No one has addressed that since Russ first posted it.
Because he didn't post it as fact and say something like "none of the truth matters."
No one has addressed that since Russ first posted it.
Because he didn't post it as fact and say something like "none of the truth matters."
....apa does not have a monopoly on sandbagging players.....
If you don't know the tables in your region, sure. But APA has come up with a tool LOs can use to distinguish these tables and assign different table factors to them. A good LO knows the tables in his/her region and has already done most of that work.
Handicaps that DON'T consider a table factor are also skewed. For example, the handicaps of players who play on generous equipment will be closer, in general, than those of players who play on tougher equipment (good players will post a little better score but weaker players can post a lot better score). For that reason, it's a flaw to consider only how two players do against each other without considering equipment when calculating relative skill levels. This is why the better player in a match-up wants to play on the toughest table possible.
I was going to say, table conditions IS a variable that CAN be accounted for in determining SL, but you beat me to it.
Again, point being they need a better system for ranking players properly BEFORE tournaments, instead of ranking-up on the spot and effectively DQ-ing people and entire teams, just because, in someone's arbitrary opinion, they're "playing too well". Most people participating in tournaments sacrifice time and energy to do so. If this only happened once in a while, it would be one thing, but it's the norm at APA events. What happened in Vegas before the finals is unfortunate and it's a black spot, whatever the circumstances, but it's just indicative of widespread problems people have with the APA. Namely their arbitrary SL rating system.
You say it's a problem, but unless someone has a better solution (and no, saying "do better" is not a solution) it will be that way.
...most of those to whom this happens deserve it.
You say it's a problem, but unless someone has a better solution (and no, saying "do better" is not a solution) it will be that way. I've found over the years that most of those to whom this happens deserve it.
Not always. I used to play in a league that counted innings. The room I played at had a table that nobody ran out on. A ball shot perfectly along the foot rail would reject if you shot it too hard. The other tables were not so impossible but they were tough.
The players from that room took a lot of innings to finish their matches. They ended up being underrated. That was fine with them.
This is one of the several reasons it's a lousy idea to use inning count to establish skill level across a wide area.
Not the least of which is more than 20 years experience running leagues and tournaments.Based on any number of possible personal biases.
The long story short is that there ended up being too much total skill level movement for the team as a whole.
So all you APA mavens please explain this to me in terms I can understand:
I play in a league with 100 players of various skill levels in East Podunk, Iowa. I'm 75. I'm the best player and win the vast majority of my matches so I'm the league 7. The league plays on Valley Panthers with bushel baskets for pockets.
You play in a league with 1000 players of various skill levels in New York City. You're 25. You're the best player in the league and win the vast majority of your matches. Your league plays on Diamond 9' tables with pro cut pockets and deep shelves.
How is it possible we are of equal NUMERIC ability? What if we are both 5's instead? Which of us is the stronger player? Which of us will be disqualified if we play at our maximum ability? I'm waiting.
Lyn
I question whether you are from Iowa. Have you ever been late for a league match because you were stuck on the highway behind a tractor?
He was driving the tractor.
I dealt with that on the eastern shore lol. No traffic for miles around except the tractors and combines and various "fertilizing" vehicles, spraying doo all over the place. Damnable shorebillies.
I didn't even have a stoplight in the nearest town, just a blinking yellow light.
Now these folks would call me a sandbagger even as a 7 and run me out of the place. I've come across some 6s from that side of the bridge that can't run a table full of stop shots.
So all you APA mavens please explain this to me in terms I can understand:
I play in a league with 100 players of various skill levels in East Podunk, Iowa. I'm 75. I'm the best player and win the vast majority of my matches so I'm the league 7. The league plays on Valley Panthers with bushel baskets for pockets.
You play in a league with 1000 players of various skill levels in New York City. You're 25. You're the best player in the league and win the vast majority of your matches. Your league plays on Diamond 9' tables with pro cut pockets and deep shelves.
How is it possible we are of equal NUMERIC ability? What if we are both 5's instead? Which of us is the stronger player? Which of us will be disqualified if we play at our maximum ability? I'm waiting.
Lyn
I'm sure there is some impact on SL based on the playing ability of the area, but isn't the SL based more on innings than wins/losses? So just winning most of your matches wouldn't automatically make you a 7, what if your matches are taking 50+ innings? So wouldn't the inning count help to make sure 7's from different areas are close in ability?