New APA Scoring system

[CreeDo]

This is the cruel joke of this change. You're getting tricked into thinking you're helping the team when you loose but it's the same outcome. If you loose and get 0 while the other guy(or gal) gets 1 is the same as you loosing and getting 1 while he gets 2.

It's a +1 to the winner.

You ARE still helping the team because you're racing to X points.
Every point counts towards that goal.

What if, at the end of the night, your team lost by just one point? Then a losing player who got skunked will not have helped his team as much as a losing player who got to the hill. This system gives you some credit for a good effort.

Please explain how you win an 8 ball game without pocketing balls. You can't win without pocketing balls, ergo each ball pocketed gets you closer to winning. Actually, don't bother answering, i'm putting you on the ignore list as its pointless to converse with you.

On this topic, chris is actually correct, though he doesn't always express it the best way.

For strong players, 8 ball is easy to run out. The only thing stopping you is the traffic and clusters created by the opponent's balls.

If someone clears several balls, but fails to run out, they greatly decrease their odds of winning the rack, because the opponent will either run out or play a strong safety. When you have 7 balls on the table it's hard to play that safety, but if you get down to 1 or 2 balls it's easy. What's worse... even if you get a good hit, there's basically 0 chance of leaving your opponent no shot afterwards.

---

Of course, for not-so-strong players, it's basically a race to see who can make all of their balls first... they're only capable of making one or two balls at a time. If both players are low-level, they should just try to pocket balls when the opportunity arises.

 

[brophog]

This is the cruel joke of this change. You're getting tricked into thinking you're helping the team when you loose but it's the same outcome. If you loose and get 0 while the other guy(or gal) gets 1 is the same as you loosing and getting 1 while he gets 2.

It's a +1 to the winner.

In absolute terms, agreed. The difference in that case would be 1 (the difference being the same in both systems). In relative terms, the change may be significant dependent to when the game occurred. If you only needed 1 point to secure victory then it doesn't really matter if the opponent got 2.

If we're playing a basketball game and we trade layups every time down the floor then the score would remain within 2 depending on whose turn it is. However, if it is later in the game and I am up 20 then the same absolute difference in scoring would make me highly favorable to win. Same absolute difference, but different relative difference.

 

[EasyEJL]

If someone clears several balls, but fails to run out, they greatly decrease their odds of winning the rack, because the opponent will either run out or play a strong safety.

and if they sink no balls, they can't win the rack. Each ball is part of the marker towards winning and is progress towards winning. Sinking a ball means you get to shoot again, so your opponent having less balls in his way is irrelevant till you miss a ball. Sinking a ball absolutely gets you closer to winning. What you are describing is that it is sometimes tactically advantageous to not sink a certain ball (which I agree with) but that doesn't change the fact that once you do choose to sink a ball you are closer to winning. That other point of view takes the stand that you will still choose to sink an individual ball even though you have no good shot for a next ball, which is a bad idea.

 

[4onthebreak]

In APA 8-ball your team isn't racing to X points night by night. If you're talking overall for playoff/buy in position then a 0/1 split or 1/2 split still doesn't help.

You ARE still helping the team because you're racing to X points.
Every point counts towards that goal.

What if, at the end of the night, your team lost by just one point? Then a losing player who got skunked will not have helped his team as much as a losing player who got to the hill. This system gives you some credit for a good effort.

 

[4onthebreak]

Your basketball analogy would only apply if we were playing best 2 out of 3 games of a race to 20. Each race gave 1 point to the winner but we change it so if I can get to at least 10 points then I get 1 point and you get 2.

If you want to talk overall season wise it's the same. If team A gets a 2-1 split for each match then team A has 10 points at the end of the night and team B has 5. If team C gets 2 3-0's and 3 2-1's then they end up with 12 and team D has a score of 3.

So after week 1 it'd look like:
Team C 12
Team A 10
Team B 5
Team D 3

Bonus points aside Team D is down 9 points after 1 week. Usually teams win and loose matches each week but this really shows the problem with this system.

In absolute terms, agreed. The difference in that case would be 1 (the difference being the same in both systems). In relative terms, the change may be significant dependent to when the game occurred. If you only needed 1 point to secure victory then it doesn't really matter if the opponent got 2.

If we're playing a basketball game and we trade layups every time down the floor then the score would remain within 2 depending on whose turn it is. However, if it is later in the game and I am up 20 then the same absolute difference in scoring would make me highly favorable to win. Same absolute difference, but different relative difference.

 

[brophog]

In regards to the 8 ball strategy discussion, the quotes in reply to specific comments are hampering discussion. A lot of people are saying very similar things so in an attempt to sum things up I'm going to avoid quoting.

