Best Handicapping System

[APA Operator]

I think we would all agree Mr. Jewett is not only one of the most educated folks we have around here but he is also one of the most intelligent. If he leans heavy to the simple then there just might be something to it.

Collecting statistics and handicapping is drop dead simple...until you insert the human factor. Almost everyone wants an edge. If they can manipulate a system and keep their morals/ethics intact then they will most certainly do so. This means that every system which requires a player to tell the system anything more than games won is going to get worked over.

I have an idea how to make a system work but I have a lot of work to do on it before saying anything about it. Hopefully, I can share it in the near future, but for now it is a work in progress.

Ken

Yes, Bob is very well educated and very intelligent. But he's not the only intelligent or educated person here. There are plenty of intelligent and educated folks in this forum, and on this topic none of them are wrong, because there's no absolute right or wrong. In the end, you choose a system that you believe best fits your purpose. Personally, I prefer a system that is as complicated as the participants are willing to tolerate, as long as that complication improves accuracy. I'm willing to do the extra work to try to deal with manipulation.

You are correct in that the human element complicates things. Would you be in favor of or opposed to a system where the human element is considered in the rating? That most likely means more subjectivity.

When you are ready to disclose your system please post it here. These things fascinate me.

 

[Okie]

Yes, Bob is very well educated and very intelligent. But he's not the only intelligent or educated person here. There are plenty of intelligent and educated folks in this forum, and on this topic none of them are wrong, because there's no absolute right or wrong. In the end, you choose a system that you believe best fits your purpose. Personally, I prefer a system that is as complicated as the participants are willing to tolerate, as long as that complication improves accuracy. I'm willing to do the extra work to try to deal with manipulation.

You are correct in that the human element complicates things. Would you be in favor of or opposed to a system where the human element is considered in the rating? That most likely means more subjectivity.

When you are ready to disclose your system please post it here. These things fascinate me.

My apologies. I did not mean to imply that everyone else was not worthy compared to Mr. Jewett. I meant that he has a knack for being correct.

I would be in favor of a system which makes allowances for the human factor. I also think it can be done objectively instead of subjectively. If my system won't work without inserting the subjectivity of the administrators then I won't even bother with it. We have plenty of systems which require a person to tell it when someone is hustling the system.

I enjoy these things as well!

Ken

 

[APA Operator]

Maybe you have a solution to the following problem then. The room owner wants to run a 14.1 league. There are about 15 regular players with a very wide range of abilities. A fair match between the two players at the extremes is about 120-20. How can the room owner arrange a league that is not handicapped in such a situation?

We did nearly that same thing at my university one year.

Worked out fine. No spots were given, two people (not even the worst two) gave up around the halfway mark.

There is nothing wrong with competing at something you know you cannot win. Some may say that it is nobler to compete against long odds than when favored.

I want to play the competitors, not the ones waiting for a handout, a leg up, those who need to hobble others to feel good about themselves.

I want to play against those who strive.

dld

That's exactly how you do it. You remove having a chance to win from the definition of "fair". And if there's nothing at stake for winning, that definition would suffice. EXCEPT that if there's nothing at stake for winning, there's no incentive to win, and if there's no incentive to win, there's no incentive to try (strive).

You say you want to play against those who strive? I think you're only looking at it from one side. I don't think that 120 player in Bob's example would have to strive much to beat the 20 player straight up. Are you suggesting that he has "earned" the handout he is about to receive for playing a much inferior player? To me, it's still a handout if you don't have to try, whether you think you've earned it or not.

Instead, why not use a system that requires at least SOME effort to win, even from those who are so good they look down their noses at those who merely want a CHANCE, IF they play well?

 

[Ghosst]

Haha, are you talking about this?

It wasn't that specifically, but it's a good example.

As far as no-handicap that idea doesn't work for me. Simple reason, leagues are supposed to encourage new players to join. What fun is it to get beat up every night? I don't like knowing I have to win 10-0 to beat someone because to me they are getting an unfair advantage, but at the same time, I'll just do my best to step up my game.

I think we're stuck with handicapping, but finding the best solution, in the minds of the players on here is an interesting step.

 

[Pidge]

Could anyone send me some links to handicapping methods?

I hear talk on here all the time about A players, 7 players and I'm oblivious as to what these mean or what league rules they apply to.

Cheers.

 

[Banks]

I also already gave an example how you can play without handicaps and have it 'fair' (one of the most damaging words in the english language, btw). You can rank people and play different groups of skill level. When I quit playing foosball a couple of years ago we did this.

That is what 'competing' should be. I think that our society has loved the whiner too long. I'll take a sound beating on a level playing field over a win on a tilted court every time.

