Self Handicapping System
- Thread starter Guda
- Start date
Guda said:
I've never heard of it, but I know whenever I took a self-grading course in college I always got an 'A'. I suspect a self-handicapping system would be just about as successful.
catscradle said:I've never heard of it, but I know whenever I took a self-grading course in college I always got an 'A'. I suspect a self-handicapping system would be just about as successful.
For a tournament :
What if two opponents, playing each other, had to siliently 'buy' the spot they would want to get and then the difference between the bought spots would be the basis for determining the actual spot / handicapp? Hence, 'self handicapping'.
The following conditions would be applicable :
a. Each player would get a finite amount of funds to
bid with. Thereby making conservation of funds for
later rounds in the tourament important.
b. The original / finite of funds provided would have to
be such that a player could not buy the max.
handicapp every single round of a tournament.
Any thoughts?
Guda said:
I can't remember if it was here or not, but a while ago I posted a reverse calcutta idea for determining handicaps in a handicapped tournament.
The winning bid for every player is the same, say $20.
Instead of the bid amount going up slowly until there's no new bidder, the handicap rating goes up until there's no new bidder.
mike page
fargo
That's interesting ...
That's interesting Mike, but the audience could not know that before
bidding, obviously, or it could be stacked. And say, on a 2-12 9 ball scale,
how would you know where the cutoff for a lower handicap came in?
(like when to cut off giving out 12's and go to 11's, etc.)
Guda ... Make up a couple of examples, so we can see how your theory
works, and can critique, offer suggestions, from there.
I have my own solution for handicapping I have stated before, especially
locally, which is based on 10 ball averages (10 ball averages as in bowling),
and can convert to any league type average for use or verification. The
initial 10 ball setting of an average has monetary incentives, so the players
would not sandbag.
mikepage said:
That's interesting Mike, but the audience could not know that before
bidding, obviously, or it could be stacked. And say, on a 2-12 9 ball scale,
how would you know where the cutoff for a lower handicap came in?
(like when to cut off giving out 12's and go to 11's, etc.)
Guda ... Make up a couple of examples, so we can see how your theory
works, and can critique, offer suggestions, from there.
I have my own solution for handicapping I have stated before, especially
locally, which is based on 10 ball averages (10 ball averages as in bowling),
and can convert to any league type average for use or verification. The
initial 10 ball setting of an average has monetary incentives, so the players
would not sandbag.
I have my own solution for handicapping I have stated before, especially
locally, which is based on 10 ball averages (10 ball averages as in bowling),
and can convert to any league type average for use or verification. The
initial 10 ball setting of an average has monetary incentives, so the players
would not sandbag.[/QUOTE]
I'll try to develop some examples soon.
I think I understand your idea regarding using an 'average' to handicap a player. Since the player is then playing to meet / beat his average similiar to bowling.
As I see it problems with an 'average' system are :
a. How would it work for a tournament when you have
absolutely no info. / data on a player.
b. There could be a potentially HUGE (notice the
capital letters) difference in player's levels in a
game such as one-pocket. (IMO one-pocket just
does not seem to have that luck factor that you
have with 9-ball or 8-ball.)
I'm basically struggling with item b. I want to promote the game in my area but can't do that if all the big fish easily eat up us minnows.
Any ideas / comments?
locally, which is based on 10 ball averages (10 ball averages as in bowling),
and can convert to any league type average for use or verification. The
initial 10 ball setting of an average has monetary incentives, so the players
would not sandbag.[/QUOTE]
I'll try to develop some examples soon.
I think I understand your idea regarding using an 'average' to handicap a player. Since the player is then playing to meet / beat his average similiar to bowling.
As I see it problems with an 'average' system are :
a. How would it work for a tournament when you have
absolutely no info. / data on a player.
b. There could be a potentially HUGE (notice the
capital letters) difference in player's levels in a
game such as one-pocket. (IMO one-pocket just
does not seem to have that luck factor that you
have with 9-ball or 8-ball.)
I'm basically struggling with item b. I want to promote the game in my area but can't do that if all the big fish easily eat up us minnows.
Any ideas / comments?
My system
I'll try to develop some examples soon.
I think I understand your idea regarding using an 'average' to handicap a player. Since the player is then playing to meet / beat his average similiar to bowling.
As I see it problems with an 'average' system are :
a. How would it work for a tournament when you have
absolutely no info. / data on a player.
b. There could be a potentially HUGE (notice the
capital letters) difference in player's levels in a
game such as one-pocket. (IMO one-pocket just
does not seem to have that luck factor that you
have with 9-ball or 8-ball.)
I'm basically struggling with item b. I want to promote the game in my area but can't do that if all the big fish easily eat up us minnows.
Any ideas / comments?[/QUOTE]
My system can convert to any league averages: say you established
a 180 average in 10 ball. Then 180/300 * 75 (5 man BCA) = average
minus 12% (complexity % for 8 ball) = final average for BCA 5 man., which
is 41 (truncated, not rounded). You can do BCA 4 man, VNEA, APA,
or any other league average. You can also do a 9 ball rating.
