Handicap ranking Discussion

[LeeLenker]

There are an endless amount of situations and different types of players out there that effect what is written down on the score sheets reflecting your level of play. I will just put it this way.....you can break the same rack of 8 ball and against one type of player and it will be a 2 inning game and against a different player in may take 8 innings or turns. Thats just one example but I think you know where I'm going. To judge someone off 1-2 games and move them up or down at these bigger events is rediculous. The homework should be done by LO's before the events. I hear all this arguing about Handicap players getting moved up or down, people or teams getting screwed @ regional or national events. I also play in the APA, SL7 and I always argue that handicaps should go more by win/loss record than anything else. Atleast %60-%70 of your handicap should go by W/L. Your team has to atleast shoot .600-.700 in a session to qualify for playoffs and not all players can do that. So, that is going to make the players that can shoot over that average do so and they would move up. All in all if your player shoots below .400 they move down and players above .650-.700 move up. I think this would eliminate alot of sandbagging and take the judgement out of people hands. Especially when most people making judgements aren't even qualified to do so. I.E. most LO's who are business people and not knowledgable pool players. What do you guys think?

 

[KMRUNOUT]

There are an endless amount of situations and different types of players out there that effect what is written down on the score sheets reflecting your level of play. I will just put it this way.....you can break the same rack of 8 ball and against one type of player and it will be a 2 inning game and against a different player in may take 8 innings or turns. Thats just one example but I think you know where I'm going. To judge someone off 1-2 games and move them up or down at these bigger events is rediculous. The homework should be done by LO's before the events. I hear all this arguing about Handicap players getting moved up or down, people or teams getting screwed @ regional or national events. I also play in the APA, SL7 and I always argue that handicaps should go more by win/loss record than anything else. Atleast %60-%70 of your handicap should go by W/L. Your team has to atleast shoot .600-.700 in a session to qualify for playoffs and not all players can do that. So, that is going to make the players that can shoot over that average do so and they would move up. All in all if your player shoots below .400 they move down and players above .650-.700 move up. I think this would eliminate alot of sandbagging and take the judgement out of people hands. Especially when most people making judgements aren't even qualified to do so. I.E. most LO's who are business people and not knowledgable pool players. What do you guys think?

win % *is* a factor in handicap computation. If you don't win, your "score" shows up a LOT lower. FYI.

KMRUNOUT

 

[LeeLenker]

It doesn't count for %60-%70 though. I'v seen players go undefeated and not move up. Anyways thanks for atleast saying something. My post probly made to much sence and I not in "the loop". Though i would get some creative input back.

 

[justnum]

Just focus on playing better and learning technique.

 

[LeeLenker]

I'm a 7 in every league I play in. But thanks, I'll try that.

 

[justadub]

I think your idea has merit. The problem in using winning percentage as the primary factor is that not all matches are between similarly skilled players. If for whatever reason I, as an SL4, keep getting matched up against SL2's and SL3's and have a good run over a few weeks, your system would then raise me to an SL5 where I'll get run over by an "actual" SL5. You can come up with any number of scenarios between varied abilities of players that would skew this. SL6 vs SL4 for a couple of weeks, now you're gonna make him play as an SL7? When he faces the SL7 even up, look out!

I do agree that those folks who are winning consistently need to more attention than to those who are losing regularly. But it usually evens out, at least around here. The end of each session Top Gun rankings here will inevitably find one or two S3's in the top 25 and a few more SL4's, but most of the top players are the higher level handicapped players.

This whole handicapping thing is terribly complicated, and wouldn't need to be so complicated if everyone would play to the real speed at all times. Sadly, there are people who will try to manipulate any system to their advantage, so here we are. I think we can use what we have to get as close as possible, if everyone scores accurately (and we don't get badly-influenced LO decisions).

 

[Maniac]

What do you guys think?

Okay, you asked, so I'll tell you what I think.

I do not think it possible to have a fair sytem for handicapping as long as it is the player that is being handicapped. I'm sure you were using the APA as an example in your original post. The system they have in place is as good a system as you can have IF it is used PROPERLY and it not manipulated by less-than-honest players, Captains, and league operators. But unfortunately, this will NEVER be the case.

