Consistency of APA Ratings

[CreeDo]

To the best of my knowledge it is independent of their skill and only involves Wins, innings to earn them along with the defensive shots.

I would THINK win rate matters, but my own experience made me question that.
I had a high win rate for many sessions in a row, but didn't go up.
Then one day, after a long time, I finally did. I played at the new level for exactly one match, and lost that match.
The next week, I'd gone up again. Seems weird. Like win rate didn't matter.

We have a guy who's been a 6 for a while, I think he's a 7 or close enough, but he never goes up, and his win rate is 70+%. Can't figure it out.

This is the single biggest issue which is why low level players or players that do not know the game and/or pay attention shouldn't be keeping score. I had one match that went 39 innings between a 5 and a 6 in which the 6 swept the match. If I recall correctly, I had marked 36 defs with a vast majority on the 6. At the end of the night the captain, whom is a 5 and had less than 10 marked, came to sign the sheet and wasn't happy about that. I simply said every shoot that they did not attempt to make a ball is a defensive shot. The response was classic "He was just trying to get a good hit on most of those!". Which I pointed out was by definition is a defensive shot.

I get what you're saying. Safeties are definitely not marked carefully.

I actually agree with the other guy though, as far as kicks.
I honestly think most kickers don't intend to play a specific shot, but they also don't intend to play a specific safety. I guess the letter of the law says you mark a safe if they aren't playing a specific shot. But some shots are just hit and hope... neither a planned shot nor a planned safety.

In my mind, a defensive shot is planned where there's no chance of a ball going in, and it doesn't even occur to the shooter that a ball might go in. If they hit a ball and know they could slop something in, and part of them is hoping for that, it's not really a defensive shot.

 

[pogmothoin]

I would THINK win rate matters, but my own experience made me question that.
I had a high win rate for many sessions in a row, but didn't go up.
Then one day, after a long time, I finally did. I played at the new level for exactly one match, and lost that match.
The next week, I'd gone up again. Seems weird. Like win rate didn't matter.

We have a guy who's been a 6 for a while, I think he's a 7 or close enough, but he never goes up, and his win rate is 70+%. Can't figure it out.




I get what you're saying. Safeties are definitely not marked carefully.

I actually agree with the other guy though, as far as kicks.
I honestly think most kickers don't intend to play a specific shot, but they also don't intend to play a specific safety. I guess the letter of the law says you mark a safe if they aren't playing a specific shot. But some shots are just hit and hope... neither a planned shot nor a planned safety.

In my mind, a defensive shot is planned where there's no chance of a ball going in, and it doesn't even occur to the shooter that a ball might go in. If they hit a ball and know they could slop something in, and part of them is hoping for that, it's not really a defensive shot.

The newest APA video on defensive shots addresses kick shots. It basically says that if you hit the ball hard enough so that it's possible to make the ball (poke and hope) it is not considered defensive. If on the other hand you play it so there's no chance of making a ball it's considered defensive.

 

[Skippy27]

I actually agree with the other guy though, as far as kicks.
I honestly think most kickers don't intend to play a specific shot, but they also don't intend to play a specific safety. I guess the letter of the law says you mark a safe if they aren't playing a specific shot. But some shots are just hit and hope... neither a planned shot nor a planned safety.

In my mind, a defensive shot is planned where there's no chance of a ball going in, and it doesn't even occur to the shooter that a ball might go in. If they hit a ball and know they could slop something in, and part of them is hoping for that, it's not really a defensive shot.

Intent is the key word here. If they kick at a ball with intent to try to make it somewhere then they are going to hit it hard enough to do such. However, if they hit it hard enough to just get a rail or to touch it without disturbing it's blocking of other balls or trying to leave the cue ball just on the other side, then they did not intend to make a ball thus it is a safety.

Same goes for other shots. If I bank a ball, but leave the cue ball tied up behind other balls then you have to look at 1.) did they even bank it hard enough to make it 2.) if they intended to make it would they even have another shot knowing the ball is going to be buried?

 

[AceAngeles]

I don't know how much of a factor it makes but different LO interpret the rules different.

I played under a few different APA LOs and on was the way that the inning was determined.

Under one every time a game was won it completed the inning.

Under the other and the right way was that the inning was not completed until after the next break and miss.

