How Does an APA 7 Go Down to a 6?

The_JV

'AZB_Combat Certified'
Um, that’s exactly what the stated races chart shows.
0194b97359ef63f3c08055f04a127873.jpg



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Thanks for pointing that out... Just proves how little I care about the APA subject matter, even though I'm posting like a mad man...lol It's amazing what working from home will bore you into doing. :)

I'm going to have to assume that I never faced off against a 2/3 during my brief stint in the CPA. Could have sworn that one guy in the playoffs I mentioned a while back was a 3. I tend not to pay attention to the score and just keep playing until I'm told to stop.
 

The_JV

'AZB_Combat Certified'
If you beat the the 6's, how can you be a 6?
You should move up to a 7, and when you get badly beaten enough to move back down to a 6, that should happen as well. The whole point is that it's easy to move up, not so much to move down.
 

The_JV

'AZB_Combat Certified'
I'm no expert, nor am I a top tier player. I do have over 10 years experience playing in APA. The one time my team went to Vegas, we played 6 matches I believe, before losing. Maybe 7 matches. I didnt see anyone we played against that was out of line, Skill Level-wise. There may have been one or two players that could have been ranked one level higher, but they weren't killers, and not put of the norm for any group of players.

We are in a very small pond, rural Maine. My whole team seemed in line with the players we faced.
I've only taken part in the Masters tournament in Vegas. Generally the first couple of rounds are a bit on the weak side. Then it ramps up quickly.

No telling what SL those players actually are.
 

easy-e

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
You should move up to a 7, and when you get badly beaten enough to move back down to a 6, that should happen as well. The whole point is that it's easy to move up, not so much to move down.
I get that. My response is only to the people who kept repeating that question. Just goes to show you, you can never make everyone happy.
 

The_JV

'AZB_Combat Certified'
I get that. My response is only to the people who kept repeating that question. Just goes to show you, you can never make everyone happy.
Nope you can't.... Pool players are the worst. Worst yet are pool players that concern themselves with handicaps.

The unfortunate part about the APA, is the rule of 23(?) means some players do need to be concerned. If they want to continue to play with their buddies.
 

David in FL

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Playing fargo rated tournaments I have played 6-1 races against C players. A decent 6 should be able to give a 2, 3 on the wire to 5. A 2 is real bad.
Yep.

If the 6 is focused on winning, rather than proving that he’s a 6, he should never lose to a 2.
 

justadub

Rattling corners nightly
Silver Member
I've only taken part in the Masters tournament in Vegas. Generally the first couple of rounds are a bit on the weak side. Then it ramps up quickly.

No telling what SL those players actually are.
as I said, we went 6 or 7 rounds... not just 2 rounds. I don't buy the standard "everyone that goes to Vegas is underrated" line that people keep perpetuating.

Our two losses, one went to sudden death, the other was moments away from going to sudden death. No one is playing it that close to the vest, out there.
 

The_JV

'AZB_Combat Certified'
I don't buy the standard "everyone that goes to Vegas is underrated" line that people keep perpetuating.
Neither do I for the most part... I'll only add that it's very easy to find a SL7 in Vegas that is well beyond the average.
 

justadub

Rattling corners nightly
Silver Member
Neither do I for the most part... I'll only add that it's very easy to find a SL7 in Vegas that is well beyond the average.
Well, I can't (and won't argue) that. As has been previously mentioned, 8-ball SL7's can vary by a large margin.
 

KS25-06

New member
I play in a local 9 ball leaque in which there are only a couple of 6's, several 5's mostly 4's and 3's with some 2's All of a sudden all the girls that were 3's were all dropped to 2's. In many of the members opinions there is only one girl that should be a 2 because she is a very poor player The other girls were holding their own and should still be 3's. The teams with 6's, 5's and 4's were leading the leaque. Now the leading teams are getting beat because it is very hard to beat a 2 in a slop game. The LO that keeps these records also just dropped one of his team members from a 5 to a 4. When we have questioned the LO about these things, he just says that is the way it is. Give you an example: My average is 59.26. I have played 246 games and won 123. To me that is 50% I have played 54 matches and lost 18. My friend whose average is the exact same as mine has played 303 games and lost 125. That is 59%. He also has the same match wins and losses as me. None of this makes any sense. Some one care to explain this to me.
 
