Potential pro caliber players in APA league

[jbmcgee1]

Performance varies

There are just too many factors for there to ever be a perfect handicapping formula, but aside from a league operator manually adjusting your skill level up/down I think the way the APA system works can be summed up like this:

"How you play when you are at your best determines your skill level, and winning is what keeps you there."

From what I've read online, the formulas look at innings/defense/etc. and that defines your skill level. Shoot well enough over enough games and your skill level will go up. If you start to slide performance wise, but you keep winning, you're going to stay right where you are.

I've got guys on my team who I've seen shoot well below their skill level, but still pull out a win at times. It's tough for them to handle when they run into someone who shoots at or slightly above their current skill level, and it is typically those moments when you hear the comments of "He's not a 5... They manipulate their handicap... Sandbagger... blah blah blah".

I kept track of innings, defense shots, wins, losses etc. for my team over a session...I found that on average they were all playing slightly below what the straight innings/game formula would rank them at, and generally when they got beat it was by someone who shot closer to the top end of the range for the skill level they were at. I didn't see any blatant cases of sandbagging.

Back on topic... I'm a 7, and I win more than I lose... I know that's where I'll stay. If you're a 7 and you're not winning as much as you think you should, work on your game and play around with posting strategy. If you see a monster 7 coming your way, throw your 3 and watch the 7 sweat when they accidentally scratch on an 8 and the 3 is on the hill early in the match. :smile:

 

[Cory in DC]

Comparing yourself to another 7 is not a fair way to assess whether or not you should be a 7. APA 7's range from weak B players (I've even see some APA 7's play as a C) all the way up to pro caliber players, so the question is really whether or not you are the favorite against most 6's if you were playing even. If so, you're a 7, and you're better than over 90% of the APA players.

If you're comparing him to 6s nationally, then I basically agree. But any given division may not have a true 7 speed player at all. When that happens, the best 6 of the bunch is, by definition, "the favorite against most 6's" in that division. That shouldn't transform the best 6 into a 7. But in practice, it does.

Cory

 

[APA Operator]

Comparing yourself to another 7 is not a fair way to assess whether or not you should be a 7. APA 7's range from weak B players (I've even see some APA 7's play as a C) all the way up to pro caliber players, so the question is really whether or not you are the favorite against most 6's if you were playing even. If so, you're a 7, and you're better than over 90% of the APA players.

Somebody has to be the best 6. That person isn't automatically a 7, or everyone would eventually be 7's. Somebody also has to be the weakest 7, which doesn't automatically make them a 6, either.

There is a numeric classification for the 7 skill level, just like all the other skill levels. For a 6 to move up ON THEIR OWN, they have to demonstrate that numeric ability. It actually IS possible to win every match you play and never demonstrate that numeric ability. The numeric part hasn't changed in the last 20 years.

What HAS changed is operator willingness to raise a skill level manually. This is a result of more operators actually doing their job of monitoring and policing skill levels in their local areas. The tools, policies, and education in this area have improved tremendously in those 20 years, as has APA's ability to screen potential franchisees and accept those with the ability and willingness to do this part of the job.

Another thing that has changed significantly over the past several years is the scorekeeping. Operators everywhere now stress proper scorekeeping to their members. As a result, some players are going up now when they probably should have gone up long ago.

That said, my philosophy on the move from 6 to 7 has always been to let the player get there themselves unless I think they are purposely holding back. I know that philosophy is shared by many operators across the country, but I can't speak for everyone.

In my opinion, the reason you see more 7's than in years past is that there are simply more players with that ability. If you think of all the 7's you know and ask yourself how many of them play much better than they did five or ten years ago, you'll probably agree.

 

[CreeDo]

It's clear that there are different levels of 7 in different areas, some halls are just tougher in general and all the levels are higher than some other pool room. What I've always wondered is...

- Is it because the formula, at least in part, actually scales ranks based on the level of competition in the room? Like the math says "the top 5% of players who meet such-and-such requirements will be a 7 in this room"?

- Or is it just the natural side effect of a tough room? i.e. hitting 7 is harder in a room where all the 5's and 6's are tough, so if you manage to beat those 5's and 6's anyway... you're now a tough seven instead of a 'normal' seven.

 

[RFranklin]

APA loves their 8 ball

I will be master of the obvious here but there are two additional skill levels in APA 9 ball to more clearly reflect someones skill level. I dont know why APA 8 still only has its max skill at a 7 for eight ball. I play in Austin Texas and there is a wide variety of skills within 7's too. Some I could give 2 games to and some I need 2.

