Web page that calculates APA 8-ball rating from win/loss record

[Solomon]

I think it's pretty easy to do a self assessment to figure out what APA S/L one should be rated in 8 ball, although I'm sure it isn't the formula that is used by the APA to determine S/L.

Practice by yourself in the following manner:
1. Play full games of 8 ball in which you assume the table as your opponent after each miss.
2. Don't attempt many/any defensive shots as the purpose of the exercise is to finish each game in as few innings as possible.
3. Tally the number of innings it took you to complete each game.

By my rough calculations, S/L 7s should average 2 or less innings a game;
S/L 6s should average 2-3 innings a game;
S/L 5s should average 3-4 innings a game;
S/L 4s should average 4-5 innings a game;
S/L 3s should average 5-6 innings a game;
and S/L 2s should average more than 6 innings a game.

Once again, this is just a personal observation/opinion and has nothing to do with the way that the APA officially calculates its S/Ls.

 

[railbird99]

If you have the most rudimentary understanding of chess engines, you will know that they search for the sequence of moves (principal variation) that is most likely to maximize their material and positional advantage as encoded in their evaluation functions.

If you look up the word "strategy," you get "a plan of action or policy designed to achieve a major or overall aim."

In other words, all a chess engine does is come up with a plan of action to achieve an aim (which is to maximize its evaluation function, which hopefully leads to winning, depending on how good the eval function is). Boiled down even further, all a chess engine does is strategize. So if you think chess engines don't "use strategic planning" as you put it, you're going to have to explain exactly what you mean by that.

But whatever. I think you need to step back and take stock of your situation. You clearly think you have some understanding of a subject (computer chess) but your understanding is so poor that you can't recognize when somebody is an expert in the field (regardless of credentials) and you are unwilling or unable to understand the points said expert is communicating. Doesn't this seem like kind of a big problem to you?

And I have to step back and take stock of why I'm having an internet message board fight with somebody like you. So we both have some work to do.

If you have any questions about chess or chess engines and you ask politely I will be happy to explain whatever you want to know.

Whether you're an expert or not, you're deliberately being dense, as usual in this conversation. I know that you know exactly what I mean when I say computers are unable to strategically plan. If you want to argue semantics, by all means, talk to the wall next to you. I think you know exactly what I'm saying, that humans are able to see the board as a whole picture, evaluate the positional weaknesses and strengths, and create a specific and deliberate plan of attack, and engines can't. An engines "strategic planning" as you seem to want to put it is simply a function of brute forcing moves to determine which line ends up with an advantage. They are incapable of evaluating positional weaknesses and strengths like humans do.

Again you are avoiding the entire point of the analogy, which was that no player ever evaluates two moves as being the same, and then randomly chooses one. Whether or not two moves may provide the same probability of winning in the long run when considering all possible combinations of moves, humans are unable to calculate that probability, and they rely on strategic plans, which have very deliberate moves. It makes no difference if two moves have the same probability of winning if the human can't see why a move leads to winning, meaning they can't see the entire line that the engine sees, so it makes no sense to make the move.

P.S. Good job on extricating yourself from the conversation by the way.

 

[railbird99]

You can have a closed-source piece of software and rely on public algorithms for security. Microsoft doesn't use any closed-source algorithms for security.

This has absolutely no relevance, and I'm not sure what you're going for here. Microsoft uses standards-based encryption algorithms that they don't create themselves, which is why they are "open source". They still have a lot of security features that are closed source. Anyway, that is completely off topic, and you're missing the point as usual.

The APA algorithm is not a security or encryption algorithm, It's an algorithm to determine skill level in pool.

Ever heard of a little known algorithm that ranks web pages, that started out as PageRank? Google's search algorithm is closed source.

Closed source doesn't prove anything other than companies have a right to protect what they create. Your assertion that they rely on security through obscurity is nothing more than biased speculation.

 

[tomker]

Whether you're an expert or not, you're deliberately being dense, as usual in this conversation. I know that you know exactly what I mean when I say computers are unable to strategically plan. If you want to argue semantics, by all means, talk to the wall next to you. I think you know exactly what I'm saying, that humans are able to see the board as a whole picture, evaluate the positional weaknesses and strengths, and create a specific and deliberate plan of attack, and engines can't. An engines "strategic planning" as you seem to want to put it is simply a function of brute forcing moves to determine which line ends up with an advantage. They are incapable of evaluating positional weaknesses and strengths like humans do.

