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

[tomker]

...
It is just common sense that you should always being 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 this, and every shot 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.

I have been saying from the outset that the reason I play like this is because I'm not good enough to judge strategies against each other accurately. I often can't predict if making a ball or not making it will affect the overall outcome of the game. At my skill level I also can't count on myself to execute whatever strategies I come up with. Of course good players and pro players don't play like this.

What happens to me at my level is that if I try super hard on every shot, I will sometimes run out or finish a game in very few innings. But more often than not, I will mess up with only a couple balls left on the table (miss a breakout or whatever) and then the table is wide open for my opponent and I lose.

If I don't try super hard on certain shots that don't seem essential, then I'm more likely to miss a shot earlier in the game with a bunch of my balls (and problem balls) still on the table. Then my opponent hits some in, it becomes much easier for me to run out, and I win more games.

I've tried playing both ways and I win more games if I play certain shots lazily. The fact that you're telling me that I'll be better if I play the other way is pure idiocy. You've never seen me play and you have no idea what my match/tournament record is when I play with certain mindsets.

What I think has gone wrong here is that you're so used to certain interactions/conversations about pool that you've made assumptions about what I'm saying. Probably a million people show up to this forum and say "I play/think this way and it's the best and everybody should do it" and you just assume that's what I'm trying to say. Then you argue against the strawman point you've constructed for me in your head--you might even think you're doing me a favor by trying to guess what I "mean" instead of what I'm actually saying. But this just ends up in frustration and you just think that I'm being argumentative and pedantic when I say that my points don't match your assumptions.

If you think we're somehow having a useful conversation when you're just arguing against points that I've never said or implied, then by all means, write some more posts.

 

[railbird99]

I have been saying from the outset that the reason I play like this is because I'm not good enough to judge strategies against each other accurately. I often can't predict if making a ball or not making it will affect the overall outcome of the game. At my skill level I also can't count on myself to execute whatever strategies I come up with. Of course good players and pro players don't play like this.

What happens to me at my level is that if I try super hard on every shot, I will sometimes run out or finish a game in very few innings. But more often than not, I will mess up with only a couple balls left on the table (miss a breakout or whatever) and then the table is wide open for my opponent and I lose.

If I don't try super hard on certain shots that don't seem essential, then I'm more likely to miss a shot earlier in the game with a bunch of my balls (and problem balls) still on the table. Then my opponent hits some in, it becomes much easier for me to run out, and I win more games.

I've tried playing both ways and I win more games if I play certain shots lazily. The fact that you're telling me that I'll be better if I play the other way is pure idiocy. You've never seen me play and you have no idea what my match/tournament record is when I play with certain mindsets.

What I think has gone wrong here is that you're so used to certain interactions/conversations about pool that you've made assumptions about what I'm saying. Probably a million people show up to this forum and say "I play/think this way and it's the best and everybody should do it" and you just assume that's what I'm trying to say. Then you argue against the strawman point you've constructed for me in your head--you might even think you're doing me a favor by trying to guess what I "mean" instead of what I'm actually saying. But this just ends up in frustration and you just think that I'm being argumentative and pedantic when I say that my points don't match your assumptions.

If you think we're somehow having a useful conversation when you're just arguing against points that I've never said or implied, then by all means, write some more posts.

There clearly is more than one correct way to do a lot of things in pool, but there are also wrong ways to do things. Regarding this specific scenario, you are just wrong. It doesn't matter what type of player you are, your strategy in this instance does not make any sense.

The fact that when you try too hard to make balls on every shot you lose more often does not in any way justify using this absurd strategy you've come up with.

If trying to make all of your balls at the beginning of the game is not advantageous, then doesn't that mean you should be playing defense, and intentionally not making balls? Why would this be a reason to half-way try to make the ball?

If your plan from the beginning is to not try to make all of your balls and run out, then it seems to reason that on these 50/50 shots, where making the ball does not yield an advantage over missing it, you would want to keep as many of your balls on the table as possible so when your opponent inevitably gets a turn at the table, he has more balls in his way, and then when you get your next turn at the table, you have more of a chance to have a shot on at least one ball.

Just because you aren't as good as the pros, doesn't mean it isn't a good idea to imitate what they do to try to eventually get closer to their level. It also doesn't mean you get a free pass to be completely illogical.

All of my points in the last post still apply. You haven't refuted any of them. I never once insinuated that it was a good idea to just try to make balls.

Nothing I am saying is something I was told. It's simply applying logic and reason to 8-ball strategy.

 

[tomker]

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.
...

This is a cool idea. I've been trying for a while to think of a way pool handicapping could be closer to golf/bowling handicapping, by just adding some numbers to some scores, but I don't think it's possible because there are two players involved. Of course it makes sense to take both players' "handicaps" (ratings) into account.

Problem is, though, if you do matches of N games (and not handicapped races), players with low ratings are at a huge disadvantage. The probability of a low rated player beating a high rated player for any particular game is small, and it gets smaller and smaller for longer and longer matches. So I suspect that a league night based on this handicapping system would end up being a contest to see which team can throw off the most effectively, and the matches would end up being very stupid.

Maybe there could be a way to sort the players on a team by rating and have the people with similar ratings play each other, but this gets into problems with people strategically not showing up to matches to control the "throws."

It's a tough problem.

 

[tomker]

...
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. ...

Look up provisional ratings or systems like Glicko. You only think this is a problem or a subject of useful conversation because you aren't informed.

Also, if you're interested in learning something instead of just making rhetorical jabs:

http://research.microsoft.com/apps/pubs/default.aspx?id=67956

 

[tomker]

...
Just because you aren't as good as the pros, doesn't mean it isn't a good idea to imitate what they do to try to eventually get closer to their level. ...

Again, never said the way I play is a good idea. Just that it causes me to win more games. You're still off in the corner arguing against strawmen. Enjoy.

 

[railbird99]

This is a cool idea. I've been trying for a while to think of a way pool handicapping could be closer to golf/bowling handicapping, by just adding some numbers to some scores, but I don't think it's possible because there are two players involved. Of course it makes sense to take both players' "handicaps" (ratings) into account.

If you read the rest of his post, he is taking into account both ratings.

Problem is, though, if you do matches of N games (and not handicapped races), players with low ratings are at a huge disadvantage. The probability of a low rated player beating a high rated player for any particular game is small, and it gets smaller and smaller for longer and longer matches. So I suspect that a league night based on this handicapping system would end up being a contest to see which team can throw off the most effectively, and the matches would end up being very stupid.

That's only where N is high. Short races is an advantage to the lower player.

BCA uses this system, they just don't use ELO ratings. It's a round robin format, where 4 players from each team play one game against every person on the other 4 player team.

Maybe there could be a way to sort the players on a team by rating and have the people with similar ratings play each other, but this gets into problems with people strategically not showing up to matches to control the "throws."

It's a tough problem.

Now you're getting somewhere.

 

[tomker]

If you read the rest of his post, he is taking into account both ratings.

I said his idea was cool and I was agreeing with him. What's your problem??

 

[BasementDweller]

How can I be sure that railbird99 and tomker aren't the same person?

You two have such similar writing styles that it makes me scratch my head.

Anyway, as far as the strategy goes I can see where you are both coming from. At the lower levels, I'm not convinced that what happens during the first inning or two at the table will have a huge impact on who wins and loses. There are just too many missed balls that quickly wipe out any real or perceived strategic advantage.

However, if one desires to get better at the game shooting with a determined goal in mind before every shot is probably part of the process.

I could be totally wrong on both accounts so take that for what it's worth.

 

[railbird99]

Again, never said the way I play is a good idea. Just that it causes me to win more games. You're still off in the corner arguing against strawmen. Enjoy.

Do you actually read everything you post? You're not saying it's a good idea, but the result is winning more? Seems like you're contradicting yourself, and you actually do think it's a good idea. Otherwise, you would get rid of it, in favor of what you actually think is a good idea.

I'm arguing directly to every point you make, and I'm not making any assumptions or biased interpretations. If you want to defend your side, either defend it, or actually provide some proof that what I'm saying is logically flawed.

 

[railbird99]

I said his idea was cool and I was agreeing with him. What's your problem??