 

[Matt]

If you're comparing him to 6s nationally, then I basically agree. But any given division may not have a true 7 speed player at all. When that happens, the best 6 of the bunch is, by definition, "the favorite against most 6's" in that division. That shouldn't transform the best 6 into a 7. But in practice, it does.

Cory

If you go back to the original post, you'll see that the poster was contending that they were not a 7 because he met a bunch of 7s that were better than him. My point was that he shouldn't necessarily expect to contend with all 7s, but he should be a favorite against most 6s playing even.

 

[Matt]

Somebody has to be the best 6. That person isn't automatically a 7, or everyone would eventually be 7's. Somebody also has to be the weakest 7, which doesn't automatically make them a 6, either.

There is a numeric classification for the 7 skill level, just like all the other skill levels. For a 6 to move up ON THEIR OWN, they have to demonstrate that numeric ability. It actually IS possible to win every match you play and never demonstrate that numeric ability. The numeric part hasn't changed in the last 20 years.

What HAS changed is operator willingness to raise a skill level manually. This is a result of more operators actually doing their job of monitoring and policing skill levels in their local areas. The tools, policies, and education in this area have improved tremendously in those 20 years, as has APA's ability to screen potential franchisees and accept those with the ability and willingness to do this part of the job.

Another thing that has changed significantly over the past several years is the scorekeeping. Operators everywhere now stress proper scorekeeping to their members. As a result, some players are going up now when they probably should have gone up long ago.

That said, my philosophy on the move from 6 to 7 has always been to let the player get there themselves unless I think they are purposely holding back. I know that philosophy is shared by many operators across the country, but I can't speak for everyone.

In my opinion, the reason you see more 7's than in years past is that there are simply more players with that ability. If you think of all the 7's you know and ask yourself how many of them play much better than they did five or ten years ago, you'll probably agree.

Given the number of players in that APA and the fact that your rank only considers that last x matches, there are probably a lot of "best 6's", numerically speaking. Given a one game spot, those 6's are favored to win over the worst 7's, but if you take away the spot, the 7 theoretically has the edge, even if it only means they're predicted to win 50.1% of the time. Of course, the handicapping system isn't perfect, so that's not always the case.

I think what some people forget is that the combination of using only the most recent matches, eliminating outliers, and averaging innings per win means there are a lot of ways someone can be a 7, including shooting like a 6 most of the time and having a few low-inning matches.

 

[APA Operator]

It's clear that there are different levels of 7 in different areas, some halls are just tougher in general and all the levels are higher than some other pool room. What I've always wondered is...

- Is it because the formula, at least in part, actually scales ranks based on the level of competition in the room? Like the math says "the top 5% of players who meet such-and-such requirements will be a 7 in this room"?

- Or is it just the natural side effect of a tough room? i.e. hitting 7 is harder in a room where all the 5's and 6's are tough, so if you manage to beat those 5's and 6's anyway... you're now a tough seven instead of a 'normal' seven.

While I'm not at liberty to discuss the details of the math, I can tell you that it is possible to beat the best 7 on the planet every week and not mathematically go up. That's where review practices come in, 'cause even with a one-game spot a 6 probably shouldn't beat THAT player every time (most likely a scorekeeping issue in this case).

 

[Maniac]

While I'm not at liberty to discuss the details of the math, I can tell you that it is possible to beat the best 7 on the planet every week and not mathematically go up.

Oooooooooh, the big, deep, dark secret of the APA handicapping system .

Truth is, it's no secret that there really is no system. If there was one there would be hundreds of people associated with APA leagues that would have figured it out by now (hell, we broke Japanese/German codes during WWII ). I've seen things happen in APA handicapping that defies logic. Something that could NOT possibly happen if there was a system. If I had to describe the APA handicapping system to a non-poolplayer, I'd probably say "They use wins/innings/safeties to establish your skill level until you have a certain amount of matches played, then who knows what the hell goes on after that."

I cannot think of any other way to describe it :sorry:!!!

Maniac (is rapidly tiring of handicap league BS)

 

[Banks]

From what I've seen, almost everybody that I can remember has been fairly accurate in their s/l. Once in a while, people are going to have great games, but the more you see those for a mid or lower-ranked player, the more you're also going to see their D or F games.

You're going to have match-ups of people playing on both ends of the same s/l. If a 5.1 is going up against a 5.9, it could look ugly if that 5.1 is shooting like a 3 and the 5.9 is shooting like a 6+. They can't be pinpoint accurate and make a million different levels, they have to generalize.

