Opinions needed - my venture

[NYC cue dude]

I was thinking the same thing Steve was thinking. Why give the "subtle advantage" to the better players? I would have to say that there are 4 times as many c or b players than the A+ or above. Why cater to the small minority when the players that will be ultimately be maintaining the success of your league have an automatic built in hurdle to overcome? doesn't make ANY sense to me.

RG

Ps. It is my opinion that you must look past the prestige of a small amount of pro caliber players participating and instead look to create a league that will be self sustainable by having a larger contingency of "meat and potato" players.

 

[Williebetmore]

I was thinking the same thing Steve was thinking. Why give the "subtle advantage" to the better players? I would have to say that there are 4 times as many c or b players than the A+ or above. Why cater to the small minority when the players that will be ultimately be maintaining the success of your league have an automatic built in hurdle to overcome? doesn't make ANY sense to me.

RG

Ps. It is my opinion that you must look past the prestige of a small amount of pro caliber players participating and instead look to create a league that will be self sustainable by having a larger contingency of "meat and potato" players.

RG,
I do not think that the prestige of the pro's is the issue. If the results of a match are a "coin flip", then why are we even playing? If we are playing a game of skill, then skill should be rewarded. Because there are a variety of skill levels, then the handicap system should allow the lesser skilled player an opportunity to compete and win (but not reward him for his mediocrity). There should be incentive for him to improve.

It is good for the sport to reward those who practice and improve; and to also provide incentive for such. If there is no reward for practicing; many will just quit and go play poker (where bragging about exploits is much easier). "Subtle advantage" is an admirable goal.

P.S. - Do we really want the "handicap society" that Vonnegut described where ALL are totally equal? The really talented ballet dancers were required to perform with blindfolds and lead weights on their legs.

 

[Steve Lipsky]

RG,
I do not think that the prestige of the pro's is the issue. If the results of a match are a "coin flip", then why are we even playing? If we are playing a game of skill, then skill should be rewarded. Because there are a variety of skill levels, then the handicap system should allow the lesser skilled player an opportunity to compete and win (but not reward him for his mediocrity). There should be incentive for him to improve.

It is good for the sport to reward those who practice and improve; and to also provide incentive for such. If there is no reward for practicing; many will just quit and go play poker (where bragging about exploits is much easier). "Subtle advantage" is an admirable goal.

P.S. - Do we really want the "handicap society" that Vonnegut described where ALL are totally equal? The really talented ballet dancers were required to perform with blindfolds and lead weights on their legs.

I could be wrong, but I have a feeling the three of us (you, RG, and me) all feel the same way about this issue. The difference is in the language we are using.

The problem with the handicaps (as they stood at the time of my previous post) was there was NO WAY for a lower-handicapped player to win a match against a very skilled opponent. I think the better player should have a slight advantage, but that's it. I don't want a cakewalk, but it's nice to be rewarded with a very little vig for the time I've put into the game.

- Steve

 

[Williebetmore]

I could be wrong, but I have a feeling the three of us (you, RG, and me) all feel the same way about this issue. The difference is in the language we are using.

The problem with the handicaps (as they stood at the time of my previous post) was there was NO WAY for a lower-handicapped player to win a match against a very skilled opponent. I think the better player should have a slight advantage, but that's it. I don't want a cakewalk, but it's nice to be rewarded with a very little vig for the time I've put into the game.

- Steve

SL,
ABSOLUTELY!!!!

In our pool league (where handicaps are about 80% of the "true difference") if the better player plays even slightly below his usual speed; he loses (as long as his "inferior" opponent plays HIS usual speed). The difference is SMALL; and most matches are very competitive.

P.S. - Every year some of the bottom tier players beat the best players in some matches; but they have no hope of winning the league unless they improve. They have hope for any individual match, they have incentive to improve, and they have hope of winning the "Most Improved" trophy we give each year. They do NOT have hope of winning the league championship; but somehow they continue to participate.

 

[Steve Lipsky]

SL,
ABSOLUTELY!!!!

In our pool league (where handicaps are about 80% of the "true difference") if the better player plays even slightly below his usual speed; he loses (as long as his "inferior" opponent plays HIS usual speed). The difference is SMALL; and most matches are very competitive.

