Please Fix POOL LEAGUE RULES ... Here Are Some Suggestions

[APA Operator]

Arbitrary because they are largely made up by the LOs, and are very subjective to the small area the league happens to be in.
A 5 in one area might be a 3 or a 7 in another part of the country.
There's a system out there now called Fargorate that tracks and compares every single person in the system, world wide. Eventually almost everyone will be connected, and the ratings become very accurate over time. (starter ratings can be a bit arbitrary, but they correct themselves)

Stated just like those who insisted the world was flat, because they did not know better. APA skill levels are largely objective, based on data from the scoresheets, with a little subjectivity added in. Like I said before, variances depend on the diligence of the scorekeeping (objectivity) and the diligence of the LO (subjectivity). I challenge you to give me the name of ONE person and TWO areas where that person is a 3 in one area and a 7 in the other (with plenty of scores in both). Someone who isn't cheating. If you can do that, I'll show you which of those two factors has failed (likely a combination of both). But I bet you can't. The response to that challenge is usually something like "Well, I don't personally know any but I've been told they exist." Maybe you could 20 years ago, but not now. 3 and 5? 5 and 7? I'm sure you can do that, but those numbers are just one skill level apart (the best 3 and the worst 4 are essentially the same person, as are the best 4 and the worst 5, so you end up with the range of the SL 4 in between).

The subjectivity part is necessary, as the creators of the FargoRate system are finding out. That's because a computer model of actual ability cannot ever be 100% accurate, and is the easiest to cheat. There has to be oversight. Never mind that comparing FargoRate with the Equalizer is a flawed comparison to begin with (the two are designed for different purposes), both systems have to be watched closely to protect against the flaws introduced by primarily being objective. And contrary to popular belief, there is cross-pollination in the APA system too, primarily in the subjective part for now but eventually in the objective part, too.

 

[skip100]

While the APA data processing and algorithm may be objective, the data entry is anything but. Garbage in, garbage out. In order to game the FargoRate system, you have to lose games on purpose. To game the APA system, all you have to do is fail to mark safeties, which happened in 90%+ of matches I played in 2-3 APA seasons.

"The subjectivity part is necessary, as the creators of the FargoRate system are finding out"

What does this even mean?

 

[buckshotshoey]

Stated just like those who insisted the world was flat, because they did not know better. APA skill levels are largely objective, based on data from the scoresheets, with a little subjectivity added in. Like I said before, variances depend on the diligence of the scorekeeping (objectivity) and the diligence of the LO (subjectivity). I challenge you to give me the name of ONE person and TWO areas where that person is a 3 in one area and a 7 in the other (with plenty of scores in both). Someone who isn't cheating. If you can do that, I'll show you which of those two factors has failed (likely a combination of both). But I bet you can't. The response to that challenge is usually something like "Well, I don't personally know any but I've been told they exist." Maybe you could 20 years ago, but not now. 3 and 5? 5 and 7? I'm sure you can do that, but those numbers are just one skill level apart (the best 3 and the worst 4 are essentially the same person, as are the best 4 and the worst 5, so you end up with the range of the SL 4 in between).

The subjectivity part is necessary, as the creators of the FargoRate system are finding out. That's because a computer model of actual ability cannot ever be 100% accurate, and is the easiest to cheat. There has to be oversight. Never mind that comparing FargoRate with the Equalizer is a flawed comparison to begin with (the two are designed for different purposes), both systems have to be watched closely to protect against the flaws introduced by primarily being objective. And contrary to popular belief, there is cross-pollination in the APA system too, primarily in the subjective part for now but eventually in the objective part, too.

It's amazing all the ignorance on this forum about the APA equalizer system. If they only knew about the "applied scores"!

 

[Tennesseejoe]

I agree these rules should be consistent among leagues...however, educating players is the difficult part.

 

[APA Operator]

While the APA data processing and algorithm may be objective, the data entry is anything but. Garbage in, garbage out. In order to game the FargoRate system, you have to lose games on purpose. To game the APA system, all you have to do is fail to mark safeties, which happened in 90%+ of matches I played in 2-3 APA seasons.

"The subjectivity part is necessary, as the creators of the FargoRate system are finding out"

What does this even mean?

Oh, those who run the system might have to back some scores out if they found out say, that someone entered bogus scores, maybe even a whole tournament. That kind of oversight is always necessary. Maybe someone unwittingly entered someone as new when there was already a record in place for them. Unless you collect Social Security Number (and sometimes even if you do), you can't prevent something like that from happening or fix it without oversight. It can be an honest mistake or intentional. And I think you can win matches and still game the system by making them as close to hill-hill as possible. You don't have to actually lose those games, you just have to report that you did. If someone wants to game the system they will find a way. Like you said, garbage in, garbage out. And the more people you have entering the scores, the more oversight you need.

Gaming the Equalizer system by not marking all the defense requires BOTH teams to fail, either intentionally or unintentionally. Intentional is cheating, unintentional is lack of diligence. Lack of diligence both on the part of the scorekeeper and on the part of the LO, for not educating his members on the importance of identifying and marking the defense. I always tell people the defense only makes a real difference maybe 5% of the time, but if you don't mark it 5% of the people you play will be underrated. As our tools and processes improve, APA is finding out which of their LOs need to be more diligent, and are working with those LOs to become so. I can't speak about other league systems because I don't know how much their national organizations work with the operators.