As for the 7s, even a low-end 7 should be capable of putting on a near-flawless 5 games. Of course, they can also be off and shoot themselves in the foot. Some people haven't seen decent 7s and others may not understand how easy the game can be, so any good 7s are going to make their manhood shrivel up.

In my 8 years of playing, going from your run-of-the-mill bar player to a 7/9, I've watched player after player just stagnate. Some have been 3s for 10 years, some have been 5s or 6s for 10 years. The thing that they all have in common is their inconsistency. I've seen a couple of 2s break-n-run.. sometimes the stars align. The difference between a good 7 and a low 7 is about the same as between a 3 and a 6. When it happens, the lower player is just hoping to have a chance.

Edit: Of the few times I've seriously questioned somebody's s/l, it's because I thought it was too high. "How the hell are they a 7 making those choices and missing those shots?"

 

[Celophanewrap]

While I'm not at liberty to discuss the details of the math...

....why not?

 

[CreeDo]

While I'm not at liberty to discuss the details of the math, I can tell you that it is possible to beat the best 7 on the planet every week and not mathematically go up. That's where review practices come in, 'cause even with a one-game spot a 6 probably shouldn't beat THAT player every time (most likely a scorekeeping issue in this case).

Can you say if win rate directly affects your rating, or if it's strictly math based on balls and innings etc? Do you manually tweak ratings ever, when the win rate doesn't seem to jibe with the balls per inning / opponent rating / whatever?

 

[Maniac]

I've seen things happen in APA handicapping that defies logic. Something that could NOT possibly happen if there was a system.

Here is an example: I captained a 9-ball team that had a new female player on board. She starts life as a SL2 as per the rules. This girl couldn't make three balls in a row if you gave her BIH, and could only make two in a row if the second ball was almost hanging in a pocket. She lost her first 5 matches before she was moved down to a SL1. And....for sure she put up many high-inning matches due to her incapabilities. If any of her matches were ever medium-inning affairs, it was because my girl got the crap beat out of her and the other players shooting was the cause of mediocre innings. I can't remember, but I'm not sure my player EVER won a single match in the 2 sessions she played for us. If she did, it was only one, and IF it did happen, I can assure you it was because she stumbled across another SL1 that was as bad a shot as she was.

Move ahead a year later. My team was playing a team that had the league operator on its roster. They had a woman SL2 on the roster that took 4th place in Vegas in 8-ball singles and was locked-in as a SL4 in 8-ball (I'm only telling you this part because her being a SL2 in 9-ball was a bit "iffy" in our opinion). If she didn't show up every night, her team had a problem playing 5 people without breaking the 23-rule. On the night they played us, the LO didn't show up. They had a player who brought his girlfriend with him and since they only had 7 people on their roster, signed her up to play that night. She ended up playing another one of our SL2's and beat her in 27 innings by a score of 19-14 (not sure if this is completely accurate, but I am sure it is close). So basically 33 of balls were made in 27 innings, about 8 innings per game, which is normal for a SL2. Guess what? When I checked our leagues website the following week before league play, I saw that their new girl that WON her first match (in a normal amount of innings for her skill level) had been dropped to a SL1.

Now tell me Mr. APA League Operator with the deep, dark secret handicapping formula, how does my crappy-shooting SL2 have to lose her first 5 matches to drop down, and this other woman gets to WIN her first match (in normal innings) and get to go down??? and I emphasize ???.

There cannot be any explaining anything within a system that would allow this. Period!!!

I am over it now because I simply do not give a sh*t about it anymore (or anything else league-related). But at the time, our whole team was baffled by this.

Maniac (system my a**)

 

[TimKrazyMon]

While I'm not at liberty to discuss the details of the math, I can tell you that it is possible to beat the best 7 on the planet every week and not mathematically go up. That's where review practices come in, 'cause even with a one-game spot a 6 probably shouldn't beat THAT player every time (most likely a scorekeeping issue in this case).

I do not believe that is correct. Win percentage very much plays a factor in APA handicaps. I can say from personal experience there were times where my innings were consistent with my skill level, however i was raised because my winning % exceeded the standard deviation allowed for that skill level.

 

[Maniac]

Do you manually tweak ratings ever, when the win rate doesn't seem to jibe with the balls per inning / opponent rating / whatever?

If there is manually tweaking of skill levels (and I am more than certain that there is (see my above post) :wink, this is where the "system" breaks down. To the point that there really is no system, because some LO's might manually tweak their players skill levels more than others do, causing the balance of "integrity of the system" to be thrown off kilter.