Last edited:

APA Operator

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
No I'm arguing that your rating should only be based on your competition. APA is full of little ecosystems (thats the flaw), whereas Fargo's method is potentially one large swimming pool.
You're not doing the comparison fairly. If all you play is people in your pond and all those people play is people in the same pond, you know nothing about how low the lowest is or how high the highest is if you only have relative results. Maybe they're all equally skilled, but in Fargo you don't know if that's 250 or 650. In APA you at least know which is closer. If you have a broad range of ability, that will show in both systems. In neither system will you know for sure until you have play outside your pond. APA has ways (not all computerized) of resolving differences in ponds. There just aren't as many differences as people like to think, and that's because there are people who suck everywhere, most people are honest about their ability, and it's natural to blame the system when you lose.
 

hang-the-9

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Neither do I for the most part... I'll only add that it's very easy to find a SL7 in Vegas that is well beyond the average.

SL7 in APA is the only real trustworthy rating, because you can't go higher. And there is a big difference between 7s, enough that it's like a 5 or a 6 playing a 7 when you get a weak 7 and a top 7 playing together. As pointed out before, you can be like a 550 Fargo and be a 7 and a 700 Fargo and be a 7, that is a B+ vs an A+ or A++.
 

hang-the-9

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
..and there is an interesting thing. A 7 vs 2 match up is terrifying for the 'weak to average' 7 handicap player. That set is a race to 5 with 3 on the wire for the weaker player. A single win for the 2 gives their team a point for reaching the hill. ...and a single mistake can easily cost the 7 the match.

All is fun in love and pool though... ;)

A 2-5 race for a 7 vs a 2 is a fair match. I've played a 2-6 race in a tournament not long ago, although it was 10 ball, and the only game the opponent won was off an early 10 ball combo. Yes it was close, but it was fair.
 

hang-the-9

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I habe mentioned a couple times about how gargo can be manipulated just lile any other handicap system.

I happened to just look up a dew Fargo ratings again instead of going by memory.

These are apa 7"s .
576
452
467

Me ? 480 and i am an apa 5/6

Downright laughable i was spotting apa 7's when i played usapl.

I would bet those 400 range 7s have few games in the Fargo systems. Also it's easy to adjust things in Fargo, just go through the league LO in the USAPL league, show them the proof the rating is off and they can adjust it in minutes with an email. I've seen it done before and have initiated such a change several times when someone was clearly ranked wrong. To do a rank change in the APA seems takes more effort than changing the US Constitution.
 

hang-the-9

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Guess i need to explain the format so you can understand my point.

3 man teams with a 15 max handicap.

Rotate between 8 and 9 ball. Each player plays one rack .

Player 1 starts off the match playing 8 ball.
Player 2 plays 9 ball.
Player 3 plays 8 ball.
Player 1 plays 9 ball
Player 2 plays 8 ball
So each player winds up playing both formats Until one team reaches 5 points.
Each rack is worth 1 point. Unlike regular apa 9 ball where points are counted this tournament gives the win to whoever makes the 9..

Its more or less a modified bcapl format except each time you come to the table you will play 8 ball one time and then 9 ball the next and then back to 8 again and then back to 9 the next time...dependiing on how many racks it takes to reach 5 points first.

I can see them having my 9 ball handicap being charged towards the 15 limit since we are playing 9 ball also. But i can't understand their logic in only charging a team a 9' s 8 ball handicap since apa only goes to a 7 in 8 ball.

you know and i know a team with a 7/9 has an advantage over a team with a 7/7 in a race to one each time they face each other.

Defies logic that they use a 5"s 9 ball handicap but they use a 9's 8 ball handicap towards the 15 max limit.


I know what you meant in the post, what I said was that the issue is simply solved by not having two separate ratings. When I played USAPL in 9 ball, 10 ball or 8 ball, my rating was the exact same thing for all of those. So if you have a 15 max handicap the levels would be the same.
 

