APA skill level review--advice wanted

[Tony_in_MD]

Do you are saying it is both? Innings per turn which there is a national standard, and win/loss percentage which is local.

Is there a national database that the LO is plugged into when they input scores, to manage these handicaps? I never saw any evidence of that at regional events. Or is the inning standards built into the program?

This is incorrect. The criteria for being a 7 (or any skill level) is the same everywhere in the country. It goes by innings per game. However, your win % has an effect on what score you get if you shoot worse than your average. Thus a 7 playing in a week area will look stronger on paper than that same 7 in a strong area. However, if you take 2 7's from different areas who both have, say, 80% wins, and shoot the same innings, their score should be identical.

KMRUNOUT

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.

 

[gunzby]

I hope all turns out well for you and the others!!!

Maniac

Thanks

Here you can play Masters only. I've just gotten tired of playing handicapped races. I will get my brains beat in a few times, but I will lose playing an even race which I prefer.

 

[laserbrn]

I don't play in the APA anymore. I only played one season. That's all it took to see how retarded it is. I know most of the guys that play in the league from banging balls around with'em or playing with them in local tournaments. Their handicaps just flat out didn't make any sense at all.

I decided to play with an old friend after I hadn't been playing pool for a # of years. We played that one season, our first, and immediately he's a 7 and I'm a 6! I laughed and just quit after the first year. We were division champs, went to regionals and didn't make it to vegas.

I was over it because I know that the guys we are playing against at the local pool hall are TERRIBLE, but if the handicap is out of 7, I'm not a 6, and he's not a 7. We play close to even with me having the slight advantage. We don't string together racks, we're not "elite" pool players. We're just a couple of ball bangers who can on occasion run out a rack of nine ball if the stars align properly. How could that be a 7 out of 7?

It's a shame that people think it's hard to handicap pool, I really don't see it as being a difficult thing. They manage to rate chess players, how hard can it be to rate pool players?

 

[walrus_3d]

Your not gonna go from a 4 to a 7 & then back down to a 3 in your first 3 matches.
You can never move down 2 skill levels.
Once your a 7 you'll never be a 5 ever again just like once your a 5 you'll never be a 3 ever again.

That's only true for established skill levels. The definition of "established" is "based on 10 matches". Within your first ten matches, you can move wherever the computer moves you. My first five matches were 4-4-5-3-3 so you can definitely move more in the beginning than later on.

 

[walrus_3d]

I don't play in the APA anymore. I only played one season. That's all it took to see how retarded it is. I know most of the guys that play in the league from banging balls around with'em or playing with them in local tournaments. Their handicaps just flat out didn't make any sense at all.

I decided to play with an old friend after I hadn't been playing pool for a # of years. We played that one season, our first, and immediately he's a 7 and I'm a 6! I laughed and just quit after the first year. We were division champs, went to regionals and didn't make it to vegas.

I was over it because I know that the guys we are playing against at the local pool hall are TERRIBLE, but if the handicap is out of 7, I'm not a 6, and he's not a 7. We play close to even with me having the slight advantage. We don't string together racks, we're not "elite" pool players. We're just a couple of ball bangers who can on occasion run out a rack of nine ball if the stars align properly. How could that be a 7 out of 7?

It's a shame that people think it's hard to handicap pool, I really don't see it as being a difficult thing. They manage to rate chess players, how hard can it be to rate pool players?

APA is an amateur league. If you're a 7/9, you're a "top amateur", not an elite poolplayer. Semi-Pro and Pro players aren't even allowed in the league, so you're measuring against a lower skill set to begin with.

A 6 should be able to win a rack with 2 misses. A 7 should be able to win a rack with 1 or fewer. Obviously not "elite" but better than most bar players.

 

[bignick31985]

I'm a 7 in 8ball. I run out depending on how well I break. I've had nights where I break extremely well and put 3 racks together a few times a night. Then there are nights when the break isnt there, and I have to be patient.

Was a 9 in 9ball, played a 9 my first week. I lost 19-1 and didnt get to the table until he had 50 points. He played great defense and I only got 2 chances to get out, right after his break. So I stayed a 9, then beat an 8 the next week 13-7 and they move me down. Who knows?

9 ball is the same way. If you watch on a night I'm breaking well I can't lose, but that isn't every night, lol.

I don't like how the APA does their handicaps, mainly b/c it makes no sense. Seems like alot of folks that should move up don't and vice versa.