Nope, I have no idea what you're talking about and it's not because I'm being argumentative or deliberately dense. If you know only one thing about chess engines, you know that their strength hinges on the evaluation function. This is the function that estimates which side is winning and by how much. The engine's programmer does his best to implement all of his positional knowledge about chess into this function. Of course, how well the function matches the programmer's positional understanding of chess depends on the programmer's skill at translating his knowledge into code, but the goal is for it to be the same. So basically, a chess engine DOES evaluate positional strengths and weaknesses like a human. (If you disagree, maybe you can name a positional strength/weakness that you think humans can evaluate that computers can't and I can speak to that specifically.)

Again you are avoiding the entire point of the analogy, which was that no player ever evaluates two moves as being the same, and then randomly chooses one. Whether or not two moves may provide the same probability of winning in the long run when considering all possible combinations of moves, humans are unable to calculate that probability, and they rely on strategic plans, which have very deliberate moves.

Of course humans play pool basically the same way they play chess, and the way computers play chess. Every human who even has a passing familiarity with how to play pool has his own "evaluation function" to determine how likely each side is to win. Of course no human (or even computer?) can calculate exactly who's going to win for any given situation; I've never claimed that as something remotely possible.

If you don't think pool players have "evaluation functions" then let me present the issue differently. If we're both watching a game of pool and I ask you, "hey, do you think stripes or solids has an advantage in this situation," are you going to be able to give me an answer?

Because if you can answer that question, that means you DO evaluate probabilities of each side winning according to your positional understanding of the game. And if you can't answer that question then you really have no business playing the game. I can go to any 2 I know and ask who's winning a game of pool and they will be able to give me SOME response, even if it's as basic as just counting the solids and stripes on the table and telling me the side with the lowest number of balls is winning.

All I've been arguing this whole time is that according to my positional understanding of pool, I regularly encounter situations where making a ball or not making one doesn't change the probable outcome of the game (as I see it). The fact that you're arguing so hard to convince me that this is impossible is ridiculous on the face of it because you don't know me and you have no idea how I evaluate pool tables. It's sort of like you writing 100 posts about how my house can't be blue because yours isn't.

P.S. Good job on extricating yourself from the conversation by the way.

I'm trying to raise the level of the conversation. I feel like this post is fairly informative.

If you feel like I'm not conveying any information to you then this really is literally a waste of my time and I'll stop posting. Let me know.

 

[railbird99]

Nope, I have no idea what you're talking about and it's not because I'm being argumentative or deliberately dense. If you know only one thing about chess engines, you know that their strength hinges on the evaluation function. This is the function that estimates which side is winning and by how much. The engine's programmer does his best to implement all of his positional knowledge about chess into this function. Of course, how well the function matches the programmer's positional understanding of chess depends on the programmer's skill at translating his knowledge into code, but the goal is for it to be the same. So basically, a chess engine DOES evaluate positional strengths and weaknesses like a human. (If you disagree, maybe you can name a positional strength/weakness that you think humans can evaluate that computers can't and I can speak to that specifically.)



Of course humans play pool basically the same way they play chess, and the way computers play chess. Every human who even has a passing familiarity with how to play pool has his own "evaluation function" to determine how likely each side is to win. Of course no human (or even computer?) can calculate exactly who's going to win for any given situation; I've never claimed that as something remotely possible.

If you don't think pool players have "evaluation functions" then let me present the issue differently. If we're both watching a game of pool and I ask you, "hey, do you think stripes or solids has an advantage in this situation," are you going to be able to give me an answer?

Because if you can answer that question, that means you DO evaluate probabilities of each side winning according to your positional understanding of the game. And if you can't answer that question then you really have no business playing the game. I can go to any 2 I know and ask who's winning a game of pool and they will be able to give me SOME response, even if it's as basic as just counting the solids and stripes on the table and telling me the side with the lowest number of balls is winning.

All I've been arguing this whole time is that according to my positional understanding of pool, I regularly encounter situations where making a ball or not making one doesn't change the probable outcome of the game (as I see it). The fact that you're arguing so hard to convince me that this is impossible is ridiculous on the face of it because you don't know me and you have no idea how I evaluate pool tables. It's sort of like you writing 100 posts about how my house can't be blue because yours isn't.



I'm trying to raise the level of the conversation. I feel like this post is fairly informative.

If you feel like I'm not conveying any information to you then this really is literally a waste of my time and I'll stop posting. Let me know.

I'm not going to sit here and argue about chess engines. You know computers lack human intelligence, and humans lack calculation capabilities, so the way they evaluate games is fundamentally different, no matter how good an engine's "evaluation function" may be.

