Handicapping vs No shot calling

[Push&Pool]

What king of league so you consider better and generally more fair for all players. The one where players/teams are handicapped, or the ones with no shot calling rules (no matter which game). In other words, what evens the playing field more? Giving lower players less balls on the start, or allowing them to fight themselves using slop play as an advantage when playing against tougher guys?

 

[liakos]

I think there's too much of both but honestly, it depends on the the player ability difference! Take APA, you have skill levels between 2-7! Ok, does that mean if you take all the 2's and have them play each other to watch them always have a different winner??? No! Because there will be a few at the top of that level that will play better! Again, its all about the difference in skill sets between each player! I have a friend who's a good 5, I'm a 7, we gamble! We play even races to 2 but I give him 5-1 on the money! I rob him every time! And I ain't no pro, I'm a B+ player! Hope this helps

 

[hang-the-9]

What king of league so you consider better and generally more fair for all players. The one where players/teams are handicapped, or the ones with no shot calling rules (no matter which game). In other words, what evens the playing field more? Giving lower players less balls on the start, or allowing them to fight themselves using slop play as an advantage when playing against tougher guys?

The two are totally separate. It's like asking what kind of tea is better, made with water or hot.

Since the no called shots works for both players equally, it's worse for the lower level player. They may get more balls in by accident than the better player, but that's only because the better player will make his shots where he/she wants them to go.

Many leagues are both handicapped and play with no called shots.

 

[Push&Pool]

The two are totally separate. It's like asking what kind of tea is better, made with water or hot.

Since the no called shots works for both players equally, it's worse for the lower level player. They may get more balls in by accident than the better player, but that's only because the better player will make his shots where he/she wants them to go.

Many leagues are both handicapped and play with no called shots.

Ok thanks

 

[Donny Lutz]

Slop sucks!

The two are totally separate. It's like asking what kind of tea is better, made with water or hot.

Since the no called shots works for both players equally, it's worse for the lower level player. They may get more balls in by accident than the better player, but that's only because the better player will make his shots where he/she wants them to go.

Many leagues are both handicapped and play with no called shots.

Having played in pool leagues for 41 of the past 47 years, I find that slop gives the beginner a huge advantage. I once got crushed by an APA 2 who slopped in 11 of 19 balls made.

Only in APA (slop) can you actually become a national champion without ever having won a single game of pool in your life. Personally, I wouldn' t care to hold a title that way...

While not perfect, I think the rules and scoring system suggested by the BCAPL, ACS, VNEA and others are much more equitable than that of APA.

Just my opinion.

 

[justadub]

This comes up every now and again, re APA.

Slop happens.

In my experience (locally and statewide only; never been to Vegas, yet) it rarely affects matches with SL5's and above. It occurs once in a while, but not very often. It will rarely affect a match between a SL5 or higher vs a lower level player, but that is part of the deal balancing skill levels.

In matches between SL4' s and lower, it can and does affect the outcome at times.

APA is designed to bring new people into the game, and to keep them playing. It works. It is not designed for true "high level" play, though there are many who play at a high level. As long as we understand that, it makes sense.

 

[RRfireblade]

Most leagues are handicapped and slop counts on everything but the money ball so....

In a personal match, I would think that if offering slop is going go act as some kind of a handicap...well....probably 'nuff said about the parties involved.

 

[justadub]

And once I again, I remind folks that slop only seems to bother people when they talk about 8-ball, yet many of those same people gladly play 9-ball with no complaint.

 

[DogsPlayingPool]

Are you talking about where only the weaker player gets to play slop while the better player has to play call shot?

Doesn't matter really. Luck just isn't that big a factor in pool. If I'm the weaker player I'd rather get a handicap.

 

[MitchAlsup]

I think the rules and scoring system suggested by the BCAPL, ACS, VNEA and others are much more equitable than that of APA.

These rule sets allow better players to beat lesser players most of the time.

However, APA is setup to allow lesser players to beat better players occasionally. Sandbagging makes "occasionally" become "more often than what is good for the sport".

 

[ctyhntr]

Another way to visualize the APA handicap scale is to see this in the context of a spelling bee, in this case open to 2nd through 7th graders.

In some parts of this country the APA league may be the only game in town. While other locations have enough students to sustain elementary, high school, and college level spelling bees.

This comes up every now and again, re APA.

Slop happens.

In my experience (locally and statewide only; never been to Vegas, yet) it rarely affects matches with SL5's and above. It occurs once in a while, but not very often. It will rarely affect a match between a SL5 or higher vs a lower level player, but that is part of the deal balancing skill levels.

In matches between SL4' s and lower, it can and does affect the outcome at times.

APA is designed to bring new people into the game, and to keep them playing. It works. It is not designed for true "high level" play, though there are many who play at a high level. As long as we understand that, it makes sense.

 

[DogsPlayingPool]

These rule sets allow better players to beat lesser players most of the time.

However, APA is setup to allow lesser players to beat better players occasionally. Sandbagging makes "occasionally" become "more often than what is good for the sport".

Correct in a way, at least in my BCAPL team 8 Ball league. The handicap system only comes into play for team scoring in this particular league. Every game is played even no matter the playing level of the players. But if I'm a "9" and I'm playing a "5" and I don't beat him by 4 or more, then I'm losing ground on the team level, which is all that counts really. It gets a little more complicated than that but that's the general idea.

 

[hang-the-9]

Having played in pool leagues for 41 of the past 47 years, I find that slop gives the beginner a huge advantage. I once got crushed by an APA 2 who slopped in 11 of 19 balls made.

Only in APA (slop) can you actually become a national champion without ever having won a single game of pool in your life. Personally, I wouldn' t care to hold a title that way...

