APA skill level review--advice wanted

[laserbrn]

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

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.

The logic here is that there ARE manual adjustments, thus they are necessary, thus people have cheated and not everyone keeps accurate score according to the logic in your statement.

Chess isn't handicapped per se in that one player would get a material advantage to start a game. It's more of a measuring stick. Pool would be a more accurate implementation of a handicapping sysstem that has an effect on the outcome of each individual match.

 

[APA Operator]

The logic here is that there ARE manual adjustments, thus they are necessary, thus people have cheated and not everyone keeps accurate score according to the logic in your statement.

Chess isn't handicapped per se in that one player would get a material advantage to start a game. It's more of a measuring stick. Pool would be a more accurate implementation of a handicapping sysstem that has an effect on the outcome of each individual match.

"People have cheated and not everyone keeps accurate score" somehow got translated into "scorekeeping is poor and cheaters are abundant"?

I still would like to know what happens to the chess sandbaggers.

 

[APA Operator]

I still would like to know what happens to the chess sandbaggers.

Hmmm, did the research myself. It appears that the chess sandbaggers get put on a "Minimum Rating List", and their calculated ratings get manually adjusted if they are below the values on the list. Imagine that...

 

[xxroodoggxx]

The guys in our league are always saying that there should be a box too mark scratches and maybe even a fram shot box


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk. **roo$t@r**

 

[laserbrn]

Hmmm, did the research myself. It appears that the chess sandbaggers get put on a "Minimum Rating List", and their calculated ratings get manually adjusted if they are below the values on the list. Imagine that...

Yeah, but that system makes sense. All that means is that if you reach a rating of 2000 and someone suspects that you are sandbagging (ie your rating dropped to 1500 leading up to a big tourney) then you are put on a minimal rating list and you won't be allowed to go below 1700 for example. That's not the same as what the APA does. I think that we can all agree that if your calculated rating is a 7 you should ever be able to sandbag your way to a 3 or 4. Nowhere do I see any regulation in chess that allows someone who has never achieved a rating to be raised to a 2000 by a random official at an event.

 

[OneIron]

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.

In the case of the player who is honest but inconsistent, you leave them alone. You can't really come up with a fair handicap for an inconsistent player.

In the case of sandbaggers, you remove them from the league. They're dishonest and they poison the water for everyone else.

 

[APA Operator]

In the case of the player who is honest but inconsistent, you leave them alone. You can't really come up with a fair handicap for an inconsistent player.

In the case of sandbaggers, you remove them from the league. They're dishonest and they poison the water for everyone else.

On the sandbagger point we agree. However, there's a slight issue with identification. It's pretty easy to sit there and say do this with the honest players and do that with the sandbaggers, but first you have to know one from the other. Should I get all of the players together and ask the sandbaggers to raise their hands? If only it was that easy.

When I get the goods on a cheater, they are gone. But I don't kick someone out on suspicion or complaints (almost everyone who has a great match is accused of sandbagging by someone). So, there has to be a way of dealing with those for whom all you have is suspicion.

I'm not sure "inconsistent" is a good way to describe the honest player in my previous example. I'm talking about a guy who consistently plays at one level on league night, then consistently plays much better than that in tournaments, due to unmeasurable factors. If he's capable of consistently playing at the higher level, and you're trying to reflect ABILITY, then you HAVE to be able to override the calculation.

I'll throw another guy into the mix, because I'm curious how you would handle him. Let's call him Johnny. Johnny plays extremely well all of the time. He joins an APA team. Everyone in the division, including Johnny, knows he should be a 7. However, there are five other players in the division who play better than Johnny, and he never plays anyone other than those five players, and he always loses. He plays 5-10 matches a session, always tries his best, but never wins. What should Johnny's skill level be?

 

[APA Operator]

Yeah, but that system makes sense. All that means is that if you reach a rating of 2000 and someone suspects that you are sandbagging (ie your rating dropped to 1500 leading up to a big tourney) then you are put on a minimal rating list and you won't be allowed to go below 1700 for example. That's not the same as what the APA does. I think that we can all agree that if your calculated rating is a 7 you should ever be able to sandbag your way to a 3 or 4. Nowhere do I see any regulation in chess that allows someone who has never achieved a rating to be raised to a 2000 by a random official at an event.

Actually, the APA does do that. It's called the lowest attainable rule and it's described on page 32 of the current team manual.

But that rule doesn't help if the sandbagger is good enough to never achieve the next level on their own. How does chess handle a guy who clearly should be at 2000 or higher but has never achieved a rating higher than 1750?