Somehow in your response to my analogy, you yet again avoided the entire point, so let me state it for like the fourth time.

No chess player ever evaluates two moves as being the same, and then randomly chooses one.

A chess player, just like a pool player, formulates a strategic plan, and then plays moves that help to achieve this plan. Every move is deliberate and has a purpose, even if their plan may not be the best, or may be equal to other possible plans.

For someone who is supposedly an expert in something as intellectual and logical as chess engines, it baffles me that you think it makes any sense whatsoever to not choose a specific shot, and thus leave the outcome up to chance. It doesn't matter what sport or game you are talking about, it just doesn't make sense.

There's a difference between knowing two shots are equal, and not being able to tell which shot is better because of lack of experience. In addition, those two shots aren't the only available shots on the table. If making the ball might not be an advantage, that means you have other problems in the rack preventing you from running out. How about you don't even go for making the ball at all, and you break out some of your problem balls and play safe at the same time. That's much more productive than just missing the ball knowing your opponent can't run out.

The scenario you suggested about the beginning of the game when all the balls are on the table and there are clusters, so you are just lazily shooting at balls until you "figure things out". So that's how you deal with the complexities of the game? You work on chess engines for a living, and you can't devote the thought necessary to look several shots ahead and do something productive with the shot to achieve something later?

You can make a productive shot out of any situation. If you've narrowed down all of your choices to just either making the ball or missing the ball, and those are 50/50 in your mind, how about you try to deliberately miss the shot so that you can control exactly where the cue ball and the object ball end up, so that you can make sure the object ball is in a good spot for later.

When you don't commit to one shot or the other you are already lowering the advantage of both shots. Let's say you miss the shot, you didn't try to miss it, so that happened by chance, now where the object ball ends up is left up to chance. You missing the ball also changes the path of the cue ball. All of these factors would be controlled, and give you a better chance of ending up with most optimal result the shot offers, if you simply committed to one or the other.

I'm a 7 and have been playing pool my entire life, but even after I take the time to thoroughly explain why you are wrong when it comes to something to do with pool, you still think you know it all, and can't be wrong. I don't understand why we are even having this discussion.

 

[tomker]

...
I'm a 7 and have been playing pool my entire life, but even after I take the time to thoroughly explain why you are wrong when it comes to something to do with pool, you still think you know it all, and can't be wrong. I don't understand why we are even having this discussion.

Indeed. I explain how I play (in some cases) and you disagree with me even though you don't know me and have never seen me play. Your position is the height of inanity. If you want to get the last word in on this ridiculous conversation then please be my guest.

 

[railbird99]

Indeed. I explain how I play (in some cases) and you disagree with me even though you don't know me and have never seen me play. Your position is the height of inanity. If you want to get the last word in on this ridiculous conversation then please be my guest.

I take the time to write out a detailed explanation, and that's all you get out of it? And my post is the height of inanity? That's ironic.

This has nothing to do with what type of player you are.

That's like me saying I'm the type of chess player that makes random moves at the beginning of games until I figure things out. I mean there are several moves at the beginning of games that lead to equality, so what's the difference, right? Clearly that's wrong for everyone, no matter what "style" of player you are.

Not one single thing I said above is dependent on, or is making assumptions about an individual style. It's simply common sense and 8-ball strategy.

Again, you dodged all of the points I made, so I guess it's clear you don't wish to actually discuss anything.

You are far too worried about dealing with the fact that you could possibly be wrong about something. I hope this leads to some cognitive dissonance, so maybe you will at least stop lying to yourself.

 

[tomker]

I take the time to write out a detailed explanation, and that's all you get out of it?

This has nothing to do with what type of player you are.

That's like me saying I'm the type of chess player that makes random moves at the beginning of games until I figure things out. Clearly that's wrong for everyone, no matter what "style" of player you are.

I've never said anything about making entirely random moves until a strategy becomes apparent.

I'm saying that in SOME situations (occasional but not uncommon) it's not clear what the best strategy is between two different moves and players essentially just flip a coin.

Imagine the thought process, "if I push this pawn, it will open up a file for a kingside attack, which seems okay. If I push this other pawn, it will start a queenside pawn storm which also seems okay. I don't want to expend more of my time budget or mental stamina on this move so I will essentially flip a coin."

This sort of situation arises in chess and I don't see why it can't in pool also. There's no rule in either game that you must always have only one overarching strategy in mind when you make every single move/shot.

Again, you dodged all of the points I made, so I guess it's clear you don't wish to actually discuss anything.

You are far too worried about dealing with the fact that you could possibly be wrong about something. I hope this leads to some cognitive dissonance, so maybe you will at least stop lying to yourself.

