National Rating System

[Billiard Architect]

One thing that has always bothered me is there have been several attempts at coming up with a national rating system.

APA, BCA, NPL, USPPA etc as we know all have their own way of rating players. They are either based on how many balls are sunk or how many games they have won. The problem with these type of rating system is that players are rated based on their particular area. (Example) Lets say you have 6 players, 3 in one area and 3 in another area. Now lets give them ratings based on their skill. Now lets say that each area has an ABC (the three players). But lets say that if you were to transport the A player to the other area his actual skill level is only a C. But when he plays in his area he can easily beat a B and C Player thus giving him the A ranking in his area. So using wins or losses or number of balls dropped is skewed by the skill level in an area.

The other type of ranking is self ranking. There is 99 from Pool and Billiards, Fargo (which is pretty good) from Mike Page and a few others. There is a slight problem with these in that they are based on a random layout each time you do the test. You break and continue from there keeping score of your match and then you post those scores against other players. Lets sy you and another player are evenly ranked on skill. You break and get a few clusters and the other player breaks and gets none. He runs out and you only sink 3 balls. Doesn't mean he is a better player it just means he got luckier on the break.

Well now comes the reason for my post. If you had a set table layout that you used to get your ranking then the rating system is equal. I have come up with a table layout that has most common shots with a couple of difficult position plays for you to try. Basically you start with this layout and start to run the table. When you miss mark down how many balls you got on the run. If you run the table reset the layout and you get a 10 for that set (two points for the 9). Play 10 sets and total your score. A perfect game would be 100.

If this seems like a good idea and you would like to compare your scores with other players maybe Mike would like to adopt this as a national ranking system and come up with a way for you to compare your results privately with other players.

Here is the layout...

 

[BazookaJoe]

Argh!!!!!!!
Another rating system post?

 

[CaptainJR]

That is not a rating system. Its the game I'd like to play. No luck involved, each player takes the same shots. Points for making the ball. Target type points for position of the cue ball. 2 with in a 3 in diameter 1 withing a 5 in diameter, etc, etc.

 

[Billiard Architect]

That is not a rating system. Its the game I'd like to play. No luck involved, each player takes the same shots. Points for making the ball. Target type points for position of the cue ball. 2 with in a 3 in diameter 1 withing a 5 in diameter, etc, etc.

I was thinking of awarding shooters with safety play. if you play a safe and force the ghost to bank you get 1 point. If you hide the cueball from the object ball (forcing the ghost to kick) you continue shooting with ball in hand. Thus it would be a offensive and defensive ranking system... uh i mean solitare game

 

[JDB]

I was thinking of awarding shooters with safety play. if you play a safe and force the ghost to bank you get 1 point. If you hide the cueball from the object ball (forcing the ghost to kick) you continue shooting with ball in hand. Thus it would be a offensive and defensive ranking system... uh i mean solitare game

I like the idea. I play Olympic 9-ball a lot (very similar to 99 from P&B) and I know I get frustrated with the clusters that can develop after the break. Usually I calm myself down after considering that a strong break is part of the game too...lol. However, I still like your idea from a pure run out perspective. I also like the idea of the lock down safety and continuing with ball in hand. But since you have removed clusters and made the balls pretty spread out, I would see very little reason for a safety in your scenario. This comes up much more often when the break is used and clusters form.

How do you recommend starting your run, from the position you indicate in your picture (cue ball at the headstring) or ball in hand?

 

[Billiard Architect]

I like the idea. I play Olympic 9-ball a lot (very similar to 99 from P&B) and I know I get frustrated with the clusters that can develop after the break. Usually I calm myself down after considering that a strong break is part of the game too...lol. However, I still like your idea from a pure run out perspective. I also like the idea of the lock down safety and continuing with ball in hand. But since you have removed clusters and made the balls pretty spread out, I would see very little reason for a safety in your scenario. This comes up much more often when the break is used and clusters form.

