"sand bagging" Yes or No ?

[catscradle]

Settle a discussion...

And this is APA related (or perhaps any league).

"sandbagging"- Yes or No?.

1. Knowing that by playing "safe" you lose that inning. Would you consider it sand bagging if when you play, you intentionally take (and most definetely try to make) very difficult lower % shots as opposed to making the right strategic play which would be to play safe?

2. Two way shots. In the same vein as the last question, would it be considered sandbagging in your eyes if when someone shoots they are trying to make a very difficult shot perhaps a very tough combo, or multi rail bank knowing that if they miss (AND THEY ARE defineately NOT trying to miss, The person has EVERY intention of trying to make the shot) but they know, that if they miss they are very likely to be "safe" ? So are two way shots marked "safeties" and by not mentioning them a person is "sand bagging"?

No to both. As long as a legitimate attempt is being made, it is not a safe just prudent. I suppose it could be argued that it is in spirit sandbagging because the player know what the right thing to do is, but it is within the the rules not a safe and not sandbagging.

 

[catscradle]

Ok, so let's expand on that. What if the straight forward "safe" is also a lower % safe ? Most people don't appreciate that in many cases (most) playing a good safety is very difficult and takes either a great cueball control or very precise speed control and many times takes both. So, is it still sandbagging in your opinion if it's a 50/50 safety, let's say if you execute it perfectly you leave no shot for your opponent or a very very difficult shot for them, but if you miss it they have a clear hit or even a clear shot & run and you choose to take the very difficult shot as opposed to the very difficult safety?

The rule is pretty simple, if you aren't attempting to make a shot it is to be recorded as a safe. It isn't sandbagging, but it is a safe.
I have a gripe with the rule as written because if you are hooked and kick at a ball with virtually no chance of sinking it, that is by the rule as written a safe even though you're aren't playing safe. I don't think kicks in those circumstances should be considered safes.

 

[Beware_of_Dawg]

I have much more dialog to contribute and discussion left in me regard the subject we are talking about now... But my next response will likely be long and I don't have the time to type it all out right now.

 

[justadub]

It's simple. Everyone has a little mental calculator that figures out risk and reward and comes up with a "best" shot.

If you ever play less than the "best" shot, ESPECIALLY if there's intent to keep from moving up, that's sandbagging.

Doesn't matter is the shot is still 2nd-best, or still "95% just as good", or still reasonably smart and safe. You're stalling. There's no honest excuse for it in league.

I don't think I've ever disagreed with CreeDo before... sorry

The way I've been taught is that if I have two shots, and neither of them is automatic, then it's good strategy to shoot at the one that is likely to give your opponent the worst leave, if I miss.

I don't consider that sandbagging, if I am actually trying to make the shot in question. Even if there is an easier (yet not automatic) shot on the table. I'm not talking about trying to make some crazy shot, just the one of the two makeable shots that leaves the ball in a worse position, just in case.

Isn't it standard doctrine to try and leave the ball "uptable" to make the next shot for your opponent a longer shot? If at all possible? Why should it be 'bagging if you are doing that while truly attempting your own shot?

Of course, I could be wrong. I often am.

 

[saige45]

Then you get a player that has the ability to "make it close" they can shoot an object ball near enough to look like an attempt to pocket.....when the real intent of the shot is designed with cue ball positioning in mind. This type of 2 way is often encountered in the opening stages of the game. Shoot the first ball near a pocket to satisfy the intent question and perhaps end up blocking that pocket while breaking up a cluster......this is the hardest judgement call....IMHO

Couldn't agree with you more. Which is why I had also mentioned the recognizing lay of the table, total number of innings and player skill levels as indicators of intent. By your description, the lay of the table prevents a run-out. The shooter, wanting to avoid a defensive stroke being marked, decides to miss on purpose by masking his intent. As a scorekeeper, I would mark a saftey based on these factors.

Here is what I had discussed above concerning this.

But what about player who purposefully misses shots??? This becomes harder to judge as a player can follow the obvious signs of intent and still miss a shot. At this point, you as the scorekeeper have to bear in mind the factors leading up to the shot. What is the score? How many innings are there? What is the layout of the table? What is the skill level of both players? How are both players shooting?

-saige-

 

[saige45]

I don't think I've ever disagreed with CreeDo before... sorry

The way I've been taught is that if I have two shots, and neither of them is automatic, then it's good strategy to shoot at the one that is likely to give your opponent the worst leave, if I miss.