Right, I'm sure I'm "wrong" about my thought process when I play chess and pool. Do you understand how ridiculous that statement is?

 

[railbird99]

I've never said anything about making entirely random moves until a strategy becomes apparent.

I'm saying that in SOME situations (occasional but not uncommon) it's not clear what the best strategy is between two different moves and players essentially just flip a coin.

Imagine the thought process, "if I push this pawn, it will open up a file for a kingside attack, which seems okay. If I push this other pawn, it will start a queenside pawn storm which also seems okay. I don't want to expend more of my time budget or mental stamina on this move so I will essentially flip a coin."

Let's say that your ridiculous claim that any skilled chess player ever randomly chooses between two moves is true.

Once the coin is flipped they then commit to whatever strategy that was chosen. They are no longer trying for two different outcomes at once.

What makes a little more sense is if you can't determine which strategy is best, you randomly choose one, and then when you execute the shot, you are committed to that one strategy that you chose.

What doesn't make any sense at all, is just not making a choice either way, and then executing the shot "lazily" so that both outcomes are possible.

I've explained in depth in the previous post about why committing to one shot is important.

This sort of situation arises in chess and I don't see why it can't in pool also. There's no rule in either game that you must always have only one overarching strategy in mind when you make every single move/shot.

So since there's no rule, that means it's not the recommended way to do things?

In your example, the player is choosing one strategy on every move, it's just that choice was random between two different strategies. Nevertheless, the player chose one strategy and went with it.

Right, I'm sure I'm "wrong" about my thought process when I play chess and pool. Do you understand how ridiculous that statement is?

You seem to be a fan of argumentum ad lapidem. Let me give it a try.

Regardless of experience, no pool player ever makes wrong decisions, and no method of strategizing is fallible, and no pool player has anything to learn about the process of formulating a strategy in 8-ball.

Do you understand how ridiculous that statement is?

 

[tomker]

...
What makes a little more sense is if you can't determine which strategy is best, you randomly choose one, and then when you execute the shot, you are committed to that one strategy that you chose.

What doesn't make any sense at all, is just not making a choice either way, and then executing the shot "lazily" so that both outcomes are possible.
...

Of course. I never hit a shot with the idea that two outcomes will somehow happen simultaneously. That would be absurd. Physically impossible. And I've never said or implied that I think or do anything of the sort.

Apparently we're on the same page about this and you've just been misunderstanding what I've been saying this entire time. Really your fault unless you can go back and find a message where I say that I expect the laws of physics to be broken.

 

[railbird99]

Of course. I never hit a shot with the idea that two outcomes will somehow happen simultaneously. That would be absurd. Physically impossible. And I've never said or implied that I think or do anything of the sort.

Apparently we're on the same page about this and you've just been misunderstanding what I've been saying this entire time. Really your fault unless you can go back and find a message where I say that I expect the laws of physics to be broken.

Again, being dense and twisting my words. This is becoming a little repetitive.

I never said that you expect two outcomes to happen simultaneously, and I feel like you know I'm not saying that, so is this what you are resorting to just win an argument?

What I did say was that while you are executing the shot, you have not chosen a single outcome to strive for. You are shooting the shot in a way that you aren't trying for either outcome. So at the point you are actually down shooting the shot, you are indecisive about what specific thing you are trying to accomplish.

That is what makes absolutely no sense.

You do bring up a good point though. Since two separate outcomes are not possible in a given shot, why would you shoot the shot trying for two outcomes? Before you get all dense and try to argue semantics again, I'm clearly not insinuating that you are actually trying to accomplish two different outcomes at once. I'm saying that you aren't committing to either outcome so you are essentially trying for two separate outcomes in one shot.

And yes, this is exactly what you said before, so don't try to change your story now.

 

[railbird99]

Of course. I never hit a shot with the idea that two outcomes will somehow happen simultaneously. That would be absurd. Physically impossible. And I've never said or implied that I think or do anything of the sort.

Apparently we're on the same page about this and you've just been misunderstanding what I've been saying this entire time. Really your fault unless you can go back and find a message where I say that I expect the laws of physics to be broken.

Here's a quote:

Disagree. At my level (5), there are a lot of times where I can't see an out and don't know what to do. I know that pocketing a ball will likely make my position worse, but I also don't see any "real" safeties that I can play. So I make a lazy attempt to pocket a ball. If it goes in, okay, I'm still shooting and I get another attempt to make progress. If it doesn't go in, fine, I haven't hurt my position.