How do you recommend starting your run, from the position you indicate in your picture (cue ball at the headstring) or ball in hand?

Yup you start where the cueball is spotted. I tried it for the first time last night and I have to tell you getting the right position on the 2 from the one so you can get good position on the 3 is pretty damn tough. Also if you leave yourself long on the 6 the position for the 7 to get a good angle to make it to the 8 can get interesting. I scored a 46 for my first try. But the first 3 racks I only scored a 2 on each because I kept screwing myself on the position for the 3.

I think scoring for the safety play needs to be there because there are a couple of tough position plays on the layout. There was a couple of times in the set that I tried the safety on the 3 because I didn't get a good angle on it coming off the 2. I failed miserably but giving yourself a chance by playing safety is something the other rating systems don't have.

 

[JDB]

Yup you start where the cueball is spotted. I tried it for the first time last night and I have to tell you getting the right position on the 2 from the one so you can get good position on the 3 is pretty damn tough. Also if you leave yourself long on the 6 the position for the 7 to get a good angle to make it to the 8 can get interesting. I scored a 46 for my first try. But the first 3 racks I only scored a 2 on each because I kept screwing myself on the position for the 3.

I think scoring for the safety play needs to be there because there are a couple of tough position plays on the layout. There was a couple of times in the set that I tried the safety on the 3 because I didn't get a good angle on it coming off the 2. I failed miserably but giving yourself a chance by playing safety is something the other rating systems don't have.

Yep, after shooting the layout a couple of times, I agree with the safety rule...lol. I thought the 3 to the 4 was the toughest shot because of the interferring 7 ball. It is difficult to get the angle on the 3 to get to the 4 without bumping the 7. And if you spin it more, you run the risk of bumping the 6 and safetying yourself.

 

[Billiard Architect]

Yep, after shooting the layout a couple of times, I agree with the safety rule...lol. I thought the 3 to the 4 was the toughest shot because of the interferring 7 ball. It is difficult to get the angle on the 3 to get to the 4 without bumping the 7. And if you spin it more, you run the risk of bumping the 6 and safetying yourself.

The 3-4-7 was intentional... the 1-2-3 was not. There is a trick to getting on the two that took me a couple of tries to figure out. The question is do you thin it in the side and risk over running the postion on the 3 or try the corner and risk not getting perfect straight in position on the 2 to follow it down the rail for the 3 into the opposite corner. It took me 3 racks to figure it out and even after I did it still is pretty difficult.

The thing I like about the layout is it is easy to remember to set up. I did it completely from memory when I got home last night. The six ball is the only ball that does not line up on a spot and you put it a ball width from the rail. I am going to try and beat my score from last night and see if there is a better way to get on the two.

JV

 

[catscradle]

Yup you start where the cueball is spotted. I tried it for the first time last night and I have to tell you getting the right position on the 2 from the one so you can get good position on the 3 is pretty damn tough. Also if you leave yourself long on the 6 the position for the 7 to get a good angle to make it to the 8 can get interesting. I scored a 46 for my first try. But the first 3 racks I only scored a 2 on each because I kept screwing myself on the position for the 3.
.

IMO, that's why it isn't a good rating system though it may be a good practice routine. You learn those particular shots and get better at them and your rating goes up, but it doesn't really represent your ability in a variety of situations. The effectiveness of the break and the ability to deal with difficult, unique situations is part of your skill set and they don't get evaluated by this method. With a multiple rack rating system which includes breaking you'll get some good breaks some bad breaks and the total should reflect your real skill.
I think Joe Tucker's 10-ball drill as described in his booklet Guaranteed Improvement gives a good reflection of your skill. For that matter all the drills in that booklet have a rating associated with how well you do, IMO the ratings are pretty accurate.

I think scoring for the safety play needs to be there because there are a couple of tough position plays on the layout. There was a couple of times in the set that I tried the safety on the 3 because I didn't get a good angle on it coming off the 2. I failed miserably but giving yourself a chance by playing safety is something the other rating systems don't have.