Now, the BCA 8-ball league (non-sanctioned) I play in handicaps the TEAMS, not the players. This, at least in my experiences, seems to work much better. The handicap system works similar to a system that might be used in a bowling league. We have 4 players per team (you could have 3, 5, 6, it wouldn't matter). You play each player on the opposing team once per night in round-robin fashion. Each ball you sink is worth 1 point (for a score of 32 on a perfect night). After the third week of league play each player has a set average. If your team averages 104 balls and your opposing team averages 99 balls, then your team will spot the other team 5 balls at the end of the night. No innings to keep, no defensive shots to mark, just mark down the ball count from each game shot and do the simple math as the night progresses. You don't need St. Louis, nor do you need a "computer" to figure out the averages and team handicaps. The particular league I play in, if it were rated APA-style, would probably be riff with SL5', 6's, and 7's, with a few 4's scattered in. If you try to "dog" a shot on purpose, you may not get back to the table, thus giving up 8 points to your opponent. Making balls is at a premium in this format. I have not, in 3 sessions thus far, seen one single attempt at "sandbagging". You will simply cause your teams to lose (or not to gain) points by purposely "dogging" shots, thus causing them to lose the nights point total. It is a simpler system AND works better IMO. I will never understand why people get so "high-and-mighty" over the APA system which lends itself (hell, practically begs for) to cheating.

Just my opinion.

Maniac

 

[justadub]

Okay, you asked, so I'll tell you what I think.

I do not think it possible to have a fair sytem for handicapping as long as it is the player that is being handicapped. I'm sure you were using the APA as an example in your original post. The system they have in place is as good a system as you can have IF it is used PROPERLY and it not manipulated by less-than-honest players, Captains, and league operators. But unfortunately, this will NEVER be the case.

Now, the BCA 8-ball league (non-sanctioned) I play in handicaps the TEAMS, not the players. This, at least in my experiences, seems to work much better. The handicap system works similar to a system that might be used in a bowling league. We have 4 players per team. You play each player on the opposing team once per night in round-robin fashion. Each ball you sink is worth 1 point (for a score of 32 on a perfect night). After the third week of league play each player has a set average. If your team averages 104 balls and your opposing teams averages 99 balls, then your team will spot the other team 5 balls at the end of the night. No innings to keep, no defensive shots to mark, just mark down the ball count from each game shot and do the simple math as the night progresses. The particular league I play in, if it were rated APA-style, would probably be riff with SL5', 6's, and 7's, with a few 4's scattered in. If you try to "dog" a shot on purpose, you may not get back to the table, thus giving up 8 points to your opponent. Making balls is at a premium in this format. I have not, in 3 sessions thus far, seen one single attempt at "sandbagging". You will simply cause your teams to lose (or not to gain) points by purposely "dogging" shots, thus causing them to lose the nights point total. It is a simpler system AND works better IMO. I will never understand why people get so "high-and-mighty" over the APA system which lends itself (hell, practically begs for) to cheating.

Just my opinion.

Maniac

My question, Maniac, is this: in the system you describe, potting balls is more important than winning the game. Are you talking about 9-ball? Do you apply this to 8-ball as well? The reason I ask is that playing a safety for position would be considered "dogging" a shot by your decription, but it can make all the difference in the world in deciding who wins a game.

How do you reconcile that?

 

[Bob Jewett]

.. What do you guys think?

I think that while the APA rating system has some advantages, it has so many disadvantages and problems that it should be thrown away and replaced by something that primarily counts W/L. I also think the APA has no intention of changing what they have.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... I do not think it possible to have a fair sytem for handicapping as long as it is the player that is being handicapped....

I think it's easy to handicap individual players fairly. You may want to look at the handicapping/rating threads Mike Page posted to recently. Also check out the NPL rating method which is only used for individuals.

 

[Maniac]

My question, Maniac, is this: in the system you describe, potting balls is more important than winning the game. Are you talking about 9-ball? Do you apply this to 8-ball as well? The reason I ask is that playing a safety for position would be considered "dogging" a shot by your decription, but it can make all the difference in the world in deciding who wins a game.

How do you reconcile that?

justadub, if you will re-read my post, you will see that I clearly stated that my league was an 8-ball league.

Potting balls IS important in the format I describe, but potting EIGHT balls in a game is OBVIOUSLY more important in the grand scheme of things. Geez dude, how can winning a game EVER be de-emphasized??? But.....if you don't win the game, it is still important to your team to rack up ball count, so "sandbagging" is counterproductive to your teams success.

Playing a safety is attempting to NOT leave your opponent a decent shot, or an opportunity to run out, etc. In no way is a safety EVER considered "dogging" a shot. It is merely a strategy to help yourself to win the game by putting your opponent at a disadvantage. It is every bit considered a shot just as potting a ball is considered a shot. I was using the term "dogging" as in what handicapped players do to run up innings to keep their skill levels down. You don't see this in my league because innings do not factor into anything.

I, for the most part, agree with many of your postings on this site, but this one I can't quite figure out. I thought my OP was fairly self-explanatory. Hope I answered your questions. I know you are a staunch believer in the APA system, as you have a right to be. I have found through MY experiences, a better system. Keep in mind, anything handicapped can be manipulated, and will be because of greed, ego, and the need to feel "self-worth". Just a fact of life, and we can't change it.

