Willowbrook Wolfy
Going pro
Oh and sry there is one guy that just went up to a 7/7 from 6/7 who’s a robust 530. That’s the lowest with a lot of robustness I’ve seen 7/7. I think the one mid 7/7 is a 550 not robust. And another 7/7 non robust 520.
how are ya'll doing in league ?
- Thread starter lorider
- Start date
Willowbrook Wolfy
Going pro
So here’s a thought. If you are the LO of a small APA league you’d need to get more players to make money. It wouldn’t surprise me if some shady LOs inflate SL’s a bit to make more teams go over 23. Or even if the APA approves this to a point. I don’t know if they could, but it’s a possibility. Our league has over 500 teams between 8 and 9. So it’s a pretty big one. Don’t think there’d be a reason to inflate here.
And I mentioned before. A lot of 2’s and 3’s haven’t seen much movement for a while here even with high win%. Seems odd. Like they changed the calculations in the past 6 mos. Has anyone else noticed the same? 2’s used to go up fast. We have a 2 on our team in 9 ball. Won 5/6 and still a 2. Thought you couldn’t have a good win percentage and stay a 2.
And I mentioned before. A lot of 2’s and 3’s haven’t seen much movement for a while here even with high win%. Seems odd. Like they changed the calculations in the past 6 mos. Has anyone else noticed the same? 2’s used to go up fast. We have a 2 on our team in 9 ball. Won 5/6 and still a 2. Thought you couldn’t have a good win percentage and stay a 2.
Last edited:
I'll give APA LO's more credit. I don't believe they're nefarious enough to purposely screw with player's SLs just to expand the league. My local APA LO just runs continuous "splash board" tournaments to qualify for regionals to generate funds.
As far as players around the '2' range moving quickly. My wife is a 2 and has been for some time (couple of years). I think at one point she did get to a 3, but is back down again. She doesn't have a winning % so that's explained away pretty easily.
As far as players around the '2' range moving quickly. My wife is a 2 and has been for some time (couple of years). I think at one point she did get to a 3, but is back down again. She doesn't have a winning % so that's explained away pretty easily.
Willowbrook Wolfy
Going pro
Been there. Just gotta keep with it. I even started a thread about getting worse instead of better. People laughed at me. A month later I was playing the best pool of my life. Then quit for a short stint and abruptly crashed back down to earth ….
Same thing happens at the gym. You’ll start feeling maxed out or weaker then boom you finally broke through and are getting big gains all of a sudden.
okay but now member “league operator” stated a lot of pages ago that win percentage was part of the APA SL formula. Maybe it wasn’t league operator but someone did give a formula and it involved win%. According to a former league operator I talked to a couple weeks back win% is not part of the calculation here.
Could both be correct, and possible that in some areas they use win% in the calculations and in some they don’t? No one will give you the actual information as it is a “secret”.
Can the league operators talk between each other about these calculations or not?
It would almost make sense in a smaller area with only 50-100 players to also use win% to help separate players from each other. Like you can go up or down 1 from actual calculation based on win %. Or maybe up one but not down. If there is a little pond, as you called it, with a bunch of 4’s shouldnt the best 4’s go up to make the league more fair? It would make some sense.
I won't pretend to understand how the "equalizer" works. That said, I'd be very surprised if win % wasn't in the mix on some level. I've always been lead to believe that in it's simplest terms. The equalizer is designed to keep players close to a 50% record. If that number increases, expect a bump. Opposite if you're results are negative. I don't know what the threshold is +/- 10% or 15%...?
Diving deeper they use all sorts of improperly tracked stats to measure against win/loss %. Like innings played, and defensive shots attempted... etc
Again, I've been lead to believe that the "Equalizer" is a standard across the board. The algorithm (used loosely) requires the same data regardless of the region it's used in. That said, garbage in garbage out.
I've made the argument before when discussing APA handicapping. That if a region has nothing but what you would assess as 4's and doesn't expose itself beyond it's pond. That eventually the best 4s would become 7s and the worst 4s would become 2s. I was told I was wrong by the usual suspects. I might be, but there wasn't anything provided at that time to change my mind.
Willowbrook Wolfy
Going pro
Plus one more good point to this JV. Why do so many players get raised by St. Louis after getting qualified to go to Vegas? They are a listed 5. Stay a 5 the next month or two. Then St. Louis reviews and raises some to 6’s before they go. If the calculation was so simple nobody would get raised by St. Louis. So there’s some kind of exception in there. It’s almost like this five would be a six somewhere else so we’re gonna raise them to six. What other reason would they have for it?
dquarasr
Registered
I don't see where in APA any matchup requires any player to win only one game. Perhaps 5-1 is a typo and you meant 5-2?
Regarding APA in general and the algorithm, while it is proprietary, from what I understand innings count gets the most weight. Just from empirical observation, look at the data APA collects on 8-ball scoresheets:
- Innings
- Defensive shots
- 8-ball exceptions (early 8, 8 wrong pocket, 8 out of turn, scratch on 8, 8 on break)
Every inning means a "miss", unless the miss is intentional (aka "Defensive Shot"). Early 8s usually means the innings count is not as high as it would have been had all 7 balls of the suite were first pocketed, potential "misses" were not available for the player to realize.
8 wrong pocket and scratch on 8 do affect innings because, again, as I understand it, the algorithm weighs win data more heavily than loss data, if loss data is indeed even considered. I mean, what good is an inning count if you didn't win? It's when you win, get to the 8-ball, and pocket it; it took you X number of misses (innings) to make all 8 object balls. If you lose, it's your opponent who controlled the game and innings are significant for their rating, not your own.