I've not seen a 2 go to a 3 then a 4 like say in a while. Even if they have a great night, they are inconsistent. I figure higher handicaps should be consistent and that's what seperates them from lower handicaps.

I like heads up races. If was gambling with a pro I'd go heads up. Call me ignorant or stubborn, but I believe winning with a spot or handicap isn't quite winning. I want to beat the person equally.

 

[Roadking]

That's only true for established skill levels. The definition of "established" is "based on 10 matches". Within your first ten matches, you can move wherever the computer moves you. My first five matches were 4-4-5-3-3 so you can definitely move more in the beginning than later on.

I apoligized for my mistake on pg.4

 

[laserbrn]

APA is an amateur league. If you're a 7/9, you're a "top amateur", not an elite poolplayer. Semi-Pro and Pro players aren't even allowed in the league, so you're measuring against a lower skill set to begin with.

A 6 should be able to win a rack with 2 misses. A 7 should be able to win a rack with 1 or fewer. Obviously not "elite" but better than most bar players.

That actually makes sense. We were completely wasted every night we played. There were ALOT of players in the league that cried that I was a 6. I mean, they were down right pissed off and I didn't realize there's really a rating system that goes to 9. If a 7 really means you can win and miss once then yeah, I guess that's pretty legit.

I've only had my table for about 2 months now (guesstimate) and I'm already getting out pretty well after 4-5 years off, so I guess back then I just shot better than I felt like I shot.

I haven't read this entire thread yet, but I can guarantee that where you play makes a HUGE difference. When they came up with this rating system did it include a modifier for this variable? You can't just compare innings/safeties, etc. Wins/Losses have to be a weighing factor. Does the system account for say an overall rating pr factor for each bar/location based upon how that bar/location has done at regionals and how the regions have done at nationals, etc.?

 

[OneIron]

I haven't read this entire thread yet, but I can guarantee that where you play makes a HUGE difference. When they came up with this rating system did it include a modifier for this variable? You can't just compare innings/safeties, etc. Wins/Losses have to be a weighing factor. Does the system account for say an overall rating pr factor for each bar/location based upon how that bar/location has done at regionals and how the regions have done at nationals, etc.?

Innings only count in the games you win. Safeties are deducted from the inning count. Win/loss percentage plays a part in handicap calculation but I can't remember the details. And none of this really matters since the LO can make arbitrary changes to a player's handicap unrelated to the player's actual statistics.

As far as I know, there is no "normalizing" formula to correct for differences in playing ability in different regions. This, to me, is a big problem with the "Equalizer" system. In regional or national play, there can be significant differences in playing ability between two players at the same skill level.

Gotta be a better way. :frown:

 

[lorider]

Innings only count in the games you win. Safeties are deducted from the inning count. Win/loss percentage plays a part in handicap calculation but I can't remember the details. And none of this really matters since the LO can make arbitrary changes to a player's handicap unrelated to the player's actual statistics.

As far as I know, there is no "normalizing" formula to correct for differences in playing ability in different regions. This, to me, is a big problem with the "Equalizer" system. In regional or national play, there can be significant differences in playing ability between two players at the same skill level.

Gotta be a better way. :frown:

last night in league i faced a new player who is ranked a 5. i won the lag and broke dry and he ran out. the 2nd game he played 2 safeties on me and won that one also. i won the 3rd while he played another safety.during the 4th game i happened to be looking at our scorekepper after he made his 4th safety in 3 games , she was busy talking to a teamate and was not marking the scoresheet.

before going to the table to shoot i asked her did you mark his safety, and she said no that she didnt see it. i asked if she had marked any safties and she said no. i said do you mean to tell me my opponent has made 4 safties in the last 3 games and you have not marked any ? she just gave me a dumbfounded look. i told her to mark those safeties down and to get with the opposing scorekeeper to make sure hers was right also before i continued to shoot.

i did not think this guy was a 5 as good as he was playing and i wanted the scoresheet to reflect his level of play that night.

in order to have accurate handicapping you have to have accurate scoresheets.

 

[Tony_in_MD]

Very true.

 

[justadub]

in order to have accurate handicapping you have to have accurate scoresheets.

In order to have accurate scoresheets, you have to have accurate scorekeepers.

Biggest challenge in the whole system.

