The Biggest Flaw of APA's Handicapping

Woodshaft said:
I'm talking about common players, not us gods lol
Click to expand...
There is a point where you outgrow the APA. You should play elsewhere if you want to compete on that level and/or get better.

IMHO, the biggest flaw in APA is the 23-point rule, capping a team's combined skill level. Discourages players from getting better, if they want to stay on. You could say that about pretty much all handicap systems/tournaments. Fargorate at least goes all the way up and is a nice number to track progress.

APA is good at keeping recreational players coming back to the table and have a good time.
 
This is one of the best arguments for standardization. In the old days, not really that long ago, we had real pool on 9 footers, and bar pool on bar boxes. They weren't really the same game. Moving from a slow, loose, bar box like a Valley to a GC was a brutal change.

APA was/is designed for bar pool bangers, and that is great! It would be better if all APA league matches were played on bar boxes with loose pockets. The matches would go faster. The recreational players might run out once in a while. Everyone would get more sleep.

The trouble is that Diamond invented a very attractive product. If you tighten up a bar box, put wicked fast cloth on it, that tiny 7 footer feels almost like a real pool table (I will not start ranting about how they kick/bank). And, if you get halfway decent on a Diamond (which has the virtue of not taking up too much real estate) you can play pretty decent on a "real" table.

The Diamond produces a moral hazard for room operators though. It takes up less room and is acceptable to "real" pool players. So now we have three tiers that aren't really the same game. "Real" pool on Diamond 7', real pool on 9ft tables, and bar pool. That would be okay, but now everyone wants to import the "features" of the Diamond compromise table back to the big tables.

Pool needs people to enjoy playing it because only players are ever realistically going to be fans, much like golf. Almost any APA player would be happier playing on a loose bar box, but because of the Diamond compromise, we get to watch SL3s play 90 minute races to 25 balls.

We need a "play up" campaign, but for bigger pockets. 4.125" pockets aren't any more fun for normal league players than 7500 yard golf course are for 20 handicaps.
 
Woodshaft said:
As most of us know, APA league is the biggest recreational league in the US, and consists of both 8 and 9-ball leagues.
APA uses a somewhat complex handicap system they call the Equalizer System.
It uses handicapped formulas that rate players by their actual game-play performance (mostly innings/game), and wins/losses don't really factor much.
And their formula is actually pretty solid, accept for one huge variable: TABLE DIFFICULTY.
APA's standard table is supposed to be Valley 7 footers, and these are what are used at the World Championships.
Now the problem is (and it happens in my town) that many pool rooms use the much tuffer 7-foot Diamond tables for league play.
And since the APA formula only bases skill levels (mainly) on innings per game, I have come to the conclusion that an APA SL5 that plays primarily in a league that uses 7-foot Diamond tables is actually more skilled, by about a level, than a SL5 that plays on the easier 7-foot Valley tables.
So guess what happens when these two SL5's meet up at the World's and play against each other? That's right, Diamond table SL5 player plays better than the Valley table SL5 player.
Trust me, I know. My good friend- an average-ish player who is rated on a league that primarily plays on Diamonds- won it all (easily) not to long ago at World's. $15k, and frankly it wasn't even close lol.
So attention APA League Administrators, you might really want to factor table difficulty into your formula, because Diamond 7's are becoming more and more widely used in APA leagues, and they play about a skill level more difficult than Valleys in my experienced opinion.
Click to expand...
League operators are responsible for letting the APA know if games were shot on non-standard tables. Diamonds are non-standard. This is supposed to be covered by Equalizer.
 
Woodshaft said:
I'm a SL7 in 8-ball and a SL9 in 9-ball. For those who don't know those ratings, I'm excellent lol. Our league plays most games on 7-foot Diamonds. Our friends, one town over, play their league on Valleys.
When we get together for practice, the Valley SLs play worse than our similarly rated players, on EITHER brand table.
My point here is that the Valley-rated folks are at a disadvantage to the Dimond-rated folks, by about one skill level imo.
And when Dimond players go to the big tourneys, they play better because the tournament uses Valley tables which are, frankly, toys, compared to Diamonds.
Click to expand...
This has not proven true for me, and pretty much anyone in my league. We play on standard diamond bar tables, valleys, and until recently 9ft. gold crown copies.

My average inning per game is not statistically different between the valley's and diamonds over the last 5 years as a team captain. when we played on the 9 footers, my average innings per game was between 2 and 3 innings higher on the big table.

