playoffs. Well playoffs come and I have no choice to throw him against a 6 because I am in the middle of an 8 ball match against another team . Well he loses 18-2 and the team cant come from behind from that large a deficit and we don't make tri cups. Next week bozo goes back down to a 5 but the damage is done.

The story above is my only gripe against apa handicapping system. It does not take into account the level of your opponent. I don't believe skunking a 3 should make you a 6.

This guy has had his own team for 2 years now after this incident and is still a 5 in 9 ball and was lowered to a 4 in 8 ball. He never should have been a 6. .. Even if it was only for one week.

 

[nobcitypool]

Can you name a single thing wrong with the APA rating *system*? This means you can leave out any complaints about the people who manipulate that system. I'd like to hear at least one actual complaint about the system. Should be easy right?

KMRUNOUT


Sent from my iPhone using AzBilliards Forums

I think what you're asking is if I can point to specific math or rating elements in the APA rating system that are flawed. Since I don't have access to that exact math, I cannot comment whether it is, or is not, flawed. You may consider that the APA rating system and if so, it may be perfect using that description. By my definition, a system that isn't yielding the desired results consistently can hardly be considered a perfect system.

Bring the APA 5's from Chicago, Dallas and NYC to Indianapolis and have them play the Indianapolis APA 5's. If the system isn't flawed, it should be a reasonably close match. However, it wouldn't be anywhere close to competitive.

I'm not necessarily bashing the APA. Without the APA, I'm not sure pool would even exist in the USA anymore. Rating the organization and league operators ability to profit and provide a fun environment for casual pool players, I rate it quite highly. To say the rating system isn't flawed is ridiculous. Since people keep paying their yearly dues and weekly fees, they're not going to change it. I don't necessarily blame them but at some point, I think it will bite them in the ass

 

[KMRUNOUT]

Anything done with the goal of affecting or managing a player's skill level is manipulation. The only thing you can do is not help them improve.



If you think your player is better than their number, and do things like not play them to keep them from demonstrating that ability, it is manipulation. If you play them with the hope that they will get destroyed by a far superior player, it is manipulation as you are trying to manipulate the data in the system. Sometimes you can't avoid a match up with a world-beater, and in those cases you are not manipulating, but if you're actually setting your player up to take a big loss, you're cheating. If you play them against a better player to see how they will do, it's not manipulation - you don't know what the outcome will be, and that information is useful to us, too.



Many LO's distinguish in their bylaws the difference between a forfeit and a concession. If you have a player available to play who doesn't put you in jeopardy of breaking the 23 rule, but you choose not to play them, it is a concession and could be a sportsmanship issue (depending on the reason, like not wanting to give up more than the 15 forfeit points to your opponent, or not wanting your player's skill level to change, or not wanting to affect their MVP standing). It also could result in a different score than the standard forfeit. You are depriving someone on the other team of the opportunity to play a match, so you better have a good reason.

It's super depressing but not unexpected to hear someone who is presumably a LO talking like this. The first half of your post is highly illogical. ALL play, all matches "manipulate" your skill level because everything is accounted for! I used to want to go up to the next level, so I made a real point of making sure my safes got marked, I'd want to play the stronger players, etc. I was doing everything I could to "manipulate" the system to drive up my handicap. Primarily, I was trying to improve and play my best. Managing players skill levels is a critical job of a captain. That means clearly and completely avoiding cheating, such as ever having a player miss on purpose, lose on purpose, etc. Sometimes a player drops unexpectedly, and sometimes this happens very late in a session. Why on earth, if your roster allows, would you not sit that person out until playoffs, and then see if you can win without them, and delay their use until the last possible moment. If for example someone on my team goes up from a 3 to a 4, and I don't think they are a very good 4, I'm going to play them against difficult competition. If they win, great we get more points and maybe they grow into their new skill level. If they lose, maybe they drop back down. That's a win win really. If my standings and rankings for the session allow that, why on earth would t I try to gain the most possible advantage for my team within the rules.