180/300 * 12 (2-12 9 ball scale) = 7.2 minus 10% (complexity % for 9 ball)
= 6 (truncated).
All that needs to be done is to determine the complexity percentage for
1 pocket and a scale to judge by. 8 can not be the top of the scale,
so say we make it 20 for the best 1 pocket player in the world, then the
scale would be from 1-20. Say, and it is just an educated guess from
44 years of playing, we make the complexity percentage (which is the
difference of just running balls vs the inner details of a particular game)
to be 50% (for examples sake only). Then do the formula:
180/300 = .6 * 20 = 12 minus 50% = 6 (truncated).
Now if you take someone that had a 240 10 ball average. It would be
240/300 = .8 * 20 = 16 minus 38% (1 pocket complexity percentage lessons
for advanced player knowledge - have to for 1 pocket only) = 10.
So these 2 should play each other 10-6 in 1 pocket for a fair match.
(I can not explain the complete inner math calcs here, but they are related.)
As I said, my base handicap would be mostly for local players, but it
could be used on out-of-towners by having them set an average the
night before a tournament was to begin. They have to pay to set an
average (say $10), and they get money back (can make money) the
higher their average is.
I have bounced my complexity percentages for different games against
already established league averages in order to fine tune them, as
verification of them.
Guda said:
I'll try to develop some examples soon.
I think I understand your idea regarding using an 'average' to handicap a player. Since the player is then playing to meet / beat his average similiar to bowling.
As I see it problems with an 'average' system are :
a. How would it work for a tournament when you have
absolutely no info. / data on a player.
b. There could be a potentially HUGE (notice the
capital letters) difference in player's levels in a
game such as one-pocket. (IMO one-pocket just
does not seem to have that luck factor that you
have with 9-ball or 8-ball.)
I'm basically struggling with item b. I want to promote the game in my area but can't do that if all the big fish easily eat up us minnows.
Any ideas / comments?[/QUOTE]
My system can convert to any league averages: say you established
a 180 average in 10 ball. Then 180/300 * 75 (5 man BCA) = average
minus 12% (complexity % for 8 ball) = final average for BCA 5 man., which
is 41 (truncated, not rounded). You can do BCA 4 man, VNEA, APA,
or any other league average. You can also do a 9 ball rating.
180/300 * 12 (2-12 9 ball scale) = 7.2 minus 10% (complexity % for 9 ball)
= 6 (truncated).
All that needs to be done is to determine the complexity percentage for
1 pocket and a scale to judge by. 8 can not be the top of the scale,
so say we make it 20 for the best 1 pocket player in the world, then the
scale would be from 1-20. Say, and it is just an educated guess from
44 years of playing, we make the complexity percentage (which is the
difference of just running balls vs the inner details of a particular game)
to be 50% (for examples sake only). Then do the formula:
180/300 = .6 * 20 = 12 minus 50% = 6 (truncated).
Now if you take someone that had a 240 10 ball average. It would be
240/300 = .8 * 20 = 16 minus 38% (1 pocket complexity percentage lessons
for advanced player knowledge - have to for 1 pocket only) = 10.
So these 2 should play each other 10-6 in 1 pocket for a fair match.
(I can not explain the complete inner math calcs here, but they are related.)
As I said, my base handicap would be mostly for local players, but it
could be used on out-of-towners by having them set an average the
night before a tournament was to begin. They have to pay to set an
average (say $10), and they get money back (can make money) the
higher their average is.
I have bounced my complexity percentages for different games against
already established league averages in order to fine tune them, as
verification of them.
My system can convert to any league averages: say you established
a 180 average in 10 ball. Then 180/300 * 75 (5 man BCA) = average................[/QUOTE]
Thanks for the info.
Having a engineering degree myself I can appreciate the mathmatics / formula behind the system but reality is :
With career / job demands, family demands (anybody know how to get thru the 'terrible twos', first child, deer in the headlights), it is just not practical to have to do calculations or 'night before' evaluations.
Hence, the idea to think outside the box : Have the players handicap themselves.
Must be simple to explain and easy to manage.
That's why the idea of buying / bidding your own spot (in effect handicap) as DIRECTLY related to the opponent you are going to play. Maybe you know your opponent. Maybe you caught part of your opponent's previous match. Kind of makes you involved in ALL the tournaments matches. One would even know what other match spots were and how much was paid. How much funds are left to any particular player.
It sounds a little complicated but when you really think it thru it actually pretty easy to follow.
Like I said my biggest problem may be that the system does not lend itself well to two opponents on the extreme ends of the ability spectrum. So how can I account for this?
Any ideas?
a 180 average in 10 ball. Then 180/300 * 75 (5 man BCA) = average................[/QUOTE]
Thanks for the info.