 

[Maniac]

In order to have accurate scoresheets, you have to have accurate scorekeepers.

Biggest challenge in the whole system.

Agreed. Another tough challenge is when even the BEST scorekeepers sometimes cannot tell whether somebody really missed a ball or if they missed that ball ON PURPOSE. I mean, even if you suspect a player is sandbagging, some of the better ones can really make a miss look like an actual attempt. You have to wrestle with your inner-self sometimes to make the right call on these scenarios. Shame that it has to be that way, but........oh well, it is what it is!!!

Maniac (thinks deep-down inside that APA scoring will not/cannot ever be totally accurate)

 

[laserbrn]

Honestly, I hear that sandbagging is prevalent in the APA, but I can at least say that I don't think I saw any of that. We were accused of it (me being a 6), but we were just wasted and I didn't play as much anymore, I was already winding out of pool (hated that pool hall, only willing to play in league anymore).

I just can't imagine there is much sandbagging when we felt we had to play at least pretty well to get the regionals. The "Team" was basically me and my friend who is a 7 and we picked up coworkers and other friends to join in. They played their games, we played ours. We didn't have a very balanced team, but we managed to win. We just enjoyed going out and drinking. We did enjoy the strategy aspect of putting the right players in the right matchups. We had winning nights every night and it was generally strategy based more than how well the team shot.

If you are sandbagging an APA League (mostly full of bangers) aren't you kind of the biggest piece of shit on the planet? I think far more people are accused of sandbagging then are actually sandbagging.

I don't agree with the idea of having a League Official change an established handicapped. That's absurd. We are supposed to trust this guys judgement on a given night over weeks/months/years of statistical data? What a freakin' joke.

If I start the season as a 5 and this is my 3rd year in the league for example, I believe I should finish the season as a 5. Even if I improved over the course of the year, my rating shouldn't change until after the end of the year. It can have devasting implications on teams that have found their players based on their ratings and needing to stay below a certain threshold for their games.

Do league officials change handicaps at the national events also? Don't they have some rule that if your handicap increases 2 levels at the event you will be DQed? Can an official raise it those 2 levels or does the computer have to do it? Some guys judgement call isn't a great way to go.

 

[APA Operator]

I don't agree with the idea of having a League Official change an established handicapped. That's absurd. We are supposed to trust this guys judgement on a given night over weeks/months/years of statistical data? What a freakin' joke.

...<snip>...

Do league officials change handicaps at the national events also? Don't they have some rule that if your handicap increases 2 levels at the event you will be DQed? Can an official raise it those 2 levels or does the computer have to do it? Some guys judgement call isn't a great way to go.

If nobody ever cheated and everyone kept accurate score (only one of those actually has to happen, but as has been mentioned the cheaters can fool the score keepers too), manual adjustments would not be necessary.

A computer program is only as good as the data going in. Cheaters cheat by manipulating that data. Anyone who tells you manual adjustments aren't necessary is either naive or a liar. And anyone who tells you the local guy isn't the best person to make the manual adjustments (the only one who could possibly know enough about the players to actually USE some judgement) is trying to sell you something. The job of the national office is to make sure they have people in place locally whose judgement can be trusted. They're not 100% there, but they are working toward that goal.

 

[laserbrn]

If nobody ever cheated and everyone kept accurate score (only one of those actually has to happen, but as has been mentioned the cheaters can fool the score keepers too), manual adjustments would not be necessary.

A computer program is only as good as the data going in. Cheaters cheat by manipulating that data. Anyone who tells you manual adjustments aren't necessary is either naive or a liar. And anyone who tells you the local guy isn't the best person to make the manual adjustments (the only one who could possibly know enough about the players to actually USE some judgement) is trying to sell you something. The job of the national office is to make sure they have people in place locally whose judgement can be trusted. They're not 100% there, but they are working toward that goal.

Hmmm....no offense, but this seems like a cop out. As long as this is the 'accepted' method of handicapping, I'll continue to stay away. Acknowledging that the scorekeeping is poor and that cheaters are abundant and then attempting to resolve that problem not by reforming the system, but by putting people in place to make judgement calls to circumvent that system which is flawed is not a solution. Sounds like you'll always have people upset, you'll always have an unfair system and you'll always have mistakes made.

There's just no way that someone can judge how a person plays week in and week out and what their skill level is by watching a few matches or watching a player play during a weekend. It punishes players for bearing down and playing well AND can possibly accuse them of cheating and being a piece of sh*t.

