Rating Systems - What do you like?

[FLICKit]

OK, Luon here ya go...

We'll start a new thread for discussion of Rating Systems and what do you like? The goal and purpose of this thread is not to try to be close minded and bash any and every system. Instead, the goal is to present various rating systems, relay the advantages, and also confirm the ability to withstand the test of some scrutiny. Note, once again... this is about honest discussion, not just hijacking a thread into a bashing session.


First, would be No-Handicapping system. This has one very distinct advantage of no way to sandbag/cheat the system. Methods similar to this are strongly recommended for all top level players. You are definitely rewarded for your efforts, training, skill and execution. If you're crying about it, you aren't good enough. Enuff said.

The obvious disadvantage to this system is that a majority of players would be unable to even compete with the top level players. Sometimes players enjoy the experience of playing a game with top players. Some find that they learn alot from it. In many cases, this is not fun for either player. The more advanced player is clearly gonna win. Any amateur player wouldn't even have a remote chance.

The other thing of note, is that on the pyramid of pool playing abilities, there are very few advanced players at the top, while a majority of players fall below those peak performers.

Hence, handicapping systems were thus created...

In regards to the APA Handicap system, their formula is a little more complicated than that. Their system calculates an inning average taking into consideration prematurely made 8-balls and safeties and discounts matches that would be deemed outliers. It is the most objective handicap structure in practice and is more closely related to an accu-stats rating. If one group consisted of only A players and another group consisted of only C players, the system would yield different results for each group and, theoretically, you'd be able to handicap matches between the two groups.

I don't play in the APA nor would I want to but you have to appreciate the concept for what it's worth. As for a league for beer drinkers, I see no reason to call it merely that. There are some fine players in the APA, many of whom also play in the BCA but for the most part, it's a league that benefits the below-average pool player even though a few of its members happen to be some of the finest amateur 8-ball players in the country.

As has been stated in another thread...

This is not a subjective system. Statitistics and data are collected on a player every week. APA uses a 20 match history, and takes your best 10 matches, and uses that to determine your rating.

Starting off in the APA, just like any other league, obviously it is difficult to rate a player accurately at first. Some systems are very reluctant to adjust player ratings. The APA system resolves the issue, by being willing to move the player rating up or down quite readily. Usually this aids in helping to determing the players true rating very quickly. If you go up and continue to win, then you're very likely to be a higher rated player than what you started off as. Likewise, if you go down and continue to lose, then you're lower than what you started. Without any subjectivity involved, by about 6 matches a player's rating should be very closely determined. After 10 matches, there is essentially no doubt what level that player has been playing at.

Disadvantages:
I'd suggest that the APA should consider not moving a player's handicap within the first 2 weeks, unless they are extremely above or below their current ability (this is especially true of a move in the downward direction). That's because less games can mean less data collected. In other words, if you have to win 3 games, then it takes 2 weeks to acquire at least 6 games worth of information. Whereas, if you have to win 2 games, then it takes 3 weeks to acquire the same 6 games worth of info. Also add in the factor, that some very good players, play very poorly the first week, due to simply adjusting to the different surroundings...

Opens the door to claims of sandbagging or other excuses. Some of these are warranted, while as has been stated many are not warranted when able to look at the bigger picture.


Feel free to add in any comments about how the BCA system works, or VNEA, or any local systems in your area....

 

[FLICKit]

I have thought about handicapping a lot, and how to equate it fairly
between the APA, BCA, Valley, and money skill level to where each
and every player is rated fairly when he goes to play in a handicapped
tournament. It works for 8 ball and 9 ball.

It involves using a standard to determine overall skill level, and then
equate it to a proper BCA, Valley, And APA skill level for league.
To explain it fully would be rather lengthy, lets just say I use
10 ball as the barometer standard with monetary incentives to
shoot your best and not sandbag your skill. Players have to pay
to get rated, and the better they shoot the more money they get
back, and can even make money if they shoot well enough.

Since 10 ball is scored like bowling, 300 is the best, so dividing
your 10 ball score by 4 would give you a 5 man BCA rating for
8 ball less the x complexity percentage given for the complexity of 8
ball compared to 10 ball.

Say someone scored 220 on 10 ball, that would be a 55 BCA 5 man
rating less, say 12% because 8 ball is more complex than 10 ball.
That would bring the person down to 48 with rounding.

