There will ALWAYS be a better player at the top of the food chain....
Potential pro caliber players in APA league
- Thread starter bazkook
- Start date
There will ALWAYS be a better player at the top of the food chain....
not true because the team limit is the same in 9 ball
I'll second that. Gets some flak and handles it with class, doesn't get snippy or fly off the handle. I'd want this person running any league I'm in, APA or not. Seems like an intelligent, honest, and mature individual.
We'll have to disagree on that. The idea is to measure ability, not average performance. Average is too easy to manipulate, but the only way to hide ability is to hide it all the time, forever.
If the drunk shows up at a tournament sober and runs over everyone, it's not a fluke. It's a choice. That player would rather be drunk than shoot up to his/her ability. They know what to do to "turn it on", and they control the switch, so they should be required to play at the higher number all the time. On the other hand, someone who just happens to play a great match might not have a switch they can control and may simply be showing potential. Potential and ability are not the same thing. In my opinion, ability is realized potential, and the person who plays better sober or fresh has ability.
I agree that it is sad when someone plays a match that is a personal best for them and is labeled a "sandbagger". It burns me up when a player does that and can't fully enjoy the moment because the opponent or someone on the opponent's team has to insinuate that they are a cheater. I understand that the opponent sometimes can't know the difference, but if there are concerns bring them to me privately instead of ruining the moment for the 2 who just played the match of her life. I'm pretty sure I can tell the difference.
There are definately flaws in the system. We played a match 3 weeks ago and two of my players went up one skill level after the scores were uploaded. The next week we had a buy. When I printed the score sheets, I noticed two more people went up.
How do two players move up on a bye week???
How do two players move up on a bye week???
Banks
Banned
I respectfully disagree. I believe that skill levels should be based on a players current ability, which I consider to be a combination of knowledge and consistent execution under whatever conditions they play best.
Both of those things are very hard to judge, so handicapping systems do their best to guess based on results. In the case of the APA, the metric is basically offensive innings per win (or ball, in the case of 9 ball). The APA eliminates bad (high innings per win/ball) matches from the calculation in an attempt to determine ability instead of average performance. It's a pretty good formula with the available information, but can be broken pretty easily by anyone intent on doing so. That's where it's up to the league operator to make a judgement call. For those league operators that are really trying to take their responsibilities seriously and be fair about it, I don't envy them that decision.
To answer your final question, I believe that it is valid to move someone up based on how they play "when it matters". For example, there are a lot of APA 5's that are consistently capable of playing like 6's or even weak 7's just by focusing on what they are doing instead of banging balls around like they do most league nights. I don't really consider that sandbagging because I don't expect everyone to bring their "A" game every league night, but they do it often enough that they are under-ranked. The problem is that it's really hard for a league operator to make the call on something like this because they don't get that much exposure to all of the players in their region.
All i'm saying is I believe you are mistaken. I know for a fact that if you are a 2-6 in 8 ball and a 1-8 in 9 ball and you are winning at a 100% clip, you will go up no matter how good or bad you are shooting. The only way it is possible to "beat the best 7" every week and not go up is if you yourself are a 7.
Same here. I had a 2 run out a rack from the 3 ball on me the other night to win a match that I was up 62-11 in. Based on every other time I've seen him play, I know he wasn't playing position intentionally, but the cue ball kept kept falling in the right spot to keep the run going, and he kept making shots that he would usually miss. It's hard to watch, and even harder not to spoil their victory by saying something. I tried to say "nice out" like I fully expected him to get out when I left the table, and I hope that I managed to hide any sarcasm in my voice.
Pardon the interruption, but can you clarify this convention? Does 7/9 mean:
A. you're an SL-7 in 9-ball
or
B. you are an SL-7 in 8-ball and SL-9 in 9-ball?
Thanks,
Freddie <~~~ worst in either category
Is that accurate for all ranks? I think the system used to move up the lowest rank or two if they kept winning regardless of the innings, so maybe that's changed.
Banks
Banned
That would be B. As in, I'm a 7 in 8, 9 in 9, but a B player overall.
When I started posting here in 2006, I was a newly minted 6/6. The skill levels are usually conveyed in an 8b/9b thing. So, people will say they're a 4/5 or 3/3 or something like that. Most people, from what I've seen, have a harder time maxxing out in 9b, so you'll find many 7/7 and 7/8 players, sometimes even a 7/6.
Worst? I won't insult you, I'll still take a spot. :smile:
Edit: In the APA, 7 is the max in 8b and 9 is the max in 9b. The same skill cap applies to league nights for each, though, with only 23 points allowed between 5 matches.
That would be B. As in, I'm a 7 in 8, 9 in 9, but a B player overall.