Having a engineering degree myself I can appreciate the mathmatics / formula behind the system but reality is :
With career / job demands, family demands (anybody know how to get thru the 'terrible twos', first child, deer in the headlights), it is just not practical to have to do calculations or 'night before' evaluations.
Hence, the idea to think outside the box : Have the players handicap themselves.
Must be simple to explain and easy to manage.
That's why the idea of buying / bidding your own spot (in effect handicap) as DIRECTLY related to the opponent you are going to play. Maybe you know your opponent. Maybe you caught part of your opponent's previous match. Kind of makes you involved in ALL the tournaments matches. One would even know what other match spots were and how much was paid. How much funds are left to any particular player.
It sounds a little complicated but when you really think it thru it actually pretty easy to follow.
Like I said my biggest problem may be that the system does not lend itself well to two opponents on the extreme ends of the ability spectrum. So how can I account for this?
Any ideas?
Guda said:
Nothing you do is going to be tamper proof, but here is a suggestion that you can add too or adapt.
For your first event start out by drawing round robin groups.
based on the straight up performance in thier round robin groups, place them in one of two brackets A or B..or if you have enough players four brackets A,B,C,D...Play out each bracket until the winner of each bracket meets.
You could use the round robin stats to assign a initial handicapp, and then re-assign handicapps based on the ongoing stats at the beginning of each round.......You could even add another hook that If after a round your calculations move you up too far in the rankings you will be forced to switch brackets with a player that goes down too far in ranking...You would have to do a re-draw after each round...(that could get time consuming)
As far as the data that is used and the "curve" for high and low etc. etc...I will leave that to the bean counters on here to tell you what data to collect and how to apply it.......Things like games won, balls made per game, positive /negative spread of balls made per game, etc...Rank the player by stats and then compare it somehow to the positioning of the players actual opponents stats......kind of like a power rating
My guess is that with a little thought you could build an excel program that you could simply plug in some number sets after each match, have a formula that calculates the number into a "rating" and then do a sort based on the players rating.
This won't tell you if someone is an A player overall, but It should give you a statistical idea of who the best players in your group are.
I appreciate your information / suggestions but it still really does not fit the criteria (possibly nothing will) of being simplistic, requiring no calculations and is 'self-handicapping'.
Let me explain what I mean by 'self-handicapping' :
NOT a system that 'self-handicaps' players based on
formulas / data collected, ect.. BUT a system where
the players are WHOLLY responsible for the handicaps
between themselves therefore there is no *****ing and
moaning. You manage your own handicap.
Example :
You and me draw each other in the first round. We've never seen each other play before. Maybe my friend says to me he's seen you warm-up and you seem to know what your doing ie 'average to above average'. So now I buy my handicap based on this information (side note - can I trust my friend assessment? Because he's in the tournament too and might want me to use up my funds for buying handicaps).
Anyways I buy 3 balls. You don't know me, you see my cue & case are kinda cheap and maybe I look a little disshevled so you decide to buy 1 ball and save your funds to buy more handicap in the next rounds.
So my 3 minus your 1 is 2 so in one-pocket I would to to 6 (8-2) and you would have to go to 10 (8+2).
Hence we've handicapped ourselves.
What do you think? Suggestions?
Let me explain what I mean by 'self-handicapping' :
NOT a system that 'self-handicaps' players based on
formulas / data collected, ect.. BUT a system where
the players are WHOLLY responsible for the handicaps
between themselves therefore there is no *****ing and
moaning. You manage your own handicap.
Example :
You and me draw each other in the first round. We've never seen each other play before. Maybe my friend says to me he's seen you warm-up and you seem to know what your doing ie 'average to above average'. So now I buy my handicap based on this information (side note - can I trust my friend assessment? Because he's in the tournament too and might want me to use up my funds for buying handicaps).
Anyways I buy 3 balls. You don't know me, you see my cue & case are kinda cheap and maybe I look a little disshevled so you decide to buy 1 ball and save your funds to buy more handicap in the next rounds.
So my 3 minus your 1 is 2 so in one-pocket I would to to 6 (8-2) and you would have to go to 10 (8+2).
Hence we've handicapped ourselves.
What do you think? Suggestions?
Guda said:
This is what comes to mind..."You can't judge a book by it's cover"...
I have seen some pretty ugly looking banged up cues being used by some old timers that also looked as if they just woke up from under the bridge that can play pretty sporty one pocket
Don't get me wrong - When you've got to evaluate another individuals talent without seeing them shoot you've got gather and consider every piece of information you can. Looks, attitude, age, jargon, beety eyes, piercings, full moon on a Tuesday, Baby needs a new pair of shoes, ect.. Because that's all you've got.
But using a system that 'self-handicapping' I would think it would really keep you interested in all the other matches being played not simply where's my next opponent and what table are we on.
But using a system that 'self-handicapping' I would think it would really keep you interested in all the other matches being played not simply where's my next opponent and what table are we on.