I go back to chess, they manage. They don't have a players rating changed arbitrarily by some "judge" during a competition. That would be ridiculous.

 

[OneIron]

If nobody ever cheated and everyone kept accurate score (only one of those actually has to happen, but as has been mentioned the cheaters can fool the score keepers too), manual adjustments would not be necessary.

A computer program is only as good as the data going in. Cheaters cheat by manipulating that data. Anyone who tells you manual adjustments aren't necessary is either naive or a liar. And anyone who tells you the local guy isn't the best person to make the manual adjustments (the only one who could possibly know enough about the players to actually USE some judgement) is trying to sell you something. The job of the national office is to make sure they have people in place locally whose judgement can be trusted. They're not 100% there, but they are working toward that goal.

I would prefer a system where the handicap is always computed the same for everyone without arbitrary adjustments. If someone is suspected of sandbagging, they should be warned. If the sandbagging continues, they should be suspended or banned.

Unfortunately, in some locations, the local officials cannot be trusted to make the right decisions. Or even worse, they make the wrong decisions intentionally due to personal bias.

I don't mean to bash the APA. I actually like the format a lot. I just prefer a level playing field.

 

[APA Operator]

I would prefer a system where the handicap is always computed the same for everyone without arbitrary adjustments. If someone is suspected of sandbagging, they should be warned. If the sandbagging continues, they should be suspended or banned.

Unfortunately, in some locations, the local officials cannot be trusted to make the right decisions. Or even worse, they make the wrong decisions intentionally due to personal bias.

I don't mean to bash the APA. I actually like the format a lot. I just prefer a level playing field.

What about the guy who plays last on league night every week and underperforms because he's tired/drunk/whatever? How do you compute his true speed? He comes into a tournament and plays early or drinks water and crushes people. Does he get warned/suspended/banned? For what? He's trying his best every time.

It's not always the cheater who needs to be adjusted. There are factors that affect performance but cannot be quantified. If they cannot be quantified, they cannot be part of a calculation.

This is where I need to correct myself. In my previous reply I said adjustments wouldn't be necessary if nobody cheated and everyone kept accurate score. While that's probably true in a system that measures average performance, it's not true in a system that attempts to measure ability. The distinction between ability and performance is important. If you want skill levels to reflect ability and all you can measure is performance, you need a way to adjust for the non-quantifiable factors.

 

[laserbrn]

Hmmm....I never had a problem with anyones golf handicap either....

I think I'm starting to see the theme. Golf handicaps, chess ratings, and all other decent handicapping systems are used all of the time. They aren't only applicable during competition, they are used during all forms of play.

I wonder if that's the inherent flaw in pool, we just don't calculate the handicaps the same during ALL forms of play and apply them and/or ratings during ALL play, only the 4 matches of the week that we play in the league.

Certainly if you only look at handicapping a player using just 20 matches over the course of a season it won't matter what logic you use for your system, it will never be accurate.

Even when I go out and play a "practice round" I record my score for my handicap before I leave the golf course....

Just pondering out loud, sorry.

 

[APA Operator]

Hmmm....no offense, but this seems like a cop out. As long as this is the 'accepted' method of handicapping, I'll continue to stay away. Acknowledging that the scorekeeping is poor and that cheaters are abundant and then attempting to resolve that problem not by reforming the system, but by putting people in place to make judgement calls to circumvent that system which is flawed is not a solution. Sounds like you'll always have people upset, you'll always have an unfair system and you'll always have mistakes made.

There's just no way that someone can judge how a person plays week in and week out and what their skill level is by watching a few matches or watching a player play during a weekend. It punishes players for bearing down and playing well AND can possibly accuse them of cheating and being a piece of sh*t.

I go back to chess, they manage. They don't have a players rating changed arbitrarily by some "judge" during a competition. That would be ridiculous.

I don't believe I said anything about scorekeeping being poor, nor did I say cheaters are abundant.

However, any system of handicapping must have some way of handling both of these situations. The manual adjustments are not an attempt to circumvent the system, they are an integral part of it, and not just for handling scorekeeping/sandbagging issues. You certainly have the right to stay away from such a system if you want.

I know nothing about ratings in chess. How are they applied? Does the better player start with fewer pieces or something? And what happens to the sandbaggers?