Best Handicapping System
- Thread starter Ghosst
- Start date
My mistake. You called playing a match you know you're going to lose a REWARD, and suggested that maybe that should be enough. How should I have read that?
I actually kind of agree with that. It goes back to the balance between simplicity and accuracy, and the need for subjectivity. But although absolute fairness is a pipe dream, I think it's reasonable to talk about relative fairness with respect to scenarios. I happen to think every handicapping system I've ever seen is more fair than no handicapping system when you're talking about players of disparate abilities.
And what's to keep the people with whom you weren't competing (the better players) from becoming complacent and caring less? You still aren't considering how a handicapping system might motivate the better players to stay sharp.
I have no respect for self-important people with feelings of entitlement, either. However, in my experience those attributes are most often displayed by better players (prima donnas?), not the ones who need the handicap just to have a chance.
Actually, there's a third option. Allow him to play, but handicap him. Make it so he has to earn his victories, but not so hard that the others can beat him without playing well. Allow him to not play because of it if he chooses. What's wrong with that? Everyone has to work hard to win, and nobody gets a handout.
The Equalizer formula used to be published in the team manual. Cheaters loved that. And trust me, the vast majority of players know exactly why their rating goes up. They have improved, and most are expecting it.
And that's bad why? Aren't the good matches more indicative of a player's ability? I prefer a system that attempts to measure ability over one that merely averages performance. As one who prefers the challenge of a tougher match, I'd think you would prefer that system, too. You've expended a lot of effort trying to convince everyone that the lesser players should prefer a tougher match and don't deserve a spot (actually, to use your word, handout), but somehow the system that forces players to play up to their abilities instead of merely playing average to win is corrupt. It's also tougher to cheat a system that gives less weight to matches where you underperform.
Any system that relies purely on measured data (even a simple win/loss system) to rate players suffers from two problems. First, not everyone fits a mathematical formula. Heres an example. Player A always drinks on league night, so much so that it severely affects his play and he nearly always loses. Come tournament time, he stays on the wagon and plays way over his handicap. Those wins may catch up to him, but by the time they do it's too late. He has already gone deep and knocked plenty of other players out. Do you tell everyone "too bad, so sad"? Why not have a way to correct the rating before the tournament?
Second, some people cheat. No getting around it, especially if you give them the formula to do so. It's pretty easy to fool a computer, just underperform intentionally. Me, I'd love to just kick the cheaters out. To do that, however, I need to know for certain that they're cheating. What if I only suspect it? Should I wait for the important matches (again, possibly waiting too long)?
In both of those cases, a handicap advisory committee can help.
I sure wish the handicap advisory committee function could always be open and transparent. Unfortunately, when committee members are physically threatened or attacked after raising a player's skill level, you decide that safety is more important and keep them anonymous, regardless of how ridiculous some people think it is.
I don't believe you're fully aware of just how much APA does to combat sandbagging. Rule changes, system changes, better software tools, improved review procedures, earlier DQ's at nationals, all in place to address cheaters. Just because they may not all be visible to you, it doesn't mean they don't happen. I mean, just take a look at my responses to your previous points about this "corrupt" system. Every one of them has an anti-sandbagging aspect to it.
Twenty years ago, sandbagging was a much bigger problem in the APA than it is now. We didn't have the tools or the procedures in place to deal with it. Now we're doing much better. Is there still room for improvement? Absolutely. There will always be cheaters - we know we'll never get them all. But we'll never stop trying.
If that tournament is the entire sample of matches, yes. And guess what? If you play SVB, you could very well glue him to his seat and win, right? You have a chance. But all that means is you both have to focus to win. The system, though it rates you and SVB the same for some short period of time, still accomplishes the goal. The lesser player has a chance, and the better player has to stay sharp.
Over time, however, that one streak of matches would fall off your "recent" record, and your best "recent" scores would then most likely be inferior to those of SVB. Your ratings would diverge over time, IF the rating system doesn't max out.
Forget fair, it's probably not even true. You're talking about regular season. Maybe your rating goes up, and justifiably so, but that's about it. If, however, you go into a higher level tournament and become that clutch performer you say you are, you may indeed risk disqualification. HOWEVER, in those events you are given the opportunity beforehand to raise your hand and say "Uh, I'm probably going to shoot significantly above my handicap." If you do that, your handicap goes up to where it should be and you mitigate the risk of disqualification.
Now, the $64,000 question. Should that tournament rating carry over into regular season play? I contend that it should. If you shoot nowhere near your true ability during weekly play, that's on you. That game is in you, and if it means enough to you, you will find a way to bring it out. If it doesn't, then you are complacent yourself. I don't want that complacency reflected in your rating.
Sounds like you were added to a qualified team after week four of Spring Session. A qualified team can only make changes after week four by giving up their qualification (another anti-sandbagging measure, by the way).
The LO should have double-checked to make sure the team knew they would have to give up their qualification to add you. But the fact that a team was even qualified used to be easy to miss on the screen where roster changes were made. It is unclear whether the LO even knew when he allowed it. In any case, I'm sure there's a lot more to the story than we're getting here, so I won't go any farther than that.
What I will say is that now the system pops up a warning whenever we try to add a player to a qualified team. It's impossible to miss now, so even if the team screws up by not knowing the rules, the LO should catch it every time.
When dealing with cheating, one has to decide whether they want to catch the criminal or prevent the crime. APA has some of both, and unfortunately no matter how you do it some innocent people are affected. You can't catch the criminal until he commits a crime, so there are innocent victims until the criminal is caught. You also can't prevent the crime (via rules, policies, software calculations, etc.) without affecting everyone to some degree. A good example of that is airport security. Wouldn't it be nice if only criminals had to go through the metal detectors?
It has been fun. Just remember that people are wired many different ways. Not everyone has the desire to challenge themselves, and not everyone finds satisfaction in a moral victory. For those people, maybe a handicap system has some appeal.
where can i buy the fargo hanicapping system?
I'm not sure how to do this but I would like to see a system like the BCA has (1-10) but in reverse. You get points for how many balls your opponent has left on the table and you try for the lowest score possible. This way, the best players who run out have a better handicap than the players who just barely squeak out a win. Something like that.
Andy
Andy
I don't know if he has a package to sell, but contact Mike Page at Fargo Billiards in Fargo.
I've tried but can't get in touch with him. Anyone have a copy of fargo?
Give me your information, I will give it to Mike tonight at league. Send me a pm