Bias with Your Own Team's Playing Order? (long)

[jaywheel]

Seeing how you reply and argue and try to prove your point with everyone for over 5 pages in this thread (you being right or wrong I don't really care), I can see why your captain would want to avoid justifiying any decision he makes to you. Lying to a teammate is not cool, but I honestly think that your oppononent would still be waiting for that game to start beacause you'd still be arguing and questionning him if he had try to reason with you.

 

[Get_A_Grip]

Seeing how you reply and argue and try to prove your point with everyone for over 5 pages in this thread (you being right or wrong I don't really care), I can see why your captain would want to avoid justifiying any decision he makes to you. Lying to a teammate is not cool, but I honestly think that your oppononent would still be waiting for that game to start beacause you'd still be arguing and questionning him if he had try to reason with you.

Isn't that the whole point of a thread? To discuss different opinions and to try to support your own opinion? Of course I'm correct about this. I've analyzed it every possible way. I'm obviously a stubborn person. There are many different leagues with slightly different setups and rules. In this case, when a player MUST play the person that their average lines up to all 3 games, the only way bias can possibly be injected into the situation is in the case of a tie between two players on the same team. And my team found a way to F up that one situation by overruling a fair coin flip. IMO there is no other way to look at this. Oh, many have tried in this thread, so either they haven't analyzed the situation properly, or they are just plain wrong. It is what it is.

 

[Get_A_Grip]

Well ya, the league kinda set up itself for this kind of teammate dissension. Props to them for providing something over and above the norm. Shame they also didn't put some extra effort into creating a tie break system. Frankly, the notion of a coin flip deciding anything you battle for througout the season for is half assed at best.

I don't at all. Barring a real set of tie break set of rules, if two players share the same average then it definitively boils down to the captain's opinion on who is the best match up. I can think of countless situations wherein a strong player has more difficulty with someone of lesser skill then someone of equal abilities.

I think what some people aren't analyzing correctly is the whole idea that changing which teammate plays which opponent is better for the TEAM or not. In the situation in this thread, I think that I've demonstrated with the real-world data of past and current match-ups, that changing who played who wouldn't benefit the TEAM at all (it would be a wash), but it would only benefit the INDIVIDUAL who got to play the weaker of the two players. On average, the player who played the stronger player would get less wins and the player who played the weaker player would get more wins, but the total wins for the TEAM would be a wash on average.

I believe that the vast majority of players THINK that the captain has some kind of magical powers to help the team out by altering the playing order, but after I analyzed this situation, I determined that that is more of a fallacy than anything else. In fact, my captain after the match was thinking that his decision worked out great, that I contained their stronger player and he only got 1 win. Except of course that after I broke it all down for him and proved that as far as the TEAM is concerned, to benefit the TEAM, only the total wins that my teammate and I got as a whole matters. The idea that the captain should try to "contain" one player on the other team turns out to not help the TEAM at all. I bet most people didn't know that. I certainly didn't until I analyzed it.

I'm pretty sure that using the Fargo Rating system that someone could find a way to crunch the numbers to show that no matter what the playing order, if everyone on the team plays their best, that which opponent they all played won't matter in the overall number of total wins that the team obtains.

The ONLY case that I could think of where me volunteering to play the stronger of their two players would actually benefit the TEAM, would be if I was an enormous favorite to beat either of their two players all 3 games and my teammate was not. In that case and that case only, of course I should pick the stronger player to play. Otherwise, you are just shifting the number of individual wins between teammates, giving one teammate extra individual wins and one teammate less individual wins.

Yeah, I like to analyze things in great detail. That is what my brain does. And if I can help others recognize some fallacies that they've always had so maybe they do things different in their own leagues, then I consider this thread a success.

 

[JC]

.

Yeah, I like to analyze things in great detail. That is what my brain does. And if I can help others recognize some fallacies that they've always had so maybe they do things different in their own leagues, then I consider this thread a success.

Are you also one of those slow players who people get pissed off at while playing against? Just a guess.

 

[Get_A_Grip]

Are you also one of those slow players who people get pissed off at while playing against? Just a guess.

You guys are funny. No, I'm not a slow player AT ALL. Your goal should be to analyze the scenario and the rules of this thread and to try to determine the best way to handle things in your own future in the most fair way, not to focus on me, my personality, or how I play my own games. Geez.

I realize that it's human nature to attack the messenger though. I can take it.