P.S. - Every year some of the bottom tier players beat the best players in some matches; but they have no hope of winning the league unless they improve. They have hope for any individual match, they have incentive to improve, and they have hope of winning the "Most Improved" trophy we give each year. They do NOT have hope of winning the league championship; but somehow they continue to participate.

Well said and I agree completely, sir.

 

[Bob Jewett]

I would appreciate any opinions/suggestions on my possible venture into forming a nationwide 14.1 league/organization.
...

I see that you are going to keep 35% of the $5/week fee for each player. Suppose that we have 20 players each week. This means that we will be paying you $35/week for admin and promotion, and putting $65/week into the Nationals prize fund. If the season is 14 weeks, each of our two qualifiers for the Nationals will come with a $500 or so "dowry." With 200 participants at the Nationals, that's a $100,000 tournament.

Is the prize money going to be in escrow?

Will all of the results from each week be openly available on your web site?

I think your handicapping system remains fundamentally broken. Have you allowed the possibility of fixing it later?

Have you ever run a handicapped league before?

How are you going to pay the league operators?

What will be the benefit for the room owners?

Are you prepared to lose $100,000 per year for two or three years?

Have you contacted any potential sponsors?

Did you consider working within an established league? (APA, BCAPL, ACS, VNEA, ...)

How much do you estimate the league operation/website software is going to cost?

I think you need to get some experience running a handicapped straight pool league before you try to go national. It's clear from your comments that you have not foreseen many of the standard pitfalls of running a league. Why not run a league for a couple of years in your own area first? That way you have control of how things are done, and you can find things that will really work.

Specific problems that remain in what is described on your web site: Your spots will not produce matches of close to the same length for all players. The rating adjustment system is horribly broken and is guaranteed to promote sandbagging.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... If the results of a match are a "coin flip", then why are we even playing? If we are playing a game of skill, then skill should be rewarded. Because there are a variety of skill levels, then the handicap system should allow the lesser skilled player an opportunity to compete and win (but not reward him for his mediocrity). There should be incentive for him to improve.
... .

I see this differently. I think the handicaps should be 100%. If I play below my average, even though I'm the higher-rated player, I should lose -- if the other player plays at or above his average, regardless of his rating.

If you want to reward the highly rated players, have a "Top Players" tournament at the end of the season. Put 20% of the total prize fund in for just the top 25% (or 10%) of the players. Make the advantage explicit rather than hidden. And maybe make the tournament scratch.

 

[Williebetmore]

I see this differently. I think the handicaps should be 100%. If I play below my average, even though I'm the higher-rated player, I should lose -- if the other player plays at or above his average, regardless of his rating.

If you want to reward the highly rated players, have a "Top Players" tournament at the end of the season. Put 20% of the total prize fund in for just the top 25% (or 10%) of the players. Make the advantage explicit rather than hidden. And maybe make the tournament scratch.

BJ,
Also very good ideas.

I will mention for those who couldn't plow through my long-winded league description, that our league is for recreation. We play for the love of the game, and the love of the competition and camaraderie; NOT for the money (all 18 places are paid). At the end of the year we rank ourselves by our finish in the league; and it is everyone's goal to finish as high as possible.

I find it a bit sad that so much consideration to financial reward must be given for an "amateur" sport.

If there are people who play in these leagues just for the cash; perhaps they could restrict themselves to the APA/BCA/VNEA leagues. They will certainly interfere with my enjoyment of the game (and after all....it's all about ME). I would not object to a league that encourages sportsmanship and love of the game.

 

[selftaut]

Bob , thank you again for your thoughts , much appreciated.

On your first issue on the funds , you have calculated pretty close , of course 200 participants at the Nationals would mean that there were 100 leagues that partiipated because 2 qualifiers will come out of each league as it stands now. Although the leagues will be capped at 16 players , the calculation would come out the same as you described, jus not as much money , but there would be a sizable prize fund, the 35% is for costs whatever they may be , not all "paying me" as suggested , I don't have a handle at this time what costs could run total monthly on average, I have been getting prices on advertising , print work , etc..etc.. but I can say advertising alone is very expensive. I really don't expect to make anything here to be honest , but lets say I do make 5% or 10% in the end , I am not hiding behind anything , would you object to that?.

Your next issue on escrow , I planned on setting up a board of directors and the prize fund would be entered weekly into an escrow account with the board of directors names on it as well.