Conversely, one place we play put the penguin pro cut rails on the valleys and most everyone agrees they play tougher than the diamonds, though I haven't gotten a full year's worth of games in on those tables, but it looks like my average innings per game will likely increase on those tighter pockets.
Zerksies said:
When you reach the upper levels of their handicapping system. Difficulty on a 7 foot table really doesn't matter that much. I'm still running racking on big or small pockets fast or slow cloth. I will make the adjustment even if the table is not perfectly level too.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you need to check out APA Master's league. My SL 7, who is a 650+ FR, went to vegas to play in the team Master's with 2 other sub 700 FR players. They didn't stand a chance.
Zerksies said:
A 5 is still a noob. You might be a little bit better then your friends. But you are still losing to any regular pool player.
Click to expand...
David in FL said:
The whole “innings“ metric is also horribly mismanaged.

Especially in 8 Ball where it’s very common to play safe and/or just bump balls around for an inning or two depending on the table. If a player isn’t “calling safe“ when doing so, their skill level can remain artificially low, when in fact they may be a very strong, strategic player.
Click to expand...
It really does put the onus on the team not shooting. If you are scoring the match, and you don't believe there was a genuine attempt to pocket an object ball, you mark as a safe, and that inning does not count. This is the most important way to guard against sandbagging. If it happens enough, you can file a unsportsmanlike with your LO and he will get involved.
 
The APA was not designed to support that skill level. If you're that good, the APA is a waste of time for you. I would say once you get to the 650+ Fargo, you should quit APA league night and just play masters if you want to participate in APA.

PS -- Shane wouldn't be allowed to play APA since pro players are not supposed to play.


Zerksies said:
Going by the APA system. You have Shane Van Boening playing as a APA 9. I would be playing him equally no way in hell is that game straight up
View attachment 659107
Click to expand...
 
Zerksies said:
Going by the APA system. You have Shane Van Boening playing as a APA 9. I would be playing him equally no way in hell is that game straight up
View attachment 659107
Click to expand...
This chart seems accurate to me. At my best I was a weak 10 or strong 9 on the AZ system and a A- player by California standards. Watching Fargo rated players 650-680 seems to be about where I’d be at. Again that was 8-9 years ago at my best. Now who knows?

All these raking systems are fuzzy numbers at best and can be sandbagged. It’s impossible to place a numerical value or letter on a player. And some days guys have better days or play bad.

But this chart is good enough for me. All my numbers appeared on the same horizontal line. I been playing long enough to know myself. Since I haven’t been playing would be interesting to see how much I’ve lost and how fast it would come back.

Best
Fatboy
 
Just imagine how much more success the APA could have if they made some changes to the handicap system and perhaps cared about the members a wee bit more than they do now.. Honestly they seem to care about one thing mostly, the money.. Once you get to be an eight in nine ball and a 6 in eight ball your pretty much screwed and become a bench warmer coaching 3's & 4's... I got better things to do than that...
 
jokrswylde said:
Sounds like you need to check out APA Master's league. My SL 7, who is a 650+ FR, went to vegas to play in the team Master's with 2 other sub 700 FR players. They didn't stand a chance.
Click to expand...
I'll pass on that. I wanted to play a singles league, but for me to do that they required me to join a team. And i would have to continue to be on a team each yeah (n)
 
In other sports leagues the purpose of the game is to get out and have fun. Every now and then a league has way above average players that suck all fun out of playing in a league.
 
Fatboy said:
This chart seems accurate to me. At my best I was a weak 10 or strong 9 on the AZ system and a A- player by California standards. Watching Fargo rated players 650-680 seems to be about where I’d be at. Again that was 8-9 years ago at my best. Now who knows?

All these raking systems are fuzzy numbers at best and can be sandbagged. It’s impossible to place a numerical value or letter on a player. And some days guys have better days or play bad.

But this chart is good enough for me. All my numbers appeared on the same horizontal line. I been playing long enough to know myself. Since I haven’t been playing would be interesting to see how much I’ve lost and how fast it would come back.