You would do the same conversion for Valley, and for APA. That
way your skill level can be determined for all major leagues (get
rated at a tournament might depend on a league rating or equivalent).

Most players that play for money already have a money skill level that
other people assign to them, most of them are 9 ball ratings. They are
a 5 or 7, maybe a 10 (9 ball ratings go from 2-12 normally).

Then billiard rooms in a city could share the master listing, so all
billiard rooms in a city would know how to rate players that play
in their tournaments.

Something like this can work.

You really dug pretty deep to try to post this into the other thread....

You raise some interesting points for discussion. Would be nice to have a true ability to convert players from one system to the next.

One shortfall of course, is as has been repeated many times before, dishonesty. I.e. People seeing more advantage to not playing to strong ability at first, for more future reward, rather than your quick payback offer. Also, people unwilling to honestly relay their other league ratings.

 

[pete lafond]

You really dug pretty deep to try to post this into the other thread....

You raise some interesting points for discussion. Would be nice to have a true ability to convert players from one system to the next.

QUOTE]

I started a thread about this about a month ago +. There was a lot of feedback but not enough to formulate a good system. At least in my opinion.

I like your thoughts. However, certain leagues, such as APA, attract different level players in different parts of the country. One group might be stronger than another. e.g. a two 7's could be far apart. I tried the APA because I didn't know better. The 7's were like our BCA 8.5's (BCA in this region go to 10 with a 1/2 point system. 5.5,6,6.5,...)

I think all ratings should occur in billiard rooms only, not bar leagues. And this is why.

Billiard rooms know players well and can be responsible for managing their own player ratings. Pure win and lose ratios by type of game and run outs should be kept. If a billiard room allows sandbagging, then all players with a handicap there would be disqualified from a national system. This allows players to monitor each other, to keep their handicap system.

When players play each other outside of a tournament or match, they should also add to the handicap system (like golf) and include spots as wins. Games played in other pool rooms should also be considered. There should be some kind of algorithm to figure ratios for greater precision.

Finally players should be placed into one of 4 groups - Pro, A, B and C. This is much easier to determine by other players if a player is in the wrong group. To many levels distorts things to much.

Just some thoughts.

 

[FLICKit]

Correction from earlier... it was LOUN. My apologies...

I started a thread about this about a month ago +. There was a lot of feedback but not enough to formulate a good system. At least in my opinion.

I like your thoughts. However, certain leagues, such as APA, attract different level players in different parts of the country. One group might be stronger than another. e.g. a two 7's could be far apart... The 7's were like our BCA 8.5's (BCA in this region go to 10 with a 1/2 point system. 5.5,6,6.5,...)

The APA system is a good way of providing standard ratings that apply throughout the country. Of course there will be some minor differences. But, that can be easily accounted for.

Note (this is not a dig, just honest statement): the system that you've suggested provides less accuracy.

I think all ratings should occur in billiard rooms only, not bar leagues. And this is why.
Billiard rooms know players well and can be responsible for managing their own player ratings. Pure win and lose ratios by type of game and run outs should be kept. If a billiard room allows sandbagging, then all players with a handicap there would be disqualified from a national system. This allows players to monitor each other, to keep their handicap system.

The question is, what standards are you using to rate players? Without some sort of standard guidelines, then it becomes just a subjective system, which will always have flaws. Subjective systems can work to a degree, but many times you need to combine both - subjectivity and standards. When the two work together, then you have more information by which to utilize in the determination of the player's rating.

The idea is that by providing some set of standards, then it becomes much more unlikely that you have to disqualify certain areas for not maintaining accurate handicaps. The ability to ensure a reasonable level of integrity amongst the ratings, is a key and critical aspect of any system.

When players play each other outside of a tournament or match, they should also add to the handicap system (like golf) and include spots as wins. Games played in other pool rooms should also be considered. There should be some kind of algorithm to figure ratios for greater precision.

How do you plan on managing that? Plus if there isn't anything on the line, then how do you know if they're really playing their best game. Many players play totally differently, when they're shooting just for fun.

Finally players should be placed into one of 4 groups - Pro, A, B and C. This is much easier to determine by other players if a player is in the wrong group. To many levels distorts things to much..