I don't consider that sandbagging, if I am actually trying to make the shot in question. Even if there is an easier (yet not automatic) shot on the table. I'm not talking about trying to make some crazy shot, just the one of the two makeable shots that leaves the ball in a worse position, just in case.

Isn't it standard doctrine to try and leave the ball "uptable" to make the next shot for your opponent a longer shot? If at all possible? Why should it be 'bagging if you are doing that while truly attempting your own shot?

Of course, I could be wrong. I often am.

I know exactly what you mean. Just understand the following that I had discussed above:

Let's look at the objective of a standard APA game of 8-ball. The objective is to, legally, pocket (or sink) your balls and the 8-ball in order to win the game and ultimately the match. However, that is not how 8-ball is played. 8-ball is played so that while you are legally pocketing your balls, you are making it more difficult for your opponent to accomplish the same.

As for "standard doctrine". Hmmm, yes and no. Where this became standard doctorine remains a mystery to me, however, there is sense to the statement. But let's discuss defensive shots for a second, we may be able to glean where this became "standard doctrine".

So what is a defensive shot? In short, a defensive shot is a shot thats intent is to place the cue ball into a position that leaves your opponent with a lower percentage shot or no shot at all.

As such, the simplest defense is the "uptable" shot. The basis behind this shot is that the further the cue ball is away from the object ball the harder or more difficult the shot is. This is a true statement based upon the following factors: Cloth/Felt conditions, Cloth/Felt imperfections and foreign contaminents (lint, chalk, hair, etc. etc.), Angle of attack, Cue/Object Ball conditions, Cue/Object Ball imperfections and foreign contaminents, Cue/Object Ball rail proximity, Shooter skill level, Shooter equipment condition, etc. etc. etc. (Honestly, there are so many factors that go into a shot that even the most basic shot can be affected by any of these factors and many more). However, in this case the primary factors are "Angle of Attack" and "Cue/Object Ball proximity" (to each other and to their perspective rails). As you increase the "Angle of Attack", you increase the difficulty of the shot. The same is true if you increase the Cue/Object Ball proximity away from each other and towards their perspective rails.

However, as you become more comfortable on the table and confident with your shot, this basic defensive shot is no longer a nemesis but rather an angel in disguise. Any time your opponent leaves you a clear look at an object ball they are giving you an opportunity to obtain the strategic upperhand. Remember its not how many object balls you sink but rather how you leave your opponent on the table that dictates the outcome of the game.

So the next defensive shot is the one that utilizes a blocker or multiple blockers. This is the defensive shot when you make a good hit on an opponent ball but leave the cue ball "covered" by any of the following: one or more of your object balls, the 8-ball or one or more of your opponents object balls. One or more of my opponents object balls??? Yes, one or more of your opponents object balls. Leaving the cue ball nuzzled (not frozen, per se) against an opponent object ball at an unnatural angle can be a very effective defensive shot depending on the lay of the table.

I hope this helps.

-saige-

 

[APA LO]

Settle a discussion...

And this is APA related (or perhaps any league).

"sandbagging"- Yes or No?.

1. Knowing that by playing "safe" you lose that inning. Would you consider it sand bagging if when you play, you intentionally take (and most definetely try to make) very difficult lower % shots as opposed to making the right strategic play which would be to play safe?

2. Two way shots. In the same vein as the last question, would it be considered sandbagging in your eyes if when someone shoots they are trying to make a very difficult shot perhaps a very tough combo, or multi rail bank knowing that if they miss (AND THEY ARE defineately NOT trying to miss, The person has EVERY intention of trying to make the shot) but they know, that if they miss they are very likely to be "safe" ? So are two way shots marked "safeties" and by not mentioning them a person is "sand bagging"?

1. Who is to say what the "right strategic play" actually is? You can take the top 10 players in the world, and every single one of them will probably play an 8 ball run out differently than the other. When it comes to winning a game, you generate your own "right strategic play" to make that happen. To answer the question, it is not considered sandbagging if you are attempting to pocket a ball.

2. A 2 way shot is definitely not sandbagging if there is intent to actually pocket the ball. A 2 way shot is actually smart pool if you are shooting low percentage shots. If you have the ability to shoot that low percentage shot while hiding your opponent if you miss and having shape on your next ball if you make it, you are actually playing very smart pool.

A sandbagger is not someone who plays the game the right way and will defense their way to a win if needed. Defense has actually become nearly as important in today's game as offense. A sandbagger is someone who is purposely attempting to hide their true ability in order to gain an advantage over unsuspecting competition.

