Bad rating advice?

[Banks]

Similar to how people consider the APA rating system lop-sided in different areas, it looks to me as though the same thing is happening with BCA. At the same time, I don't think that the BCA uses any of the regional ratings in their national tournaments. That's good that it doesn't match up unevenly, but at the same time it makes one's regional rating a bit questionable. I could be phrasing my concerns incorrectly, but I'm not a fan of how they're going about a new rating guideline for the Western BCA. Here is what they have on the web site:

League Operator ‘B’ Rating Guidelines

League Operators: This is just a reminder that all new WBCA male players will start off as "Men'sA” at Regional’s. The only exception will be by Competition Committee request. Here are some guidelines for placement of new male players in a lower division.
•Pool History: Never placed in a big tournament, may play in weekly tournaments, but seldom places or wins; winning against master level players is at most 10-15% but probably less; has little to no gambling experience.
•Knowledge: Has about 20% cue ball control, gets out 20-30% of easy outs and might never play safe, doesn’t know many shots or fundamentals.
•Focus: Plays/practices about 1-3 hours a week, plays for fun wins against same level players 40-50% of time, Desires to win most of the time, and has minimal playing stamina and makes 50% mistakes.
•League stats: Might break and run out an 8-ball rack 1 in 20 times, and 1 inning games (after opponents balls are gone) or with ball in hand 3 in 10 times, if played in APA league and has a ranking 5 or lower.

That sounds more like C level players to me. Somewhere around mid APA 7/9 is what I think is more realistic for a regional A player. I'd be pretty frustrated as an APA 6 to get stuck with players that are just short of Master. They may end up winning one or two matches against similar players, but will get their arse handed to them on a regular basis by many of the players in that division.

On the flip side, there oughta be more money in the A division this next time.

And what the hell is 20% CB control??

Edit: When I won the B last Fall, I was told by a ratings board member that they were frustrated seeing 7/9 players taking down the division. Previous to that, I went 2-n-out in the A, 2-n-out in the B, then barely into the money in the B. I was fully qualified by those standards. I asked if they wanted freshly-turned A players and strong Bs moved up, because what will happen is you'll have mid-range B players placing high enough to get moved up to A.

 

[hang-the-9]

Similar to how people consider the APA rating system lop-sided in different areas, it looks to me as though the same thing is happening with BCA. At the same time, I don't think that the BCA uses any of the regional ratings in their national tournaments. That's good that it doesn't match up unevenly, but at the same time it makes one's regional rating a bit questionable. I could be phrasing my concerns incorrectly, but I'm not a fan of how they're going about a new rating guideline for the Western BCA. Here is what they have on the web site:

League Operator ‘B’ Rating Guidelines

League Operators: This is just a reminder that all new WBCA male players will start off as "Men'sA” at Regional’s. The only exception will be by Competition Committee request. Here are some guidelines for placement of new male players in a lower division.
•Pool History: Never placed in a big tournament, may play in weekly tournaments, but seldom places or wins; winning against master level players is at most 10-15% but probably less; has little to no gambling experience.
•Knowledge: Has about 20% cue ball control, gets out 20-30% of easy outs and might never play safe, doesn’t know many shots or fundamentals.
•Focus: Plays/practices about 1-3 hours a week, plays for fun wins against same level players 40-50% of time, Desires to win most of the time, and has minimal playing stamina and makes 50% mistakes.
•League stats: Might break and run out an 8-ball rack 1 in 20 times, and 1 inning games (after opponents balls are gone) or with ball in hand 3 in 10 times, if played in APA league and has a ranking 5 or lower.

That sounds more like C level players to me. Somewhere around mid APA 7/9 is what I think is more realistic for a regional A player. I'd be pretty frustrated as an APA 6 to get stuck with players that are just short of Master. They may end up winning one or two matches against similar players, but will get their arse handed to them on a regular basis by many of the players in that division.

On the flip side, there oughta be more money in the A division this next time.

And what the hell is 20% CB control??

Edit: When I won the B last Fall, I was told by a ratings board member that they were frustrated seeing 7/9 players taking down the division. Previous to that, I went 2-n-out in the A, 2-n-out in the B, then barely into the money in the B. I was fully qualified by those standards. I asked if they wanted freshly-turned A players and strong Bs moved up, because what will happen is you'll have mid-range B players placing high enough to get moved up to A.