It's very clear in the rule book. Someone must miss before the inning ends.

 

[Banks]

It is also evident how the game ended. If im the second shooter and i won after 3 innings are marked, we each went to the table 4 times. Additional innings for games ending would do nothing but act as padding and could seriously distort the ratings of higher players. Imagine adding 10 innings to a 9b match or doubling the innings of a good 8b match.

 

[AceAngeles]

Yes, it is a disadvantage. It has been proved to me overall during those city tournaments. While the stronger players can adapt and win (SL 5-7), The lower player levels on our team usually get beat when playing an equal handicap.

I know there is a check box, but do not know if it has bearing on handicap as the APA keeps their formula a guarded secret.

Mattb, you are definitely correct. I don't believe the system really adjust for 7, 8 or 9 foot tables. If it does it's too much work for the league operators. Since everything is hidden there will never be anyway for anyone to know. In our league some tables are 7 foot, some are 8 foot. The league operator knows this. Not everyone checks the boxes on table sizes. Nothing is ever said. Too much work for the operator making all the money. The system is flawed because as you have stated a SL 2, 3 or 4 on a 9 foot table is not that skill level on a bar table. My wife is a solid 3 on a bar table because she plays good defense but she's not a good shooter. On a big table she'd be a 2 because it's harder to hide the ball and pocket balls.

 

[AceAngeles]

John,

Last time I played National singles, was kind of shocked at my position on the "big board". If I understand it, the bracket at the absolute bottom of the "big board" is a group of 8 players ranked from the number one ranked player at the bottom to the number eight ranked at the top. Next bracket up is the number nine at the bottom then number 16 at the top and so on and so on. If that is correct, I was the number 9 ranked attending player in the country ? Really? Me? Of course in 2013, I was only 68 years young .

Anyway, is a 20 year old player ranked a 7 in New York City or Los Angeles REALLY the same ranking as a 71 year old 7 from the backwoods of Upstate New York? Understand the "Equalizer" system says yes. Just doubt it very highly.

Lyn

I've seen many 7's in several leagues that have been 7's for many years and never go down. I've questioned the league operator about this and he has said the player informed him that they didn't want to go down. I had no idea that this was allowed but that's the system. The league operator can do whatever they want...

 

[iateyourlunch]

I've seen many 7's in several leagues that have been 7's for many years and never go down. I've questioned the league operator about this and he has said the player informed him that they didn't want to go down. I had no idea that this was allowed but that's the system. The league operator can do whatever they want...

My understanding is that a LO has the ability to lock in a player's handicap. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[AceAngeles]

The widest range is definitely at the top and bottom ends -

Bottom end (hehe I said "bottom end") can be newer players who either haven't settled into the rating system yet or have big improvements where the system hasn't caught up yet. They appear to be huge sandbaggers even though they may not be trying to do that.

Top end can be anyone from a low B level to a Pro and they're all "7"s. I'm a 7 and I routinely play other 7s in my area who are either low B players or GrandMasters. It's all over the place. Why they won't just add 3 more ratings in 8 ball (and up the 23 rule) makes no sense. 2-7 rating system is way too narrow.

I agree with you. I'm a 7 also an in my 2 leagues most of the other 7's are really national 6's (B players as you call them). I'm never concerned with innings because I won't go down an I can't go up. It doesn't make sense that pro or semi pro players are also the same rank. I understand the system will never go up from a 23 rule for the same reason why the they have the new points system (3,2,1,0). They league wants 3's and 4's, not 5, 6's and 7's. I do think there should be another level in 8 ball. They should go from 2-8 and keep the 23 rule. My other complaint is men should also be able to be 2's. Why would women be able to be 2's and men can only be 3's (especially on bar tables). I guess it's the same answer. To encourage more women in the league. It's not fair but that's the way it is.

 

[AceAngeles]

I've been to Vegas and shot numerous people from all over the country in mini tournaments and I think the rating system is pretty consistent.

I saw one player there that was a borderline 7 playing in a 6 only tournament. The rest I felt were pretty consistent and I shot in many 5 & 6 and 6 only tournaments.