While not perfect, I think the rules and scoring system suggested by the BCAPL, ACS, VNEA and others are much more equitable than that of APA.

Just my opinion.

The issue with that match is that the APA is BOTH no called shots and handicapped. That's a double whammy for a good player especially if the other guy only needs a few balls to win. If you were playing even it probably would not have been close.

 

[CreeDo]

How often slop affects the outcome depends on various things, but if the race is long enough,
it's not enough to change the outcome of the match (over the long run, on average, most of the time, etc.)
"Long enough" means both players get several trips to the table with an opportunity to control their destiny.
In the APA, 20+ innings is very common. I'd say that's long enough.

Everyone has their bad beat story about the lucky APA 1, I have it too.
Just like that guy who had a 98% winning hand in poker then lost.
But with 20+ opportunities, it's usually not luck that decided the match.

Handicapping on the other hand... can be as extreme as you want it to be.
There's no limit to how heavy the handicap can be. 95 balls in a race to 100 for example.
I think most handicapping is designed to turn every match into a 50/50 coin flip.

Therefore any player crying that they're getting screwed by the handicapping,
better have well under 50% win rate. If they're winning significantly more than that...
the handicapping is not strong enough and the high-rank player is getting the best of it.

Anyway to answer your question, it depends on how you define "Better" or "more fair".

"Better" = most fun for all players? Handicapped, without a handicap the weakest players lose a lot and quit.
"Better" = the best players win the most? Then slop. Without handicaps, the best player wins almost every match.

"More fair" = everyone can win? Like each match is a coin flip? Then handicapped.
"More fair" = the guy who has more skill should always win? Then allow slop and no handicaps.

 

[Push&Pool]

Are you talking about where only the weaker player gets to play slop while the better player has to play call shot?

Doesn't matter really. Luck just isn't that big a factor in pool. If I'm the weaker player I'd rather get a handicap.

No, in that case slop would count for both sides. I'm only saying this because I often beat better players with slop-maximizing techniques. It would be two times harder for me to win with call-shot rules. On the other hand, I still think it's more fair to leave the handicapping out of the game and make it completely fair for both sides, but still the beginners could "cheat the system" and win some games via slop and accidental safeties.

How often slop affects the outcome depends on various things, but if the race is long enough,
it's not enough to change the outcome of the match (over the long run, on average, most of the time, etc.)
"Long enough" means both players get several trips to the table with an opportunity to control their destiny.
In the APA, 20+ innings is very common. I'd say that's long enough.

Everyone has their bad beat story about the lucky APA 1, I have it too.
Just like that guy who had a 98% winning hand in poker then lost.
But with 20+ opportunities, it's usually not luck that decided the match.

Handicapping on the other hand... can be as extreme as you want it to be.
There's no limit to how heavy the handicap can be. 95 balls in a race to 100 for example.
I think most handicapping is designed to turn every match into a 50/50 coin flip.

Therefore any player crying that they're getting screwed by the handicapping,
better have well under 50% win rate. If they're winning significantly more than that...
the handicapping is not strong enough and the high-rank player is getting the best of it.

Anyway to answer your question, it depends on how you define "Better" or "more fair".

"Better" = most fun for all players? Handicapped, without a handicap the weakest players lose a lot and quit.
"Better" = the best players win the most? Then slop. Without handicaps, the best player wins almost every match.

"More fair" = everyone can win? Like each match is a coin flip? Then handicapped.
"More fair" = the guy who has more skill should always win? Then allow slop and no handicaps.

I'm leaning more towards the second definition of both "better" and "more fair", although I see why some competition prefer handicapping. IMO handicapping gives unfair advantage to the lower player, it sometimes even pays off more to be a worse than a better player. It ruins the game by giving players a big difference at the start. I'd personally keep skill as the main factor, but also keep slop in to give more chances to beginners and lower level players.

 

[hang-the-9]

No, in that case slop would count for both sides. I'm only saying this because I often beat better players with slop-maximizing techniques. It would be two times harder for me to win with call-shot rules. On the other hand, I still think it's more fair to leave the handicapping out of the game and make it completely fair for both sides, but still the beginners could "cheat the system" and win some games via slop and accidental safeties.



I'm leaning more towards the second definition of both "better" and "more fair", although I see why some competition prefer handicapping. IMO handicapping gives unfair advantage to the lower player, it sometimes even pays off more to be a worse than a better player. It ruins the game by giving players a big difference at the start. I'd personally keep skill as the main factor, but also keep slop in to give more chances to beginners and lower level players.

You need to play more good players if you think making balls by accident is a workable strategy against good players. In a race to 2 or 3, a bad player playing anything counts may win. In a race to 5 or longer, it's very unlikey. A handicap is a very good way of having a good player play a worse one, as long as the handicap is fair. All too often I see players play under a rating that is under their actual skill level due to them not representing their skill honestly or the tournament or league director playing favorites. The league I play in has all called shots, and the handicaps are well done, a good player really has to focus to beat someone as you could lose a match without the other player winning just one game to your 6 or 7, just by making a few balls during the set.

 

[CreeDo]

I'm leaning more towards the second definition of both "better" and "more fair", although I see why some competition prefer handicapping. IMO handicapping gives unfair advantage to the lower player, it sometimes even pays off more to be a worse than a better player. It ruins the game by giving players a big difference at the start. I'd personally keep skill as the main factor, but also keep slop in to give more chances to beginners and lower level players.

It does depend on the league. I find in the APA, the better players are favored a little.
Which actually is what I'd want in a league... there's incentive to play well.
The 7's, 8's, 9's tend to have 60%+ win rates. The 1's and 2's usually have under 50%.

I'd get mad if the handicapping was so perfect and effective that I could play hard
and not go much over 50% by the end of the year.