That does not sound like a B level player, 50% error rate? Basically they are saying a B level player will make a ball and then miss or get out of line to make a tough shot. I am a B+ player when I'm plaing well, and in the video I made of me playing 9 ball ghost, I did miss once in every rack out of 3 but only once, and they were pretty close misses, that's about a 10% error rate.

 

[Banks]

That does not sound like a B level player, 50% error rate? Basically they are saying a B level player will make a ball and then miss or get out of line to make a tough shot. I am a B+ player when I'm plaing well, and in the video I made of me playing 9 ball ghost, I did miss once in every rack out of 3 but only once, and they were pretty close misses, that's about a 10% error rate.

Exactly! They're saying a B player is equivilent to an APA 4 or 5. I think the lack of sunlight up here is getting to them. Imho, an A should start around 7/7 or 7/8.

 

[nine_ball6970]

That does not sound like a B level player, 50% error rate? Basically they are saying a B level player will make a ball and then miss or get out of line to make a tough shot. I am a B+ player when I'm plaing well, and in the video I made of me playing 9 ball ghost, I did miss once in every rack out of 3 but only once, and they were pretty close misses, that's about a 10% error rate.

FWIW the 50% error rate seems to me like the average over the span of a match. I am thinking more along the lines of an accustats rating. Takes into account scratches and bad safeties etc. I would think that shooting .500 isnt't terrible given various factors.. Make some decent runs but also miss some shots and hook yourself sometimes. I think all of those factors add up over time. I don't see it as being you making one ball then missing the next one over and over again.

 

[TheMadScientist]

It looked more like D than B to me. We are talking about bar boxes right? A lower APA 7 is a B player.

 

[Banks]

It looked more like D than B to me. We are talking about bar boxes right? A lower APA 7 is a B player.

They play the regional events on Diamond boxes. Unless I misread, I don't think that these guidelines specify. A large majority of tables up here are barboxes, though. I agree about the lower APA 7 rating and would still consider myself a national B easily.

 

[tucson9ball]

Similar to how people consider the APA rating system lop-sided in different areas, it looks to me as though the same thing is happening with BCA. At the same time, I don't think that the BCA uses any of the regional ratings in their national tournaments. That's good that it doesn't match up unevenly, but at the same time it makes one's regional rating a bit questionable. I could be phrasing my concerns incorrectly, but I'm not a fan of how they're going about a new rating guideline for the Western BCA. Here is what they have on the web site:

League Operator ‘B’ Rating Guidelines

League Operators: This is just a reminder that all new WBCA male players will start off as "Men'sA” at Regional’s. The only exception will be by Competition Committee request. Here are some guidelines for placement of new male players in a lower division.
•Pool History: Never placed in a big tournament, may play in weekly tournaments, but seldom places or wins; winning against master level players is at most 10-15% but probably less; has little to no gambling experience.
•Knowledge: Has about 20% cue ball control, gets out 20-30% of easy outs and might never play safe, doesn’t know many shots or fundamentals.
•Focus: Plays/practices about 1-3 hours a week, plays for fun wins against same level players 40-50% of time, Desires to win most of the time, and has minimal playing stamina and makes 50% mistakes.
•League stats: Might break and run out an 8-ball rack 1 in 20 times, and 1 inning games (after opponents balls are gone) or with ball in hand 3 in 10 times, if played in APA league and has a ranking 5 or lower.

That sounds more like C level players to me. Somewhere around mid APA 7/9 is what I think is more realistic for a regional A player. I'd be pretty frustrated as an APA 6 to get stuck with players that are just short of Master. They may end up winning one or two matches against similar players, but will get their arse handed to them on a regular basis by many of the players in that division.

On the flip side, there oughta be more money in the A division this next time.

And what the hell is 20% CB control??

Edit: When I won the B last Fall, I was told by a ratings board member that they were frustrated seeing 7/9 players taking down the division. Previous to that, I went 2-n-out in the A, 2-n-out in the B, then barely into the money in the B. I was fully qualified by those standards. I asked if they wanted freshly-turned A players and strong Bs moved up, because what will happen is you'll have mid-range B players placing high enough to get moved up to A.

In Arizona I'm a "9" rated player. That makes me a "A" player in all the Desert Classic Tour events.
I have played in several BCAPL Nationals in the OPEN division and the best I've done so far is 49th. I'm hoping to do better this year, then I would be considered a Intermediate player.