 

[Bambu]

Actually, the APA does do that. It's called the lowest attainable rule and it's described on page 32 of the current team manual.

But that rule doesn't help if the sandbagger is good enough to never achieve the next level on their own. How does chess handle a guy who clearly should be at 2000 or higher but has never achieved a rating higher than 1750?

OMG did you just compare pool to a board game? The golf is bad enough!

 

[laserbrn]

Actually, the APA does do that. It's called the lowest attainable rule and it's described on page 32 of the current team manual.

But that rule doesn't help if the sandbagger is good enough to never achieve the next level on their own. How does chess handle a guy who clearly should be at 2000 or higher but has never achieved a rating higher than 1750?

That's a good rule, but that doesn't make your hadicapping system the same. It doesn't really fit here because the only way to get into a lot of chess tournaments is to have a rating of X or higher. It's not beneficial to manipulate your rating and keep yourself out of events. It's a tough comparison, if you destroy a tournament that you started at a rating of 1750 you'll likely be an 1850+ by the end. The ratings are adjusted nearly immediatlely based upon the rating of the player that you beat.

I agree that the systems aren't interchangeable and pool needs its own system, but it needs to be consistent. My point was that both of these games (golf and chess) have well accepted handicapping systems, not that either of them should be used for a different game.

In regards to the Johnny example, the scorecards should reflecte the Johnny lost close to every 7. He potted X # of balls/inning. He played safe successfully X number of times. The other, measurable, and more important factors then simple win/loss should probably end up with Johnny at least a strong 6, he clearly shouldn't be a 7, he's played the only other 5 around and doesn't EVER win. So while everyone else THINKS this guy should be a 7, clearly that isn't fair, he can't even win as a 4 or 5 or whatever his starting handicap is.

 

[APA Operator]

OMG did you just compare pool to a board game? The golf is bad enough!

No, the person to whom I replied did that. The two are quite different and necessarily have to be handicapped differently, but there are certain aspects of every handicap system, regardless of sport, that must exist, such as how to deal with cheaters.

 

[APA Operator]

That's a good rule, but that doesn't make your hadicapping system the same. It doesn't really fit here because the only way to get into a lot of chess tournaments is to have a rating of X or higher. It's not beneficial to manipulate your rating and keep yourself out of events. It's a tough comparison, if you destroy a tournament that you started at a rating of 1750 you'll likely be an 1850+ by the end. The ratings are adjusted nearly immediatlely based upon the rating of the player that you beat.

I agree that the systems aren't interchangeable and pool needs its own system, but it needs to be consistent. My point was that both of these games (golf and chess) have well accepted handicapping systems, not that either of them should be used for a different game.

In regards to the Johnny example, the scorecards should reflecte the Johnny lost close to every 7. He potted X # of balls/inning. He played safe successfully X number of times. The other, measurable, and more important factors then simple win/loss should probably end up with Johnny at least a strong 6, he clearly shouldn't be a 7, he's played the only other 5 around and doesn't EVER win. So while everyone else THINKS this guy should be a 7, clearly that isn't fair, he can't even win as a 4 or 5 or whatever his starting handicap is.

But isn't it true that there are events you can't get into if your rating is ABOVE a certain level? That's where there might be some enticement to cheat.

What if Johnny loses every match 5-0 and never makes a ball because his opponents put up 5-packs every time? Should he be a 2? He could play as a 2 for several years, and you could make a case that 2 is ok because he's not hurting anyone, but then he shows up in a tournament and destroys 5's and 6's, all the while only counting as 2 toward the 23 rule. My point with Johnny is that it will always be possible that numbers on paper or in a computer don't accurately reflect the ability of a player. No matter what you measure, it's possible for the numbers to show Johnny as a 2 when everyone knows he should be a 7. If you can't get him there by overriding the calculated number, you have a problem.

Any system that doesn't allow you to get the number right is a flawed system, and any system that's based solely on a mathematical formula is going to get the number wrong once in a while. Regardless of the sport, chess, pool, bowling, golf, whatever, there has to be a way to manually get the number right, and the sooner you can correct an inaccurate number, the better.

I go back to my original statement - anyone who says manual adjustments aren't necessary is naive or is a liar.

 

[STICKBNDER]

handicaps are what they are. they can not always reflect someones ability. i am a APA 6. a good one. ill play anyone. over the last 15 years i have complained about sandbaggers. a couple of years ago my mind changed on this.

i played a 4 one night. should smoke him. he beats me 3-2, in 6 innings. I am pissed. well i figure if you can beat them join him. i talked him in to joining our team. let him sandbag for us i figured. turns out, he was a weak 4 that played up to me as a 6, and play the game of his life. everything just rolled right for 3 games, but looked like he know what he doing. he didnt last long on our team. thats when i learned that its not always the handicap thats wrong. dont get me wrong sandbaggers are out there, but not like i thought.

 

[justadub]

handicaps are what they are. they can not always reflect someones ability. i am a APA 6. a good one. ill play anyone. over the last 15 years i have complained about sandbaggers. a couple of years ago my mind changed on this.

i played a 4 one night. should smoke him. he beats me 3-2, in 6 innings. I am pissed. well i figure if you can beat them join him. i talked him in to joining our team. let him sandbag for us i figured. turns out, he was a weak 4 that played up to me as a 6, and play the game of his life. everything just rolled right for 3 games, but looked like he know what he doing. he didnt last long on our team. thats when i learned that its not always the handicap thats wrong. dont get me wrong sandbaggers are out there, but not like i thought.

I think this is the case most of the time. I'm a 5, and probably in the middle of the pack amoung the fives in our division. A few weeks ago I beat one of the stronger 7's in our division, 3-0, in about 10 innings total. Does that mean I should be at least a 6? If I played like that regularly, hell yes. Problem is, i played as well as I ever can, and my opponent had an off night.

I want to play like that consistently, and would welcome the higher handicap if I play to that level. It astounds me that people have so little pride that they'd rather be ranked lower than their ability. Something about pool, for sure. That is where the chess and golf comparrisons are apt, people in those activities are proud to share their ranking.

 

[laserbrn]

But isn't it true that there are events you can't get into if your rating is ABOVE a certain level? That's where there might be some enticement to cheat.

What if Johnny loses every match 5-0 and never makes a ball because his opponents put up 5-packs every time? Should he be a 2? He could play as a 2 for several years, and you could make a case that 2 is ok because he's not hurting anyone, but then he shows up in a tournament and destroys 5's and 6's, all the while only counting as 2 toward the 23 rule. My point with Johnny is that it will always be possible that numbers on paper or in a computer don't accurately reflect the ability of a player. No matter what you measure, it's possible for the numbers to show Johnny as a 2 when everyone knows he should be a 7. If you can't get him there by overriding the calculated number, you have a problem.

Any system that doesn't allow you to get the number right is a flawed system, and any system that's based solely on a mathematical formula is going to get the number wrong once in a while. Regardless of the sport, chess, pool, bowling, golf, whatever, there has to be a way to manually get the number right, and the sooner you can correct an inaccurate number, the better.

I go back to my original statement - anyone who says manual adjustments aren't necessary is naive or is a liar.

Was this one a joke? All season long he played 7's that ran 5 packs every game and he never once got a chance to shoot? I'm going to leave this Johnny nonsense alone. The fact is that if a guy has played pelnty of rated games and shows up at a tournament he shouldn't have his rating changed during the tournament because he is playing well. Peaking at the right time is a big part of all competitive games.

It's one thing to say you are going to have the ability for manual adjustments in extreme cases, but it's more the norm than it is used in 'extreme cases' which either implies that your handicapping system is horribly flawed and almost never gets it right or that players are simply punished for doing well in an important event.

In the case of the player that plays drunk every week, but then plays his heart out in a tournament, why should he punished or even possibly DQed? Isn't the point of this league to go out and have fun with friends? If you make it to "National Championship" game I think that the expectation is that EVERY player will raise their game. If the handicaps are moving it's asinine. Once the tournament starts the handicap needs to remain the same. If you can prove that someone has sandbagged all year, kick them out.

 

[OneIron]

On the sandbagger point we agree. However, there's a slight issue with identification. It's pretty easy to sit there and say do this with the honest players and do that with the sandbaggers, but first you have to know one from the other. Should I get all of the players together and ask the sandbaggers to raise their hands? If only it was that easy.

When I get the goods on a cheater, they are gone. But I don't kick someone out on suspicion or complaints (almost everyone who has a great match is accused of sandbagging by someone). So, there has to be a way of dealing with those for whom all you have is suspicion.

I'm not sure "inconsistent" is a good way to describe the honest player in my previous example. I'm talking about a guy who consistently plays at one level on league night, then consistently plays much better than that in tournaments, due to unmeasurable factors. If he's capable of consistently playing at the higher level, and you're trying to reflect ABILITY, then you HAVE to be able to override the calculation.