The distinction I'm making is that it's one thing to randomly choose to pocket the ball or miss it, and then once the choice is made, get down and try to accomplish that single shot you chose.

It's a completely different thing to not make a choice either way, get down on the ball, and "lazily" shoot it because you still haven't decided which option you're trying to accomplish.

If you can't see how ridiculous the latter is, especially after I've explained everything in depth, I don't know what else to say...

 

[tomker]

...
You do bring up a good point though. Since two separate outcomes are not possible in a given shot, why would you shoot the shot trying for two outcomes? Before you get all dense and try to argue semantics again, I'm clearly not insinuating that you are actually trying to accomplish two different outcomes at once.
...

"why would you shoot the shot trying for two outcomes?"

And then in the very next sentence:

"I'm clearly not insinuating that you are actually trying to accomplish two different outcomes"

I know you think I'm spending all my time trying to trick you or be pedantic or be dense on purpose, but if you're going to write your posts like this where you're just verbally contradicting yourself, I don't know what you expect. I think you have to start considering the possibility that whatever you're trying to communicate, you're simply not doing a very good job of it.

I don't know how I can possibly be more clear. When I get down on one of these shots in question, I know that if I make the shot, it will lead me to one strategy, and if I miss, it will lead to another strategy. Neither strategy seems better to me so I don't really care whether or not I make the shot and I simply don't try very hard. I'm still trying for the strategy where I make the ball, I just don't give it 100%. That doesn't mean I'm not trying hard to win the game, because in my estimation, the outcome of the shot doesn't affect the outcome of the game. So, to sum up:

1) I don't expect both possible outcomes of the shot to occur simultaneously, which would be absurd, but seems to be a recent thing you think I'm trying to say ("why would you shoot the shot trying for two outcomes").

2) I'm not sandbagging and I'm still trying hard to win the game. If I think both possible resulting strategies are equal, then you can't accuse me of not trying for the best strategy. No matter what happens, I'm achieving a strategy that I think is tied for best.

3) I'm not saying that I'm a superhuman pool robot that can compute game probabilities exactly. I'm just some APA 5 who has a rudimentary strategic understanding of the game and my own opinions about whether or not making/missing a particular shot is likely to change the overall outcome of the game. Any pool player of any skill level has the same "ability."

 

[railbird99]

"why would you shoot the shot trying for two outcomes?"

And then in the very next sentence:

"I'm clearly not insinuating that you are actually trying to accomplish two different outcomes"

I know you think I'm spending all my time trying to trick you or be pedantic or be dense on purpose, but if you're going to write your posts like this where you're just verbally contradicting yourself, I don't know what you expect. I think you have to start considering the possibility that whatever you're trying to communicate, you're simply not doing a very good job of it.

This is exactly why we can't get anywhere in a conversation. I am most likely not communicating my point perfectly, but you are making this seem like I'm talking to a robot who needs a very specific set of instructions, otherwise it can't comprehend anything. Humans have this innate ability to infer certain things in conversation, which means everything doesn't have to be explicitly said for people to understand each other.

You seem to selectively choose not to use this ability because you have no other way to refute any of my points.

Again you latched on to one single part of what I said, ignored everything in the in depth post that actually explains everything in detail, and are now resorting to trying to find anything wrong with any word I use, rather than expending any amount of effort on actually understanding what I'm attempting to say.

Now, since you want to be like this, I can do it too.

What I said was not a contradiction. My first statement:

"why would you shoot the shot trying for two outcomes"

can be interpreted two different ways, both correct.

Of course, you selectively chose the one interpretation that would make my statement seem absurd. Since I expected this from you, I had to elaborate in the next sentence about exactly what I was saying.

"trying for two outcomes" is technically what you are doing. You aren't choosing one or the other, therefore in your shot you are trying, or going for, both outcomes, one of which will be the outcome that actually plays out.

I don't know how I can possibly be more clear. When I get down on one of these shots in question, I know that if I make the shot, it will lead me to one strategy, and if I miss, it will lead to another strategy. Neither strategy seems better to me so I don't really care whether or not I make the shot and I simply don't try very hard. I'm still trying for the strategy where I make the ball, I just don't give it 100%. That doesn't mean I'm not trying hard to win the game, because in my estimation, the outcome of the shot doesn't affect the outcome of the game. So, to sum up:

Look this is pointless if you are going to just repeat yourself, without addressing any of the points I've made. I understand what it is you are doing. I have now posted countless times going in depth as to why that makes no sense. You have yet to acknowledge or refute any of those points, and instead resort to just trying to find errors in my grammar and wording. WHAT...THE...****

If you want to make an honest effort, please take what you just said, and go back a few posts where I went in depth as to why your strategy is flawed, and really contemplate the points I make.

