New APA Scoring system

EasyEJL said:
except that you are the one who started with acting disrespectfully by stating people who can't play without a handicap should stay home, that handicapped leagues destroyed pool, etc.



other than you referring to a 3 rail bank using SID, you're right.


again, have you been diagnosed with a mental illness in the past?
Click to expand...

First of all the SID system is solely for kicks, not banks, so I would never state it otherwise. And I referred to it as a system developed in 3-cushion. I never referred to it as a 3-rail system. And all this can be confirmed by rereading the posts. You are another one that attacks everything I say without putting any thought into it.

And I do believe everyone should play without a spot, and I'm not a great player. It is in the best interest of the players.
 
The new scoring system is interesting and should add some excitement to some of the matches. I am curious, what percentage of matches actually get to hill-hill? Seems this change definitely puts more pressure on someone playing against a 2 or 3.
 
It seems I am not the first one to be concerned with multiplication in the SID system. This is from an article by Bob Jewett.

But I am guessing you will not be so critical of Bob, while when I raise the question, I am bombarded with slings and arrows.
 

Attachments

  • bobj.PNG
    bobj.PNG
    29.4 KB · Views: 284
ChrisBanks said:
It seems I am not the first one to be concerned with multiplication in the SID system. This is from an article by Bob Jewett.

But I am guessing you will not be so critical of Bob, while when I raise the question, I am bombarded with slings and arrows.
Click to expand...

Hey numbnuts, what's that got to do with the 'New APA Scoring system' - you know, what this thread's about.

Maybe you're bombarded with stuff because you go around asking to be, because you want to be the center of attention.
 
Banks said:
Hey numbnuts, what's that got to do with the 'New APA Scoring system' - you know, what this thread's about.

Maybe you're bombarded with stuff because you go around asking to be, because you want to be the center of attention.
Click to expand...

I've only addressed the calculator topic in the calculator thread. Someone else thought it was appropriate to discuss it in this thread, and so it went from there.

But again you have redirected all of the blame towards me.
 
ChrisBanks said:
It seems I am not the first one to be concerned with multiplication in the SID system. This is from an article by Bob Jewett.



But I am guessing you will not be so critical of Bob, while when I raise the question, I am bombarded with slings and arrows.
Click to expand...
and his statement again shows your craziness as nowhere does he say it needs a calculator. He gets that the precision of an estimate on the multiplication works since you can't aim for a precise on the rail. So even the rail point is an estimate. Again have you ever been diagnosed with a mental illness? That quote is in no way supportive of unskilled tools using calculators .

Sent from my Nokia 920 using Board Express
 
EasyEJL said:
and his statement again shows your craziness as nowhere does he say it needs a calculator. He gets that the precision of an estimate on the multiplication works since you can't aim for a precise on the rail. So even the rail point is an estimate. Again have you ever been diagnosed with a mental illness? That quote is in no way supportive of unskilled tools using calculators .

Sent from my Nokia 920 using Board Express
Click to expand...

Nor did I imply that Bob supported calculators. I stated explicitly that he showed concern for the calculation because it was not straight-forward. That is plain for anyone to see if you reread the posts.

And I don't believe that people with Aspergers or similar conditions would be appreciative of you mocking the seriousness of their illness. That's pretty cruel of you.
 
I think our area is going to the 3-point system early as well. At least I get to contribute something on all the matches I lose when I'm on the hill... :rolleyes:

Not that this thread has anything to do with the scoring system anymore.
 
Kaiser Bob said:
Not that this thread has anything to do with the scoring system anymore.
Click to expand...

It is pretty par for the course for an APA thread. Handicapping and its "characteristics" inevitably dominate the discussion and the thread takes roughly this course until eventually getting locked.

The changes to the scoring really aren't that drastic and most of the concerns pertaining to such are at least mentioned.
 
Not really

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.

Kaiser Bob said:
I think our area is going to the 3-point system early as well. At least I get to contribute something on all the matches I lose when I'm on the hill... :rolleyes:

Not that this thread has anything to do with the scoring system anymore.
Click to expand...
 
I love it!

I've been playing in the APA since 2001.
I'm a SL7 in 8 Ball and SL9 in 9 Ball. I've never tried to lose a match....

I've never been to Vegas probably because our team refuses to "sandbag".

We don't believe in it. I hope this will make sandbagging a little more difficult.


As much as I enjoy the APA, I do agree with others that the "slop rule" (ball in any pocket) is stupid. I've been told it's there to make the game more friendly to lower skilled players. But, having them luck shots in and get rewarded for that, will not make them better players.
 
ChrisBanks said:
I was once a fill-in for a BCA League. You would get a point for each ball pocketed, or if you won the game you would get 10.

This is backwards because if you lose a game of 8-ball, you had more of a chance to win with all of your balls on the table. You should instead get a point for every ball REMAINING on the table.

I won't even go that far, because scoring points per ball in 8-ball doesn't make the least bit of sense. Just because you have pocketed another ball does not mean you are closer to winning, and it does not mean you have improved your position. So why get a point for it?
Click to expand...

If you pocket a ball it absolutely means you are closer to winning because you now have less balls on the table. Your statement makes no sense whatsoever.
 
RobertaAgnor said:
If you pocket a ball it absolutely means you are closer to winning because you now have less balls on the table. Your statement makes no sense whatsoever.
Click to expand...

I can't agree with you there.

We could calculate the estimated odds of winning the game from a given table position, and recalculate after each shot. While the data will be merely estimates, it will serve perfectly to illustrate the phenomena of an 8-ball game.