 

[saige45]

1. Who is to say what the "right strategic play" actually is? You can take the top 10 players in the world, and every single one of them will probably play an 8 ball run out differently than the other. When it comes to winning a game, you generate your own "right strategic play" to make that happen. To answer the question, it is not considered sandbagging if you are attempting to pocket a ball.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

2. A 2 way shot is definitely not sandbagging if there is intent to actually pocket the ball. A 2 way shot is actually smart pool if you are shooting low percentage shots. If you have the ability to shoot that low percentage shot while hiding your opponent if you miss and having shape on your next ball if you make it, you are actually playing very smart pool.

Agreed. But again, I says it depends upon the circumstances. I may play a two way shot with no intention of making my ball purely for the purpose of playing a clever defense. I just depends on the factors involved with the shot. I always ask myself these questions when I am starting a run. Do I have a clear path for a run-out? Do I have any trouble spots that need to be broken out or specific shape to make the shot? If so, how can I accomplish my leave and/or breakout? Is it worth the risk? If I answer no to any one of these questions I will look for a smart defensive shot.

A sandbagger is not someone who plays the game the right way and will defense their way to a win if needed. Defense has actually become nearly as important in today's game as offense. A sandbagger is someone who is purposely attempting to hide their true ability in order to gain an advantage over unsuspecting competition.

I don't agree completely with what is stated. A player using defense to win is playing the game the right way. However, a player missing shots on purpose for the advantage of maintaining a low average is not playing the game the right way. Scorekeepers have to mark safties to ensure proper handicapping otherwise it is all for naught. Things would be so much easier if people would admit their safties (I know that I do as do many other 6's and 7's in my league, but there are always those few unscrupulous characters).

-saige-

 

[APA Operator]

Actually Saige, I think you do agree with what APA LO stated. I think you got confused by the wording. What he meant to say is "A player who plays the game the right way and will defense their way to a win if needed is not a sandbagger."

 

[CreeDo]

That's not true. WIth lower skill level players that calculator you mention just doesn't exist. Trust me, I wish it did in most cases. More times than not, they make poor choices.

Absolutely. They shoot retarded shots all time. They overlook easier shots, with much safer leaves, they try shots that don't even GO. But for SOME reason, in THEIR head, it's the shot they should be taking. They don't choose at random. They use their tiny pool brains to select what looks like the best shot... and their definition of best is just going to be "what's easiest to make?". And that's fine, very often the easiest shot IS the best shot for that lower level player.

You and I will sometimes take shots that a pro will shake his head at and say "that's a much worse percentage shot than THIS". We ALL have that calculator. The newbie's just has broken buttons and a cracked screen and is slow as hell, while the pro has the TI-89 titanium.

Knowing that, is it your contention that not thinking a shot through or taking the time to weigh out what the best strategic move is and just taking a shot you think you can make regardless of difficulty is sandbagging?

Are they failing to think things through because they are a beginner and they have no pool knowledge to draw from? Or they just don't give a crap?

If someone has little pool knowledge, they usually just try the easiest shot. Which = using the calculator. Without saying as much out loud, they are thinking "I got no chance to win this, but I can at least make some balls and get some points for my team, and maybe if I keep sinking easy shots I'll get lucky and win. So this [easiest shot] is the best shot I can take."

If they just don't give a fu.. then that's sandbagging. They are consciously choosing not to try. Though honestly I never met a league player who just plain didn't try, with no thought of stats or how it affects his teammates.

If you could go out and win in this inning but you decide to give the other guy extra turns at the table, you have to be aware that you're affecting the stats and it might lead to false handicaps. Even if that's not your goal, every league player has to be aware of that. People who join KNOW they're expected to "play serious". So I'm not just limiting sandbagging to trying to manipulate stats favorably. I'm gonna say any form of laying down is sandbagging.

I don't think I've ever disagreed with CreeDo before... sorry

The way I've been taught is that if I have two shots, and neither of them is automatic, then it's good strategy to shoot at the one that is likely to give your opponent the worst leave, if I miss.

haha, damn, you've been wrong THAT MUCH?! just kidding. I'm flattered.
I never disagreed with me either.

And yes, of COURSE that's not sandbagging. That's the calculator in action. The calculator isn't just "I have a 20% chance of sinking this and a 17% chance of sinking this. Therefore I always shoot the 20% shot. No matter what."