OK, let's go back a couple years to when the Western Regional was held in Arizona. I was going to play in the Open division but I was told that I had to play in the Masters. WTF!! I was told by some of the guys that were helping to organise it, that I was rated too high in Arizona to qualify for the Open division. Oh man this got me going, when did local ratings have anything to do with a National or Regional event? I could understand if I had never played in a National event, but hell, I have played in the BCAPL Nationals since 2001 or 2002, can't remember. I should have been allowed to play in the Regional as an Open player. ..........ok done ranting.....

I do agree that sometimes the ratings can get messed up.....

 

[Banks]

In Arizona I'm a "9" rated player. That makes me a "A" player in all the Desert Classic Tour events.
I have played in several BCAPL Nationals in the OPEN division and the best I've done so far is 49th. I'm hoping to do better this year, then I would be considered a Intermediate player.

OK, let's go back a couple years to when the Western Regional was held in Arizona. I was going to play in the Open division but I was told that I had to play in the Masters. WTF!! I was told by some of the guys that were helping to organise it, that I was rated too high in Arizona to qualify for the Open division. Oh man this got me going, when did local ratings have anything to do with a National or Regional event? I could understand if I had never played in a National event, but hell, I have played in the BCAPL Nationals since 2001 or 2002, can't remember. I should have been allowed to play in the Regional as an Open player. ..........ok done ranting.....

I do agree that sometimes the ratings can get messed up.....

This isn't the first time I've made a thread similar to this. Nobody has really had a solid answer or reasoning for this. We've got Masters up here that qualify for the Open in Vegas, but we've also got one or two A players that made it to national Master status. Go figure. I've also had a couple of friends bumped up into the regional A group, known a few more that 'qualified' into it, but that I could beat for the $, a few even giving up a spot.

Maybe what I'm saying is that it's a bad idea to pervert the ratings because of a large amount of weaker players, because no matter what there are always going to be people cheating and laying down to get at the monies.

 

[Mark Griffin]

BCAPL ratings

First of all, the BCAPL does not have anything to do with the local or state ratings.

We do pay attention to them but they are not 'hard' enough.
Example: a master player in Minnesota is not equal to a masster player in Wyoming.


If a player has history in the nationals, then that is what we use.
If they don't have a history in the nationals, we determine from their 'internet information', and by calling league operators etc.

That is one reason why it seems to jump around a lot.

We have had several state masters play in the open for years and not do any good.
Would it be fair to bump them up when they aren't finishing very high?

We try to be as fair as possible.
Pool is not an exact sience - and we try to err on the side of caution.

I am not sure what rating system the Western BCA is doing - but I am sure there is some rational behind it.

Perhaps ask them. . . . .

Mark Griffin

 

[Banks]

First of all, the BCAPL does not have anything to do with the local or state ratings.

We do pay attention to them but they are not 'hard' enough.
Example: a master player in Minnesota is not equal to a masster player in Wyoming.


If a player has history in the nationals, then that is what we use.
If they don't have a history in the nationals, we determine from their 'internet information', and by calling league operators etc.

That is one reason why it seems to jump around a lot.

We have had several state masters play in the open for years and not do any good.
Would it be fair to bump them up when they aren't finishing very high?

We try to be as fair as possible.
Pool is not an exact sience - and we try to err on the side of caution.

I am not sure what rating system the Western BCA is doing - but I am sure there is some rational behind it.

Perhaps ask them. . . . .

Mark Griffin

I'm more in line with that train of thought. As I mentioned, I stayed in the B for 3 tournaments because I didn't do well. At the same time, I watched lesser and equal players get bumped into the A and they're still not doing that well. The question that you posed is pretty much the same one I asked during my discussion - is it any more fair to move people into brackets that they aren't prepared/qualified for? The top of the A division is more or less weak Master players, the top of the B division is more or less weak A players. To attempt to move those players up just makes it more lop-sided, because the ones that will now get bumped(for placing high) would've stayed right where they are otherwise. My friend isn't too thrilled with the idea of having to fill out forms for every single new player either, or maybe it's every player that hasn't participated at the regional.

I'll shoot them an e-mail later this week or tomorrow, since I'm about to head home. Other than trying to inflate the A division and increase participation in the B by making it more alluring to novices, I can't tell what their rationale may be. Just thought I might try to get some input to see what else is going on in other areas.

GM or bust, baby! :thumbup: