Nope. The lowest attainable cannot be more than one skill level lower than the highest skill level that player ever played at, once they became established. If the player never played as a 6, the lowest attainable can be set to 4, but the player won't go down unless they are calculating that low. Perhaps most of that 80% happened as a 4 and the player went up to a 5, then went back down.
Consistency of APA Ratings
- Thread starter pogmothoin
- Start date
Nope. The lowest attainable cannot be more than one skill level lower than the highest skill level that player ever played at, once they became established. If the player never played as a 6, the lowest attainable can be set to 4, but the player won't go down unless they are calculating that low. Perhaps most of that 80% happened as a 4 and the player went up to a 5, then went back down.
These situations will have very limited impact in most cases. It can on occasions increase you by a skill level. It is a manual process to input the data in the system, so human error is a factor, in which you should question certain things when they happen, and mostly likely it will be reversed.
Thank you, that does make sense, what is still perplexing to me is if a formula or algorithm if equally applied across every player there would be more skill level movement across the board not just the same people session after session.
Break and run
I find that difficult to believe. To Break and Run over 30% of the time is a extremely high quality of play on a bar table. It would be impossible to do that and maintain being a "6" unless it was over a very short term.
I find that difficult to believe. To Break and Run over 30% of the time is a extremely high quality of play on a bar table. It would be impossible to do that and maintain being a "6" unless it was over a very short term.
Sandbagging
The most effective way I've seen people do it in my area is they play in one league where they don't care if they finish last. They lose a lot with a lot of innings. In the other league with a serious winning team they play their best. Eventually it evens out with a lower handicap. It can be easily done if you play in 3 or 4 leagues in a week. I don't see it but a friend of mine who plays in the other league tells me about it all the time.
The most effective way I've seen people do it in my area is they play in one league where they don't care if they finish last. They lose a lot with a lot of innings. In the other league with a serious winning team they play their best. Eventually it evens out with a lower handicap. It can be easily done if you play in 3 or 4 leagues in a week. I don't see it but a friend of mine who plays in the other league tells me about it all the time.
I don't see that as being effective. First, being your loses have very little to do with anything concerning your rating. Second, even if it did it would not shelter them when they get to a higher level tournament and are watched. Which most likely will be the case if they are playing 2 different leagues for the purpose of cheating as they are. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the system is already setup to catch this systematic cheat as it is certainly the most talked about and tried.
importance of wins/loses
Of course it does. Yes innings are more important but loses do play into your skill level. Very rarely does someone with a losing record go up in skill level. People that play in several league can manipulate their handicap by padding innings and still trying to win. It may not be the same effort they put into on a more competitive team.
Of course it does. Yes innings are more important but loses do play into your skill level. Very rarely does someone with a losing record go up in skill level. People that play in several league can manipulate their handicap by padding innings and still trying to win. It may not be the same effort they put into on a more competitive team.
I think the reason you don't see it is because that method of S/L manipulation would be pretty much ineffective in trying to manipulate ones skill level and playing 4 times a week to keep a low skill level on one team, to me, would be kind of expensive and just not very smart. It's my thought that losses count reasonably little in your S/L and even if you're working to play 50 innings in a loss only a certain number of those innings are going to be counted anyway (depending on you S/L) and then in your cities, or your Tri Cup, or nationals, you find that you have to play well and a couple of your team members are raised and by the second or third round you're DQ'ed. Then all that cheating was wasted.
I have a theory that has been proven time and time again, it's that most APA players don't play well enough to sandbag effectively. The ones that could are already 6's or 7's (or 8's and 9's) and sandbagging would be pointless at that level.
I think if you understand the system, then cheating (sandbagging) would be far more easier than if you only thought you understood the system and far too many APA players only think they understand the system and they really don't. I'd have to count your buddy among those that only think they do.
But if he thinks it works for him then I'm sure it does
Last edited:
You could employ that strategy in any rating system, couldn't you? It seems like a system based solely on wins/losses would be most susceptible.
Those who are the most vigilant are most likely to catch this form of cheating, and APA does give us great tools to help us remain vigilant.