There's nothing wrong with 'fair'. Heck, even animals have a sense of fairness and compassion. Yes, you can rank people and play different groups of skill level, if you have enough people to do so. That's still handicapping. Handicaps have nothing to do with 'whining'. It has to do with the simple fact that if there weren't handicaps, there would be a lot less people taking part in some pool events.

You can take that beating all day long. Most people won't give two turds about the game if they know they have to play an A-type player.

Last I saw, there were loads of APA divisions in my area. There are some BCA divisions, too. APA heavily outweighs them. Seems like it's working pretty good.

Heck, I still think it's dumb as all getout that so many people cry about handicaps, but then 'make games' involving spots, weight, whatever you want to call it. Not sure that those people ever really had much human interaction outside of pool. In anything, you'd be a fool to think that people will line up to compete against you at a cost to them, when you're already years ahead.

 

[Ghosst]

I hear talk on here all the time about A players, 7 players and I'm oblivious as to what these mean or what league rules they apply to.

SL7 or 7 for short is an APA handicap. I think it goes from 2-7 in 8-Ball and 2-9 in 9-Ball.

In VNEA they use A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2 for league divisions and within those you can be a 1 - 10.

I've no idea about BCAPL, USAPL, or TAP.

 

[Banks]

SL7 or 7 for short is an APA handicap. I think it goes from 2-7 in 8-Ball and 2-9 in 9-Ball.

In VNEA they use A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2 for league divisions and within those you can be a 1 - 10.

I've no idea about BCAPL, USAPL, or TAP.

I've seen two different ways for BCA, going up to 13(or was it 12?) and going to 10. I don't think there's much difference between the two. Even then, you could be a 10 on the 10-rating system and still be considered a B or whatnot. As long as you've got tournament history, that's what will be used to set your tournament rating. I've seen lower APA players get bumped to A from a good BCA session without having played a tournament.

Up to an A, I'd say APA has a better handicapping method, one that more accurately makes a game that either should win if they play well, with the higher rating usually having a slight natural advantage. Past the APA ratings, players should know enough to make the games that they think work.

I've only played APA and BCA, with a small helping of in-house and subbing on a city league.

 

[APA Operator]

First, I gave a real world example of this working. There was a prize of $500 for first and $300 for second in the 16 player straight pool league we had. I didn't win and didn't come close to winning.

You gave an example, yes, but you didn't really establish that it worked. You said two people quit in the middle, how many didn't sign up to play again?

Second, I win some tourneys, nothing big, but I am a threat at any of the weekly tourneys I have played. The only reason is because I have devoted enough time to reach the level I play at. It definitely isn't a handout even when I win easily (like my last 9-ball tourney where I didn't lose a game).

Winning easily and knowing there's no chance you can lose are two different things. It's called "robbing" a tournament for a reason. Those who rob are there for a handout.

Finally, maybe you are underestimating the reward for the lesser players. If someone signs up for a league or a tourney, he usually knows if he has a realistic chance at winning. The long and short of it is that not too many people in ANY competition have a realistic shot at winning. Maybe someone gets gratification by measuring himself against people he knows are better than him. Maybe that is worth the price of admission.

Maybe it is, to some people. But can't those people also measure themselves against better players in a handicap environment? Even with a handicap system, there's still a gross score in the match.

I also already gave an example how you can play without handicaps and have it 'fair' (one of the most damaging words in the english language, btw). You can rank people and play different groups of skill level. When I quit playing foosball a couple of years ago we did this. We would have what we called 'super-singles' and everybody would be allowed to either play in their division or a higher division. I was in the middle division and after the second tourney, I would only play in the highest division--I got more out of it.

You can rank people and play different groups of skill level. But what if you only had enough people for one group? I think that's what Bob was asking. Your answer amounted to "The players who have no chance of winning should be grateful that they get to play the better players. They should take their beating and like it."

That is what 'competing' should be. I think that our society has loved the whiner too long. I'll take a sound beating on a level playing field over a win on a tilted court every time.

dld

Doesn't that really depend on which direction you're going on that tilted court? I mean, if you're the one playing uphill and you win anyway, haven't you accomplished something?

Playing a match where you already know who will win isn't 'competing'. It's "going through the motions". Neither player has a reason to play hard, and you're deluding yourself if you get satisfaction out of almost beating someone who wasn't trying.

 

[Ratta]

Maybe you have a solution to the following problem then. The room owner wants to run a 14.1 league. There are about 15 regular players with a very wide range of abilities. A fair match between the two players at the extremes is about 120-20. How can the room owner arrange a league that is not handicapped in such a situation?