I'll throw another guy into the mix, because I'm curious how you would handle him. Let's call him Johnny. Johnny plays extremely well all of the time. He joins an APA team. Everyone in the division, including Johnny, knows he should be a 7. However, there are five other players in the division who play better than Johnny, and he never plays anyone other than those five players, and he always loses. He plays 5-10 matches a session, always tries his best, but never wins. What should Johnny's skill level be?

Your last point is a little more difficult but I still think I would let the handicap system work. I don't see a situation where a competent captain would put up in such a way that a higher ranked player would always lose.

I could probably support handicap adjustments if there were a handicap committee comprised of higher ranked players who could be trusted to make objective decisions. Unfortunately, I saw bizarre situations when I played APA.

One individual who had played for over ten years gets lowered from a 4 to a 3 in the Regionals and wins a trip to Vegas. After Vegas, he gets raised back to a 4. Everyone in the league knew he was actually a 5 but if you complained, someone on your team would be raised.

Another individual who was a known player and an obvious 7 in 8 Ball started as a 3. Stayed a 3 for several weeks, then moved to a 5, then got lowered back to a 4. Everyone, except apparently the LO, knew this guy was a world beater.

So one guy was lowered in spite of their stats and another should have been at maximum skill level and wasn't. If the LO is going to override the handicap system, they should have good players they trust advising them.

 

[justadub]

Y If the LO is going to override the handicap system, they should have good players they trust advising them.

And therein lies the rub. Our LO has 14 or 15 divisions, covering half the state. He hasn't seen over half the people that play in his league, I'm betting. It isn't possible for him to be in all our divisions regularly. (Tho it might be nice for him to stop by every once in a while, heh heh. That is a North/South argument in this state that has gone on forever, and affects anything that goes on here, so APA is no exception.)

If the LO were to come up with such a system of a player review committee, he'd have to do that 15 times (in our territory, as an example). Then he'd have to be able to meet with these folks, coordinate everything, and even then you'd have the crying and complaining, about cronyism.

Yes, it would be nice to have someone be able to advise the LO if a handicap is out of line. I just don't see the mechanics of it working in the real world. It would require volunteers that would have to put in extra time, and to be qualified to do it. (And not likely to be subject to local politics.) How the heck would you expect to find that, and multiply that problem by as many divisions as the LO has.

In a one division league, sure. How many APA LO's have one division?

 

[APA Operator]

Your last point is a little more difficult but I still think I would let the handicap system work. I don't see a situation where a competent captain would put up in such a way that a higher ranked player would always lose.

I could probably support handicap adjustments if there were a handicap committee comprised of higher ranked players who could be trusted to make objective decisions. Unfortunately, I saw bizarre situations when I played APA.

One individual who had played for over ten years gets lowered from a 4 to a 3 in the Regionals and wins a trip to Vegas. After Vegas, he gets raised back to a 4. Everyone in the league knew he was actually a 5 but if you complained, someone on your team would be raised.

Another individual who was a known player and an obvious 7 in 8 Ball started as a 3. Stayed a 3 for several weeks, then moved to a 5, then got lowered back to a 4. Everyone, except apparently the LO, knew this guy was a world beater.

So one guy was lowered in spite of their stats and another should have been at maximum skill level and wasn't. If the LO is going to override the handicap system, they should have good players they trust advising them.

We'll have to agree to disagree on Johnny. If I know a number isn't right, I make it right if I can. Accuracy of the numbers is my number one job. That said, if I think the player will get there on their own, I let it happen naturally.

Here's the catch, and it's related to your examples. The LO can only lower a skill level if the player is already calculating at the lower level and is being artificially held up by an override. Even then, the LO can't do it (any more, they used to be able to) if it violates the lowest attainable rule. Only the national office can force a skill level down when the calculation or lowest attainable rule says otherwise, and that would only be under special circumstances, usually medical.

So, if you're calculating at 4 I can't make you a 3. I can make you a 5, but not a 3.

I take the conspiracy theory stories with a grain of salt. Knowing how the system works, and what the LO can/cannot do, gives me an edge in determining how much might be true and how much is speculation. Take your first bizarre scenario, for example. The LO can't let someone drop in regionals (or any other time) unless that player is calculating at the lower level and has never been higher than the level from which they are dropping. Soooo, in this bizarre scenario I can assure you that the LO didn't do anything that you haven't said in this thread that you would favor. In fact, the LO probably didn't do anything at all. If I remove the conspiracy theory part of your scenario, I get "A player came into regionals as a 4 and dropped to a 3. After winning some matches and getting to Nationals, the player went back up to a 4." Why do you find this scenario bizarre? As for the part about raising someone on your team if you question the movement, that's probably more conspiracy theory fueled by a coincidence or two.