So it's entirely possible that the size of the pool locally has little effect on the skill level assigned.
I know nothing of St. Louis, but I do know several players at the advice of their LO that have raised their SL prior to Vegas. Here's what I've been told....
Once you go to a national event (Vegas) you are locked in as that handicap (min). You can still go up, but not go back down. That said, they have "trained" staff on hand at these national events that monitor players "flagged" as inappropriately handicapped. If during the event they determine (eye test?) that you should be completing at a higher SL, they will bump you. IF you get bumped twice, then you will get booted out of the event.
So... Top end 4s (for example) will register themselves as 5s. Not because they are worried about being bumped to a 5 in Vegas, but because if they catch fire and are deemed to be 6s. Then there out of the event.
Another session of Masters is done, and I played like a bag of shit. Still shaking off valley BB rust I suppose. Won 2 lost 1, but didn't play well in any. Dropped 2 racks in the loss. Which isn't horrible, but worse then dropping none.
Teammate played a bad set as well, so I think for the standings nothing has changed. We had won a make up for the LO that wasn't a part of the standings math, so that's 7pts gained, against the 7 we dropped. The team trying to catch us still has 2 bye weeks on their schedule, so in theory we have the opportunity to pull a head another 12 pts, as long as we play like we should.
Teammate played a bad set as well, so I think for the standings nothing has changed. We had won a make up for the LO that wasn't a part of the standings math, so that's 7pts gained, against the 7 we dropped. The team trying to catch us still has 2 bye weeks on their schedule, so in theory we have the opportunity to pull a head another 12 pts, as long as we play like we should.
I wish we still had a Masters league session. A bunch of people weren't paying their dues, so we've changed to a tournament setup. Winners form a team and go to Vegas.
It's much more fun to play a league format IMO. Plus anyone can have a good day for the tournament, but not everyone will play consistently well over many weeks.
Actually... A very nearby Masters league follows a tournament set up. They play events throughout the session and then use the personal accumulative points to seed a final playoff event to determine the team they send to Vegas.
Not sure how it differs from what you're doing, but I thought it a novel idea.
In the case of our Masters league. My team has won the last 5 or so out of the last 6, (last year defeat). However if we followed the tournament method. I'm not even sure I personally would make the top 4. I might be one of the favourites on paper but at the very least there's a host of players that could take me out on the right day. Seems like a great way to represent your region in the best way possible.
That's how it was explained to me before our team went, as well. Our LO looked at everyone on the qualifying teams, and if there were any he felt looked "close", it was suggested they register at the higher skill level. No one on my team was in that category, we played 5 or 6 matches out there, and no one was moved up.
Of course, we're all locked to never going below that level now
which explains a lot, when you look at my record the last 3 sessions 
That's actually sounds like a great idea! This year there will only be two tournaments, and the winners of each will pick their team members, for a total of two teams. Not ideal IMO, as a single event is more or less a crap shoot for who may win and who gets picked (obviously the better players get picked first). No league play whatsoever. I know this is how New Mexico runs it as well, and they have a stacked team each year.
Previous years we had a typical league and the team with the most points would go to Vegas. I've been fortunate to have been on the winning team each of the last few years.
Ok, so it sounds like the theory holds water...That's how it was explained to me before our team went, as well. Our LO looked at everyone on the qualifying teams, and if there were any he felt looked "close", it was suggested they register at the higher skill level. No one on my team was in that category, we played 5 or 6 matches out there, and no one was moved up.
Of course, we're all locked to never going below that level now
One of the benefits of being maxed out in such a league, is the lack of worry I have regarding handicap and the system used to develop them. I know for some, SL management is a major concern. I just show up and play....lol
If my SL-3 opponent gets to 2 wins before I get 5, they win. So for me to win I have to win 5-0 or 5-1.
So they need 2 wins, not 1.
WobblyStroke
Well-known member
ye but what he wrote is he has to win 5-1. Which is true of a 5-2 race, tho confusing to see written that way.
dquarasr
Registered
Ok, got it. I understand now. Thanks for the clarification.
Willowbrook Wolfy
Going pro
A
Plus what a lot of players don’t realize is the APA talks to your LO after the tournament about their player handicaps that went up. Or maybe your LO can talk to them. Either way an LO does have a say in handicap lock ins in some way, shape, or form. The handicap you get locked in as is your handicap at the end of your trip. 1 player I know was registered as a 7 and went up to an 8 after his first Vegas 9-ball match. By the end of it APA had put him back down to a 7 and he was locked in as a 7 afterwards not an 8. And he is still a 7 now. So you can go down in Vegas but not any lower than previously locked in at.
Actually this isn’t true. St. Louis raised at least 3-4 players in our league alone +1 2 or 3 weeks prior to going last year. LO has no say in that. They review all players beforehand. And you can go down a level in Vegas if you aren’t locked in beforehand. They don’t lock you in until it’s over.
Plus what a lot of players don’t realize is the APA talks to your LO after the tournament about their player handicaps that went up. Or maybe your LO can talk to them. Either way an LO does have a say in handicap lock ins in some way, shape, or form. The handicap you get locked in as is your handicap at the end of your trip. 1 player I know was registered as a 7 and went up to an 8 after his first Vegas 9-ball match. By the end of it APA had put him back down to a 7 and he was locked in as a 7 afterwards not an 8. And he is still a 7 now. So you can go down in Vegas but not any lower than previously locked in at.