I've been to Vegas an I was pleasantly surprised that the handicaps from around the country were pretty similar. Again the biggest discrepancies were in the 3's. Although a lot of them were being watched. The 3's in Vegas are equivalent to the high 4's in our area. The semi pro 7's are also a discrepancy but unless you are a very good 7 you are probably not in the teams starting line up in Vegas or and regional level.

 

[TNOriginals]

Speaking of APA I heard Ernesto is having some health troubles. Is this true? Hope he gets better as he is a beast in Vegas.

 

[AceAngeles]

You have an average in the computer. Your average in 8 ball is actually 2 decimal places. It is based on average innings per game. Let's just say a particular skill level covers 3.01-4.00 innings per game. You might have an average of 3.09, which would put you at the top 10% of your skill level, or 3.95, which would put you at the bottom 10% of your skill level. None of that is revealed to the players. They just know the single number of their skill level. This is the case everywhere.

KMRUNOUT

So how is winning percentage calculated into innings per game minus the defensive shots in order to determine the actual skill level? Anyone....

 

[AceAngeles]

One of the biggest root causes of variance from one market to another is the relative lack of understanding of or willingness to mark what is a 'defensive' shot, and whether the LO addresses it.

I'm the type of player who announces his own safeties, and expects them to be marked. It's far more common at the end of a match to find the opposing team has marked (a) none for either player, (b) all my announced safeties and none of their player's, or even (c) the first few of the called ones marked with the sentiment that they can't be bothered to mark more than a few because any more than that 'don't matter.'

For the sake of argument, let's say I play as a 'low' SL 5 in 8-ball. If I'm ensuring that my team is marking all of my defensive shots - which, per APA definition, is any shot where it is not my intent to legally pocket one of my object ball(s) to continue at the table (not just to 'make a good hit') - then my handicap should be pretty fairly in the range of others who are similarly scored. If I have no safeties ever marked, it makes it appear as if takes me more innings on average to secure a win, and I would likely be calculated as a SL 4 and, possibly, a 'high' SL 3.

Deliberate sandbagging is out there too, but I think this unintentional sandbagging via either laziness or ignorance is a bigger culprit.

It's true marking defensive shots is a real problem. League operators should penalize teams that don't mark defensive shots. It's also a disadvantage to your own team if your team Is the only team in the league marking every defensive shot just because you want to do the right thing!! I'm not blaming you, I'm blaming league operators who don't take charge of the problem.

 

[AceAngeles]

During playoffs I might, depending on the situation. For the most part, I dont. I dont think its fun for either player, and I dont think my lower level players learn anything sitting in their chair, shooting one time every once in a while.

I'm more interested in sending my best against your best, and seeing who wins.

I can understand people doing it, and if I had a 3 that I felt could handle it, maybe I might do it more often. I want them to get more out of their league night than to be a sacrifice.

To each his own.

Unfortunately it's a money league. Some leagues pay more than $10 a night per player. If you are a captain of a team it's not about being macho "my strongest beat your strongest", it's about winning for the team. It's everyone's money, your deciding and playing for your team. Strategy is important on who to match against who. I hate it when they match a 2 or 3 against me and hold back a 5, 6 or 7. It annoys me, I'm getting respect an I understand the good strategy.

 

[AceAngeles]

Everyone else has already stated what I think of the post in terms of higher talent pool in an area, unmarked safeties, style of play, etc. I have to agree with style of play being a big factor. I'm only a 5 in 8 ball and my pocketing is quite good and a bit above my level but my pattern play can be quite horrendous and it's only been saved by my pocketing. So whenever I play a low level 2 or 3 who doesn't break good or scatters balls and clumps up balls by accident I tend to lose running out just about everything and being stuck with a ball or two as they just run out little by little til they beat me. I urge my captain to toss me against the same level or higher since the table tends to be more open and I have an equal chance to run out of my pocketing is good. So if I play a safety or players who clump balls I tend to do very bad while against aggressive run out attempt players I do good against and make my level look true

Whatever any of my players plays a higher ranked player I encourage them not to open balls up. Try to turn the game into a thinking defensive game. Don't give the higher ranked player (probably a better shooter) the opportunity to play to his strength.

 

[Skippy27]

My understanding is that a LO has the ability to lock in a player's handicap. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

Yes they can lock a player and move a player up, but they can't move a player down.