APA Operator

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
All of a sudden all the girls that were 3's were all dropped to 2's.
There's no way to drop form a 3 to a 2 unless the calculation says 2. You can't override the math downward. Same with the LO's teammate who went from 5 to 4. That's one reason I hardly ever play on a team. It's impossible to not be accused of cheating even if you do things honestly, and it's also hard not to make it harder on your teammates (unfair treatment goes both ways) to avoid those accusations.
 

Ron Nepini

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
There is a way to fix sandbagging in the APA, the player can move up a skill level but not down but APA wants NO part of this.
 

The_JV

'AZB_Combat Certified'
You're not doing the comparison fairly. If all you play is people in your pond and all those people play is people in the same pond, you know nothing about how low the lowest is or how high the highest is if you only have relative results. Maybe they're all equally skilled, but in Fargo you don't know if that's 250 or 650. In APA you at least know which is closer. If you have a broad range of ability, that will show in both systems. In neither system will you know for sure until you have play outside your pond. APA has ways (not all computerized) of resolving differences in ponds. There just aren't as many differences as people like to think, and that's because there are people who suck everywhere, most people are honest about their ability, and it's natural to blame the system when you lose.
I keep saying continually that a comparison between fargo and the "Equalizer" is unfair. ...and I'll take your above example and expand upon it to illustrate.

100 players sign up for both APA and a separate fargo reporting league. None have prior handicaps to draw opon. After, lets say a year, the skill levels of the players has pretty much leveled out in each individual league. The handicaps/fargos are consistent between the two leagues. At least I would expect them to be. You'd have an assortment of APA SL handicaps with varying skill sets within them, but no way to determine other than subjective opinion who's the strongest/weakest within those groups. In the fargo league the APA players are ranked within a span of roughly 50 points, (weakest 5=425, strongest 5=475). <-Trying to adhere to the Dr's chart.

Then one day a two equally skilled players (both 7s in APA and lets say 600 in fargo) jump in a car and drive to another city. One plays in an APA tournament as a 7 and gets killed by a couple of 5s. The other plays in a fargo reporting tournament and gets killed by a couple of ~425 players. So now what happens....?

They go home and the APA league remains the same. The fargo league nows has data that not only effects the player that traveled, but every other player he has gone up against in that league.

So after all that, yes we agree that both systems suffer from the same issue when players never leave their pond. However once one player does in fargo there's a ripple effect. That ripple may also cause indirect players to either go up or down. In APA example nothing changes, and lets pretend it did for a moment, and lets pretend the change was drastic enough to have the direct player drop to a 6. That change would only effect the direct player and have zero bearing on the rest of his pond.

Now you may argue that the APA "has waaays" but proof is in the pudding as they say. So if you can speak freely about it. What "way" does the APA have to create parity between ponds, that is grounded in something other than subjective opinion...?

The lack of subjective opinion, is what I enjoy the most about fargo.

I screwed up the quoting but I wanted to address this directly..:
Maybe they're all equally skilled, but in Fargo you don't know if that's 250 or 650. In APA you at least know which is closer. If you have a broad range of ability, that will show in both systems

I fail to see the difference in APA and Fargo when it comes to gauging the overal SL of an isolated pond. A SL in APA is determined by wins/loses and so is fargo. To be a 650 in fargo you would need to beat up heavily on the rest of the league. To be 7 in APA you just need a winning record against 6s.
 
Last edited:

mikepage

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
[...]

I fail to see the difference in APA and Fargo when it comes to gauging the overal SL of an isolated pond. [...]
Here is what he MIGHT be saying. Suppose the isolated pond of 100 players is a remote monastery of aging nuns and they're all new to pool. The 8-Ball games take from 10 to 100 innings. The win-loss data may not look weird to FargoRate, but the inning-count data does look weird to APA.
 

KS25-06

New member
APA Operator Thank you for your comments. Please explain how they were all changed at the same time. Also could you answer my 2nd question about how my friend and I could have the same averages with the figures I stated? Thank you for your time.
 
Top