Maniac

 

[Maniac]

I think it's easy to handicap individual players fairly. You may want to look at the handicapping/rating threads Mike Page posted to recently. Also check out the NPL rating method which is only used for individuals.

Bob, I agree with your post for the most part, but knowing mankind and seeing what people can do to get an "edge" on the competition, I feel that ANY system can be manipulated. Cheaters ALWAYS find a loophole, however great or small it may be. Now, that being said, there will be systems (like the one you quote) that are going to either be harder to manipulate or just won't be able to be manipulated to the degree some other sytem would be. An advantage can be great or small, but it is nonetheless still an advantage. And....it is still cheating!!!

Maniac

 

[Big_H515]

I think it's easy to handicap individual players fairly. You may want to look at the handicapping/rating threads Mike Page posted to recently. Also check out the NPL rating method which is only used for individuals.

Here is the thread Bob is referring to.
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=181081&highlight=fargo+rating+system

Here is a link to the youtube video:
http://www.youtube.com/FargoBilliards

This does work well for structured tournaments, and IMO could be adapted fairly easy to accommodate a league.

 

[APA Operator]

I agree with Maniac on this one. Any system can be cheated, and the more a person knows about the system the more likely it is that they can get away with cheating. For that reason, you have to have someone who knows the people (or can get to know the people) and has authority to override the system.

The whole point of sandbagging is to get an advantage when there's something on the line, like a big money prize or trip to nationals. League players who sandbag don't care if they lose during the regular session, as long as the team can get to the tournaments. So here's what they will do in a system based primarily on W/L. For sake of the example, say it's a league with a five-match format. Each week, play straight up until you win three matches, then dump the rest. Anyone who wins will play a later match next week, unless they can't go up, then they always play early. If someone needs to go down, they play last and lose until they do. If you have one world-beater on your team, then over the course of the season, most of the other players on the team will be around 50%, so it will look like the handicaps are right. The team, however, wins nearly 60% of their matches and makes the playoffs.

I don't understand enough about Maniac's system to create the formula for the cheaters. It looks like no averages change after the third week of the season - is that right? So if my four-player team made zero balls the first three weeks, would we get a spot equal to the average of each team we play? If so, we could probably make up the difference in standings (if based on balls) by averaging 50 or 60 for the remaining weeks, and never have to win a single game. Do the remainder of the games over the course of the season figure into a player's rating at all? Are standings based on balls made, or on W/L for the the night? What's the prize structure? Perhaps nobody cheats because there's no prize to make cheating really pay off.

Bottom line, if there's a way to cheat and someone thinks the prize is worth cheating for, they will cheat. There's no way to prevent it, so there has to be a way to deal with it when it happens.

 

[Bob Jewett]

I agree with Maniac on this one. Any system can be cheated, and the more a person knows about the system the more likely it is that they can get away with cheating. For that reason, you have to have someone who knows the people (or can get to know the people) and has authority to override the system. ...

The system described by Mike Page and the NPL are open, simple systems. A player knows after he finishes each match exactly how his rating will change. The NPL statistics show that the system produces fair matches -- they are available on-line.

Systems like the APA system which are secret and depend on detailed score sheets are easy to manipulate. That's probably one of the attractions -- some people are only happy when they feel they can gain an unfair advantage.

I urge you to look at Mike Page's system.

 

[justadub]

justadub, if you will re-read my post, you will see that I clearly stated that my league was an 8-ball league.

Potting balls IS important in the format I describe, but potting EIGHT balls in a game is OBVIOUSLY more important in the grand scheme of things. Geez dude, how can winning a game EVER be de-emphasized??? But.....if you don't win the game, it is still important to your team to rack up ball count, so "sandbagging" is counterproductive to your teams success.

Playing a safety is attempting to NOT leave your opponent a decent shot, or an opportunity to run out, etc. In no way is a safety EVER considered "dogging" a shot. It is merely a strategy to help yourself to win the game by putting your opponent at a disadvantage. It is every bit considered a shot just as potting a ball is considered a shot. I was using the term "dogging" as in what handicapped players do to run up innings to keep their skill levels down. You don't see this in my league because innings do not factor into anything.

I, for the most part, agree with many of your postings on this site, but this one I can't quite figure out. I thought my OP was fairly self-explanatory. Hope I answered your questions. I know you are a staunch believer in the APA system, as you have a right to be. I have found through MY experiences, a better system. Keep in mind, anything handicapped can be manipulated, and will be because of greed, ego, and the need to feel "self-worth". Just a fact of life, and we can't change it.