Next issue , league results on the website. This is certainly a possibility and something I have kicked around some , its an issue I was actually going to put up for debate as to what and how much info should be kept on the website , I had lots of ideas such as player profiles etc..etc..but I decided to shelve this issue at the moment and concentrate more on the handicap system and more important issues.

Next issue , handicap system , I will of course adjust the handicap system if some part of it was not working , but most likely not in the middle of a season , I would adjust it for the next season, that is also why I would like to form a board of directors as well , these types of decisions could be debated and voted on. You suggest that the system is fundamentaly broken , with all due respect it might not be perfect but any system can be sandbagged, and I understand the goal of minimizing sandbagging is important, but I just don't agree with you that its as broken as you think it is.

Next issue, have I run handicap systems before? yes I have , about 1990 I and 2 others developed a handicap system to form a local league , we handed the league over to a board of directors in 1995 , it was time consuming for us and we did it for pool , no pay , its still in place and going strong with 30 teams , I also last year developed another 8 ball league system locally to run on another night , and its similar to this 14.1 system I am trying to put together only its 8 ball team play , its 1st season is winding down now and it appears that it might be even more popular than the other but I run on a different night as to not interfere with the other league, capped at 16 teams I already have 12 teams signed up for the fall .

next issue , the benefit for the room owners is maybe long term , if the league grows and sparks players into 14.1 then there is a chance for the bottom line to increase from players practicing 14.1 and possibly spark interest from folks that "used to play" again.

Next , no I am not prepared to lose 100k a year , I would not let that happen, I can see maybe 5k the first year but thats my limit.

Next , the sponsor issue , I have not solicited sponsors , but certainly will if this has national interest , its hard to present a "non-starter" to a sponsor.

Next , I have not considered working with APA or any others , I have no interest in that to be honest.

Next , there is no need for special software to run this league , If your talking on my end. A league operator may opt to record on excel or other , but I see no need for special software wen everything can be done on software available. Its just not really that complicated as I see it.

Next , league operators , I am really expecting mostly that league operators will be the room owners , I have not set any compensation for league operators , although have been giving it though on waiving membership and weekly fee's to league operators.

I guess thats about it Bob, sorry we can't agree , but your input as always is appreciated.

regards
Kev

 

[jondrums]

Well I'll put in my opinion since you asked...

I agree with Bob - moving handicaps around based on the score is just going to promote sandbagging from the excellent players. A really good player is going to have no trouble sitting there at only a few balls to go and let a banger score a few before running out.

I am fairly confused about the bonus point thing. Why not just let the player who wins the most matches win the season. If you win (or if you win twice in a row), your handicap goes up, if you lose, vice versa. You can't win the season and sandbag at the same time.

Equal offense is a perfect way to get an intial handicap. If you start everyone on the same rating, the first half of the season is boring and annoying for almost everyone since you'll be getting beat if you aren't that good and you'll be easily winning if you are good.

The only question remains is how to get people to try hard on the equal offense rating. Maybe offer a few free games if their handicap is the same or within one step at the end of the first season as their initial EO rating.

Or every season could start with an EO session, where new players are given an initial ranking, and pre-ranked players' rankings do not change. Prizes of some sort could be given for the highest EO runs. This could be a really fun night to kick off the season. I could imagine everyone getting 10 chances to run equal offense round robin style, with half or more of the players sweating the attempts and learning from the big ball runners.

Got in late to the discussion, but I'm enjoying it.
Jon

 

[selftaut]

Hello jondrums , glad you jumped in!

I will do my best to explain why the bonus system is critcal , and also why sandbagging is not rewarded.

First of all , understand that the system to be used has to have the following in place. #1) the system HAS to automatically adjust levels without oversite , #2) Starting handicaps or handicap adjustments simply cannot be set or adjusted by league operators , because this leaves the door open for bad things to happen , can 30 different league operators think alike? or can all 30 spot sandbagging? How would I know , it just can't happen that way, something has to be in place to automatically adjust levels right from opening day.