Hi Bob,

my posting was for sure not meant as an offense towards the handicap system itself. I got your point about the roomowner. (and understood how hard it is to run a tournament, and KEEP the players playing).

Perphaps i m having a wrong point of view. I have the opinion, that you re learning the most while *sitting in the chair* in straight-pool. And that the wrong attitude is keeping the most players away from getting better. I just think that playing *equal and less skilled players* don t force the player. That he will never get better.

So i agree with you, that my posting has less to do with the *tournament system* itself.

wasn t meant to negativley and also not to hijack the thread,

lg
Ingo

 

[CreeDo]

I don't mind handicapping. There's no doubt in my mind it's a good thing.
I have a lame analogy -

You give your kid a violin and he sounds just completely wretched, you may tell him "Wow! You're so good! Keep practicing, you may become a master player someday!"

Or maybe he does have a hair of talent, and he merely sounds semi-wretched.
It doesn't matter, talent is optional.

He may even know you're just being nice. But part of him feels proud anyway, it's just human nature... we like the encouragement and we want to believe that someone sees a gift we have, something others may have missed.

Not everyone is born with a love of pool, or any talent for it. But handicapped leagues provide players with an opportunity to become infected with it. The support of a team and the fuzzy feeling a player gets from winning (even with a huge spot) makes pool enjoyable, and keeps players coming back every week. Once pool is fun, it's easy to play for hours and get good at it. Simply playing every week will put an APA2 above a lot of his friends who only hit balls at the bar. With them, that 2 has a reputation for being good at pool, and can even walk with a little swagger.

If you tell that APA2 "sorry, you're just not good enough to enter this league", only one in a thousand will be driven to play harder and get better, because they already love pool and their love of pool is stronger than their feeling of inferiority. But the rest of them will just find something else to do with their monday nights. The violin goes in a case and sits under the bed for years, and is written off as something they once dabbled in briefly.

 

[Bob Jewett]

There are several other ways to establish national ratings for leagues with isolated groups. For the NPL, there is a skill test that gives rough starting ratings. You could use equal offense or Fargo or Hopkins' Q-Skill as an entry test as well.

Mike Page has shown how to take any existing match scores and figure out the relative ratings of the players involved. That means that any tournament results could be used to figure out the relative strengths of the players even though the tournaments are not handicapped. If you have match scores from any source, dump them into Mike's program and out come ratings. Of course if a player has only one match listed his rating won't be very accurate.

For a nationwide system one way to establish uniform ratings across the country would be to offer a "Top Ten" national tournament. It would be open to the top 10% of players from each regional/local system. Play would be scratch and the financials would have to be attractive to get players from each region. Based on the performances in this tournament you could figure out the local "errors" in ratings and make regional adjustments.

The chess people seem to have no major problem getting uniform ratings in spite of the fact that there is very little interplay at the bottom of the ratings.

 

[Bob Jewett]

.... I just think that playing *equal and less skilled players* don t force the player. That he will never get better. ...

If I'm playing a beginner, and I have to get to 120 before he gets to 20 (the last handicapped match I played) I think I am forced to play well. Certainly there is a lot more pressure on me than if we are both going to 100. With the handicap I have to play above my average even against a beginner if I want to win. And with a fair handicap, I have to continue to improve if I want to win more than 50% of my matches.

 

[Okie]

If I'm playing a beginner, and I have to get to 120 before he gets to 20 (the last handicapped match I played) I think I am forced to play well. Certainly there is a lot more pressure on me than if we are both going to 100. With the handicap I have to play above my average even against a beginner if I want to win. And with a fair handicap, I have to continue to improve if I want to win more than 50% of my matches.

That reminds me...

Why would a handicap system allow anyone to win 70% of their matches before adjusting? That doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Ghosst]

I've long been a proponent of a standardized rating system, that not only includes amateurs and leagues, but pros as well. It stacks you against everyone, everywhere, and players could have both 7' and 9' ratings.

I've always liked the idea of Mike Page's Fargo for this and combined with something like a PAT1 score administered by any registered instructor. Setting up the system would be fairly easy, getting leagues to incorporate it might be harder. The accustats ratings would work too, but how many average players understand those stats, and how many games would have to play to get a fair rating.

 

[CreeDo]

That reminds me...

Why would a handicap system allow anyone to win 70% of their matches before adjusting? That doesn't make sense to me.

Think of it this way... if a handicapping system somehow is perfect and averages 50% win rate when you look at millions of players doing millions of matches... there will still be some 'fudge room' where luck or a small number of games plays a part. Some lucky guy will get 70% and someone will be 30% through no fault of his own.

