Congrats to the APA finalists...

[RobertR]

Jeff is an amazing player! He earned his win. However, I do know some players who said that they will not bother trying to qualify if Jeff or another shooter of his calibur is already going to be playing in the regionals. They feel as if they have already lost with Jeff in the mix. Every given player can be beaten on any given day. However, that doesn't mean that it will happen. It seems as if there are not many of those "given days" for Jeff.
One again, congrats to all who made it to Vegas in the first place.

Yeah, it's a vicious circle. I've been working for years to get to the level where I can compete with Jeff or Stan T at the BCA or VNEA. Now here comes Jesse Bowman and Shane VB. I don't know why I bother.

But seriously, those players you refer to that won't compete if Jeff is going to play are holding themselves back. The APA system breeds this kind of thinking IMHO, and the sooner they open their eyes to the next level, the sooner they will be sucessful.

 

[cuetechasaurus]

Gotta also do a shoutout to my friend Jon Bourgault from Cali, who placed 17th in the 8-Ball Classic purple tier! I guess all those recent lessons with Tang helped after all!

Jon is a real cool guy, glad to hear he made it that far.

 

[Da Poet]

Sheesh did this get long!

I said earlier that I had mixed feelings about it, so this is the other side of things from what I commented on earlier.

Okay, I appreciate the nice things that folks here have said about making it to the APA National Singles, but for a primarily social type team oriented APA'er like myself, upon reflection, it was a huge waste of time.

I was informed that I was bumped up to a six for the first time in my life and will be in the 6-7 bracket three days after booking my flight and four weeks before the National tournament. I was told I had $200 to spend on the ticket, but the best I could do was $280 non-refundable. I had no break and runs in the Regional and all but one match went hill hill. Maybe 15-16 innings in the lowest and maybe 29 in the highest. I was 50% as a five before the Regional.

We have a six on our team who has always been far better than me and I effectively eliminated any chance for myself to contribute in the upcoming playoffs. The reality of it all is that I completely sold out my team.

I practiced every day for 2 to 5 hours in the month leading up to the tournament. I was completely unaware of how absurdly incredible the competition was going to be until warmups when I recognized a couple faces from this area. My first response was how on earth are these guys considered amatures? My second response was less than 2 years ago I was a struggling three, what kind of stupid system puts me anywhere near the same group with these guys, let alone in it?

I was so angry at myself for breaking my own rule that I preach over and over and that is not to take the APA handicap system seriously. I copped a very very bad attitude about the whole thing and went two and out only winning one game in two matches.

I didn't want to be negative in my earlier posts because it may have been seen as simply me being sour because I lost so quickly, but after learning that the same guy can win that thing year after year after year, consistently place in the money in just about any event he enters, and still be considered an "amature" by the APA surprised me.

There were 155 national finalists in the 6-7 bracket. If I use the numbers that I experienced, and maybe there's some variation in places, but to the best of what I know, these 155 players came in first against 16 players in the Regionals and 8 players in the locals. 155 x 16 x 8 thats 19,840 original entrants! (By the way, that's $297,600 in fifteen dollar entry fees for one bracket only! Total purse for ALL THREE eight ball brackets was $200,000) Of course many people entered more than once, so let's just assume everyone entered a local qualifier FOUR times so lets say 4960 people actually entered to help fill the 6-7 bracket. Hopefully this should balance out the folks that bought their way past the locals. I know in previous years there were less finalists, but lets just subtract extra just in case and presume 4500 people entered in the year before. If the handicap system was trully reflective of everyone having an equal chance for every level of player at every match along the way, and all SL 7's were created equal, the random odds of any single player winning two years in a row is 1 in 22,320,000.

The random odds of winning once in ten years with lets say an average of 4000 participants per year would be 1 in 400. The random odds of winning twice in ten years is at least 1 in 160,000. The random odds of winning three times in ten years is 1 in 64,000,000. Three times in twenty years 1 in 32,000,000.

So by my estimate, if the purpose of the APA Singles Tournament is to provide it's league members with a system that provides a level playing field, I would say that it is at least 32,000,000 to 1 that the system in the 6-7 bracket simply isn't very close to working.

I know these numbers are boggling so if anyone wants to challenge them (this was the best I could do) or provide any information that might make them more accurate, please feel free to chime in. However:

No matter how you slice it, repeat winners in an "amature" handicapped tournament with thousands of paying entrants should never happen, let alone three time winners.

I like the APA league thing for social reasons, and I'll stick with it until something better comes along. But there's no point in taking time from work for this kind of thing. By my best estimate, over $690,000 dollars was collected in $15 entry fees for an event with a $200,000 purse of which more than half was prizes valued at likely twice the wholesale price. The trip and the prize money isn't free, it was paid for by the participants.

 

[RobertR]

I said earlier that I had mixed feelings about it, so this is the other side of things from what I commented on earlier.

Okay, I appreciate the nice things that folks here have said about making it to the APA National Singles, but for a primarily social type team oriented APA'er like myself, upon reflection, it was a huge waste of time.

I was informed that I was bumped up to a six for the first time in my life and will be in the 6-7 bracket three days after booking my flight and four weeks before the National tournament. I was told I had $200 to spend on the ticket, but the best I could do was $280 non-refundable. I had no break and runs in the Regional and all but one match went hill hill. Maybe 15-16 innings in the lowest and maybe 29 in the highest. I was 50% as a five before the Regional.

We have a six on our team who has always been far better than me and I effectively eliminated any chance for myself to contribute in the upcoming playoffs. The reality of it all is that I completely sold out my team.

I practiced every day for 2 to 5 hours in the month leading up to the tournament. I was completely unaware of how absurdly incredible the competition was going to be until warmups when I recognized a couple faces from this area. My first response was how on earth are these guys considered amatures? My second response was less than 2 years ago I was a struggling three, what kind of stupid system puts me anywhere near the same group with these guys, let alone in it?

I was so angry at myself for breaking my own rule that I preach over and over and that is not to take the APA handicap system seriously. I copped a very very bad attitude about the whole thing and went two and out only winning one game in two matches.

I didn't want to be negative in my earlier posts because it may have been seen as simply me being sour because I lost so quickly, but after learning that the same guy can win that thing year after year after year, consistently place in the money in just about any event he enters, and still be considered an "amature" by the APA surprised me.

There were 155 national finalists in the 6-7 bracket. If I use the numbers that I experienced, and maybe there's some variation in places, but to the best of what I know, these 155 players came in first against 16 players in the Regionals and 8 players in the locals. 155 x 16 x 8 thats 19,840 original entrants! (By the way, that's $297,600 in fifteen dollar entry fees for one bracket only! Total purse for ALL THREE eight ball brackets was $200,000) Of course many people entered more than once, so let's just assume everyone entered a local qualifier FOUR times so lets say 4960 people actually entered to help fill the 6-7 bracket. Hopefully this should balance out the folks that bought their way past the locals. I know in previous years there were less finalists, but lets just subtract extra just in case and presume 4500 people entered in the year before. If the handicap system was trully reflective of everyone having an equal chance for every level of player at every match along the way, and all SL 7's were created equal, the random odds of any single player winning two years in a row is 1 in 22,320,000.

The random odds of winning once in ten years with lets say an average of 4000 participants per year would be 1 in 400. The random odds of winning twice in ten years is at least 1 in 160,000. The random odds of winning three times in ten years is 1 in 64,000,000. Three times in twenty years 1 in 32,000,000.

So by my estimate, if the purpose of the APA Singles Tournament is to provide it's league members with a system that provides a level playing field, I would say that it is at least 32,000,000 to 1 that the system in the 6-7 bracket simply isn't very close to working.

I know these numbers are boggling so if anyone wants to challenge them (this was the best I could do) or provide any information that might make them more accurate, please feel free to chime in. However:

No matter how you slice it, repeat winners in an "amature" handicapped tournament with thousands of paying entrants should never happen, let alone three time winners.

I like the APA league thing for social reasons, and I'll stick with it until something better comes along. But there's no point in taking time from work for this kind of thing. By my best estimate, over $690,000 dollars was collected in $15 entry fees for an event with a $200,000 purse of which more than half was prizes valued at likely twice the wholesale price. The trip and the prize money isn't free, it was paid for by the participants.

There are so many things wrong with this post, I can't even begin to address them all. Just two simple things:

1. Jeff works for a living, he's an amateur pool player. Period.

2. Orginizations make money running pool tournaments. No big shocker.

 

[Da Poet]

There are so many things wrong with this post, I can't even begin to address them all. Just two simple things:

1. Jeff works for a living, he's an amateur pool player. Period.

2. Orginizations make money running pool tournaments. No big shocker.

Look, I totally think Jeff is a great guy and an absolutely great player, and in no way am I questioning his integrity in any way, it's just that there is a huge disparity between player ability right now in the way the APA runs the 6-7 Bracket.

I know my experience and opinion is subjective, but there are many players that were denied entry to this tournament who also have jobs. In fact, having a job doesn't have anything to do with it. It's about quantifying the varying levels of ability against each other in a "handicapped" tournament.

Please, I am not saying Jeff did anything wrong, but let's be honest about this, anyone coming up as a new pool player like myself being a new six has no chance in this thing against players of his ability. It's not that I object to competing with someone at that level, it's just that I don't need to take days off from work and fly across the country to do it.

I naively showed up thinking I had a chance, and maybe someday I will without any handicap, but that weekend, people like me had no business being in that group. I can go down the street to get my butt kicked anytime I want.

 

[DoomCue]

**SNIP**In fact, having a job doesn't have anything to do with it. It's about quantifying the varying levels of ability against each other in a "handicapped" tournament.
**SNIP**

Actually, a job has everything to do it. Someone who plays full-time and makes a living off pool is a professional. Just because someone is good doesn't make him a professional. The distinction between amateur and professional in any sport is about MONEY - ability has nothing to do with it.

I've played in plenty of tournaments where I wasn't the favorite to win. That doesn't stop me from playing in them - they're ways for me to gauge where I am. And occasionally, I sneak up on people. If the only reason you went to Nationals was because you thought you could win, you probably went for the wrong reason. Your own statistics based on random events should have shown you that.

I hear what you're saying about the disparity between 6's and 7's, and even between 7's. You just became a 6, so of course you're going to have a tough time competing. Let's say Nationals changed so that the Purple Tier was split up into just 6's and just 7's. If you had just become a 7 and had to play in that tournament, the complaint would be the same. If the handicaps went up to 12, the complaints would be the same; not necessarily from you, but someone would complain.

-djb

 

[Jeff]

........ but after learning that the same guy can win that thing year after year after year, consistently place in the money in just about any event he enters, and still be considered an "amature" by the APA surprised me.

I have to say I agree with this statement.

The APA bills itself as an "amateur" league.

When one person consistently beats "the best" the APA has to offer, not just in his region, and not just in his state, but the whole nation of the "best" the APA has, then it's time to think that this person is not an amateur.

Even the big local tournaments around my area like the "Gateway Amateur 9-Ball Tour" have rules in place to exclude players who are above the status of what many consider an amateur but the APA doesn't seem to have this procedure.

One of the names on the list of excluded players in the Gateway tourney is a 7 in my division. here's a guy who can't play in a VERY large multi-state tourney because he is too good but he can play in the APA........

 

[Endymion]

Da Poet, you absolutely got a raw deal getting bumped from a 5 to a 6 at the time you did. If you're right about being a 50% 5, then I don't understand it at all. APA does track back the last 30 matches, so possibly you could have won your last 15 in a row and still be 50%. Also, and I'm not divulging state secrets here, your APA win % isn't a straight W/L ratio (like it is on the Top Gun list). It varies w/your opponents SL among other factors. Depending on who you beat and how badly recently, you could get bumped.

I got bumped to a 7 one week before Nationals, but I knew that I was on the edge (I was the 2nd highest rated 6 at Regionals) and I honestly didn't mind having it over and done w/before the event started.

IMHO (granted I know nothing of your game), if you take the right approach over the next year and improve your game while taking your lumps as a new 6, you could be in a strong position at next years Nationals coming from the weak 6 side of the bracket. That doesn't mean that you'll get past Kenny/Bryan/Jeff if you get to them, but if you do get to them then you're in the Finals.

Good Luck and hope I see you at the Regionals in October!

Edit: Concerning Sergent, he honestly gave me every chance to beat him and advance to the finals. I'm nowhere near his speed, yet I almost *holds fingers this close together* beat him. Everybody can be beat, everybody has a bad day/match. You just have to put yourself in the position where it can happen for you.

 

[Da Poet]

Actually, a job has everything to do it. Someone who plays full-time and makes a living off pool is a professional. Just because someone is good doesn't make him a professional. The distinction between amateur and professional in any sport is about MONEY - ability has nothing to do with it.

I've played in plenty of tournaments where I wasn't the favorite to win. That doesn't stop me from playing in them - they're ways for me to gauge where I am. And occasionally, I sneak up on people. If the only reason you went to Nationals was because you thought you could win, you probably went for the wrong reason. Your own statistics based on random events should have shown you that.

I hear what you're saying about the disparity between 6's and 7's, and even between 7's. You just became a 6, so of course you're going to have a tough time competing. Let's say Nationals changed so that the Purple Tier was split up into just 6's and just 7's. If you had just become a 7 and had to play in that tournament, the complaint would be the same. If the handicaps went up to 12, the complaints would be the same; not necessarily from you, but someone would complain.

-djb

Thanks for spelling amateur better than me.

Completely fair enough, someone like me would be complaining, but avoiding complaints isn't the objective.

It's about getting more people involved with pool. If you have one person winning the same tournament year after year, in a league that touts the "Equalizer" among thousands of it's members, then it looks like a complete joke and that's why no one really wants to waste their time taking time off work to play in this thing.

Edit- Aye Chihuahua, it took me so long to write this I have to catch up with the responses!

 

[Da Poet]

Da Poet, you absolutely got a raw deal getting bumped from a 5 to a 6 at the time you did. If you're right about being a 50% 5, then I don't understand it at all. APA does track back the last 30 matches, so possibly you could have won your last 15 in a row and still be 50%. Also, and I'm not divulging state secrets here, your APA win % isn't a straight W/L ratio (like it is on the Top Gun list). It varies w/your opponents SL among other factors. Depending on who you beat and how badly recently, you could get bumped.

I got bumped to a 7 one week before Nationals, but I knew that I was on the edge (I was the 2nd highest rated 6 at Regionals) and I honestly didn't mind having it over and done w/before the event started.

IMHO (granted I know nothing of your game), if you take the right approach over the next year and improve your game while taking your lumps as a new 6, you could be in a strong position at next years Nationals coming from the weak 6 side of the bracket. That doesn't mean that you'll get past Kenny/Bryan/Jeff if you get to them, but if you do get to them then you're in the Finals.

Good Luck and hope I see you at the Regionals in October!

Edit: Concerning Sergent, he honestly gave me every chance to beat him and advance to the finals. I'm nowhere near his speed, yet I almost *holds fingers this close together* beat him. Everybody can be beat, everybody has a bad day/match. You just have to put yourself in the position where it can happen for you.

Edit- I don't want to go into my stuff with the handicap thing, I've been whining enough. (Sorry I missed your intro)

Honestly, as far as (having the right approach when) playing these guys, I can see them at the Windy City Classic straight up or down if I want. Why waste my time for a 1 in 128 chance to play them in Vegas when I can play just about any of the same guys right here?

No more APA singles for me.

 

[DoomCue]

I have to say I agree with this statement.

The APA bills itself as an "amateur" league.

When one person consistently beats "the best" the APA has to offer, not just in his region, and not just in his state, but the whole nation of the "best" the APA has, then it's time to think that this person is not an amateur.

Even the big local tournaments around my area like the "Gateway Amateur 9-Ball Tour" have rules in place to exclude players who are above the status of what many consider an amateur but the APA doesn't seem to have this procedure.

One of the names on the list of excluded players in the Gateway tourney is a 7 in my division. here's a guy who can't play in a VERY large multi-state tourney because he is too good but he can play in the APA........

There was an amateur tour here as well. They attempted to exclude players based on ability as well. I just don't think that's the right thing to do. Some players have no desire to be professionals, whether it's the travel, low pay/high expenses, low rate of return on investment, etc. They shouldn't be excluded from amateur events simply because they're good.

No other sport segregates amateurs and pros based on ability, why should pool?

-djb

 

[frankncali]

For me (and I am probably wrong for thinking this way) it matters HOW they play in the APA. For some reason I am more inclined to think better of a really good player being in the APA that plays regularly on a team, shows up, and participates in the APA how the APA wants people to participate.
I dont know Jeffs work habits or league habits at all but some other guys that dabble in the APA rarely play on teams and have had LOs "fix" the sheets for them to play singles or other events.
Its probably wrong to care about what a top player gives to the local league but IMO its a social league and I would rather get beat by a guy that comes out and drops his $$$ each week with me.
I wonder what would happen if more top players played the APA but held some sort of job. Most top players dont need to play that often to play Super 7 speed at all. If 10-20 of them played IMO it would kill a whole
division.

I dont think its wrong for any group, league, tournament or tour to exclude anyone thats going to be bad for business. Around here many of the local bars hosting APA or even open events have banned APA 7s or players equal or better from playing or they can only play one day a month. I am one of the excluded but I dont mind. I understand the biz aspect of the decision. I think if more bars and rooms would cater a little more to the weaker players (the true masses) in the pool world then their biz would be better.
Amatuer events and handicaps are destined for examinations and complaints.

 

[instroke75]

unfair

I have to say I agree with this statement.

The APA bills itself as an "amateur" league.

When one person consistently beats "the best" the APA has to offer, not just in his region, and not just in his state, but the whole nation of the "best" the APA has, then it's time to think that this person is not an amateur.

Even the big local tournaments around my area like the "Gateway Amateur 9-Ball Tour" have rules in place to exclude players who are above the status of what many consider an amateur but the APA doesn't seem to have this procedure.

One of the names on the list of excluded players in the Gateway tourney is a 7 in my division. here's a guy who can't play in a VERY large multi-state tourney because he is too good but he can play in the APA........

this is completely true about the apa, there are about 15 teams who play out of my poolhall, none of them are very good players, but they have a blast playing, but their rankings get moved up based on their performance against other weak players, so essentially when the 6's and 7's go to regionals they get smoked by better players because the top brackets are basically open brackets! basically i'm saying my 6's and 7's would be 4's and 5's if they lived in area's where there was more competition in the APA!

 

[CueJunkiee]

well... i should visit the main page more often....
congrats to all you that made it <i did last year but missed qualifying window this past year -who knew it ended in nov...>

I was supposed to be there with my buddies Eric Tang and Austin Oullette- congrats Austin on 3rd as a 5 and Eric took 5th in 8 and 9 as a 7 and 9....

i was supposed to be there and hopefully meet some of the AZ'er crowd right here but work had to come first... i bailed last minute...
i'll be there next year.....

 

[frankncali]

Da Poet --

As for your handicap rise I can give you my best guess. Even though you were 50% the odds that your losing 50 were all worse than your winning 50 is very slim. Therefore even with the 50% you were playing good in the 5 level. Afterall who knows who you were playing. you could have lost some good matches to quality opponnets.
When going to regionals I believe you start with a fresh match history. In other words ...
you enter regionals as a 5.7 -- still away from a 6.0 but not a bad 5.
Whats keeping you a 5 is that they take your last (x amount - i think 20)
matches and then pull (x amount of them - I think 10 best).

So your a 5.6 but you could have a few matches that are not equal to you 5.6 ranking.
At regionals I think you start fresh. You would have 10 matches at a 5.6 average. You then went to regionals and won every match. The lowest score you could get no matter what happened in the match would be a
5.6's average. That keeps players from simply winning every match but getting a bunch of innings and staying lower rated. Honestly a very good player could win almost every match and get 6+ innings a game thus keeping his handicap down. That would not be fair.

Thats why people move more easily at Regionals and Nationals.
Also you should not have been that discouraged. To make it even more fair in the APA minds they seed all the regional and National singles events. Not like most seedings but rather they have people play other players with close to the same computer numbers.
You would never have to play a Super 7 until very late in the event. Probably not even a 7 for a while depending on the number of 6s and your ranking inside the 6s.