All strategies are based on a probability, between 0 and theoretically 100%. In the game of basketball, a team is doing very good to make 50% of their shots and therefore strategies must take into consideration those shots that are missed. One aspect of that is offensive rebounding. How many players do you send to the offensive boards in hope of getting a rebound and continuing your possession and how many do you send to the other end of the court to defend against a fast break?

Pool is no different. We often shoot with direction and speed in mind in the event we miss, with the best results being a plus for us if we made the shot and a minus for our opponent if we missed. Going back to our basketball example, every one of our balls in 8 ball is like one of those potential rebounders. Do we shoot it and hope to continue our run or do we leave it as an obstacle to our opponents running out? Our chance of winning is contingent on us running our balls out and making the 8 ball before our opponent can do the same of his, so either usage of that ball may serve our purpose, given the scenario.

In general, most agree on this strategy for 8 ball:

If you can run-out, relative to your skill level, then do so. The patterns and decisions in the course of the run-out may be vastly different for differing skill levels.

If you cannot run-out, then attempt to make your next trip to the table a more likely run-out scenario while attempting to make it less likely your opponent can run-out. If you can leave yourself a good next shot, break up a problem, and leave the cue ball safe then that was a very productive trip to the table.

 

[HendryMBE]

I tell you what Chris...............

1) Quit handicap league play
2) Join a Masters Division and play straight up


I will play you straight up and wipe the floor with you, in any game. 8, 9, One Pocket, Banks, Snooker, Straight Pool.......

I stayed at home and took care of my youngest son for the last year. I came back playing and picked up right where I left off. I guarantee I am still better than you any day.


When you finally win your FIRST pro tournament, maybe you can wear a shirt showing your online name so that we can all see you in the winners circle.

I know one thing for sure, I will not be holding my breath waiting to see you do that. It will never happen. You will quit and be long gone all too soon.

 

[ChrisBanks]

I tell you what Chris...............

1) Quit handicap league play
2) Join a Masters Division and play straight up


I will play you straight up and wipe the floor with you, in any game. 8, 9, One Pocket, Banks, Snooker, Straight Pool.......

I stayed at home and took care of my youngest son for the last year. I came back playing and picked up right where I left off. I guarantee I am still better than you any day.


When you finally win your FIRST pro tournament, maybe you can wear a shirt showing your online name so that we can all see you in the winners circle.

I know one thing for sure, I will not be holding my breath waiting to see you do that. It will never happen. You will quit and be long gone all too soon.

When did I say I was better than any particular player?

 

[HendryMBE]

When did I say I was better than any particular player?

Being better has nothing to do with it.
You said you play straight up, without handicap/spot/weight.

That is pretty straight forward.

I am offering you the chance to step up to the big boy table and "GET SOME".

You want?

I am still not holding my breath.

 

[jollyrodger]

I played a guy last night with the last three, 2 games on the wire going to 5 and the breaks. I came out 1 ahead after 5 sets. He is a 4 I am a 7 but he wanted to gamble a little. I love trying out run the nuts. That's why I play APA cause you get the same thrill and it don't cost that much lol my point is it may not be for everyone. But I don't think the APA handicap is enough. Lol

 

[Kaiser Bob]

This is the cruel joke of this change. You're getting tricked into thinking you're helping the team when you loose but it's the same outcome. If you loose and get 0 while the other guy(or gal) gets 1 is the same as you loosing and getting 1 while he gets 2.

It's a +1 to the winner.

How is it the same outcome in the new system? You give up 1/3 the points making it to the hill vs getting shut out. For SL2s and 3s the difference between 3-0 and 2-1 is 1 game which should make the lower skilled matchups more interesting. Also makes it less advantageous to put up higher SLs against the lower SLs as getting a 2-0 would be better then risking only getting 1 point if the lower SL player wins just 1 game.

 

[scratchs]

I no longer play Apa, but have many friends that do..that said,I think the new system is a plus...I really do think it'll help with skill levels.It will be interesting listening to my friends out come of thier matchs this session..

 

[APA Operator]

Your basketball analogy would only apply if we were playing best 2 out of 3 games of a race to 20. Each race gave 1 point to the winner but we change it so if I can get to at least 10 points then I get 1 point and you get 2.

If you want to talk overall season wise it's the same. If team A gets a 2-1 split for each match then team A has 10 points at the end of the night and team B has 5. If team C gets 2 3-0's and 3 2-1's then they end up with 12 and team D has a score of 3.