 

[Cornerman]

FYI, I just posted a new video that looks at issues with pool league rules, discusses some of the rule differences among league systems, and recommends a few rule changes that put league play more in line with the official rules of pool. Check it out:

Content:
0:00 - Intro
0:37 - 45˚ Rule
4:18 - CB Fouls Only
8:11 - Open Table
9:32 - Marking the 8
10:51 - Wrap Up

As always, I look forward to your feedback, comments, questions, complaints, and requests.

Enjoy!

I think addressing APA’s complete fumbling debacle of the “push shot” description and consequence should be added to this great video.

 

[telinoz]

This kind of sums up why pool is a mess.
There is a standardised set of rules from the WPA.
Yet, leagues, tournament organisers choose to make variants...

Honestly, take a lesson from Snooker.
One set of rules from the World body, filtered down and used at all levels.

 

[dr_dave]

I think addressing APA’s complete fumbling debacle of the “push shot” description and consequence should be added to this great video.

Maybe I should do a dedicated video on the APA "rules" in a future video ... or not.

Thanks.

 

[Justaneng]

If the APA equalizer system was that great the 23-rule wouldn’t be necessary or would be modified. Under-recording safeties is a thing, but really has nothing to do with Vegas and everything to do with not busting up a team or taking extra forfeits because you ended up with too many SL-5’s (which hurt both teams, as the other team has to pay for a game they didn’t play). If you’re in a 25,000 person suburban community there isn’t a long list of people willing to step right up, so the 30 people who make up a local APA division is all you’re going to get, and they will gladly pump up innings and undermark safeties just to keep their teams from breaking up.

 

[skip100]

If the APA equalizer system was that great the 23-rule wouldn’t be necessary or would be modified. Under-recording safeties is a thing, but really has nothing to do with Vegas and everything to do with not busting up a team or taking extra forfeits because you ended up with too many SL-5’s (which hurt both teams, as the other team has to pay for a game they didn’t play). If you’re in a 25,000 person suburban community there isn’t a long list of people willing to step right up, so the 30 people who make up a local APA division is all you’re going to get, and they will gladly pump up innings and undermark safeties just to keep their teams from breaking up.

This is my real problem with APA - it disincentivizes players from getting better. Players should be rewarded for improvement but once they advance to an SL 5 then things start becoming difficult for them and their teams. And let's be honest, an SL 5 is not even that good.

You're right that most sandbagging via failing to mark safeties is less about making money in Vegas and more about keeping teams together. This low-level, consistent cheating is accepted by most teams because most teams are likely to be affected at some time or another. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. It's also from laziness as the scorer doesn't have to pay close attention to the game.

 

[Justaneng]

This is my real problem with APA - it disincentivizes players from getting better. Players should be rewarded for improvement but once they advance to an SL 5 then things start becoming difficult for them and their teams. And let's be honest, an SL 5 is not even that good.

You're right that most sandbagging via failing to mark safeties is less about making money in Vegas and more about keeping teams together. This low-level, consistent cheating is accepted by most teams because most teams are likely to be affected at some time or another. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. It's also from laziness as the scorer doesn't have to pay close attention to the game.

As an SL-5, I can confirm that I’m not that good.

 

[Guy Manges]

Agree except mark pocket. Define “obvious”. That’s the challenge and source of arguments.

Words like obvious and irrelevant they let the players be a part of the rules, But not good with Alcohol... Guy

 

[Guy Manges]

Why are the rules, specifically written to keep drunken yahoos drinking at the bar, while simultaneously discouraging any skill improvement, not good? Gee, why could that possibly be?

I'm not from the US, but I see the same thing here. People playing in bars are largely unfamiliar with the official rules of pool and rather play by "bar rules" that they learned from random friends and relatives. Around here it's mostly "last pocket" 8 ball, no call shot, cue ball in hand in the kitchen only and no spotting object balls etc...So when leagues introduce rules, they have to keep this in mind. If you start with tournament rules and all fouls etc, it's too foreign to them and they might not want to play. Also they must keep in mind that the people likely will be drunk and argumentative, which is why they probably need that pocket marker. "I didn't hear you call that" or "it wasn't obvious to ME" etc..Not to mention calling false touch fouls on everyone and everything, which explains cue ball fouls only. The jacked up cue on frozen balls also seem to be near culturally universal, except in the UK and colonies where you have to shoot away from the frozen ball. It stems from a lack of understanding, but educating drunken fools with no interest in learning is a tall order for anyone, even a professor.

The leagues do seem to create interest in real pool in a small minority of people playing, so they are not all bad. But this crusade to change all leagues is doomed to fail.

Brilliant, Well done, Where there is a will there is a relative... Guy

 

[DeeDeeCues]

Something most of us learn early:. Calling something 'dumb' only serves to put people on the defensive. Doodle Dave's latest video calls leagues dumb in the thumbnail.

These videos are turning into pandering to the elitists.

 

[dr_dave]

Something most of us learn early:. Calling something 'dumb' only serves to put people on the defensive. Doodle Dave's latest video calls leagues dumb in the thumbnail.

These videos are turning into pandering to the elitists.

I am usually more “cautious” with my choice of words, but I think ”dumb” is the appropriate choice here. It might make some people react at first, but I hope the clear arguments will help convince them.

 

[DeeDeeCues]

I am usually more “cautious” with my choice of words, but I think ”dumb” is the appropriate choice here. It might make some people react at first, but I hope the clear arguments will help convince them.

It might be fine to say dumb at some point, but never lead with it.

 

[dr_dave]

It might be fine to say dumb at some point, but never lead with it.

Thumbnails need to grab the attention of interested people. I think this one was effective in that regard. It is also an honest representation of the video, which I try to do with my thumbnail Images (instead of using false-advertising “clickbait,” which seems to be very common).