For a subjective system, you're right, it gets very difficult to manage more than that. But, 3 non-pro levels doesn't provide quite enough range for people to compete in. There needs to be at least a little more accuracy than that. In other words, C players would be beginners and lower level in your system, B players would be average, and A players would be top. But we all know the top 10-15 players in an area, if your A level has more players than that. Those players have basically no chance. Plus, the B level would be quite a huge range. And same with the C level.

Just some thoughts.

It's an interesting start... I'd suggest that more needs to be developed before it could be a feasibly usable system in anything other than a single bar.

 

[Jimmy M.]

What I like about ratings systems:

Nothing!!!

 

[Loun]

FLIckit.. thanks for starting this thread. i waded through the other thread cover to cover last night and actually responded to that one. I wish I could add to this one but I am not experienced enough to be able to come up with a solution to the problem. All I can do at this point is point out the problem and cite examples of it Im still a newbie and am still playing my first league session. I will also say that throughout the session I dont think I have heard 1 single person say anything good about the league while playing in it However I understand that in general if you are upset about something you let everyone know and if you like something you tend to not bring it up.

Playoffs start tonight and i have no clue what to expect from here on out so hopefully my opinion on the way the leagues run changes. Although one of my other biggest complaints is Ive called the local league office a number of times, noone ever answers, I leave messages upon messages and have never gotten a call back or response. That isnt something that is likely to change and I think if it did it would make a lot of things more bearable.

 

[The Dropper]

A standard test...or somehting.

The problem with any handicapped system is that tends to be influenced by local talent level. The "problem" is easy to see in the APA when players of the same rank, but different parts of the country, play. They are supposedly similar but one player can be clearly superior.

What if there was some sort of standardized national test that could maybe get to the core ability of players. Mind you, I have no true idea of what the test could consist of...that is open for discussion. But I would imagine that a player would need to play on a specific set of equipment (within reason) to be ranked and be "scored" by a sanctioned somebody. The idea being that a sanctioned ranking could work in concert within the broader context of a national league like the APA. It would serve to make general distinctions in ability (a "C-level Player" would necessarily score say...below 200 on this test while a "B-level Player" would necessarily score between 200 and 400 points on the test) and to help clarify other rating systems when "interdivisional play" happens (Between an "APA 7" who scored 350 on the test and another "APA 7" who scores 250 on the test).

Of course, just like anything...this concept can be "sandbagged" but i think there needs to be some metric against which pool players can be measured...at least to get them into Pro, A, B, C and D sort of classifications.

Any thoughts?

 

[Cue of Fury]

Nothing!!!

Agreed!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Loun]

A few people between this thread and the other have mentioned that different areas of the country could potentially have a bias based on the talent pool in that area. Is there a generalization that could be made about this? IE people from the east coast are potentially better than the west coast, or the midwest tends to be better than the south... I would assume this really couldnt be the case as pool is a skill that is learned and wouldnt be geographically biased unless people just had noone better than them to play so they stopped getting better.

 

[FLICKit]

Agreed!!!!!!!!!!

Simple answers for both of you....

Stay out of em....
Avoid threads about em...

Why waste your time giving yourself headaches about something you're not even interested in? Your efforts would be better suited participating in areas where you are interested.

I know human nature likes to complain....

so have fun... I'll stop supporting your habit.

 

[FLICKit]

The problem with any handicapped system is that tends to be influenced by local talent level. The "problem" is easy to see in the APA when players of the same rank, but different parts of the country, play. They are supposedly similar but one player can be clearly superior.

Actually it's exactly the opposite. Yes there can be some very minor differences, but overall the ratings are quite consistent throughout the nation. Especially if you try comparing it to any other system, national or local. APA incorporates many balancing factors. Not perfect, but clearly better than nothing. Given nothing else, it would be the current standard. If you have seen some other system that has a good way of doing it, then would be interested in hearing about it.

What if there was some sort of standardized national test that could maybe get to the core ability of players. Mind you, I have no true idea of what the test could consist of...that is open for discussion. But I would imagine that a player would need to play on a specific set of equipment (within reason) to be ranked and be "scored" by a sanctioned somebody. The idea being that a sanctioned ranking could work in concert within the broader context of a national league like the APA. It would serve to make general distinctions in ability (a "C-level Player" would necessarily score say...below 200 on this test while a "B-level Player" would necessarily score between 200 and 400 points on the test) and to help clarify other rating systems when "interdivisional play" happens (Between an "APA 7" who scored 350 on the test and another "APA 7" who scores 250 on the test).