Sounds like you are playing the APA for the right reasons and afterall you did make Vegas! If you look at it (the trip) as the prize then you did well.
Even if it cost you a little you still WON regionals and got to take a vacation to Vegas to play pool, look at some ladies, gamble a little, socialize and root for some others, and take a stab at a tournament.
I always look at the Vegas trip or either Singles or Nationals as the prize not winning Vegas.
I have made Vegas on a team and felt we did very good to get there. We tried every match there but did feel like we WON just by making it. There were almost 700 teams that year we went. To go over expecting to win would have taken a little of the fun away. We finished 65th and most everyone played well and gave it their all.

 

[instroke75]

oh yeah i kinda got off the main idea of the thread which congrats to all the APA finalists including Susan Cherkowsky who won the 1-3 9ball division, and plays out of WALLYS in Lakeland,FL way to go Susan!

 

[frankncali]

oh yeah i kinda got off the main idea of the thread which congrats to all the APA finalists including Susan Cherkowsky who won the 1-3 9ball division, and plays out of WALLYS in Lakeland,FL way to go Susan!

Yeah its a tough thing to win. Whoever wins it has to play pretty good and consistent to take it down.

Congrats to your friend Susan


My buddy and teammate didn't win but he did very well finishing 9th in the 4-5 Nineball event. He was beaten by a pretty good 5. He had him down
28-2 in 3 innings and then slowed it down. Nothing you can do when you dont get to the table. The guy then went to a 6 and got beat the next round. Maybe the rating change got into his head.

Congrats to all the winners

 

[FLICKit]

I said earlier that I had mixed feelings about it, so this is the other side of things from what I commented on earlier.

Okay, I appreciate the nice things that folks here have said about making it to the APA National Singles, but for a primarily social type team oriented APA'er like myself, upon reflection, it was a huge waste of time.

OK, I'll play devil's advocate on your post. As devil's advocate first off, you do sound whiney, at least somewhat. First off, if you were just primarily social type, then you wouldn't have taken any of this stuff so seriously, calculatting outlandish stats, and criticizing/nitpicking so much about it. Irrespective of first place, there still would have been plenty of money available in 2nd, 3rd, 4th, ... but of course that's not the true issue, because you went 2 and out. So none of that truly matters.

I was informed that I was bumped up to a six for the first time in my life and will be in the 6-7 bracket three days after booking my flight and four weeks before the National tournament...

Here is the one section where I have to admit, I can feel you pain, and I understand the frustrations entailed in that. This changed your position to likely being in a strong competitive situation with reasonable chances for success, to a mostly non-competitive situation with virtually no chance, unless you truly were a superstar player.

I practiced every day for 2 to 5 hours in the month leading up to the tournament. I was completely unaware of how absurdly incredible the competition was going to be until warmups when I recognized a couple faces from this area. My first response was how on earth are these guys considered amatures? My second response was less than 2 years ago I was a struggling three, what kind of stupid system puts me anywhere near the same group with these guys, let alone in it?

First off, you overlook, that's quite a complement to rise from a struggling 3 to that level within a 2 year period. Congratulations on your dedication and honor to the game, which is exemplified by your steady improvement.

I was so angry at myself for breaking my own rule that I preach over and over and that is not to take the APA handicap system seriously. I copped a very very bad attitude about the whole thing and went two and out only winning one game in two matches.

It is likely, that this initial mindset and bad attitude is a major reason for your demise. Given the challenges that you were facing, even the slightest bit off, in your competitiveness could've very easily had significant consequences on your results. One thing that you might want to look at is, what did you learn from there that can help you improve your game further? The repeat winner, did you watch him play at all, and see and understand what style of game he was using? Was he just breaking and running, nearly every time? Was using smart safety play or even lock up tight safety play? Was he making incredible shots (i.e. 3 rail banks, or 3 rail kicks, ...). Did you utilize the opportunity to learn?

I didn't want to be negative in my earlier posts because it may have been seen as simply me being sour because I lost so quickly, but after learning that the same guy can win that thing year after year after year, consistently place in the money in just about any event he enters, and still be considered an "amature" by the APA surprised me.