 

[Skippy27]

I agree with you. I'm a 7 also an in my 2 leagues most of the other 7's are really national 6's (B players as you call them). I'm never concerned with innings because I won't go down an I can't go up. It doesn't make sense that pro or semi pro players are also the same rank. I understand the system will never go up from a 23 rule for the same reason why the they have the new points system (3,2,1,0). They league wants 3's and 4's, not 5, 6's and 7's. I do think there should be another level in 8 ball. They should go from 2-8 and keep the 23 rule. My other complaint is men should also be able to be 2's. Why would women be able to be 2's and men can only be 3's (especially on bar tables). I guess it's the same answer. To encourage more women in the league. It's not fair but that's the way it is.

You say several incorrect things. I was a 2 at one point and I have a male friend that is currently a 2, so males are not limited to only be as low as a 3. I am on the fence about SL8's but the APA is an amateur league that Pros can't play in. I know there are 7's whom average very close to 0 innings for matches and then some that do not so.....

The 3,2,1,0 point system has nothing to do with ratings. It is to discourage people from sandbagging by encouraging the shooters to try to win as best as possible to maximize their team points.

The 23 rule itself is to prevent team stacking so that lower level players/teams do not get completely discouraged from playing in the league. It encourages players of all levels to play and it encourages the captains to use them. I personally think it is one of the best things about the APA and is completely in the core direction of what APA is about. If you don't like the limit, play in the Masters.

 

[Skippy27]

It's true marking defensive shots is a real problem. League operators should penalize teams that don't mark defensive shots. It's also a disadvantage to your own team if your team Is the only team in the league marking every defensive shot just because you want to do the right thing!! I'm not blaming you, I'm blaming league operators who don't take charge of the problem.

My sister and her fiance play with me on Wednesday and then they have their own team on Thursdays for the first time that is not operated by the same LO. That league night cost $5 more ($40 instead of $35) and they just said last night their players are better than ours with the same ratings. My sister also asked me about marking defensive shots because they were all over her about the way she marked it. They were telling her that if they are trying to get a good hit after a safety that it is not a defensive shot. This told me why their players were probably better for their rating and it is clear it is because they do not keep score as they should.

To me, that mind set is the LO's fault. There is not a single player out there that should not know and understand that if you are not hitting a ball to make it, it is a defensive shot and should be marked accordingly. Our LO puts on scoring clinics and explain this and show video. The website has video about score keeping and defensive shots. It is very clear that if you are not intending on making a ball, it is defense.

 

[justadub]

Unfortunately it's a money league. Some leagues pay more than $10 a night per player. If you are a captain of a team it's not about being macho "my strongest beat your strongest", it's about winning for the team. It's everyone's money, your deciding and playing for your team. Strategy is important on who to match against who. I hate it when they match a 2 or 3 against me and hold back a 5, 6 or 7. It annoys me, I'm getting respect an I understand the good strategy.

Yes, there is some money involved. But the $9 a piece we pay is a fair price for what we get out of it, at least here where we usually have practice tables available so someone can play as much as they like all night.

And yes, there is some prize money at the end of the session here, better than many areas as I understand it. We've been in the divisional playoffs more often than we're not, we get our chances at it.

I want my players to have a good time playing pool, and I want to win too. Its not macho. In fact, its quite the opposite, when I dont want my female 3 who isn't serious about her game to have to sit in the chair except for when she's racking. She isn't going to enjoy her night, or her $9 spent. And she's not likely going to be interested in staying on the team either.

If its appropriate, I'll throw off, but thats rare.

 

[Celophanewrap]

My understanding is that a LO has the ability to lock in a player's handicap. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

It's my understanding that you cannot be "locked in", why would they want to?
I think that at times, because of lack of movement you may seem "locked in" but I believe
at the top end of the spectrum movement becomes harder to achieve, the skill levels seem further apart.

It's also my understanding that if a player should happen to develop some sort of physical impairment or some other condition that their skill level can be adjusted to what that
impairment might allow.
There was a player here a few years ago, smooth stroke, played really good position and speed S/L 6 well on his way to becoming a a solid 7, he developed
Parkinson's and his skills deteriorated, he was never rated above a 5 after that.

Perhaps APA Operator will chime in here, if he can