If you play just ten matches with fair handicaps and it's truly 50/50 odds, there's about a 12% chance someone will win 7 out of 10. So ~12% of the players would be getting screwed if they went up a rank because of that win rate.

With more games it's less of a problem, only about 4% odds for 20 games.

Once you hit 100 games, almost nobody would get 70% through luck alone.

 

[Okie]

Think of it this way... if a handicapping system somehow is perfect and averages 50% win rate when you look at millions of players doing millions of matches... there will still be some 'fudge room' where luck or a small number of games plays a part. Some lucky guy will get 70% and someone will be 30% through no fault of his own.

If you play just ten matches with fair handicaps and it's truly 50/50 odds, there's about a 12% chance someone will win 7 out of 10. So ~12% of the players would be getting screwed if they went up a rank because of that win rate.

With more games it's less of a problem, only about 4% odds for 20 games.

Once you hit 100 games, almost nobody would get 70% through luck alone.

I understand probability. I just don't understand why someone would think a handicap system would allow someone to win 70% of the time.

Almost no one ever plays for cash unless they perceive they have an advantage. But we are talking about building a good rating system. And good system has to be able to balance the game.

All this nonsense about not motivating the player is hogwash. If I am in a 50-50 proposition against another player, I know if I play poorly I am beat. I must bring it or lose. When I win...my rating goes up and now I have to work that much harder to beat the same player.

Ken

 

[duckie]

I have come to use handicap tourneys as a way to see how well by past practice has been in helping me improve and to see what weakness I need to work on.

I do not these short race handicap tourneys as a true measure of my skill. To truely measure my skill, I try to find better players to play heads up, but this is a real challenge to find enough that want to do this, hence the random local handicap tourney play I do.

And even fewer that will even play 14.1.

I always felt bad about getting a spots. I'd rather play heads up. Just no one does that anymore in local tourneys. This needs to be the next level. One places at a certain level x amount of times, time to move up to open level. Problem is none here does this.

And if these were open 8 ball and 14.1, I'd be playing in everyone unlike playing randomly in the local handicap tourneys as I do now. I've taken time off to improve, play in a few tourneys, have my skill level move up, even during that nights tourney.

What stops me from going more is having to give up games to people that put in no effort to improve their games in order to win.

Don't get me wrong, handicapping tourneys do fill a need in pool. I consider them to be a stepping stone for people to experience pool on different levels. By point is there are a few stepping stones missing on the path to the pro level.

There is a need for a or rather maybe more local open level, a level between the handicap player and the pro player.

Playing heads up over time is the best handicapping you can put yourself into.

 

[CreeDo]

I understand probability. I just don't understand why someone would think a handicap system would allow someone to win 70% of the time.

I misunderstood... you're saying, why would it intentionally be built so that the better player wins 70% of the time?

Honestly the answer is probably just to avoid turning off the good players. If a guy is used to winning 9 out of 10 games against anyone in the room, and he then loses to a weak player in league a few weeks in a row, he's gonna get irritated. You need a pretty good attitude to handle losing gracefully against someone who can't make a ball.

When I was first playing APA years ago, I was playing a 2, and they had to win 2 games of 8 ball. In one game I bumped the 8 early, in other they just plain won even though it's not supposed to happen. Oh, how I cried that day... "this is BS, they're reducing the game to a 50/50 coin flip! blah blah wah wah!"

But later I came to realize it's for the good of the league, you can't just cater to one group of players or the other.

Maybe the reasoning is... if you balance the handicap towards 50/50, you are consistenly favoring the beginners and shafting the strong players, and it's unfair to scale handicaps so that one group gets more help than the other.

 

[OUSooner]

In my experience, regardless of the system they simply don't go high or low enough. Most systems top out at about a good B player like the APA, TAP or USAPL. Players that speed will hit the maximum handicap and not really stand a chance against a true A player. And even the A,B,C system doesn't even take pros into account. As most pros can spot most A players just about whatever they please.

There are two reasons I don't think handicap leagues are accurate. One, I just don't think you can put a system into place that can accurately handicap players ranging from an SL1 or 2 that is struggling to make every ball to a shortstop or regional pro that can put together multiple racks and potentially run out a set.

The other factor is you can't accurately handicap amateur players. Most of them work all day leading up to league, drink at league, may or may not have personal issues going on, some practice, some never practice. They just aren't consistent enough to provide a reliable handicap.

How do you handicap a guy that has A or B player potential but never practices so he's rated a C player. Versus a guy that is an average C player that practices frequently just to hold that ranking?
Most are just for fun anyway but people get awfully serious about that stuff.



Sent from my BlackBerry 9650 using Tapatalk