That being said, if a player decides to bag and this player is going to let the opponent get within under 10 balls before shooting the game ball so not to go up in handicap, then this player forfeits the bonus point(s) that could have been won, bonus points are won by winning by 10 or more , they first have to pull it off , it might not be that easy all the time, secondly this player does this and just takes the 2 points for the win , there will surely be other players gunning for the bonus points and surpass this player in the standings because they will have the 2 points for wins plus the bonus points, it makes no sense to do this at all , Example: if a player did this 5 times and winds up with 10 total points for 5 wins by under 10 balls , and also during those 5 weeks other players win some and do get some bonus points , this sandbagger is now way behind in points and now has no choice but to get bonus points to catch the others, which in turn raises the players handicap. A player could do this the entire session and just get 2 points for every win and zero losses , just to stay from going up in handicap , BUT this player will lose the league for sure. Thats why the bonus points are critical to the system. You must gun for the bonus points , but it also in turn raises you to the next level handicap.

(in fact I think I am going to double the bonus points that are there now , that would make bagging even harder)

On to your next concern , the first week every player starts as a B , and yes the better players will win , but no bonus points are awarded for the first 3 weeks , the fourth week the bonus system kicks in , so the better players can only win 6 points total the first 3 weeks , they are not 6 points ahead of the field after 3 weeks , others will have wins as well , some moght have 6 too , others might have 2 wins for 4 points etc..etc..in the fourth week someone gets hot and scores big on the bonus points , now this best player is caught and maybe passed already. In reality its a trade off , giving the better players a very small lead , but in turn having the handicaps naturally adjust during the first 3 weeks.

Lastly , the equal offense start has been brought up and I have thought about it , but again it leaves it up to the league operators judgement , whether they guy is laying down or not ?, just can't be done.

I hope I have given a clearer insight to my thoughts on why it will work. And its a similar system I use for my local 8 ball league , and it works like a charm in that.

Thanks
Kev

 

[Steve Lipsky]

Kev,

If you add the two higher levels, you can't really raise the handicaps by as much as you should. For example, if the difference between a Pro and an A+ is 75 balls, anyone at the Pro level in the last two weeks of the season has a STRONG incentive to dump. If he is ahead in the standings by enough points, such that he does not need to win his last two matches, he can get down to the A+ easily. It's no longer a difference of only 20 balls. It would be 75 if you used something like my earlier suggestion. But there's a reason I suggested those numbers; they're necessary!

Having a pro-level player get to the nationals, giving legitimate C players 125-55 is nothing short of a license to steal. With your system as is, the pro can do this with two dumped games. Granted, not every league will have a pro who will be ahead by enough points to do this, but if there's even one, you're going to jeopardize the integrity of your tournament.

On a similar note, will you have a policy in place to adjust players' handicaps during the Nationals, if need be?

Thanks,
Steve

 

[selftaut]

Steve, I agree with you on the point you are making , please take a look at this chart and see if it makes more sense , what I have done here is added the 2 levels as you suggested , but took off 2 of the D levels , incorporated in this calculation is simply adding more weight to the better players, but yet leaving the match-ups at lower levels a closer match up at the same time .

What I did here is starting at the B- level make the steps up 15 balls , but leaving the C+ and down 10 ball steps , looking at any random match-ups on this chart looks like a fair match to me , now your scenario you stated earlier A+ vs. C that was 125 to 55 in the other chart is now 140 to 40 , this should be a better match.

Pro.......170
Open....155
A+.......140
A.........125
A-........110
B+........95
B..........80
B-.........65
C+........50
C..........40
C-.........30
D..........20

On the other issue on adjusting handicaps at the Nationals if needed , I feel there should be some sort of safegaurd there , and I have given it some thought as to what to do , a blatent sandbagger should get tossed as far as I am concerned , but a player that just happens to step up to the plate and play a little bit over their normal speed trying their arss off to win should not be penalized either. What are your thoughts on this issue?

Kev

 

[Takumi4G63]

I don't like the rule that the cue ball cannot touch the bottom rail on the lag. The lag should be how it has always been standard in professional tournaments. Closest to the bottom rail wins but cue ball cannot touch the side rails.

Also, I don't like $5 every week of play. That adds up without any payouts save the nationals. It would be better to have one membership fee without a weekly fee.

 

[Takumi4G63]

BJ,
Also very good ideas.

I will mention for those who couldn't plow through my long-winded league description, that our league is for recreation. We play for the love of the game, and the love of the competition and camaraderie; NOT for the money (all 18 places are paid). At the end of the year we rank ourselves by our finish in the league; and it is everyone's goal to finish as high as possible.