When I started posting here in 2006, I was a newly minted 6/6. The skill levels are usually conveyed in an 8b/9b thing. So, people will say they're a 4/5 or 3/3 or something like that. Most people, from what I've seen, have a harder time maxxing out in 9b, so you'll find many 7/7 and 7/8 players, sometimes even a 7/6.
Worst? I won't insult you, I'll still take a spot. :smile:
I used to tell people quite honestly that I'm easily the worst SL-9 in the universe. Somebody on AZ didnt' think so cuz he said he was. Well, since that time I've met at least two other SL-9's that were worse than I. So, I no longer can make that claim.
Freddie <~~~ curses
Too bad. I like the idea of having the game as part of the convention because not everyone plays both so they won't have two numbers.
Freddie <~~~ where was the vote on this???
from what I've seen/understood (at least for 9 ball) its heavily based on points per inning. So even if you win every time there, if you have 2 innings per ball sank and low to no safeties, you aren't going up ever, or at least not until someone starts marking your safeties down
Excellent response! I guess you make a very good point that I overlooked about "being able to control the switch". I guess if they can't handle the higher number all the time, they might consider *not* being drunk if they want to win. When I started APA I was 21. I was a 3 and would be nervous when I played. I drank a pretty good amount before my match, and I did ok. I've learned the game, and about 17 years later I am one of the strongest players in my area. I almost never drink when I play, because I know now that it will affect my performance. So I do what I need to do to guarantee the win for my team that they are counting on.
Thanks for you excellent insight...you're right. Simply as that!
KMRUNOUT
Banks
Banned
You're slackin off there, Freddie!
You should at least aim to be the best of the worst of the 9s.
Us Portlanders are probably overrated by a level or two anyhow, so just think of me as something lower.
I'm always skeptical of people that say they're worse than I am. Just to make my point, I ask them to put up their money and prove it!
As I replied to APA Operators reply to me, I agree with you, and am revising my position. However, what about the situation where you have a 2 who often wins, but loses most often as a 3. She bounces up and down. She plays in our state finals (LTC) as a 2, plays awesome in round 1, and gets moved to a 3. It comes down to a sudden death match to go to Vegas, her against their 6. She breaks, doesn't make a ball. The 6 runs down to a bank on the 8...smashes it WAY too hard and double banks it in the wrong pocket...we go to Vegas! So far so good...so she proceeds to get locked as a 3 for the one match our team plays...she lost and the team lost. Next session, she wins about 40% as a 3. Tri Cups come, and we are down 2-1. The last match will be sudden death. The other team has a 3 and a 6. I know the 3's game, he's so-so...but brand new to the league and nervous as hell. So the only choice is to put up our 3. She plays a fantastic match. It didn't hurt that he gave her ball in hand a bunch of times, broke out all her problems, and left her with very easy outs. She wins. I win the last rack. Next day for the next round, she is a 4!!! Now many people know how she shoots. She is NOT a 4. Never was, probably never will be. She is a very low 3 that almost always loses. She in fact went 4 for 22 (!!) since then. She was raised because "I must have known that she was better by playing her at a key moment in the match, and her score was strong". The reality is that our whole team thought we were done and she would lose, but the opponent served it up to her and she played her best. This, to me, is an example of a LO making an error. It turns out that he agreed with me. Thankfully I have a reputation for honesty and never a hint of sandbagging...so it worked out. But I can't believe it is an isolated incident. If the decision was based *ONLY* on her performance that day, fine...maybe it could be defended. I guess what I am getting at is that it takes *effort* and *diligence* to find out for certain that the player is sandbagging, or else consistently playing below their "true ability".
I see the point on that example player who simply slacks off when they play weekly matches but tries really hard "when it counts". In this scenario, I believe the player needs to be watched *before* the playoffs. They should not be punished in the middle of a playoff weekend because the effort and diligence mentioned above was not there all season on the part of the handicap review people. If it looks like he played over his head in playoffs...have a rep go watch the guy play a few times during league. Most reps are not particularly skilled players, and genuinely don't know what skills make a great player. Having people review other people's handicaps that are not very skilled makes little sense. Likewise, skill alone does not make a good reviewer, since honesty and integrity is pretty important too!
Anyway, my point is that someone who tries their best all the time should NOT be raised manually just because they appear to play well on one particular occasion. If a person tries their best every time they play, then by definition they are NOT sandbagging. This means that they should be whatever the computer says they should be. Looking only at this paragraph, can anyone find an objection to this?
KMRUNOUT
Portlanders are probably overrated by a level or two anyhow, so just think of me as something lower.
Banks, you ain't getting that one past me
! I speak from experience.I'm always skeptical of people that say they're worse than I am. Just to make my point, I ask them to put up their money and prove it!
ink::bow-down::scratchhead::rotflmao1: Thanks Banks, you made my day with that one!Lyn