No they don't. People that lose typically don't go up because they only look at your wins (games, not matches) and take into consideration your innings and safeties (as the core of it) along with a couple other factors.
I say typically as I have had 2, 3 and 4's on my team go up after losing matches in which the have only won 1 or 2 games, if that, in the match and certainly lose the match over all. Yet the next week they are raised.
I would agree with you 100% on this. There is a guy that shoots out of our bar on occasion still serving a 2 year suspension for manipulating his handicap and got busted at nationals for it. He was pretty new to APA so it was easy for him with little history. Trying to hold yourself down 1 level is one thing, but they appear to really frown upon you holding yourself down 2-3 levels by simply never performing at all.
I personally would have liked to have seen their entire team punished as they all knew he was a much better shot than he did on league nights.
There are those that might disagree, but it's my position that you might want to just play and let the S/L's take care of themselves. There are way too many variables to try and control the outcome of an S/L, and though just about every APA player, and everyone that talks about the APA whines about that sandbagger over there on that team, I feel that sandbagging is largely a rumor concocted by someone that lost a match they think they should have won. One or two matches that you might consider throwing really won't make much of a difference. Think about what we do know about the S/L system - only your last 20 matches are taken into account, of those last 20 only the best 10 are actually counted. Now consider what you don't know that might go into all that. You losing matches to keep your S/L low is really very ineffective.
Just play, go cheat at golf or get your kid a fake birth certificate if you really need to feel like cheating makes a difference
Just play, go cheat at golf or get your kid a fake birth certificate if you really need to feel like cheating makes a difference
Could it also be LO have a vested interest in maintaining their leagues, divisions, teams, and because of the 23 point cap, they also manage the skill levels for certain teams, yes I'd say that is a great tool to have.
You mentioned earlier that LO can raise you up a skill level before the "system" does virtually going around the system. I wonder by doing this can the LO also then lower the skill level manual as the system hasn't truly increased that player.
From what I've seen there are definitely favoritism going on which leads me to believe the whole system is in manual mode. I'm in the process of putting together some examples for you. I will start with a very simple one, if a player can draw the ball with good control, and have a high win percentage session after session, they should not be a sl3.
Our business is built on fairness, period. It suffers whenever we are anything but fair. Even when we ARE fair, it can be perceived as favoritism. Here's the example for that. Suppose the LO did absolutely nothing manually and simply entered data from the scoresheets. No reviews, just whatever comes out comes out. Would you consider that fair? Everyone treated the same, right? I guarantee you that 100% of the time if the LO did that he/she would be accused of playing favorites, even if he/she had never met the supposed "favorites" in person! Why? Because no matter what happens, someone wins and someone loses, and it's just a matter of time before the "playing favorites" accusation arises.
Everyone who has ever run a league for a considerable length of time has been accused of being unfair or playing favorites. Not just APA and not just pool. It comes with the territory and you just have to accept that the losers will complain. Once in a while someone will have a legitimate beef, but those are easy to distinguish among the myriad of complaints that are just sour grapes.
You can come up with examples for whatever you want. Make them vague enough and they will be believable. What I tell people to do is put names to their "examples", so I can actually look into their claims. You would be surprised how many of them refuse to associate a name with a complaint. Or would you?
Can you clarify your definition of a sandbagger for me???
I would agree with you that losing a match here and there wouldn't lower your skill level as the system from my understanding is designed as you said the best 10 of your last 20 which make it harder for you to drop a skill level, especially when you factor in the applied score (inning count) which should even take longer for you to drop a skill level.
But we are in manual mode here so for certain people the same people none of this matters.
Sure, lets start with your name and how to get a hold of you outside this forum.
Player A - Skill level 4-
Session 1 has a 2.2 points per match average
Next Session has a 2.3 point per match average wins MVP.
I personally saw him beat a sl7 during this session. How does
Player 3 not go up.
Now this session he/she has played 6 matches with a zero PPM
Where do you think this is going. APA tools didn't catch this one.