By the way, you saying you are going for making the ball is not true if you are intentionally making it more likely that you miss the shot. That's the same thing as not committing to making the ball.

1) I don't expect both possible outcomes of the shot to occur simultaneously, which would be absurd, but seems to be a recent thing you think I'm trying to say ("why would you shoot the shot trying for two outcomes").

This is like selective hearing, although I guess it's selective reading? You are putting all of the emphasis of what I'm saying on one single sentence. I have explained in depth that I obviously do not think you are trying to accomplish both outcomes simultaneously..... and that's plainly obvious. What is your deal?

2) I'm not sandbagging and I'm still trying hard to win the game. If I think both possible resulting strategies are equal, then you can't accuse me of not trying for the best strategy. No matter what happens, I'm achieving a strategy that I think is tied for best.

No one is accusing you of sandbagging, just that you are arrogant and you have this almost pathological need to be right, even though you are just a 5, and have admitted that you have a rudimentary understanding of the strategy behind 8-ball.

I'm trying to get you to realize that you could be a better player if you didn't approach shots this way. No professional player ever does this, so why do you think it's a good idea, regardless of skill level?

It absolutely boggles my mind how you can't fathom that there is any possible chance that what I'm saying makes even a little sense, and you dismiss it without any thought. You are not going to get much better at pool when you are unwilling to take advice from better players. It's just sad. You do not know everything, and there are things about your pool game that you are just flat out wrong about. Face it. I'm 10 times the pool player you'll ever be, and I still have a million flaws, and still learn new things and change things daily.

I've gone into great detail why shooting the shot the way you do actually makes each outcome worse, and why you actually would achieve a better outcome by just committing fully to one of the strategies, even if you choose the strategy randomly. You either do have selective reading, or you have read it and are just choosing to ignore it.

3) I'm not saying that I'm a superhuman pool robot that can compute game probabilities exactly. I'm just some APA 5 who has a rudimentary strategic understanding of the game and my own opinions about whether or not making/missing a particular shot is likely to change the overall outcome of the game. Any pool player of any skill level has the same "ability."

Whether you come to the conclusion that both shots are 50/50 is irrelevant. I've explained all of this in detail in previous posts.

 

[tomker]

...
I've gone into great detail why shooting the shot the way you do actually makes each shot worse, and why you actually would achieve a better outcome by just committing fully to one of the strategies, even if you choose the strategy randomly. ...

I don't recall you ever saying anything about this.

You've said a million times that good players always commit to one shot or the other. Fine, I'm not a good player, I'm in no position to disagree with you.

How is changing my mindset going to lead to me to a higher winning percentage?

If you've gone into great detail about this then you should be able to just copy and paste something really quickly. I'm not asking you to repeat yourself again or write anything new so please don't get upset about this request.

 

[railbird99]

I don't recall you ever saying anything about this.

You've said a million times that good players always commit to one shot or the other. Fine, I'm not a good player, I'm in no position to disagree with you.

How is changing my mindset going to lead to me to a higher winning percentage?

If you've gone into great detail about this then you should be able to just copy and paste something really quickly. I'm not asking you to repeat yourself again or write anything new so please don't get upset about this request.

Usually when you can pinpoint a flaw in your game that contributes to you not being a good player, people try to correct that flaw, and then they become better players. This will then lead to winning more. That's usually how things work.

Here's the quote you asked for, enjoy. Maybe this time you will read it in its entirety and give it some real thought.

I'm not going to sit here and argue about chess engines. You know computers lack human intelligence, and humans lack calculation capabilities, so the way they evaluate games is fundamentally different, no matter how good an engine's "evaluation function" may be.

Somehow in your response to my analogy, you yet again avoided the entire point, so let me state it for like the fourth time.

No chess player ever evaluates two moves as being the same, and then randomly chooses one.

A chess player, just like a pool player, formulates a strategic plan, and then plays moves that help to achieve this plan. Every move is deliberate and has a purpose, even if their plan may not be the best, or may be equal to other possible plans.

For someone who is supposedly an expert in something as intellectual and logical as chess engines, it baffles me that you think it makes any sense whatsoever to not choose a specific shot, and thus leave the outcome up to chance. It doesn't matter what sport or game you are talking about, it just doesn't make sense.