Sour grapes. Same persons winning is possible in any amatuer events, beit APA, BCA, VNEA or any other amateur leagues. Two years in a row, is definitely a phenomenal accomplishment, but definitely not out of the realm of plausible.

The random odds of winning once in ten years with lets say an average of 4000 participants per year would be 1 in 400. The random odds of winning twice in ten years is at least 1 in 160,000. The random odds of winning three times in ten years is 1 in 64,000,000. Three times in twenty years 1 in 32,000,000.

Without even wanting to pursue a statistical argument, can say that your odds are already off, at least to some degree. Sort of like, the odds of winning WSOP two years would be high, yet you see the same players rise to the top multiple times. When you factor in skillset, instead of assessing each competitor as having an equal chance, then the odds change considerably. For example, In most cases the 7's should have an advantage over the 6's. And then in addition to that, the strong 7's should have a noticeable advantage over the other 7's. Thus, odds are very likely that those strong 7's will win, and even more unlikely than you presented that a brand new 6 will win.

So by my estimate, if the purpose of the APA Singles Tournament is to provide it's league members with a system that provides a level playing field, I would say that it is at least 32,000,000 to 1 that the system in the 6-7 bracket simply isn't very close to working.

To say "provide a level playing field" is an extreme exaggeration, to "level the playing field" may sound the same, but is extremely different.

In no way shape or form does the APA or any other system currently in existence provide a "level playing field", such that each has an equal chance to win. That would be ludicrous! I challenge you to try to create such a system, and I'd bet, even if you came close, there'd be many arguments that would ensue.

"Leveling the playing field" means that a 2/3 would have a somewhat better chance to win, as opposed to the virtual no chance they'd have, if all tiers (2/3, 4/5, 6/7) were just combined into one big field. By separating the 2/3 tiers, and the 4/5 tiers and the 6/7 tiers it levels the playing field, allowing members from each group to have a chance to win their tier.

If someone wants to be plain argumentative there are some points which could be argued, but it isn't relevant to the topic at hand...

No matter how you slice it, repeat winners in an "amature" handicapped tournament with thousands of paying entrants should never happen, let alone three time winners.

Not true. For many of the reasons listed above. If repeat winners was truly a significant problem, then they could provide some easy remedies (i.e. previous winner is restricted from competing the following year, ...).

I like the APA league thing for social reasons, and I'll stick with it until something better comes along...

If you're playing socially, then continue to be social and enjoy yourself. Unless you temper your viewpoint, you're likely to head down a path where you will now all of a sudden see significantly more nitpicking problems than you ever did before... Beware, for your own sake and sanity. It's just human nature, even more so when it comes to poolplayers.

The trip and the prize money isn't free, it was paid for by the participants.

As they say, "there's no such thing as a free lunch". As a business person, you should be aware of that. Kind of like, anyone who would expect the IPT to continue, even if it was paying out more in prize funds than it was collecting. (Now the IPT reneged on promises and expectations, so that's a separate issue). But the point remains, nobody else is gonna continue to offer a $1 million annual tournament unless they feel they can recoup that money some kind of way, and make a lil in addition, as well.

 

[Da Poet]

OK, I'll play devil's advocate on your post. As devil's advocate first off, you do sound whiney, at least somewhat. First off, if you were just primarily social type, then you wouldn't have taken any of this stuff so seriously, calculatting outlandish stats, and criticizing/nitpicking so much about it. Irrespective of first place, there still would have been plenty of money available in 2nd, 3rd, 4th, ... but of course that's not the true issue, because you went 2 and out. So none of that truly matters.

Yeah I agree, I know I sound whiney. Can't really defend that. I didn't have a terrible time, all I wanted to say is that I wish I hadn't participated in the first place. With all the time and effort involved, I have to tell folks that it's not for everyone.

Here is the one section where I have to admit, I can feel you pain, and I understand the frustrations entailed in that. This changed your position to likely being in a strong competitive situation with reasonable chances for success, to a mostly non-competitive situation with virtually no chance, unless you truly were a superstar player.