...it's a complex thing that factors in your chance of missing, how easy it is to play shape, your chance of selling out, whether or not it's the best pattern, whether or not you're opening up the table for the other guy, whether you leave him long if you miss, and so on. And based on all of that you might come up with "option A gives me a better chance of winning the game than option B or C."

If you choose option B, even after your personal calculator (which may be wrong) says option A gives you the best shot at winning... then yeah, that's sandbagging.

------

The only thing up in the air for me is... would you call it sandbagging if a guy plays for fun and takes a flyer, even though he knows ducking is the right shot? I don't know if I could say it's "sandbagging" exactly but such a player should be lectured by his team because he's risking a loss (and screwing up the stats/ratings). It shouldn't happen again after that talk.

All this other talk about intent is kind of pointless. Yeah, intent matters. No, there's no concrete way to judge/prove it. So why sweat it? The only way sandbagging can be prevented is if someone makes a judgment call. One guy swears he wasn't laying down and the other guy says "yes you were" and that's it. If someone admits to laying down, but not for evil reasons (i.e. I just want to have fun, not play boring safes) then it's still a judgment call whether you let that person stay in the league or on your team.

 

[Grilled Cheese]

It's simple. Everyone has a little mental calculator that figures out risk and reward and comes up with a "best" shot.

If you ever play less than the "best" shot, ESPECIALLY if there's intent to keep from moving up, that's sandbagging.

Doesn't matter is the shot is still 2nd-best, or still "95% just as good", or still reasonably smart and safe. You're stalling. There's no honest excuse for it in league.

This is exactly right. Great post CreeDo.

Anything you do to slow yourself down, such as not taking the ideal shot, running the proper pattern that is known to you, intentionally choosing the bad balls (8-ball) etcetera is a form of sandbagging.

Two way shots do not count as sandbagging. You may be trying your very best to make that more difficult shot. It doesn't matter. The fact that you chose it is the intent to slow down/sandbag.

If you are not, to the best of your knowledge and ability, trying to win the game as quickly and as easily as possible - you're stalling.


Such things are beyond the ability of any handicap system, with the exception of the NPL or other win/loss based systems to equalize play.

 

[saige45]

Actually Saige, I think you do agree with what APA LO stated. I think you got confused by the wording. What he meant to say is "A player who plays the game the right way and will defense their way to a win if needed is not a sandbagger."

You know I think your right... When I was rereading the original comment, I said to myself, Self...

Actually I did reread it and was like, I don't think thats what was mean, because the next portion of the statement (read at face value) contradicts the first portion of the statement... I was primarily posting as a clarifier...

-saige-

 

[Beware_of_Dawg]

This is exactly right. Great post CreeDo.
Anything you do to slow yourself down, such as not taking the ideal shot, running the proper pattern that is known to you, intentionally choosing the bad balls (8-ball) etcetera is a form of sandbagging.

I disagree. In my opinion, and in the spirit of the rules as they are stated if your genuine intention is to make a ball regardless of difficulty that can not be construde as sandbagging or slowing down. With a fluid game such a pool with patterns and choices which change exponentially with every shot depends on countless patterns... what appears, or is considered the "right" choice may well be the wrong choice depending on these changing factors... and this all assumes the success of executing what a person thinks was the "right" choice to begin with... Way to many variables. Allowing someone else (scorekeeper) to decide what he believes was the right or wrong choice is giving this person too much power and WAY to much undeserved credit. Who sees the future? I think that only way to interpret is absolute. Did the person try to make a ball? Period. There is no room for someone else (particularly on an opposing team with undeniable bias) to interpret or second guess someones choice of patterns, etc... Did he try to make a ball? "yes?"- Not defensive. Did he take the wrong pattern and attempt what I believe was the harder shot but he tried to make it? -Not defensive.

 

[sfleinen]

I disagree. In my opinion, and in the spirit of the rules as they are stated if your genuine intention is to make a ball regardless of difficulty that can not be construde as sandbagging or slowing down. With a fluid game such a pool with patterns and choices which change exponentially with every shot depends on countless patterns... what appears, or is considered the "right" choice may well be the wrong choice depending on these changing factors... and this all assumes the success of executing what a person thinks was the "right" choice to begin with... Way to many variables. Allowing someone else (scorekeeper) to decide what he believes was the right or wrong choice is giving this person too much power and WAY to much undeserved credit. Who sees the future? I think that only way to interpret is absolute. Did the person try to make a ball? Period. There is no room for someone else (particularly on an opposing team with undeniable bias) to interpret or second guess someones choice of patterns, etc... Did he try to make a ball? "yes?"- Not defensive. Did he take the wrong pattern and attempt what I believe was the harder shot but he tried to make it? -Not defensive.