Maniac

 

[Banks]

I do not believe that is correct. Win percentage very much plays a factor in APA handicaps. I can say from personal experience there were times where my innings were consistent with my skill level, however i was raised because my winning % exceeded the standard deviation allowed for that skill level.

It took me what felt like forever to move up to a 7. Even longer to hit a 9. I'm pretty sure I was having only one or two losses a session.

If there is manually tweaking of skill levels (and I am more than certain that there is (see my above post) :wink, this is where the "system" breaks down. To the point that there really is no system, because some LO's might manually tweak their players skill levels more than others do, causing the balance of "integrity of the system" to be thrown off kilter.

Maniac

There are manual adjustments and I don't think any LO will tell you otherwise. No system is perfect and that allows the LOs to make what they believe to be corrections. Some may take advantage of that, I'm not sure. If it's a franchised business, though, there are probably some kind of fines or something if they do things that may cause problems for the entire organization.

 

[Maniac]

I do not believe that is correct. Win percentage very much plays a factor in APA handicaps. I can say from personal experience there were times where my innings were consistent with my skill level, however i was raised because my winning % exceeded the standard deviation allowed for that skill level.

One session my wife, with plenty of matches under her belt to have an established handicap got raised a skill level, but our team MVP that had a better winning percentage than she did that session stayed at his current level. My wife never won a match at her newly raised skill level and eventually got moved back down.

As far as your statement " Win percentage very much plays a factor in APA handicaps." goes, I think anything and everything plays a factor in APA handicaps, depending on who the LO is. I once played a woman SL2 in an 8-ball match that when after I had defeated her she said to me, "That's the first match I've lost all year." Sure enough, I looked on the league website when I got home and she was right. She had a 9-0 record before I beat her. My question is: How in the hell was she STILL a SL2 with a 9-0 record???

There is no rhyme-nor-reason to APA handicapping. I've seen the gamut from under-handicapped (some severely), to properly handicapped, occaisonally to some that are over-handicapped.

I've given up trying to figure it out. Now, I just go and play to have a good time, a couple of drinks, and a night of socializing. It's a lot less stressful to just let the chips fall where they may.

Maniac

 

[Maniac]

Some may take advantage of that, I'm not sure. If it's a franchised business, though, there are probably some kind of fines or something if they do things that may cause problems for the entire organization.

Oh, I'm SURE!!!

Read my post #113. Tell me this happened because of an honest LO.

I reported this whole incident to the National office at the time and they responded by taking up for the LO and offering some excuse about innings, blah, blah, blah..............!

My SL2 had MORE innings than their SL2 did and it STILL took her losing her first 5 matches to go down. Theirs WON her first match in normal innings and went down afterwards.

Does this seem like the work of a system or the work of a dishonest LO that decided to tweak the roster of a team the HE was a member of, and that had problems with the 23-rule???

And....do you find it fair or comforting that the National office took his side in this???

But....that was then and this is now......I'm older, wiser, and don't give a rat's a** anymore.

Maniac (but I still like to convey the story on APA threads)

 

[Banks]

My SL2 had MORE innings than their SL2 did and it STILL took her losing her first 5 matches to go down. Theirs WON her first match in normal innings and went down afterwards.

Does this seem like the work of a system or the work of a dishonest LO that decided to tweak the roster of a team the HE was a member of, and that had problems with the 23-rule???

On the first part, I can't say since I don't know all of the facts for those matches. I had a 2 on my team that won 12 of 13 matches and didn't go up. He was our super-2. He even broke and ran once while practicing. Of course, he was just as likely to miss a ball a foot from the hole on any given day.

I'm not sure if your LO was doing nefarious(did I use that correctly?) things with the handicaps, but I'd be willing to bet that most LOs do the right thing.. or at least the LOs that cover a majority of players at least.

 

[AtLarge]

... jeff qualified to play in the world 14.1 this year. he went and played. and he beat some of the guys in his bracket that were like him, great shots but not pros. but then in jeff's bracket he also had mika and mike dechaine. needless to say those guys were the true pros in the bracket and finished with the best scores to get out of the round robin stage. ...

Here are the scores from Jeff Crawford's 5 matches in the round-robin portion of the 2012 Predator World 14.1 Tournament (Crawford's score first):

M. Immonen.......32-100
M. Dechaine........31-100
S. Wilke..............59-100
S. Morgan.........100-37
C. Eames..........100-71​