 

[Get_A_Grip]

One other thing just occurred to me when thinking about how some posters are focusing on me personally, that could be useful for team captains to consider.

I had a boss once that explained how he put his staff together. I had viewed his staff as a chaotic group of individuals that were all over the map in terms of their skill levels and personalities. But he explained to me that he won't be treating all of us exactly the same. That he chose everyone on his staff for specific but different reasons. Some of us he would assign certain tasks that we were better suited to accomplish and others he might never assign that task. And vice versa.

My boss would also be more careful with what he said in front of certain staff members, because he knew their personalities and how their brains worked, and he recognized the differences between people.

A successful leader (or captain) should understand his players personalities so that he can handle some players differently than others. If someone is a stickler for fairness, do a coin flip. If other players are just there to party and have fun, they can put them in a certain place in the order that they don't mind, instead of the others.

I personally hate managing other people, so I never did that in my career. But anyone that takes the role of the captain should be mindful of the different personalities on their team if they want everything to run smoothly. And as I said before, my experience has been that top shooters are wired differently than most. They can be very finicky and difficult to deal with at times. In fact, I can almost guarantee that teams that are in the middle of the pack in the standings or lower, have more fun with less drama. That has been my experience when playing on run of the mill teams versus playing on top teams.

Oh, and if you think that I'm a pain in the butt. On one top team I was on, I was one with the least amount of drama. It was the top player that had problems with everything and everybody until he finally quit in the middle of the season and another player at the same level as me that literally quit off and on 4 or 5 times throughout the season.

IMO the most important thing a captain can do is to listen to their players and to be flexible. If a player requests something or has a problem with something that in the big picture won't impact anything too much, try to accommodate them. If you have two players that disagree about who they will play, flip a damn coin and make everyone happy by being fair about it. Because chances are, either person playing one opponent versus the other will NOT benefit the team one bit.

 

[The_JV]

A successful leader (or captain) should understand his players personalities so that he can handle some players differently than others. If someone is a stickler for fairness, do a coin flip. If other players are just there to party and have fun, they can put them in a certain place in the order that they don't mind, instead of the others.

A competitive team should be like a military squad. Captain gives orders, everyone else shuts their holes and do what they're told.

I don't agree with you, never will, and I'd be very surprised if that mattered to you. The reality is, the captain made a decision, and you're butt hurt. Plain and simple.

You have kept saying that you are the strongest player on the team. So are you, or aren't you...? If you are, then you should have played the top opponent. The captain knew this and made the right call regardless of your coin flip excuse. If you're not, then stop saying that you are, admit the other guy on your team is the better shot, and I think everyone here would agree that you got screwed.

Averages be damned... One of you is the better player.

 

[Get_A_Grip]

A competitive team should be like a military squad. Captain gives orders, everyone else shuts their holes and do what they're told.

I don't agree with you, never will, and I'd be very surprised if that mattered to you. The reality is, the captain made a decision, and you're butt hurt. Plain and simple.

You have kept saying that you are the strongest player on the team. So are you, or aren't you...? If you are, then you should have played the top opponent. The captain knew this and made the right call regardless of your coin flip excuse. If you're not, then stop saying that you are, admit the other guy on your team is the better shot, and I think everyone here would agree that you got screwed.

Averages be damned... One of you is the better player.

If a captain of a team acts like a dictator I'm pretty sure that team won't last. I view all of the people on the team as equals. If a captain never asks for input, or explains why he made certain decisions, all I see are problems for that team.

If two players are tied and neither volunteers to play the stronger opponent, you must flip a coin, or you will always have situations like these arise. Especially if you flipped a coin in the past with the same person to break the tie.

I'm quite sure that doing it your way will 100% cause more hard feelings and problems in the long run than doing it my way. That's all I can tell you.


_______

 

[Get_A_Grip]

Something actually happened last night in the other league that I play in that actually highlights how the playing order can affect where someone ends up in the league standings and to support that it's not necessarily better for the team if the best player on our team plays the best player on the other team.

In this league, we don't play the same person all 3 games. The home team and the away team both fill out their playing order independently, and then they share their sheets to complete the full order. The Away Team then rotates down one line for each player after the first round so everyone plays 3 different people.

So before our captain completed our sheet, he told me that when he went up to get a drink, that he got some "intel" about the other teams playing order. He found out that the top player on their team (who is currently the top player in the league) was set to play first.