Dawg:

I agree with you. Putting the pedal to the metal, full-bore, and just going for it, is NOT sandbagging. It may not be the correct strategy, and will probably cost you the game/match (which will attract the ire of the rest of your team), but it's not sandbagging. The punishment you *will* subject yourself to (I'm using the royal "you" here -- not you personally) will be either loss of rack (and probably the match), as well as the glaring grimaces and talking-to you will get from your team -- all of which are punishment their own. No need to double-penalize with accusations of sandbagging.

Marking defensive shots is a different matter. If the player in question is a high skill-level player (e.g. 7/8/9 in APA 9-ball), and that player puts the pedal to the metal and "goes for it," caution to the wind, taking on all shots, no matter how low percentage they are, and misses a shot that results in a slopped safe against his/her opponent, I most definitely would mark that as a defensive shot. It's not sandbagging, but rather a result of that player not using his/her built-in risk/reward calculator (described above by yourself and CreeDo). It was not an intentional safe, of course, but that player has the knowledge of where the cue ball is going and could possibly end-up. We can't read minds, of course, to know whether that player saw and "registered" where that cue ball is going, or whether that mental calculator was turned off. But that player was indeed armed with that mental calculator (unlike a lower skill level player who does not have that mental calculator, but has an "abacus" instead), and his/her high skill-level comes with a price -- the expectation that the skill can and will be used, along with the penalties that come along with it.

Hope that's helpful,
-Sean

 

[APA Operator]

I disagree. In my opinion, and in the spirit of the rules as they are stated if your genuine intention is to make a ball regardless of difficulty that can not be construde as sandbagging or slowing down. With a fluid game such a pool with patterns and choices which change exponentially with every shot depends on countless patterns... what appears, or is considered the "right" choice may well be the wrong choice depending on these changing factors... and this all assumes the success of executing what a person thinks was the "right" choice to begin with... Way to many variables. Allowing someone else (scorekeeper) to decide what he believes was the right or wrong choice is giving this person too much power and WAY to much undeserved credit. Who sees the future? I think that only way to interpret is absolute. Did the person try to make a ball? Period. There is no room for someone else (particularly on an opposing team with undeniable bias) to interpret or second guess someones choice of patterns, etc... Did he try to make a ball? "yes?"- Not defensive. Did he take the wrong pattern and attempt what I believe was the harder shot but he tried to make it? -Not defensive.

There appears to be some mixing of the terms "defense" and "sandbagging" throughout this thread. As far as scorekeeping goes, it is almost as cut-and-dry as you suggest. The only exception, I believe, would be the two-way shot. If the scorekeeper thinks the leave was lucky and not intentional, then it should not be marked as defensive. Otherwise, it should be marked as a defensive shot. I say this because in a two-way shot (at least when I shoot them), the primary goal is the leave.

"Trying to make a ball" only applies to whether defense is marked, and does not necessarily correlate to sandbagging. Yes, there are plenty of times when a sandbagger misses intentionally and defensive shots are recorded, but that's not the only way a player can sandbag.

Take the "balls to the wall" approach (or cowboy pool, as I like to call it). Some players take this approach all the time, because they think it is the only way to play. These people are not sandbagging - they simply have not acquired the skill to recognize defensive play as a legitimate (and sometimes superior) way to win. On the other hand, a player who recognizes defense as a strategy for winning and is capable of playing the defensive style, but CHOOSES to ignore that strategic aspect of the game, is in fact sandbagging. They have the ability to win more games/matches, but choose not to do so.

Check this out - say you play an entire match and go for every shot, even those with a very low probability of success. Even if you MAKE every shot and run every rack in that match, you may be sandbagging. You have consciously chosen a style that you knew would lower your odds of winning. You may win that match (and maybe some others), but you know that over time your winning percentage will be lower with this style of play. You are choosing to play below your true ability.

So, trying to make a ball every time does not necessarily mean a player is not sandbagging. The scorekeeper need not mark defensive shots (because there are none), but make no mistake, you could be sandbagging by trying to make a ball every time.

 

[Richardson]

I am a pretty good 7. I was a hell of a 6 while i was sandbagging. People use to say, oh heres a bagger. I would make sure i got my 2.5 (or more) innings per game. Never shot a safety that anyone would mark. Oh yea, i use to let people win sometimes too !

