^^^^^ This is why you should not debate the issue. Your knowledge of APA's system is seriously lacking, and I'm not talking about detailed knowledge - I'm talking about basic, general knowledge. It sounds like it's based on things you've heard from sources upon which you should not rely.
Those are the musings of someone who has an axe to grind with APA. I'm sorry for whatever happened to you, unless you deserved it.
Not necessarily weird, but we can use it to put them at the low end of the spectrum. We might not guess nuns but we'd probably guess new to pool.
I can't explain how it did, because I wasn't there. I can only demonstrate how it could. Maybe the LO had a "no 2's" policy. APA discourages that, but some league operators did it anyway (don't ask me why, it's beyond me). Maybe the APA convinced him to do away with the policy, and he unlocked the set of 3's that were being held up artificially, all at the same time. That's one way. Another could be that he had a meeting of his handicap advisory committee, and that group convinced him to let these 3's drop. Perhaps he's not even the one who locked them in. Maybe he took over for another LO and decided the previous LO was too liberal with the locks. Then again, it could all just be coincidence. You deserve an answer besides "It is what it is", but I can't give you that answer. You have to get it from your LO.
I don't think that would get you what you want, Bob. First, APA can be more precise than just '7' or '6'. At singles regionals and nationals the brackets are seeded with their view of the strongest X on the bottom, so you know we have some way of determining who is the strongest within a skill level band. It's wrong sometimes, like any other system, but it exists. At any rate, you still need to know the skill levels and not just the difference. The APA system says the average 5 is two games better than the average 3 in a race to 4, while the average 6 is two games better than the average 4 in a race to 5. Numerically the differences are the same but the spot is not. If you did a race to xxx you would have too much spot on one end or too little on the other. You have to have both the difference and the ratings, but I know what you mean and agree with it. It's what I was talking about in post #90.
You're the one who said math is math. The math in what you say here leads to exactly one 7 or to all 7's being exactly 50%. If you have any that win over 50% you have to have at least one that loses over 50%. It's just math, and that's how it works. Lower that guy and restart the counter. Iterate until you have no 7's under 50% against other 7's. That Turing machine only stops when all 7's are at exactly 50% or there is exactly one 7. Do you think either of those results is reasonable?
You took the time to cherry pick that quote to make an argument. Maybe you should also reread the subsequent post wherein I specifically addressed that 50% number as something I simply grabbed by someone else, and didn't mean it to be consider the bar. If you did happen to take the time. Guess that will depend on how much of an axe you happen to want to grind. You will find that I said that if you're within +/- 15% of 50/50 then you're right where you should be. So since we're focusing on absolutes now, I'll expand further and say that if you're winning less than 35% of your matches you should be considered for dropping down. Just as if you're winning more than 65% you should be considered for being bumped. We know there's other aspects the APA uses to adjust SLs and I don't discount them. Inning count and safety play are great indicators for judging someone's actual spd.
My knowledge/experience with the bottom end APA is very limited, so I really can't comment there. I'd venture to say the divison between the 6 and 7 is fairly spot on compared to the league I played in. I'd say the vast majority >95% of that league doesn't have any fargo data, so my opinion is solely based on my personal experience playing both them and those with fargos outside of that league.
I can't, though I'd love to, and it is because of that whole "non-disclosure" thing. All I can say is the whole Equalizer system is way more than just the numbers you see. But I can't even say what it does or does not contain without risking breach of contract. I can say that it is constantly evolving, and I've been a part of the group at the heart of that evolution for as long as I've been a franchisee. I'm not Mike Page, I didn't invent the system, but I'm one of the ones who might make suggestions to Mike or off whom he might bounce ideas. I'm sure he has people like that. I can also say it's not as short as you might think in terms of league-wide parity, but I can't say how so you'll have to decide for yourself whether to trust me on that. To be truly enlightened you'd have to purchase a franchise, though.
I don't disagree with this, it is something like I would expect. If you did a similar graph for an APA league, with the Fargo Rating being the estimate, the curve would be shifted to the left and fall off more steeply to the right. That shows the different market segments to which these two leagues appeal. What's missing is the curve that's shifted to the right, to bridge the gap between handicapped and non-handicapped play. Or maybe non-handicapped leagues provide that curve? The APA masters format, for example, has a curve shifted to the right.
That pretty much falls in line with the people in my APA division (in a small pond) that had a rating that I could look up. To be fair, we only started having Fargo rated tournaments out here in the wilderness shortly before the pandemic, so many of the rankings are likely not fully "robust", if I recall my Fargo reading. But those players mostly fall into the graph as illustrated here.
Excellent, and I fully understand.
It's supposed to. The Equalizer is supposed to measure/reflect how you play when you play your "good" game, not your average performance. Average performance is too easy to manipulate downward. There's a difference between demonstrating potential and demonstrating ability, but eventually if that potential gets turned into ability your rating will reflect it and the ability is harder to lose than it was to gain. And almost all players struggle some when they first move up. They go from the best X to the worst Y and suddenly that 1 extra game gets in their head. It's not uncommon, for example, to see a 5 beat other 5's consistently, yet when they go up to a 6 they can no longer win 4 games against those very same players. If they can win 4 games as a 5, why can't they win 4 games against the same player as a 6? That's not the number, but it happens a lot (and it's the reason why automatic and indirect adjustments are not always advisable). What also happens is that when you go up you might begin playing stronger competition (the Skill Level Limit rule dictates that) and as the weakest Y you're on the short end of many of those spots. You're expected to lose so if you do is an adjustment really necessary?
That will happen in any handicapping system. Cheaters will cheat, and no system can prevent it. You have to have mechanisms in place to fight it, and you have to have an operator who is vigilant, and you still won't catch them all. Sadly, it's another fact of life. It's also why some handicapped golf tournaments will disqualify someone who shoots as little as three strokes below their handicap. Their systems are not perfect either.
HELL YES!!!! A SL 7 is expected to lose to another 7? If that SL 7 is WEAKER, then he should be a 6. This is the jist of my beef with APA ratings system. Weaker players SHOULD NOT have to play more skilled players even up. Would you gamble with a more skilled player without getting some weight? Not unless your mad at your money. All you’ve stated proves my point; the APA will raise someone’s hcp far quicker than they will lower it.