For some (ignorant) people, "manipulation" only has a negative connotation. This in fact is not true however. A quick visit to the dictionary shows this. Some distinction here should have been made between "manipulation" and cheating. It is actually unclear if you believe all manipulation is cheating, or wrong.

Sorry, but this post I'm replying to is another example of APA league operators showing that logic is an extremely rare commodity in that position. Very frustrating because I do like the APA league for what it could be.

KMRUNOUT


Sent from my iPhone using AzBilliards Forums

 

[KMRUNOUT]

I think what you're asking is if I can point to specific math or rating elements in the APA rating system that are flawed. Since I don't have access to that exact math, I cannot comment whether it is, or is not, flawed. You may consider that the APA rating system and if so, it may be perfect using that description. By my definition, a system that isn't yielding the desired results consistently can hardly be considered a perfect system.



Bring the APA 5's from Chicago, Dallas and NYC to Indianapolis and have them play the Indianapolis APA 5's. If the system isn't flawed, it should be a reasonably close match. However, it wouldn't be anywhere close to competitive.



I'm not necessarily bashing the APA. Without the APA, I'm not sure pool would even exist in the USA anymore. Reading the organization and league operators ability to profit and provide a fun environment for casual pool players, I rate it quite highly. To say the rating system isn't flawed is ridiculous. Since people keep paying their yearly dues and weekly fees, they're not going to change it. I don't necessarily blame them but at some point, I think it will bite them in the ass

Ok good response. I see you are treating "the system" as including the people that are using it. I hear you and don't disagree. Thanks for not getting all defensive with me and having a reasonable conversation!

KMRUNOUT


Sent from my iPhone using AzBilliards Forums

 

[APA Operator]

It's super depressing but not unexpected to hear someone who is presumably a LO talking like this. The first half of your post is highly illogical. ALL play, all matches "manipulate" your skill level because everything is accounted for! I used to want to go up to the next level, so I made a real point of making sure my safes got marked, I'd want to play the stronger players, etc. I was doing everything I could to "manipulate" the system to drive up my handicap. Primarily, I was trying to improve and play my best. Managing players skill levels is a critical job of a captain. That means clearly and completely avoiding cheating, such as ever having a player miss on purpose, lose on purpose, etc. Sometimes a player drops unexpectedly, and sometimes this happens very late in a session. Why on earth, if your roster allows, would you not sit that person out until playoffs, and then see if you can win without them, and delay their use until the last possible moment. If for example someone on my team goes up from a 3 to a 4, and I don't think they are a very good 4, I'm going to play them against difficult competition. If they win, great we get more points and maybe they grow into their new skill level. If they lose, maybe they drop back down. That's a win win really. If my standings and rankings for the session allow that, why on earth would t I try to gain the most possible advantage for my team within the rules.

For some (ignorant) people, "manipulation" only has a negative connotation. This in fact is not true however. A quick visit to the dictionary shows this. Some distinction here should have been made between "manipulation" and cheating. It is actually unclear if you believe all manipulation is cheating, or wrong.

Sorry, but this post I'm replying to is another example of APA league operators showing that logic is an extremely rare commodity in that position. Very frustrating because I do like the APA league for what it could be.

KMRUNOUT


Sent from my iPhone using AzBilliards Forums

I'll be happy to continue this discussion for as long as you like, but only if you can do so without the insults. The insults really drag down what could be quite an interesting conversation.

 

[lorider]

I think what you're asking is if I can point to specific math or rating elements in the APA rating system that are flawed. Since I don't have access to that exact math, I cannot comment whether it is, or is not, flawed. You may consider that the APA rating system and if so, it may be perfect using that description. By my definition, a system that isn't yielding the desired results consistently can hardly be considered a perfect system.

Bring the APA 5's from Chicago, Dallas and NYC to Indianapolis and have them play the Indianapolis APA 5's. If the system isn't flawed, it should be a reasonably close match. However, it wouldn't be anywhere close to competitive.