Maniac

Maniac, I wasn't trying to rain on your parade, I was genuinely curious how to make it work. I really didn't understand it on the first read, and that's my fault. When I don't get something, I usually ask about it. Sometimes too quickly, without a second read.

And I apologize for missing that your system was 8-ball in the OP, my bad.

As for my being a "staunch believer"... I chuckle at that a bit. Perhaps I come off that way. I merely try to avoid the pack mentality that is so easy to come by on the internets. Do I think APA is perfect, hell no. Do I think they could do things better, perhaps. Do I think they are an easy target for unhappy people, you betcha! I think it works reasonably well (most of the time) given what it tries to accomplish, which is probably not what the more advanced player is looking for. Which is why we get rant after rant here. Perhaps if I ever get to be a better player, I may very well feel the same way, too. :shrug:

 

[Maniac]

I don't understand enough about Maniac's system to create the formula for the cheaters. It looks like no averages change after the third week of the season - is that right? So if my four-player team made zero balls the first three weeks, would we get a spot equal to the average of each team we play? If so, we could probably make up the difference in standings (if based on balls) by averaging 50 or 60 for the remaining weeks, and never have to win a single game. Do the remainder of the games over the course of the season figure into a player's rating at all? Are standings based on balls made, or on W/L for the the night? What's the prize structure? Perhaps nobody cheats because there's no prize to make cheating really pay off.

Bottom line, if there's a way to cheat and someone thinks the prize is worth cheating for, they will cheat. There's no way to prevent it, so there has to be a way to deal with it when it happens.

I'm sorry. My post wasn't detailed enough, I'll admit. No, just like a bowling league system, the averages change from week to week. If you average 28 balls after 3 weeks of play (thus "setting" your initial average, the first 3 weeks are "head-to-head" games), and you make only 10 balls in week 4's play, then you are going to have an average of 24 the following week.

There are NO players ratings. All games are played with ZERO player handicap. Only the TEAMS are handicapped.

The standings are based simply by won/loss records. Your teams wins on the night you have more total balls at the end of your teams match than the opponents team did (after factoring in a plus/minus for TEAM handicapping).

The prize structure is what probably saves our league from cheaters. It only gives trophies to the 1st & 2nd place teams, with additional trophies awarded for highest average and matches (individual) won. But.....this handicap system does make it tough to cheat with even if there was a considerable cash prize, as giving up the table (from missing on purpose) can get you beat and cause your team to receive less points, ultimately losing the overall TEAM match and dropping your team in the standings.

So far, the only way I can figure out how to manipulate this system is if after three of the four rounds are completed, you can "sort of" monitor whether or not your TEAM is going to win the night or lose the night. Then, if you figured you were going to lose REGARDLESS of the last round, if one or all four players on your team wished, you could miss enough shots in the last round to get you beat 8-0, or 8-1, etc., to affect your personal averages and help you lower your averages thus helping your team in later weeks. So even this system CAN be manipulated, I just haven't seen any indication of this happening yet. It could be that the end-of-session prize are just not worth taking a "dive" for. Or I just have been fortunate enough to be playing in a league where the players ALL have a bit of "pride" in their game and want to win at all cost. I like to think that this is what I have stumbled upon, and I like the sh*t out of it!!!

I will say this though, as a Captain of an APA team, the BCA system we are using in my Wednesday night league is SO much simpler, with less details to worry about and easier to "gauge" whether or not cheating is taking place. And....everything can be calculated with a simple hand-held calculator. No need for a computer or a National Headquarters.

I hope this explains it better.

Maniac

 

[Maniac]

justadub,

We're cool, dude!!! I didn't think you were badgering me or baiting me or nothin' like that. It's ALL good, my friend!!!

Maniac

 

[LeeLenker]

I think that while the APA rating system has some advantages, it has so many disadvantages and problems that it should be thrown away and replaced by something that primarily counts W/L. I also think the APA has no intention of changing what they have.

Thanks Mr. Jewett. All i'm really trying to say is W/L should count for more of the persons handicap then it does now in all the major league systems. Its really cool that you shared some of your thoughts on here. I have read alot of your work and have learned from it as well.

 

[APA Operator]

Ok Maniac, so the entire evening is worth one point in the standings?

If that's the case, my team will win by one ball two out of every three weeks. Once out of every three weeks we will lose by 50 or more. Our team average goes down, the teams we lose to go up, and we have a winning percentage of 67%. If there was a big enough prize that's probably how it would work.

Before I became an operator I played with guys who also played in a ball count 8-Ball league. They always told me stories of how easy it was to sandbag in that league.