Agreed, but what are you going to do?

First off, you overlook, that's quite a complement to rise from a struggling 3 to that level within a 2 year period. Congratulations on your dedication and honor to the game, which is exemplified by your steady improvemen

t.

Thanks, it's a great game!

It is likely, that this initial mindset and bad attitude is a major reason for your demise. Given the challenges that you were facing, even the slightest bit off, in your competitiveness could've very easily had significant consequences on your results. One thing that you might want to look at is, what did you learn from there that can help you improve your game further? The repeat winner, did you watch him play at all, and see and understand what style of game he was using? Was he just breaking and running, nearly every time? Was using smart safety play or even lock up tight safety play? Was he making incredible shots (i.e. 3 rail banks, or 3 rail kicks, ...). Did you utilize the opportunity to learn?

Absolutely. There were local conditions with the dry air, big pockets, and newer balls sliding through the points that I have permanently filed away.

Sour grapes. Same persons winning is possible in any amatuer events, beit APA, BCA, VNEA or any other amateur leagues. Two years in a row, is definitely a phenomenal accomplishment, but definitely not out of the realm of plausible.

I don't think even the APA has a grasp on this. I stick with my numbers. It's a total joke that someone can win a handicappped tournament more than once with at least 10,000 initial entries for one bracket. I stand by this assessment.

Without even wanting to pursue a statistical argument, can say that your odds are already off, at least to some degree. Sort of like, the odds of winning WSOP two years would be high, yet you see the same players rise to the top multiple times. When you factor in skillset, instead of assessing each competitor as having an equal chance, then the odds change considerably. For example, In most cases the 7's should have an advantage over the 6's. And then in addition to that, the strong 7's should have a noticeable advantage over the other 7's. Thus, odds are very likely that those strong 7's will win, and even more unlikely than you presented that a brand new 6 will win.

WSOP isn't handicapped or amateur.

To say "provide a level playing field" is an extreme exaggeration, to "level the playing field" may sound the same, but is extremely different.

In no way shape or form does the APA or any other system currently in existence provide a "level playing field", such that each has an equal chance to win. That would be ludicrous! I challenge you to try to create such a system, and I'd bet, even if you came close, there'd be many arguments that would ensue.

"Leveling the playing field" means that a 2/3 would have a somewhat better chance to win, as opposed to the virtual no chance they'd have, if all tiers (2/3, 4/5, 6/7) were just combined into one big field. By separating the 2/3 tiers, and the 4/5 tiers and the 6/7 tiers it levels the playing field, allowing members from each group to have a chance to win their tier.

Again, I stand by my numbers. What I have been trying to demonstrate is how far from equal the current system is.

If someone wants to be plain argumentative there are some points which could be argued, but it isn't relevant to the topic at hand...

Get in line!

Not true. For many of the reasons listed above. If repeat winners was truly a significant problem, then they could provide some easy remedies (i.e. previous winner is restricted from competing the following year, ...).

Exactly!

If you're playing socially, then continue to be social and enjoy yourself. Unless you temper your viewpoint, you're likely to head down a path where you will now all of a sudden see significantly more nitpicking problems than you ever did before... Beware, for your own sake and sanity. It's just human nature, even more so when it comes to poolplayers.

It's okay, I'm permanently addicted.

As they say, "there's no such thing as a free lunch". As a business person, you should be aware of that. Kind of like, anyone who would expect the IPT to continue, even if it was paying out more in prize funds than it was collecting. (Now the IPT reneged on promises and expectations, so that's a separate issue). But the point remains, nobody else is gonna continue to offer a $1 million annual tournament unless they feel they can recoup that money some kind of way, and make a lil in addition, as well.

I was across the street from the hotel playing blackjack after it was over and a LO from Texas happened to sit right down next to me at the table and after a 10 minutes or so, the conversation wandered onto the tournament, and I said I had mixed feelings about it. She snapped back with "You got a free trip out of it!" I was surprised at this reaction and it stuck with me. I paused and told her that I wished my team was here, and she seemed to understand that, but I think a lot of people have her point of view so that's why I made the point of how much the participants have contributed to the tournament.

 

[Da Poet]

duplicate




..