So after week 1 it'd look like:
Team C 12
Team A 10
Team B 5
Team D 3

Bonus points aside Team D is down 9 points after 1 week. Usually teams win and loose matches each week but this really shows the problem with this system.

I'm wondering why you think it's a problem. I still think you're not grasping the concept completely.

Using the current scoring system, the standings after the first week would be:
Team A 5
Team C 5
Team B 0
Team D 0

You tell me, under which scoring system are the standings closer? HINT: Look at Team B, it's obvious that the 2-1 losses put them closer to first place than the 3-0 losses by team D, but in the current system the two teams are dead even. In actuality, both teams can overtake first place in week two, whereas in the current system the best they could do is pull into a tie. Those 2-1 losses do make a difference.

 

[brophog]

Your basketball analogy would only apply if we were playing best 2 out of 3 games of a race to 20.

The basketball example given is simply to highlight that while there may not be an absolute difference, there may exist a relative difference. You can pick a wide array of scenarios to illustrate that, but that was a simple one.

 

[Shell]

Score results

I have a question or two for those of you who have been exposed to the new scoring system.

What is the tie breaker in a playoff/regional/NTC match when the 2 teams tie? (assume the team that has 3 wins but want to be sure)

In a regional/NTC match that hits the time constraints, what is the score for each player in a match which becomes the race to 1?
I can seen some people trying to drag out the time to control the amount of points the other team can achieve, whatever the score may be.

 

[justadub]

I have a question or two for those of you who have been exposed to the new scoring system.

What is the tie breaker in a playoff/regional/NTC match when the 2 teams tie? (assume the team that has 3 wins but want to be sure)

In a regional/NTC match that hits the time constraints, what is the score for each player in a match which becomes the race to 1?
I can seen some people trying to drag out the time to control the amount of points the other team can achieve, whatever the score may be.

I haven't used the new system yet (we start using it for the summer session) but i assume the tie breaker will the same as 9-ball. In the event of a tie in points, the team that wins 3 matches wins...

Just a guess. I believe it will be accurate.

 

[APA Operator]

I have a question or two for those of you who have been exposed to the new scoring system.

What is the tie breaker in a playoff/regional/NTC match when the 2 teams tie? (assume the team that has 3 wins but want to be sure)

In a regional/NTC match that hits the time constraints, what is the score for each player in a match which becomes the race to 1?
I can seen some people trying to drag out the time to control the amount of points the other team can achieve, whatever the score may be.

In the event of a tie, the tie breaker is indeed matches won.

Sudden death is a little trickier. A sudden death match would consist of one game for two points, followed by one game for one point, if needed. The winner of the first game wins the sudden death match, regardless of who wins the one-point game.

 

[Shell]

Score

Thanks for the responses.

That is an interesting way to deal with it.
Not one I would have thought of.

I guess we can call the 2 games "maybe sudden death" and "very sudden death"

On those rare occasions where the 4th match has not started before the time limit, I can see players breaking out the abacus to work out all possible
combinations of results that may occur.

 

[APA Operator]

Maybe somebody should produce a cheat sheet for sudden death, like the sheets NFL coaches use to tell them when to go for two...

 

[whitewolf]

It's a stupid change and let me tell you why:


The big problem is introducing a 3-0 for a skunk. I captain a team and when this stupid scoring system hits us next session you can bet I won't be going for hill/hill wins and even matchups. I'm going to maximize my shutouts as much as humanly possible.

If you keep trying to 'maximize your shutouts as much as humanly possible', your players are going to go up faster than if you managed your team putups properly. It's called handicap management and is not cheating. Using your method will leave a team with too many over-rated players and too many under-rated players (the ones who get their clocks cleaned). You will not have a balanced team where anyone is capable of winning. IMO, you need a balanced team so you can maximize your possibilities of who you can put up and win. Suppose, for example, that some of your under-rated players get sick, then you will be SOL cause all the players you have left are over-rated.

I like this new scoring method - it does keep down sandbagging. And being a 7 is great because the other team will be much more reluctant to dumping on you.

Someone was right in that SL2s will have a bigger target on their back, but we all know that the best teams usually have SL2s on the team. So all teams will have the same problem. And we all know that it's the female SL2s that bring excitement into the pool hall, so who cares if they have a big target on their back. It's just part of the 'New Deal'. Maybe you will have to actually train your SL2 :grin: to play better/decent rather than hoping they lose every game to keep their handicap down forever.

PS I just starting using this ES three weeks ago now that I joined the APA again. If nothing else is does THROW A LOT MORE DECISION MAKING INTO YOUR PUTUPS!