The logistics of what it would take to do a test could be interesting, but could be quite involved.

Just FYI: The top level 7's have nothing to cry about. They've got the necessary basics.... just improve and get better.

Kind of interesting how some people (in general, not you), want zero handicapping system, yet they don't like it when 7's have to compete head to head, straight up.

Of course, just like anything...this concept can be "sandbagged" but i think there needs to be some metric against which pool players can be measured...at least to get them into Pro, A, B, C and D sort of classifications.

Any thoughts?

The age old problem (sandbagging) comes into play. Easier to understand how it occurs. Much more difficult to address and solve, when actually have to create the system.

Too bad all sports can't be more like the honor system in PROFESSIONAL golf.
note: strong emphasis on PROFESSIONAL.

 

[FLICKit]

I would like to see a simplified rating system.

A+ = Professional Touring Players
A = Local Professional Level Players (Pro's with normal full time jobs)
B = Advanced Players
C = Novice Players

As soon as you achive a higher level..There is no going down....Forget all the numbers systems...All it seems to be is levels within levels....Just practice and get better at your level...

As has been stated, not enough levels to be a legitimate and feasible system. Huge, huge, huge difference between a top level A player, and a bottom level A player. Same for B and C levels.

Also note, what guidelines would be used to determine a player's level. Would it all be subjective?

Now, if you added levels inbetween the ones mentioned, then you'd have some additional legitimacy. Might even be better if you added level inbetween those as well. But, this would significantly increase the complexities in determining the guidelines and making it function smoothly. It's all about finding the right balances, between levels of competitiveness and complexities in management.

 

[Jude Rosenstock]

Personally, I lean towards eliminating handicapping altogether. I feel handicaps inhibit player-growth. Having broadly-classed events would likely be as much of a handicap solution I'd be willing to endorse but for the most part, I feel players should play evenly. By the term "broadly-classed", I mean something similar to what is done in the BCA National Championships. One event would allow for all players, regardless of ability. The next would not allow professionals. The third tier would not allow advanced players. However, much of my opinion is based on what I feel is good for player-growth, not necessarily for the sport's growth.

I noticed that you quoted a previous post of mine. I would appreciate it that you PM me in the future when you choose to use my words in a new thread. Regardless, in reference to what I was talking about, this was an appreciation of a national handicap system. The APA's Equalizer System is by far the best I've seen for 8-ball since it protects the integrity of the game while establishing a system that can be used universally. However, what is good for the masses is not necessarily the same as what's good for the serious pool player. The APA Equalizer System is and will always be a classification of beginner to intermediate play. Anyone falling outside that range will be beyond the handicap unless playing against others who also fall under this catagory.

However, that isn't to say that this is exclusively the way to go. Localization of handicapping allows for a more tailored structure. Unlike a Federal approach like the one imposed by the APA, the BCA allows for localized leagues to do as they see fit so long as their league falls under rather loose guidelines. In the poolroom I play in, there are several leagues. Even though only one is BCA sanctioned, the diversity shown in the poolroom is an ideal illustration as to why federalization is limiting. There is Team 9-ball, Team 8-ball, Individual Straight Pool and Individual 9-ball. Obviously, in some regions of the country, there could be even more leagues.

In the end, all of these national structures are geared toward sending teams to a single event. Evenso, its members either may not be interested in any of these national events or simply wish to be able to shape their local experience as they see fit. Regardless, the market has proven to be a bit more complicated than what can be outlined in a national definition and some flexibility should be allowed.

 

[trainer]

arizona ratings committee..

Agreed!!!!!!!!!!

at their next meeting i would like to suggest that they eat a last meal and kill themselves..
terry osborne

 

[Bob Jewett]

...We'll start a new thread for discussion of Rating Systems and what do you like? The goal and purpose of this thread is not to try to be close minded and bash any and every system. Instead, the goal is to present various rating systems, relay the advantages, and also confirm the ability to withstand the test of some scrutiny. Note, once again... this is about honest discussion, not just hijacking a thread into a bashing session. ...

Feel free to add in any comments about how the BCA system works, or VNEA, or any local systems in your area....