I find it a bit sad that so much consideration to financial reward must be given for an "amateur" sport.

If there are people who play in these leagues just for the cash; perhaps they could restrict themselves to the APA/BCA/VNEA leagues. They will certainly interfere with my enjoyment of the game (and after all....it's all about ME). I would not object to a league that encourages sportsmanship and love of the game.

Some people (like myself) just enjoy the game more when something is on the line. And it doesn't mean I love the game less than someone who prefers not playing for money. I think the reason that a lot of people would be more interested with some kind of prize fund is because rarely do we ever get to play straight pool for money because there are absolutely no straight pool tournaments (aside from an occasional huge one most players have no chance to win), and most people do not even like to gamble on straight pool. Part of the reason it's more fun is because there's actually pressure and actually some kind of penalty for missing. There's no electric chair playing for fun.

 

[acedotcom]

I see this differently. I think the handicaps should be 100%. If I play below my average, even though I'm the higher-rated player, I should lose -- if the other player plays at or above his average, regardless of his rating.

If you want to reward the highly rated players, have a "Top Players" tournament at the end of the season. Put 20% of the total prize fund in for just the top 25% (or 10%) of the players. Make the advantage explicit rather than hidden. And maybe make the tournament scratch.

I have to agree 100%. To say an 80% handicap will give lesser players an incentive to improve sounds disingenuous. Why not give better players the same incentive? I've never been in a straight pool league, but I can tell you that a bowling league that computes handicaps at 75%-80% is pretty much a cutthroat league where better teams can win even on a bad night and lesser teams have zero chance.

 

[selftaut]

I don't like the rule that the cue ball cannot touch the bottom rail on the lag. The lag should be how it has always been standard in professional tournaments. Closest to the bottom rail wins but cue ball cannot touch the side rails.

Also, I don't like $5 every week of play. That adds up without any payouts save the nationals. It would be better to have one membership fee without a weekly fee.

Thanks for your input , I actually messed up the wording a little on tat lag part , it was supposed to say bottom pockets , all fixed now , good find!.

You say no $5 weekly fee , and "save the nationals" , I assume you mean "no nationals" , if there wasn't a goal to compete nationaly in 14.1 on a level playing field then why would anyone want to run a 14and1.com league? what would the meaning of a 14and1.com membership be? just curious of what you have in mind.

Kev

 

[selftaut]

I have to agree 100%. To say an 80% handicap will give lesser players an incentive to improve sounds disingenuous. Why not give better players the same incentive? I've never been in a straight pool league, but I can tell you that a bowling league that computes handicaps at 75%-80% is pretty much a cutthroat league where better teams can win even on a bad night and lesser teams have zero chance.

Thanks for your thoughts , I think really the difference comes in if your just really playing a league for the enjoyment of the game and comrodarie , or if you have an incentive to go after a win every match. I can fully understand a Pro players point of view , all the time and dedication they put into the game and then a beginner being able to step up and beat them easily by having to much weight in league play , you also need an incentive for a Pro to enter the league , I think just the fact of winning means more to a Pro or higher level player then it does to a beginner or intermmediate player, they need to know they can win , if they feel they can't win in the league then they would not play I don't believe, and maybe 100% handicapping would look like they can't win, I am in favor of a small advantage to the better players , but not 75% handicapped.

Kev

 

[Williebetmore]

maybe 100% handicapping would look like they can't win, I am in favor of a small advantage to the better players , but not 75% handicapped.

Kev

Kev,
Perhaps those that have not been involved with leagues don't realize the small difference here. There is only a small difference between the 100% and the 80%. Straight pool affords ample opportunity for the better player to make up for any handicap inequities. The difference is more philosophical and psychological than real.

If I win by 20 balls using the 80% system, then the handicap difference would be 16 instead of 20. My "advantage" as the better player is 4 balls in a race to 100. Not exactly earthshaking.

If you have not already considered this, you should realize that the nature of straight pool (even among experts) is to yield lop-sided results (NOT necessarily indicative of the relative strengths of the player).

 

[selftaut]

WillieBM , yes I see now how you would calculate the 80% into a system that used that formula, not earthshaking as you say and does make sense. Thanks for sharing.

Kev