Well, for fairness to our OWN team players, I insist that the top average on our team plays the last game of the night, the second highest average plays the second last game of the night, etc. Because MOST teams want their top player to play the last game of the night in case the teams are tied 7-7. You want your best player to have a crack at running out and winning, where the other team's player doesn't even get to shoot.

In this case, the top player in the league on the other team is really only the third best shooter in the league by skill level (my captain and I assessed and agreed to that based on what we know about all of the players). However, because he chooses to play first every week, he gets to play most of the other players weakest players. To me, that is an issue for fairness among their OWN TEAM players. I really don't care. All we can do is arrange our order so it's fair for everyone on our team.

Now, because our captain saw their top player playing first, he asked if we should change our order and have me play first. Well, guess what the answer was? Absolutely not. I ended up winning all 3 of my games with 1 table run. The first game our weakest player actually beat their top player anyways. The match did actually go down to the very last game of the night. We were tied at 7-7 and I had to play their weakest player and I beat him and we won the match 8-7.

So what was better? For me to play their best player because I am our team's best player? Nope. As far as the team goes, it was a wash, but as an individual, I got 4 points for the night (3 wins, and 1 table run). This is another real-world example to show that the best players on each team do NOT need to play each other to benefit the TEAM. In fact, I would argue that it was best for our team that I played the last game of the night. Period. No matter who I was playing.

 

[JC]

Something actually happened last night in the other league that I play in that actually highlights how the playing order can affect where someone ends up in the league standings and to support that it's not necessarily better for the team if the best player on our team plays the best player on the other team.

In this league, we don't play the same person all 3 games. The home team and the away team both fill out their playing order independently, and then they share their sheets to complete the full order. The Away Team then rotates down one line for each player after the first round so everyone plays 3 different people.

So before our captain completed our sheet, he told me that when he went up to get a drink, that he got some "intel" about the other teams playing order. He found out that the top player on their team (who is currently the top player in the league) was set to play first.

Well, for fairness to our OWN team players, I insist that the top average on our team plays the last game of the night, the second highest average plays the second last game of the night, etc. Because MOST teams want their top player to play the last game of the night in case the teams are tied 7-7. You want your best player to have a crack at running out and winning, where the other team's player doesn't even get to shoot.

In this case, the top player in the league on the other team is really only the third best shooter in the league by skill level (my captain and I assessed and agreed to that based on what we know about all of the players). However, because he chooses to play first every week, he gets to play most of the other players weakest players. To me, that is an issue for fairness among their OWN TEAM players. I really don't care. All we can do is arrange our order so it's fair for everyone on our team.

Now, because our captain saw their top player playing first, he asked if we should change our order and have me play first. Well, guess what the answer was? Absolutely not. I ended up winning all 3 of my games with 1 table run. The first game our weakest player actually beat their top player anyways. The match did actually go down to the very last game of the night. We were tied at 7-7 and I had to play their weakest player and I beat him and we won the match 8-7.

So what was better? For me to play their best player because I am our team's best player? Nope. As far as the team goes, it was a wash, but as an individual, I got 4 points for the night (3 wins, and 1 table run). This is another real-world example to show that the best players on each team do NOT need to play each other to benefit the TEAM. In fact, I would argue that it was best for our team that I played the last game of the night. Period. No matter who I was playing.

Not sure what kind of leagues you are playing in but they sound silly. Like they are designed with having drama in mind.

In our BCA league each team has 5 players and there is a round robin where each player plays every other player. Once in 8 ball and twice in rotation games.

When the smoke clears you will have played every good and not as good player in the league equally as will everyone else unless of course they are on your own team.

 

[Get_A_Grip]

Not sure what kind of leagues you are playing in but they sound silly. Like they are designed with having drama in mind.

In our BCA league each team has 5 players and there is a round robin where each player plays every other player. Once in 8 ball and twice in rotation games.

When the smoke clears you will have played every good and not as good player in the league equally as will everyone else unless of course they are on your own team.

Oh yeah, I TOTALLY prefer the way that your league does it. We do have a different league in town on the same night where it's a 4-man team and you play all 4 people on the other team each night. I have already made plans to move over to that league next year. Playing every player on the other team each night means that the people at the top of the standings at the end of the league, really are the top shooters for that league. No bias or funny business.

 

[JC]

Oh yeah, I TOTALLY prefer the way that your league does it. We do have a different league in town on the same night where it's a 4-man team and you play all 4 people on the other team each night. I have already made plans to move over to that league next year. Playing every player on the other team each night means that the people at the top of the standings at the end of the league, really are the top shooters for that league. No bias or funny business.

