The room I used to play at had a weekly handicap 9 ball tournament and every week you cashed, you went to another game the following tournament. Every week you didn't cash, you went down a game (something like that anyway). Over a period of a year, everyone won about the same amount. Granted, the better players didn't win any more and of course an argument could be made they should. But they seemed to get a kick out of how many games they had to go to...kind of bragging rights. Even for cheap, everyone gets tired of donating sooner or later. Letting a beginner win a few hundred bucks now and then kept them all coming back and every tournament had a huge turnout. No table time in the tournament so basically just a lot of fun for little money. Nothing wrong with that.
Should All Skill Levels Have an Equal Chance to Win a Weekly 9-Ball Handicapped Tournament?
- Thread starter ChrisinNC
- Start date
WobblyStroke
Well-known member
u mean the advantages or compensatioms given to "equalize the chances of winning"?
try and not fall asleep before reaching the end of a semtence gramps
. those last few words count too.
Biloxi Boy
Man With A Golden Arm
I have read only some of above, so please excuse me if I repeat.
Since there can be only one winner, for the rest of us the purpose of a tournament must be competition.
We handicap to promote competition not winning.
If one cannot be satisfied with simply competing, he must be prepared to be frustrated, angry, etc. If one complains too much, see below.
I am always dead money in tournaments. There is something about them that fails to fully motivate me.
I still play in them to participate and compete, but winning a tournament does not even enter my mind -- maybe my dreams, though.
On the other hand, a purpose of "friendly", local, tournaments should not be to provide a weekly source of cash for a chosen few. If they lack the sense/grace to do it themselves, make repeat winners sit out.
At either end of the spectrum, complainers should not be tolerated: you don't want or need them.
If it ain't fun, it ain't worth doing.
Since there can be only one winner, for the rest of us the purpose of a tournament must be competition.
We handicap to promote competition not winning.
If one cannot be satisfied with simply competing, he must be prepared to be frustrated, angry, etc. If one complains too much, see below.
I am always dead money in tournaments. There is something about them that fails to fully motivate me.
I still play in them to participate and compete, but winning a tournament does not even enter my mind -- maybe my dreams, though.
On the other hand, a purpose of "friendly", local, tournaments should not be to provide a weekly source of cash for a chosen few. If they lack the sense/grace to do it themselves, make repeat winners sit out.
At either end of the spectrum, complainers should not be tolerated: you don't want or need them.
If it ain't fun, it ain't worth doing.
Last edited:
I'm on the side of #2, but the better players winning 80% of the time may seem a little high to some of the weekly dead money players. So I get it with you trying to figure out a way to maybe bring that % down a little. Maybe you mentioned it, but what is the entry fee? Since it's a weekly tourney, I'm assuming it's cheap like $10-$25. Seems like the biggest problem you're running into is you can't really have the better players go to higher races for time constraints, even if you wanted to do that and like you said, you aren't going to have the low handicaps only go to 1. Have you thought about keeping the races where they are at, but staggering the entry fees? I've played in weekly tourneys like that before where the elite players payed say $30, the next tier $20, and the next $10. Also, I've seen tourneys where top female player cashes, which tends to bring a few more out. However, sometimes there's only say 2-3 females in the field in a given tourney, so it's great odds for them. I wonder if something like that could be tweaked for paying "low handicap" instead of "top female" or something like that. Maybe make it where you find a midpoint in the handicaps each week and pay top spot for the highest finisher in the bottom half. Of course, they shouldn't get as much as say the tourney winner, but maybe the equivalent of somewhere between 3rd-5th place or something like that, so they could get there money back or maybe even double it. I admit, I only spent about 2 minutes thinking about this, so if there's tons of holes in these ideas that won't work, I get it. I'm just thinking out loud. Good Luck!
I don't have a problem with handicapped tourneys in general but the nine ball ones can get crazy with some of the ball spots. I don't complain about them, I just don't play in them. I'll do the game spot tourneys but they are usually pretty lightly handicapped. Like a game for every 50 or 75 fargo points. I try not to wear out my welcome at the smaller local ones. When better players continually show up and cash like it's a side job it tends to kill the tourney.
The one thing I don't like about handicapped tourneys is the lessor player seems to have more variance in their game. So using the old ABCD format, the C player can easily play as a B, C, D or even an A if it's only for a couple of racks. So if they play above their average -- you lose. Meanwhile, the A tends to play closer to their speed. Guess that's just part of the deal, but it's frustrating losing when you have no chance and you're the better player.