Player B -Skill level 3
Session 1 has a 2 PPM average at end of session goes up to a sl4
Next session has a 1 PPM average goes down to a 3 in week16 just in time for play off
Week 2 of next session is back up to a 4, week 3 is back to a 3, week 7 a 4, week 10 a 3, week 13 a 4
Team XYZ a year ago
Player 1 Skill Level 6
Player 2 Skill Level 5
Player 3 Skill Level 5
Player 4 Skill Level 5
Player 5 Skill Level 5
Player 6 Skill Level 4
Player 7 Skill Level 5
As you can see they exceed the 23 point rule with 5 players
Player 7 was dropped and a Skill level 4 was added
Player 8 was added is a Skill Level 3
So after a Summer session of throwing matches in the Fall session to the current session it went like this:
Player 2 in week 7> sl4 week13 >sl5, week14>sl4, week 16>sl5 , week4>sl4 week7>sl5, week9>sl4, week13>sl5
Player 3 in week7>4, week14>5,
Player 4 in week8>4, and remains a 4
Player1 in week 4 of Spring session >5, week5>6,week7>5,week8>6, week11>5, week12>6
Compare this skill level movement to the teams in your division
Sandbagging, to me,would the conscious effort to keep either themselves or another player playing below their true ability (or stalling) in hopes to maintain a lower handicap level in order to gain a tactical advantage in a match or game situation against other players or teams.
So what's going on with you? You guys lose some matches you think you should have won? Now you're accusing the LO of "managing" other teams skill levels? I may have misread that, but that's the impression I get. Additionally I get the impression you think your LO or one of your LO's is pretty much just so crooked they would have to screw their shorts on.
So would it be safe to assume you know and don't like your LO?
In regards to the sandbagging definition, thank you, but how would one go about doing that.
In regards to your other comments and opinions your way of base. Win/lose is part of the game any game. Can't be a good winner without being a humble loser. Not accusing anyone of anything at this time. I do know the LO, don't have anything against him one way or another.
Let's rephrase your examples without the editorial comments. Player A played well for two sessions, winning MVP the second of those two. This session he hasn't won a match or even gotten to the hill in six tries. Is his skill level accurate?
Player B played well for a session and went up, then played poorly for a session and went down. Now he's bouncing back and forth and is currently at the higher number.
Team XYZ couldn't meet the 23 rule, so they replaced a 5 with a 4 and added a 3. They had a bad Summer, and have had a lot of skill level movement up and down since. Everyone on the original team, with the exception of one player, is currently at the skill level they were a year ago.
Clearly, all of these players and their teams are cheating and the LO is helping them.
You don't need my name - it's irrelevant to the discussion. You can PM me with player names (and the first three digits of the member number). I can look anyone up. But even then, I would only know the data, not all the other information the LO knows. You really should take your concerns to your LO. You've done that, right? What did your LO say? If you don't like or trust that answer, you can also take your concerns to the national office (636-625-8611 x5210, right off the back of the team manual).
If you're really interested in what's going on, those are your avenues. If not, then troll away.
Let's rephrase your examples without the editorial comments. Player A played well for two sessions, winning MVP the second of those two. This session he hasn't won a match or even gotten to the hill in six tries. Is his skill level accurate?
Player B played well for a session and went up, then played poorly for a session and went down. Now he's bouncing back and forth and is currently at the higher number.
Team XYZ couldn't meet the 23 rule, so they replaced a 5 with a 4 and added a 3. They had a bad Summer, and have had a lot of skill level movement up and down since. Everyone on the original team, with the exception of one player, is currently at the skill level they were a year ago.
Clearly, all of these players and their teams are cheating and the LO is helping them.
You don't need my name - it's irrelevant to the discussion. You can PM me with player names (and the first three digits of the member number). I can look anyone up. But even then, I would only know the data, not all the other information the LO knows. You really should take your concerns to your LO. You've done that, right? What did your LO say? If you don't like or trust that answer, you can also take your concerns to the national office (636-625-8611 x5210, right off the back of the team manual).
If you're really interested in what's going on, those are your avenues. If not, then troll away.
Thank you, I see now there are two ways to look at each example I presented, thanks for the information to take my concerns to. I will be doing a lot of trolling in my fishing boat this summer.