Best
Fatboy
Click to expand...
I just started back up again. Going from old ratings I was in the A range, APA 7/9 So i'm probably in the 700 fargo. About a week ago i broke and ran out a 3 pack. So roughly right now i'm in the 6-700 range and still improving
 
jokrswylde said:
It really does put the onus on the team not shooting. If you are scoring the match, and you don't believe there was a genuine attempt to pocket an object ball, you mark as a safe, and that inning does not count. This is the most important way to guard against sandbagging. If it happens enough, you can file a unsportsmanlike with your LO and he will get involved.
Click to expand...
In my experience with APA, despite LO's encouragement to mark defensive shots, I estimate I'm in the 10% (is it even that high?) minority of players who actually record safety attempts. And most of the few people who do mark safeties don't take into account INTENT, such as also marking a defensive shot when shooting out of a lock up, where it's obvious they're only trying to make contact with their OB. Most believe it's only a defensive shot when trying to lock up an opponent.
 
Zerksies said:
I just started back up again. Going from old ratings I was in the A range, APA 7/9 So i'm probably in the 700 fargo. About a week ago i broke and ran out a 3 pack. So roughly right now i'm in the 6-700 range and still improving
Click to expand...
If I could have ever broke the balls good running 3 packs was in the cards for me. Since I couldn’t break 3 packs were very rare. 10&out playing 1P was a daily thing. Idk if I was ever a 700 Fargo level player, id guess the answer is probably no I wasn’t. If I was I doubt it would be much over that,

Fast forwards to today. I’m scared to see how bad id play, I’m going to start playing again-with no expectations. Just do the best I can. I’m not looking for action. For now anyways. I’m dead $ in all cases.
 
Last time I played in APA my team captain tried to get me in as a starting 4 (7 in 8 ball/9 in 9 ball) and I told him that it’s so not fair to start me out that low and I needed to be ranked higher.

On my first night one of the players on the other team (Playing 8 ball) knew me and my game very well. When he found out what my handicap was he had the league operator on the phone in under a minute.

Well the LO knows me and my game as well and when he found out what was going on he started me out as a 6. My captain was not happy but I told him that it didn’t feel right to try and get me in as a 4 🙄

That was the last time I played and will never play in the league again. Even in masters the level of play just isn’t up to snuff for what I want out of the game. Not to mention lower skilled players duffing great chance to win and you end up losing!!

I know that sounds terrible because it’s not their fault that they are a 3 and missed the hanger for the team win I get that…. It’s just not for me that’s all 🤷‍

I love the best league joke I’ve ever heard….

I want my team mates to be my pall bearers at my funeral so they can’t let me down for the last time 🤣🤣🤣🤣
 
To respond to the thread if both players are playing on the same equipment then their handicap shouldn’t matter. At least that is the theory. I’m gonna put that theory in prespective….

I regularly played in the weekly tournaments at Family Billiards in SF. Quite possibly be the toughest weekly tournament in the country mind you!! We had straight killers, hustlers and champions that played in it week in and week out.

It was ran under the USPPA handicap system that works pretty well over a long period of time. The front 5 tables where done with Ernesto’s custom 4” ball rupturing, heart stabbing pockets!!! So equipment matched the field when it came to the level of play!!

I was ranked a 60 (this was over 20 years ago so take it easy 🤣) and I had to play Bryce Aliva (115 rating) on the 5” buckets on table 6!! Even thought I was getting 2 games on the wire in a race to 5 I asked the director if we could play on one of the tight tables instead. His answer…..

“You are both playing on the same table so you both have the same chances and shots.”

Well then!! Bryce opened up the set by running the first 2 racks and then played a locked up safety after the break. Got ball in hand and then ran out the 3rd game to make it 3-2. He then broke and ran out the set. Looks like I dogged the lag eh?🙄🤣

My point it that yea Bryce is a hell of a player and shoots really strong but there where a few shots that he hit bad and they still went in the hole. If we were playing on the tight tables I would have at least a had a few chances to win 3 games.

So yes I think that the table difficulty does play a huge factor but look at it this way. If you play on tough equipment all the time then the valley buckets at Nationals will feel like you’re shooting into garbage cans!! Silver lining buddy. Good luck 👍
 
stewie said:
So, it's not a flaw, it's a feature :)
Click to expand...

Yes, APA understands it is for pool players that are "not that good" and sees itself as a stepping stone to leagues with better players--
Like::AAA baseball--that feeds minor league baseball--that feeds major league baseball.
APA feeds BCA feeds PROs (except there is not really a PRO league right now.)
 
The APA is totally designed for the lower skilled players. It makes it hard for team to take on higher skilled players because of the 23 point rule.

If you kept getting creamed week in and week out then players will quit and there goes the hundreds of thousands of dollars a league can make!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top