Skill Ratings?

[Banks]

In some areas, a 'B' could be an 'A' elsewhere. On some days, one player could play at a wider range of speeds, while another player is fairly consistent at how they play. In another thread, a 'B' tournament is discussed regarding the winner not being rated properly.

I was thinking that maybe I should check on what B tournaments I could try to go to while I still can. That led to wondering that maybe I'm not a very good B at all in some areas, but not a B in others. Considering my play, I could also seem to be either of those on any day. There are local players rated higher that wouldn't want to play me heads up, even higher players that I would have to play heads up(or with a small spot), and lower players that would play me heads up. At the same time, my tournament record has been spotty at best for rated events. I plan on playing in the regional B tournament again, unless my weekly league play changes that.

And then we've got the national ratings..

Players could be considered one thing locally, but as something completely different nationally. How does that work for local and regional events? If somebody is eligible to play in the Open in Vegas, what are the criteria that are used to determine if they cannot play in the advertised(monthly? yearly?) B tournament at a pool hall(the Tad event, for example)? To top it off, placing high enough in some of those tournaments get you 'moved up' - more or less, meaning that the people that won those tournaments were that rating to start out.

Maybe I'm having an identity crisis, maybe the summer heat is getting to me or maybe I just need to accept that it could be chalked up to good/bad luck once in a while. There are tons of threads asking about skill levels, but the differences in how they're set, where they're applied and how they're managed is something else to me.

(Yeah yeah, some people will say that there shouldn't be handicaps and so on, but they may as well tell sports books to stop offering odds and points.)

I'm having another beer, somebody fill me in on this for tomorrow!

 

[Banks]

Since this topic has come up again with the 'Pro vs B' thread, I thought that I'd bump this and see if there are any takers. Shouldn't there be some sort of standard definition, even if general, of that level? Heck, our regional BCAPL is saying anybody over an APA 5 shouldn't be considered a B. May as well consider half of pool players an A then.

Mark Griffin? APA LOs? Anybody? Anybody? Bueller?

Somebody want to submit this one to Watson?

 

[hang-the-9]

Since this topic has come up again with the 'Pro vs B' thread, I thought that I'd bump this and see if there are any takers. Shouldn't there be some sort of standard definition, even if general, of that level? Heck, our regional BCAPL is saying anybody over an APA 5 shouldn't be considered a B. May as well consider half of pool players an A then.

Mark Griffin? APA LOs? Anybody? Anybody? Bueller?

Somebody want to submit this one to Watson?

There were rankings for players done before.

The one I like is not based on comparisons with other players, but what they can do when playing.

http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/ratings.html#A-D

The one from Tom In Cincy which he got from All About Pool is good, I tend to use that scale.

 

[CreeDo]

A few guys have come up with good rating systems.

"Shouldn't there be a standard definition"?

Sure, but first there should be a standard worldwide governing body.
Then a standard set of rules. Then there should be a standard table and pocket size. Then a standard pro tour with clearly set criteria for entering it.
Once all that's out of the way, we can get a standard definition for "B player".

Part of the problem is, only a handful of people care enough to take any sort of objective test.

 

[Banks]

A few guys have come up with good rating systems.

"Shouldn't there be a standard definition"?

Sure, but first there should be a standard worldwide governing body.
Then a standard set of rules. Then there should be a standard table and pocket size. Then a standard pro tour with clearly set criteria for entering it.
Once all that's out of the way, we can get a standard definition for "B player".

Part of the problem is, only a handful of people care enough to take any sort of objective test.

It doesn't necessarily have to involve a test, but a good example of the ratings mess would be..

BCAPL: A local Master can play in the Open division in Vegas. We even have at least one person rated locally as an A and nationally as a Master. The regional BCAPL site says anything over an APA 5 is an A. That's like saying anything above 5th grade is high school, just because you don't have enough actual high schoolers. Who cares if you hurt their feelings, as long as you're being honest and consistent?

APA: By involving win % in their ratings, you really can take a crappy area and inflate egos, break up teams and they'll never have a snowball's chance in hell outside of their little area. The one thing that I'll give them is at least our local LO will bump players to 7/9 if they reach local Master level in the BCAPL. Other than that, to have a fairly wide range across the country for the averages of each s/l, sort of defeats any purpose and makes it seem as though the only reason at all is to multiply teams. I'd bet that more people would stay involved if numbers weren't inflated.

I'm not positive about how the other leagues rate their players, but their sizes are dwarfed by the above two.