I'm not necessarily bashing the APA. Without the APA, I'm not sure pool would even exist in the USA anymore. Reading the organization and league operators ability to profit and provide a fun environment for casual pool players, I rate it quite highly. To say the rating system isn't flawed is ridiculous. Since people keep paying their yearly dues and weekly fees, they're not going to change it. I don't necessarily blame them but at some point, I think it will bite them in the ass

I dont have a lot of experience with players from other areas in apa but from the ones I have faced and watched I would say that most play at the level I would expect from their handicap.

I have played in a couple of regionals and never encounterd any one that played above their handicap.

In my one trip to Vegas I only encountered one player that I thought was lower than she should have been. She was a 2 that played as good as some 4's in my area. Once a ref that was standing there watching her saw a few shots that surprised him coming from a 2 he called for an observer. I am also quite sure some out there thought my handicap was lower than it should have been ....actually one captain told me as much lol.

As.i stated in another post . The flaw is not the system....its the people keeping score.

 

[erhino41]

The APA Equalizer system counts win/losses, safeties, innings and other factors that you record on the scoresheet. Not marking and keeping accurate count paints a less accurate picture of the player.

You could have a player who won his last 9 matches as a 4 (4.9) playing another 5 (5.1), loss the match hill-hill, but because every match lasted only 1-2 inning, be raised.

If the APA handicap system was a complete farce, any accumulated structural flaws should have broken the system down years ago.

Years ago I was on an eight ball team that carried two 7's and three 3's so we could play both sevens in one match. We made it to states and one of our 3's was mysteriously bumped to a 4. This player had not even come close to beating anyone all session long, and he did not play a match the week before when he was listed as a 3 on the score sheet. Somehow going into states he moves up? The very next week he was down to a 3, problem is he didn't even play a match at states. How can you move up to a 4 and then back down to a three when you didn't even screw your cue together? The idea that a computer makes all the decisions is bull crap. Somebody somewhere messed with our handicaps for some specific purpose. We ran through the session almost undefeated and blew through the tri-cups with me and the other 7 playing in a lot of the matches. Somehow a three who can't shoot his way out of a paper bag, and probably could be a 2, is a 4? Whatever computer made that decision needs to have a virus scan or something, cause it ain't working right. I shoot apa nine ball now, but I put no faith in their system of fairness. I just show up, shoot and consider it a practice night.

 

[Celophanewrap]

I think what you're asking is if I can point to specific math or rating elements in the APA rating system that are flawed. Since I don't have access to that exact math, I cannot comment whether it is, or is not, flawed. You may consider that the APA rating system and if so, it may be perfect using that description. By my definition, a system that isn't yielding the desired results consistently can hardly be considered a perfect system.

Bring the APA 5's from Chicago, Dallas and NYC to Indianapolis and have them play the Indianapolis APA 5's. If the system isn't flawed, it should be a reasonably close match. However, it wouldn't be anywhere close to competitive.

I'm not necessarily bashing the APA. Without the APA, I'm not sure pool would even exist in the USA anymore. Rating the organization and league operators ability to profit and provide a fun environment for casual pool players, I rate it quite highly. To say the rating system isn't flawed is ridiculous. Since people keep paying their yearly dues and weekly fees, they're not going to change it. I don't necessarily blame them but at some point, I think it will bite them in the ass

One thing that people don’t seem to ever take into consideration when talking about skill
levels is amount of matches played. I don’t know how many teams or divisions there are
in Indianapolis, but I know there are quite a few in New York and Chicago, and California,
Louisiana, Dallas ..... once when I complained about that very same thing it was explained to me
that the more you play the more likely you are to see movement and accuracy in your
skill level. Players in some places, like Chicago, or NY have more teams and divisions
and so a greater opportunity to play more often. Those guys may 4 or 5 times a week to
my once. If my play trends down for a couple of months, I might play 6 or 7 matches. A
player of a similar ability (not skill level) in Chicago trending down at the same time may
be likely to play 25 to 30 matches in that same couple of months. Now tell me, who is
more likely to see movement in S/L?
There’s any number of things that can can effect S/L or movement of S/L within the
system, one single match isn’t very likely to be among them. Instead it’s the last dozen
or so matches, who you played, and who kept score

 

[dogginda9]

Apa operator makes some valid points but like you , I dont agree with it in its entirety.