I especially like your second scenario. That's Johnny. You're in favor of letting hypothetical Johnny play at the calculated number, but you consider the real-life Johnny a bizarre situation? Remember, the LO can't make him a 4 if he's calculating at 7, so he had to be calculating at 4. Are you trying to say he was cheating and the LO knew it and did nothing?

Most of us do have good players we trust advising us. I do. Many of us are pretty good players ourselves, but as justadub said, we can't be everywhere. So we recruit people to help, good players who are going to be there anyway. Often we don't tell anyone who they are or that they even exist, because we don't want them taking the heat when skill levels change. And believe me, there's a lot of heat. I'll take all the heat, that's my job, and as long as I'm focused on getting the numbers right people can say what they want.

 

[JB Cases]

What I find interesting is that I play APA as a 7 in 8 ball and a 9 in 9 ball and I go out to Vegas as a vendor and set up in the Mini-tournament room. While out there for 15 hours a day next to the registration booth I see many of the players from around the country who give me weight and beat me. So I ask them how they are doing and they say GREAT. Winning plenty of the minis and getting in action. Then I see that many of them are playing as 5s and 6s in these minis and one of them was even a 4.

It was explained to me that no one gets moved in the minis, whatever you came to Vegas as in the computer is where you are locked in as far as the minis go because no one is keeping stats or watching the games.

Thus they have set up the perfect little system for the hustlers of the world to bleed off plenty of money from the legitimately handicapped players. These guys sandbag in league to set their handicaps - don't go to Vegas with a team - and go out and rob the minis since the minis are open to any card-carrying APA player.

I have no idea if things have changed but that was a pretty sweet deal for the really good sandbaggers.

Also for those who have never been there imagine a big ass ball room filled with about 50-60 bar tables. On all the tables are mini-tournaments happening with 8 players winner-take-all or maybe 1-2 paid (can't remember). This goes on all week for like 15 hours a day or so (feels like that). So lots and lots of money to be won. I am not entirely sure but they would have all kinds of minis like $20 ones and $50 ones and 5s and lower ones, scotch doubles and so on.....

----------------------------------------------------

Reagarding the handicapping in league.....well if there is a lowest rank that the software spits out and that can only be adjusted upward manually but not lower then why not allow the following;

Let the players in a session rank each other. A team can't rank itself but they can go through all the names on the list of players for all the other teams in their division and rank them with a number or a "don't know". Toss out the don't knows and tally up the averages for each player and see how they compare to the software's number.

The advantage here is that people are likely to be more thoughtful and attempt to be genuinely accurate since they know everyone else is ranking them as well.

Then the LO can compare the software # to the general consensus # and deal with any glaring disparities.

Just a thought.

 

[APA Operator]

Was this one a joke? All season long he played 7's that ran 5 packs every game and he never once got a chance to shoot? I'm going to leave this Johnny nonsense alone. The fact is that if a guy has played pelnty of rated games and shows up at a tournament he shouldn't have his rating changed during the tournament because he is playing well. Peaking at the right time is a big part of all competitive games.

It's one thing to say you are going to have the ability for manual adjustments in extreme cases, but it's more the norm than it is used in 'extreme cases' which either implies that your handicapping system is horribly flawed and almost never gets it right or that players are simply punished for doing well in an important event.

In the case of the player that plays drunk every week, but then plays his heart out in a tournament, why should he punished or even possibly DQed? Isn't the point of this league to go out and have fun with friends? If you make it to "National Championship" game I think that the expectation is that EVERY player will raise their game. If the handicaps are moving it's asinine. Once the tournament starts the handicap needs to remain the same. If you can prove that someone has sandbagged all year, kick them out.

Not a joke, a hypothetical scenario. Unlikely, yes, but possible, and only used to illustrate the point that you HAVE to be able to handle the abnormal cases.

If the guy who plays drunk shoots at a higher level when not drunk, then he needs to be at the higher level, period. If he chooses to drink and play lousy, that's his choice. But it's not fair to any of his opponents if he gets to play at the lower level, since he gets to decide when to be drunk and when to be sober. He's not elevating his game or playing his heart out, he's drinking water. You can let him come to your tournaments and run over people with ease. If he comes to mine, I'll put him where he needs to be. If he can elevate THAT game, good for him.

This will be my last reply to you. I'm pretty certain I know your agenda, and I don't feel like playing that game.