Under your assumption, the odds of winning the game increase with each pocketed ball. But we know that is not the case. The occurence of a pocketed ball does not necessarily cause an increased chance of winning the game.

If you pocket the wrong ball, or play poor position, you could actually lower your chance of winning the game by pocketing a ball. And the effect is not trivial. It could be something along these lines:

Odds of Winning:

Before Break.................... 50%
After Pocketing 1st ball....... 55%
After Pocketing 2nd ball....... 57%
After Pocketing 3rd ball........ 62%
After Pocketing 4th ball....... 5%

I don't even wish to discuss this any further because it is already obvious to anyone that is serious about it.
 
Give ball in hand do you?

The vast majority of players do NOT sandbag.

Any time someone calls foul on the "slop rule" (see what I did there?) I ask them if they give ball in hand when they themselves slop a ball in.

Funny as it sounds no one has ever said yes.

Vulture said:
I've been playing in the APA since 2001.
I'm a SL7 in 8 Ball and SL9 in 9 Ball. I've never tried to lose a match....

I've never been to Vegas probably because our team refuses to "sandbag".

We don't believe in it. I hope this will make sandbagging a little more difficult.


As much as I enjoy the APA, I do agree with others that the "slop rule" (ball in any pocket) is stupid. I've been told it's there to make the game more friendly to lower skilled players. But, having them luck shots in and get rewarded for that, will not make them better players.
Click to expand...
 
ChrisBanks said:
I can't agree with you there.

We could calculate the estimated odds of winning the game from a given table position, and recalculate after each shot. While the data will be merely estimates, it will serve perfectly to illustrate the phenomena of an 8-ball game.

Under your assumption, the odds of winning the game increase with each pocketed ball. But we know that is not the case. The occurence of a pocketed ball does not necessarily cause an increased chance of winning the game.

If you pocket the wrong ball, or play poor position, you could actually lower your chance of winning the game by pocketing a ball. And the effect is not trivial. It could be something along these lines:

Odds of Winning:

Before Break.................... 50%
After Pocketing 1st ball....... 55%
After Pocketing 2nd ball....... 57%
After Pocketing 3rd ball........ 62%
After Pocketing 4th ball....... 5%

I don't even wish to discuss this any further because it is already obvious to anyone that is serious about it.
Click to expand...

If you are playing a game of 8 ball & make 1 of your balls then you ARE closer to winning because you now have LESS balls left to make then the other person you're playing. I've tried very hard to give you the benefit of the doubt when reading some of the things you've posted but I just can't anymore. I've played pool since I could barely see over the table, I'm now 43 years old & have been a member of the APA for 22 years as well as winning some local tournaments over the years so I think I have some experience in playing. It's funny you claim to know what Earl thinks about the APA based on some statements in the past when anyone who actually knows Earl & how he is knows he quite frequently just says things & doesn't actually mean them. Honestly, I really don't think I'm going to even comment on anything you post again as I don't think it's possible to actually have a real conversation with you on any topic. You seem to believe that you & you alone know all there is to know about pool & what's best for it. If that were the case, then why don't we see you competing in & winning all pool tournaments?
 
RobertaAgnor said:
If you are playing a game of 8 ball & make 1 of your balls then you ARE closer to winning because you now have LESS balls left to make then the other person you're playing. I've tried very hard to give you the benefit of the doubt when reading some of the things you've posted but I just can't anymore. I've played pool since I could barely see over the table, I'm now 43 years old & have been a member of the APA for 22 years as well as winning some local tournaments over the years so I think I have some experience in playing. It's funny you claim to know what Earl thinks about the APA based on some statements in the past when anyone who actually knows Earl & how he is knows he quite frequently just says things & doesn't actually mean them. Honestly, I really don't think I'm going to even comment on anything you post again as I don't think it's possible to actually have a real conversation with you on any topic. You seem to believe that you & you alone know all there is to know about pool & what's best for it. If that were the case, then why don't we see you competing in & winning all pool tournaments?
Click to expand...

You will be very soon.
 
4onthebreak said:
The vast majority of players do NOT sandbag.

Any time someone calls foul on the "slop rule" (see what I did there?) I ask them if they give ball in hand when they themselves slop a ball in.

Funny as it sounds no one has ever said yes.
Click to expand...

^^^^^^ This. +1
 
I've never heard anyone play a ruleset in 8 ball where a missed called shot resulted in bih. I think relinquishing your turn at the table is enough. Also food for thought: If you have less balls on the table in 8 ball you are indeed closer to winning the game but also the favorite to lose if your opponent is of moderate skill.
 
ChrisBanks said:
I can't agree with you there.

We could calculate the estimated odds of winning the game from a given table position, and recalculate after each shot. While the data will be merely estimates, it will serve perfectly to illustrate the phenomena of an 8-ball game.

Under your assumption, the odds of winning the game increase with each pocketed ball. But we know that is not the case. The occurence of a pocketed ball does not necessarily cause an increased chance of winning the game.

If you pocket the wrong ball, or play poor position, you could actually lower your chance of winning the game by pocketing a ball. And the effect is not trivial. It could be something along these lines:

Odds of Winning:

Before Break.................... 50%
After Pocketing 1st ball....... 55%
After Pocketing 2nd ball....... 57%
After Pocketing 3rd ball........ 62%
After Pocketing 4th ball....... 5%

I don't even wish to discuss this any further because it is already obvious to anyone that is serious about it.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top