There's a difference between knowing two shots are equal, and not being able to tell which shot is better because of lack of experience. In addition, those two shots aren't the only available shots on the table. If making the ball might not be an advantage, that means you have other problems in the rack preventing you from running out. How about you don't even go for making the ball at all, and you break out some of your problem balls and play safe at the same time. That's much more productive than just missing the ball knowing your opponent can't run out.

The scenario you suggested about the beginning of the game when all the balls are on the table and there are clusters, so you are just lazily shooting at balls until you "figure things out". So that's how you deal with the complexities of the game? You work on chess engines for a living, and you can't devote the thought necessary to look several shots ahead and do something productive with the shot to achieve something later?

You can make a productive shot out of any situation. If you've narrowed down all of your choices to just either making the ball or missing the ball, and those are 50/50 in your mind, how about you try to deliberately miss the shot so that you can control exactly where the cue ball and the object ball end up, so that you can make sure the object ball is in a good spot for later.

When you don't commit to one shot or the other you are already lowering the advantage of both shots. Let's say you miss the shot, you didn't try to miss it, so that happened by chance, now where the object ball ends up is left up to chance. You missing the ball also changes the path of the cue ball. All of these factors would be controlled, and give you a better chance of ending up with most optimal result the shot offers, if you simply committed to one or the other.

I'm a 7 and have been playing pool my entire life, but even after I take the time to thoroughly explain why you are wrong when it comes to something to do with pool, you still think you know it all, and can't be wrong. I don't understand why we are even having this discussion.

 

[tomker]

Usually when you can pinpoint a flaw in your game that contributes to you not being a good player, people try to correct that flaw, and then they become better players. This will then lead to winning more. That's usually how things work.

Here's the quote you asked for, enjoy. Maybe this time you will read it in its entirety and give it some real thought.

You're right, I didn't read the quote in its entirety because it didn't make any sense from the outset. I did explain how chess players (and presumably pool players) can evaluate two moves/shots as having strategically equal outcomes and essentially flip a coin. You replied to this train of thought as though you thought it was a valid one, and the discussion moved on.

The rest of your argument is completely flawed if only because of this part:

"When you don't commit to one shot or the other you are already lowering the advantage of both shots. Let's say you miss the shot, you didn't try to miss it, so that happened by chance, now where the object ball ends up is left up to chance."

Of course I know where the cue ball will end up even if I miss the shot. Just because I don't try 100% to pocket a particular ball doesn't mean it's a surprise to me where the cue ball ends up. That idea is insulting.

 

[BJTyler]

Eh, a rating system based on wins/losses is basically the Elo system, which works fine for much bigger sports (and bigger-stakes sports) like chess, baseball, basketball, football, etc. If your claim is that it "just doesn't work" for pool then I think the burden of proof is on you to explain your position.

I think an ELO based handicapping system for pool could work extremely well. However, in order to ensure that the matches could be played within a reasonable time frame, I think you would want to abandon the "race" format entirely.

Instead, I would suggest that each match yield a certain number of points and the amount of points you can win for your team is a function of your ELO rating.

e.g. suppose a 1500 player played a 1700 player. Since the 1500 player is supposed to have only a 24% chance of winning, he would get 100 points for beating the 1700 player. However, if the 1700 player were to win, he would only win 32 points. Then at the end of the night, each team simply adds up their point totals to see which team is the winner.

In theory, as long as the ratings were correct, every player (regardless of skill level) would have identical marginal contributions to victory. Additionally, this system would obviate the need to cap the total skill level per team.

Obviously, this assumes that the handicaps are correct. But, I think this would be far easier to accomplish with the ELO system given its wide use in Chess as well as a variety of other competitive platforms.

 

[railbird99]

You're right, I didn't read the quote in its entirety because it didn't make any sense from the outset. I did explain how chess players (and presumably pool players) can evaluate two moves/shots as having strategically equal outcomes and essentially flip a coin. You replied to this train of thought as though you thought it was a valid one, and the discussion moved on.

The rest of your argument is completely flawed if only because of this part:

"When you don't commit to one shot or the other you are already lowering the advantage of both shots. Let's say you miss the shot, you didn't try to miss it, so that happened by chance, now where the object ball ends up is left up to chance."

Of course I know where the cue ball will end up even if I miss the shot. Just because I don't try 100% to pocket a particular ball doesn't mean it's a surprise to me where the cue ball ends up. That idea is insulting.

You're not getting the point, as usual.

Since you aren't really trying to make the ball, giving a higher percentage chance of missing the ball, that means you really don't have full control over where the object ball or cue ball is going.