The one thing I don't like about handicapped tourneys is the lessor player seems to have more variance in their game. So using the old ABCD format, the C player can easily play as a B, C, D or even an A if it's only for a couple of racks. So if they play above their average -- you lose. Meanwhile, the A tends to play closer to their speed. Guess that's just part of the deal, but it's frustrating losing when you have no chance and you're the better player.
InsertCleverNameHere
Well-known member
Absolutely not. Players that are new to the game or put in little to no effort to improve SHOULD be at a disadvantage. It’s fine to make it attractive to
Them and dangle the
but no way should they have an equal chance to the best players in the event.
GET BETTER.
Them and dangle the
but no way should they have an equal chance to the best players in the event.GET BETTER.
VTEC John
Active member
As a relative beginner, I eliminated Dave Piona when he had to spot me 7-2 in a NPL (National Pool League) tournament, thanks to a couple of easy 1-9 combos. That was not fair to Dave, but even with 7-2's happening, over time the better players consistently cashed in NPL tournaments. Just ask Bob Jewett, who co-founded the NPL.
My two cents is that weaker players simply can't play equally regardless of handicap. They will always be more mistake-prone and extremely susceptible to choking under pressure (I speak from experience), which is how weak players let strong players off the hook.
The OP is about weak players and winning, but when you're a weak player and your handicap enables you to take down a single opponent, or maybe two, in the course of a tournament, you go home feeling as though you've done some winning (despite that miss on a dead nine). As a weaker player, you don't have to cash to experience "winning." I think that's the beauty of the handicap system and there's nothing wrong with it.
My two cents is that weaker players simply can't play equally regardless of handicap. They will always be more mistake-prone and extremely susceptible to choking under pressure (I speak from experience), which is how weak players let strong players off the hook.
The OP is about weak players and winning, but when you're a weak player and your handicap enables you to take down a single opponent, or maybe two, in the course of a tournament, you go home feeling as though you've done some winning (despite that miss on a dead nine). As a weaker player, you don't have to cash to experience "winning." I think that's the beauty of the handicap system and there's nothing wrong with it.
Nothing wrong with soliciting the thoughts of others...but you know what you're doing out there.
From a player who has played in a few of our weekly tournaments and had to give up a lot of weight - thanks
Last edited:
If you want to redistribute the winning percentages, you can do so with what you have in place, for everyone except the worst (current 6/2) players.
For the next tournament, make up the matchups exactly as you have been doing. Then change all the 5/2s to 6/2s. Change all the 4/2s to 5/2s. Change all the 4/3s to 4/2s. Change some of the 3/3s to 4/3s. The only question is how much this will change the results on average, but you will eventually be able to see how to adjust.
Or have I lost my mind?
Run it one week with the better players and the next week without. Which fills the field.
Maybe go back and forth.
Maybe go back and forth.
We actually have another weekly tournament in which the top two rankings for the Monday night tournaments are not allowed to play in, although it is still handicapped for those that do play in it.
If it's a weekly tournament, play single elimination. You can play slightly longer matches and DE is a really, really lousy format. Do a consolation tourney for first round losers if you must.
Last edited:
The thing about 100% handicaps is that the only way you can win more than 50% is to be constantly improving. I think it' a good situation for the top dogs to know that they have to play at above their average level to win. They can't coast to the cash.
And as for the "paid their dues" BS, I've seen a lot of lower-level players who put in a lot more practice time and spend more in the room than the champs who just want to coast to the cash.
And as for the "paid their dues" BS, I've seen a lot of lower-level players who put in a lot more practice time and spend more in the room than the champs who just want to coast to the cash.
Last edited:
DeeDeeCues
Well-known member
Handicapped tourneys don't help anyone improve.
I think they do. See above. And I think they are better for the top players if they are as interested in tough competition as much as making money.
DeeDeeCues
Well-known member
Yeah, you already have your opinion, I have mine.
Letting someone win does nothing for their motivation. It only reinforced their sense of entitlement.
Read all of the posts about apa sandbagging. The fact that it happens is proof of what handicapping causes.
Competition isn't for everyone.
The APA is a special, broken case. Their method has horrible flaws.
I've seen a handicapping system where all you had to do was take a lot of innings to beat everyone and you'd get a real low rating and then you could take even more innings to beat the next guy. That is a broken system. It is possible to have a system that encourages improvement.
Another problem with the APA is that if your rating goes up, your team is broken up (23 rule). Lots of people would rather play with their friends.