And the player finish order generally roughly follows the fargo ratings as well in this format. Lending even more credibility to Fargo IMO

 

[Get_A_Grip]

And the player finish order generally roughly follows the fargo ratings as well in this format. Lending even more credibility to Fargo IMO

I totally believe that too. Fargo Rate is awesome. I play with some guys that are in total denial about their own playing ability, and some of them have Fargo Ratings. Of course, they are over-estimating how good they are in discussions and they NEVER talk about their Fargo Rating in these discussions.

 

[David in FL]

My teammate doesn't have a Fargo Rating. I feel that I'm more highly skilled than him.

What the heck does having a Fargo rating have to do with anything?

I’m curious, will you opt to play on this team next session?

Equally, do you think they will invite you back?

Why not start your own team that you can captain and run “by committee“?

 

[The_JV]

I'm quite sure that doing it your way will 100% cause more hard feelings and problems in the long run than doing it my way. That's all I can tell you.

I'm 100% certain it would never be an issue in the league I play in. Everytime our captain makes a decision that may potentially cause friction on a team like yours. We never question him, and when he volunteers an explanation we'll tell him it doesn't matter and buy him a drink...lol

On top of that, everyone on my teams would be crawling over each other to get a shot at the top opponent.

 

[skip100]

This kind of gamesmanship is one of the dumbest parts of APA and other leagues with a similar setup, where captains choose the order game by game. Throwing a 2 against the other team's 7, as if either person will enjoy that, or anyone will enjoy watching it. Bush league.

At any rate, we're told that handicaps will sort all of this out - right?

 

[Get_A_Grip]

What the heck does having a Fargo rating have to do with anything?

I’m curious, will you opt to play on this team next session?

Equally, do you think they will invite you back?

Why not start your own team that you can captain and run “by committee“?

I already quit the team after the captain lied. I won't ever play with them again. I let the team split my part of the winnings and the teammate and captain that overruled the coin flip now took the spots of second and third place in the league, since I stopped playing.

I play on another team on another night. This team we do the playing order in a fair way, like I've described in this thread. In fact, I just chatted with the captain of that team today, and he said that he thinks we do the playing order in the most fair way for everyone on our team.

Fargo Rating tells you in an objective manner, what your true skill level is. As a different poster just mentioned in this thread, when you play every player on the other team every night, the standings at the end of the year match everyone's Fargo Rating. The highest rated players (by Fargo) are above the lower rated players in the final standings. Do you not understand why this would be?

 

[Get_A_Grip]

This kind of gamesmanship is one of the dumbest parts of APA and other leagues with a similar setup. Throwing a 2 against the other team's 7, as if either person will enjoy that, or anyone will enjoy watching it. Bush league.

At any rate, we're told that handicaps will sort all of this out - right?

Except, that's not at all what the league that was the subject of the thread does. The highest average on each team must play each other, the second highest averages play each other, etc. Only when 2 teammates have the same average does a coin flip or decision need to be made as to who plays the other team's better player.

I gave an example in a post to make a point about the other league that I play in, where you have no absolute idea who on the other team you will play. Each team fills out their playing order and then they do a "reveal" and they share each other's sheets and that's when someone knows who they will play. I agree. I hate doing it that way. I prefer that each player on our team will have to play 1 game against every player on the other team.

 

[skip100]

Except, that's not at all what the league that was the subject of the thread does. The highest average on each team must play each other.

I gave an example in a post to make a point about the other league that I play in, where you have no absolute idea who on the other team you will play. Each team fills out their playing order and then they do a "reveal" and they share each other's sheets and that's when someone knows who they will play. I agree. I hate doing it that way. I prefer that each player on our team will have to play 1 game against every player on the other team.

Got it, makes sense. Sorry.

Choosing who gets to play the last game can indeed be important and I haven't encountered many intra-team problems over choosing the anchor. Captain's prerogative

 

[Get_A_Grip]

Got it, makes sense. Sorry.

Choosing who gets to play the last game can indeed be important and I haven't encountered many intra-team problems over choosing the anchor. Captain's prerogative

Yeah, normally it's the captain's prerogative. But on our other team, I convinced and proved to the captain, who is also a strong player, that having the highest average play last, the second highest average play second last, etc., is the most fair way for all of the best players on our team.

If I played first every week, the other players on our team would have ZERO chance to ever be higher than me in the standings.