You could miss the ball on the right side of the pocket, the left side of the pocket, or you could make the ball. If you make the ball, you could make it in the center of the pocket, or the right/left side of the pocket, etc.

In each possible scenario, the cue ball will take a different path, because it means you are hitting the object ball at a different angle. Also, if you miss the object ball, you don't know how you are going to miss it, so you have no control over exactly where the object ball ends up.

Because of these factors, the outcome of the shot is going to be less ideal than if you tried for a specific shot where you can control the exact path of both balls.

It is just common sense that you should always be giving the full amount of attention that your stamina allows for on each shot, and try for a specific outcome. I hope you realize there isn't a single pro who does what you do, and every shot they play has a very deliberate purpose. This is one of the many reasons they are able to play at such a high level.

I don't know why you are so stubborn with this issue.

 

[railbird99]

I think an ELO based handicapping system for pool could work extremely well. However, in order to ensure that the matches could be played within a reasonable time frame, I think you would want to abandon the "race" format entirely.

Instead, I would suggest that each match yield a certain number of points and the amount of points you can win for your team is a function of your ELO rating.

e.g. suppose a 1500 player played a 1700 player. Since the 1500 player is supposed to have only a 24% chance of winning, he would get 100 points for beating the 1700 player. However, if the 1700 player were to win, he would only win 32 points. Then at the end of the night, each team simply adds up their point totals to see which team is the winner.

In theory, as long as the ratings were correct, every player (regardless of skill level) would have identical marginal contributions to victory. Additionally, this system would obviate the need to cap the total skill level per team.

Obviously, this assumes that the handicaps are correct. But, I think this would be far easier to accomplish with the ELO system given its wide use in Chess as well as a variety of other competitive platforms.

You are absolutely correct that handicapping by games will always be flawed, no matter what system you use, and it needs to be done away with.

I think your system would work great for the more serious amateur players, and the pro level, but not so much for the average joe who just wants a night out to have fun playing pool, and doesn't really care about improving.

In my opinion, this is because the average joe wants to feel like they have a decent chance to win their match. A 3 in the APA isn't going to enjoy league very much if he/she is playing against a stacked team of high players, and every game is even. Even though the result could be that he/she wins points-wise, the actual experience of not getting much of a chance to shoot, and losing every game isn't fun.

I think that's the reason most lower-level amateur players choose the APA over other leagues like the BCA. It's the reason the BCA is perceived as being for more serious/skilled players, which actually make up the minority of pool players.

I think that the best way for the ELO system to work across the board is to divide ELO ratings into groups, and have everyone play against players of similar skill level, even. This is how most chess tournaments work.

If tomker was less worried about being correct and defending his ideas, rather than actually having an intellectual conversation on the subject, I could have gone in to more detail about why the APA's system works well for its intended purpose.

In order for ELO ratings to have any kind of accuracy, there needs to be a certain number of recorded games, in the long term. Also, the ELO system is a relative measurement, not absolute.

The APA's system is better at determining how good a player is playing, now. They only use the last 20 matches to determine someone's SL, which means that if a player gets better or worse, it will be reflected in their SL much quicker than an overall ELO rating. Innings per win is not the most accurate and direct way to determine someone's ability to win games, but since it does provide more information than just whether a player won or lost, it's able to provide a more accurate metric in the short term than an ELO rating system just based on wins/losses could.

Also, the APA's innings per win is not a relative measurement. It is not highly dependent on the relative strength of opponents. Think about golf and bowling. The amount of strokes it takes you to complete a course relative to what's par for the course is a great indicator of how good you are at golf, and it has nothing to do with whether you beat your opponent or not.

Innings per win is probably the closest to achieving a metric like that for 8-ball. It essentially translates in to how many turns it takes you to run out your 7 balls and then the 8-ball in games that you win, on average. It's not perfect by any means, but it's as close as you can get in 8-ball.

The benefit of this is no matter how strong your opposition is, the amount of turns you take to run all of your balls is pretty constant. Since ELO ratings are relative to the opponents you play, when you go to vegas playing against different opponents than you normally play, your ratings aren't going to mean much.

Your ELO rating is the culmination of wins/losses against opponents in your location, so when you play someone else in a different location, your rating has nothing to do with their rating. But, by using a metric like innings per win, that isn't relative to the opponents you normally play, you get a more accurate/absolute measure of skill at the game.

The point is that there are numerous complexities here that people like tomker just aren't even thinking about. The APA's system is flawed, and I'm sure there is a better way to do things, but at least give it the respect of thinking about all of the factors involved, instead of just jumping to the most obvious conclusion. (Sorry that's pointed at tomker, not you).