In the local 14.1 league, we use something like the NPL system. You have a rating, and if you win your match, your rating goes up. If you lose your match, your rating goes down. (Each is by 3 rating points). Players in the league range from ratings of about 500 to 800. Handicaps for each match are determined by the difference in ratings of the two players, and if they are 100 points apart, the better player has to make twice as many balls. A table of the handicaps is listed in http://www.sfbilliards.com/14.1_charts.htm

This system is guaranteed to be fair in the long run in that it is not possible for a player to continue to win 60% of his matches unless he keeps improving. The better players tend not to like to give up fair spots.

Besides being fair, this system is very easy to administer. You just keep track of wins and losses. There are no inning-by-inning score sheets.

The NPL system is described at http://www.sfbilliards.com/misc.htm as about the tenth item down. It's intended for nine ball. Also on that page is a description of how to modify it for an eight ball league (see Argonne). Ratings in the NPL range from about 20 to 120.

The USPPA is another handicapped nine ball system that is used in this area. It requires inning-by-inning scoresheets for each match. Having scoresheets has the advantage that it is easier to compare players who have never played each other, but there are catches. I used to play in the system in a room that had tight tables, especially the front one. It was rare to see anyone run out a rack on #10. Consequently, the system automatically gave us all low ratings. This made life easier at regional tournaments. The ratings in the USPPA run from about 20 to about 160. The USPPA seems to be designed so that the better players win most of the tournaments, so it produces something less than 100% handicaps.

Mike Page did an analysis of the 2002 World Championships working just from the match scores and was able to calculate relative ratings of all the players entered. Of course it was only one tournament, and some players had substandard results, but the same technique could be used to figure ratings based on lots of tournament histories. Once you have the ratings, you can estimate the expected score for any particular pair of players who have been rated. I think his article was in the October 2002 issue of Billiards Digest.

 

[Jimmy M.]

at their next meeting i would like to suggest that they eat a last meal and kill themselves..
terry osborne

Don't hold back now! Tell us how you really feel!

 

[pete lafond]

I do like how the APA manages their handicaps. Maybe off the wall but a simple system would be better adhered to in the long run. If you could come up with a way that we included pool halls only in managing rating systems and make them accountable for the accuracy, that would be a great start. I don't know if you play golf or not but, and yes there is sandbagging, but each time someone shoots a round, they record their scores no matter if they shot in a league of just out playing.

One of the reasons I feel that a system of Pro. A, B, and C ratings would be better is that people fit into a group and it is esier to spot a sandbagger that way.

I do like what you are saying and I firmly believe that a good national rating system is needed. Those player that play in tours can be more easily recognized, those that don't is where the problem lies.

 

[pete lafond]

The problem with any handicapped system is that tends to be influenced by local talent level. The "problem" is easy to see in the APA when players of the same rank, but different parts of the country, play. They are supposedly similar but one player can be clearly superior.

You are exactly right. The key is to figure a balance point if possible. And unless these players travel to other tounaments around the country it would be hard to capture in a handicap system.

 

[pete lafond]

Personally, I lean towards eliminating handicapping altogether. I feel handicaps inhibit player-growth. Having broadly-classed events would likely be as much of a handicap solution I'd be willing to endorse but for the most part, I feel players should play evenly. .

Maybe national events should not be handicapped, but what about regional ones. Without a handicap a lower rated player wouldn't have a chance and may not even show up. What about the system I mentioned earlier - Pro, A, B and C ratings. Keep it broad. Do you think that something like this is a posssibility? Maybe just 3 rating groups. I'm just looking for ways that everyone stands a chance. If I were to play against the pros, I wouldn't stand a chance, however in an A category it improves dramatically. I therefore would not enter the pro event, I may watch though. Now imagine a C player against an A. They wouldn't stand a chance, but I would like to see them enjoy being in a tournament. Their growth would be moving from a C to a B rating.

I do agree with you that most tournaments should disregard handicaps, just not all.

 

[lukeinva]

Why is there even a thread about this its not like you can get the APA or any other league to change thier rating system so why waste time and even discuss it?

On the other note of player being better in the east or west, north or south. I can see that in my local area I play at the hall I always play at and yeah I am good but I cant beat everyone in there, however if I go to another hall no one there can touch me which I find to be pretty weird but it happens.