Now that i am a 7 people are complaining that i don't let them shoot. So no matter what you do in a APA setting people are gonna complain.

Btw a 2 way shot can be a shot thats high % and leaves you with a shot if you make it and your opponent nothing if you miss. This is not a safety. It's called knowing where your cue ball is going. It's called being a better player then the person who don't know how to do this. Which ironically makes up alot of these APA members who complain all the time.

Most APA people should do themselves a favor and play VNEA or BCA and play straight up. Learn the game and better your game. Quit using handicaps as a crutch then complaining when the crutch don't work.

...Flame on people !

 

[Beware_of_Dawg]

I think I have a solution which could dramatically reduce sandbagging in APA 9ball, but based on the fact that they (APA) couldn't/wouldn't implement the push-out after the break because it was too "complicated" for people to understand, I doubt anything else could be successfully implemented which would be harder to remember than really simple stuff like walking upright, or not eating rocks cause they might hurt your teeth. lol.

 

[CreeDo]

Dawg, we got two things going on here.

1. Defining sandbagging if you KNOW all the variables. You know exactly what the shooter is thinking and basically are psychic. It's like the shooter is saying his thoughts out loud.

2. Defining sandbagging in a practical way that a NON-PSYCHIC person can use to track stats, report to a league operator, or use to kick someone out of the league if they have the authority.

-----

#1 is very easy and straightforward to me. We probably would agree on it. If the player is stalling/laying down then they are sandbagging.

But if you think all a player needs to do is make a sincere honest effort to sink a ball, and that's not laying down/sandbagging... here's what you should do at your next league match:
Make a sincere, 100% best effort to 6 rail every shot.
Or kick it in.
Or bank it in.
See if you can find any teammates or anyone on the opponent's team who thinks you're not sandbagging.

Now, I know... in the real world, the questionable stuff isn't so extreme. The guy who's slacking off might just be shooting the 60 degree cut instead of the 55 degree cut, or whatever. That brings us to what you seem to be looking for...

#2, a way to simplify the sandbagging label so it's as easy as possible for a real live human to use in a real league. It's a single question that you can make your best guess on and then truthfully answer either yes or no. "Was he trying to make the ball?"

I think your head is in the right place trying to simplify sandbagging down to something that is easier to judge... and if you're saying "no person is qualified to label another guy a sandbagger because there are so many possibilities, there's no way to boil down just one correct shot"... we are 100% on the same page.

You CAN'T TELL what the absolutely best shot on the table is. And you can't tell what is in the head of another guy when he chooses one shot over another.

With that in mind, what's it boiling down to? That's right, a judgment call. If someone is going to make a judgment call anyway... let them do it based on ALL the factors, not something as simple as "was he trying to sink a ball"... because that doesn't take enough into account. I can make sincere efforts to bank every ball in and still be CLEARLY sandbagging.

 

[mantis99]

In general I would say that neither are sandbagging. However, it all depends on the player. I would say this; if you change the way YOU would play a shot because of the rating system, then you are sandbagging. If you shoot it the same way you would otherwise, and are truely trying to win the game without purposely prolonging it, then you are not sandbagging.

For example, in the right scenario playing 8 ball, I would be willing to pruposely miss a shot (to break up a cluster or move a ball into position for example) to set up the runout. Because I would be doing that to give myself a better chance to win, I would not consider that sandbagging. On the other hand, if I thought I could run out, but knew I could play a lock up safety instead to prolong the game and lower my ranking, but still thought I would win, I would consider that sandbagging.

To sum up, if you are playing the game as competetively as you see possible, then you are not sandbagging no matter what others say.

 

[danquixote]

I'm gonna add another wrinkle here. I have a friend in the APA league. His team captain encourages his lower level players ( SL2-3-4) to always rearrange the furniture while playing higher skill levels. He will tell them to look for the opponents "Key" ball and attempt to move it......even go so far as to call a TO so he can point out the key ball to his SL-2. I first considered this less than sportsmanlike. I judged he was not trying to develop this lesser level player, simply using him as a roadblock against the higher level players. Then I thought about the team captains responsibility to the entire team. Use the best possible strategy to insure the most favorable outcome for my team without cheating. To constantly move the opponents balls especially against 5's or 6's is perhaps the best strategy to incorporate for an SL-2. Constantly trying to refigure your runout pattern is aggravating and could frustrate the opponent so greatly that they make fatal errors......I still think the guy is a bad captain......but a good strategist........Dan