Not sure if any employee of APA/BCAPL has touched this topic with a 10' pole lately, but it almost seems like its preferable to avoid it at all costs. When I asked on here with the first post, I was expecting some kind of response, but the silence was a surprise.

If the entire topic is ignored and is only used after the fact to punish players that do 'too well', isn't it their own fault? If there's no correllation between a local and national ranking, if somebody plans on going to Vegas, wouldn't the smart thing be to wait until they think they're a lock to cash if they're not going strictly for the fun of it? Could it be that players are so ingrained with lying about their speed that any attempt would be a failure? I'd just like to see some kind of answer.

 

[hang-the-9]

If there's no correllation between a local and national ranking, if somebody plans on going to Vegas, wouldn't the smart thing be to wait until they think they're a lock to cash if they're not going strictly for the fun of it? Could it be that players are so ingrained with lying about their speed that any attempt would be a failure? I'd just like to see some kind of answer.

There is no way to get a "national" rank that is exact until there is ONE league nationally and none of the players sandbag. The only way to rank ability is to ignore the league ratings and use the pure skill tests done on similar equipment (same pocket size and good rails and cloth), playing the ghost may be the best way, then average how many balls you make over 10, 20 racks a day over a week. Even then it would only give you a rank in that game. You'll have to play an all-around match with straight pool, a rotation game, banks and one pocket to REALLY measure top skill.

 

[Banks]

There is no way to get a "national" rank that is exact until there is ONE league nationally and none of the players sandbag. The only way to rank ability is to ignore the league ratings and use the pure skill tests done on similar equipment (same pocket size and good rails and cloth), playing the ghost may be the best way, then average how many balls you make over 10, 20 racks a day over a week.

Sorry that I didn't reply to your previous post, but..

Even a national ranking that's closer or somewhat related would be better than what is out there now. Let's take my area as an example. I'd guess that players may be rated about 5% too high in APA. Since they use a national system, they could easily make an estimation of the rankings based upon national tournaments. It may take a little more programming, but to compare player performance from one LO to others would go a long ways in 'equalizing' things.

BCA could do the same thing. If you're an A in New Mexico, you play in the A in Vegas. If NM consistently shows poor results, then you adjust their rankings. Instead of the Northwest having a 'B and below' tournament and an 'A' tournament filled with what may be B players, they should change it to a 'C and below' tournament and a 'B' tournament. This will put things in a proper perspective, maybe light a fire under someone's arse, keep things on an even pace with the national rankings and prevent an unfair inflation of somebody's abilities simply because they're in a weak area.

The sooner somebody pays attention to this problem, the sooner it can be addressed and there can be more focus on other areas once all of the players are sorted correctly. I don't think anybody's too eager to take on this issue, though. Maybe it's because players ***** enough as it is and don't want to be the recipient of *****ing from a whole new set of players.

 

[hang-the-9]

Sorry that I didn't reply to your previous post, but..

Even a national ranking that's closer or somewhat related would be better than what is out there now. Let's take my area as an example. I'd guess that players may be rated about 5% too high in APA. Since they use a national system, they could easily make an estimation of the rankings based upon national tournaments. It may take a little more programming, but to compare player performance from one LO to others would go a long ways in 'equalizing' things.

BCA could do the same thing. If you're an A in New Mexico, you play in the A in Vegas. If NM consistently shows poor results, then you adjust their rankings. Instead of the Northwest having a 'B and below' tournament and an 'A' tournament filled with what may be B players, they should change it to a 'C and below' tournament and a 'B' tournament. This will put things in a proper perspective, maybe light a fire under someone's arse, keep things on an even pace with the national rankings and prevent an unfair inflation of somebody's abilities simply because they're in a weak area.

The sooner somebody pays attention to this problem, the sooner it can be addressed and there can be more focus on other areas once all of the players are sorted correctly. I don't think anybody's too eager to take on this issue, though. Maybe it's because players ***** enough as it is and don't want to be the recipient of *****ing from a whole new set of players.

Well, the solution is simple. You just need to setup an identically configured table in every town, with a neutral ref to watch and rate the players, have every pool player in town play the ghost on that table for a week 10+ racks a day to get a good average without messing up on purpose to lower their skill for an advantage, then have the ref compile the info and send it to a national database that every league and tournament can then use. Oh and you need to make sure that every player that wants to play in a league or tournament is in that ranking system or they are not allowed to play.

It's like saying "What's the issue with going to Saturn on a manned rocket, just make a faster rocket and it's fixed".

It's not what "should" be done, it's the actual doing that is the issue.