I used to keep record of every players win/ loss . Who they played and their handicap. Number of innings...safities. Basically everything that is recorded on the acoresheet. I don't do that now. It just got too much of a hassle and time consuming and all for naught when you get to tri cups and cities facing opponents who are shooting 2 levels above their handicap.

I dont know exactly how the equalizer system works but when I kept records I was usually right on the money when I thought one of my players was going to be raised. I firmly believe the handicap system works but like some one else said and I have said many times on here myself. Scorekeepers have to make sure all innings and safties are correct.

I love apa but i am getting frustrated with quite a few players mentality . I used to captain 4 teams and am now down to 1 and have been seriously contemplating not captain in the team any more.

Its gotten to where all I want to do is show up and play whoever I am matched up with and not worry about...do we have enough people...does every one have their league fee covered....ao and so got raised .

I have a story to share with you about this handicap manipulation. When i kept records I knew one of my 5's was close to being raised in 9 ball. The reason I knew was because he had several lopsided wins against some 3's and 4's. Also a few close wins against some weak 5's. I rated all handicaps in 3 levels. Weak...average and strong. That's another story in itself as far as how I rated.

So with him close to being raised I threw him against an average 6 and he lost. Well the other team only had 4 players and I told them who they could replay and I left since I had to be going out of town early in the morning for work. Well I get halfway home and this 5 of mine who lost to their 6 calls me and said the other team had another player show. I asked who it was. He told me and this guy is the second worse 3 in league and I tell him to throw my weak 4. Well the 5 takes it upon himself to pls this 3 ....to avenge his loss against their 6 and skunks their 3.

Well.next week when I show up for league my 5 comes running up to me and says ....hey ..guess what ...i am a 6 and grinning ear to ear. I am puzzled as to how the heck that happened. Then he tells me about playing that 3 last week after I left and skunking her. I am thinking...wtf ? Then I think....man that's all we need ...bozo here does the opposite of what I say and gets raised to a 6 the week before playoffs. Well playoffs come and I have no choice to throw him against a 6 because I am in the middle of an 8 ball match against another team . Well he loses 18-2 and the team cant come from behind from that large a deficit and we don't make tri cups. Next week bozo goes back down to a 5 but the damage is done.

The story above is my only gripe against apa handicapping system. It does not take into account the level of your opponent. I don't believe skunking a 3 should make you a 6.

This guy has had his own team for 2 years now after this incident and is still a 5 in 9 ball and was lowered to a 4 in 8 ball. He never should have been a 6. .. Even if it was only for one week.

Not to be picky, but the above highlighted statement is untrue. The system most definitely takes in to account your opponents strength of hcp. Meaning more weight is given to a win against say a stronger 4 than a weaker 4.

 

[KMRUNOUT]

Not to be picky, but the above highlighted statement is untrue. The system most definitely takes in to account your opponents strength of hcp. Meaning more weight is given to a win against say a stronger 4 than a weaker 4.

Actually, this is 100% false. One's opponent is essentially irrelevant. I can't imagine why you would believe this.

KMRUNOUT


Sent from my iPhone using AzBilliards Forums

 

[KMRUNOUT]

I'll be happy to continue this discussion for as long as you like, but only if you can do so without the insults. The insults really drag down what could be quite an interesting conversation.

What insults were you referring to? I don't believe there were any insults in my post. I'd also be happy to continue the conversation, but I think the conversation would suffer greatly if you perceive insults where there aren't any, or confuse observations with insults. Please clarify.

KMRUNOUT


Sent from my iPhone using AzBilliards Forums