Now I have to have a problem to point out something you misinterpreted?

I'm glad you agree with him, but you also tried to point out flaws in his idea that weren't there...

You have a real habit of either not reading the entirety of posts, or just not thinking about every aspect of them. I'm not sure which it is.

 

[railbird99]

How can I be sure that railbird99 and tomker aren't the same person?

You two have such similar writing styles that it makes me scratch my head.

Anyway, as far as the strategy goes I can see where you are both coming from. At the lower levels, I'm not convinced that what happens during the first inning or two at the table will have a huge impact on who wins and loses. There are just too many missed balls that quickly wipe out any real or perceived strategic advantage.

However, if one desires to get better at the game shooting with a determined goal in mind before every shot is probably part of the process.

I could be totally wrong on both accounts so take that for what it's worth.

Trust me, we couldn't be more different.

You are right that missing a ball early in the game is rarely going to immediately lead to losing, especially against lower players.

The point is, every shot can be productive, and every shot you have a chance to increase the chance you will win.

It's just pure laziness to just miss balls with no purpose, simply because you know your opponent won't run out.

 

[tomker]

Do you actually read everything you post? You're not saying it's a good idea, but the result is winning more? Seems like you're contradicting yourself, and you actually do think it's a good idea. Otherwise, you would get rid of it, in favor of what you actually think is a good idea.

I'm arguing directly to every point you make, and I'm not making any assumptions or biased interpretations. If you want to defend your side, either defend it, or actually provide some proof that what I'm saying is logically flawed.

The way I play is a good idea for me if I'm trying to win games/matches (presumably in league). I'm not saying it's a good idea for anybody else, or a good idea in other situations, or a good idea if I'm trying to improve my game, or a good idea in general.

You're not arguing against any of my points because you clearly have no idea what my point was and is. My point (and the entire reason this conversation got started) is that innings-to-win is a poor metric of player strength because depending on playing style, some people might have higher non-defensive innings but be stronger/better players than other people who have lower innings.

Somehow you have twisted this into an N-page-long discussion about my mindset when I'm shooting and whether or not you think it makes sense.

You clearly think you're a master of logic and debate and rhetoric but the sad fact is that you're arguing with nobody, you couldn't possibly have a worse understanding of what I was communicating, and nobody cares what you're saying.

 

[tomker]

Now I have to have a problem to point out something you misinterpreted?

I'm glad you agree with him, but you also tried to point out flaws in his idea that weren't there...

"Of course it makes sense to take both players' "handicaps" (ratings) into account."

This is pointing out a flaw?

Saying "of course that thing you said is right"?

Your reading comprehension is possibly the worst out of anybody I've ever interacted with.

 

[railbird99]

The way I play is a good idea for me if I'm trying to win games/matches (presumably in league). I'm not saying it's a good idea for anybody else, or a good idea in other situations, or a good idea if I'm trying to improve my game, or a good idea in general.

So, the way you play is a good idea for you, but it's not a good idea if you are trying to improve? So basically you are saying that you do not want to improve, and could in fact be playing better than you are now.

So you could have saved countless pages of ridiculous arguments if you would have led with that.

You're not arguing against any of my points because you clearly have no idea what my point was and is. My point (and the entire reason this conversation got started) is that innings-to-win is a poor metric of player strength because depending on playing style, some people might have higher non-defensive innings but be stronger/better players than other people who have lower innings.

Really, so I haven't been arguing against any of the points you've made in the past 6 or so pages, and somehow I'm misinterpreting everything you're saying, because somehow your ideas mean something different than what it actually translates to in english? You want to go re-read the last several pages?

Somehow you have twisted this into an N-page-long discussion about my mindset when I'm shooting and whether or not you think it makes sense.

You clearly think you're a master of logic and debate and rhetoric but the sad fact is that you're arguing with nobody, you couldn't possibly have a worse understanding of what I was communicating, and nobody cares what you're saying.

It takes two people to argue, and it takes two people to steer the conversation. The blame is equally on you.

Clearly you care about what I'm saying, and clearly I am arguing with somebody, otherwise you wouldn't be posting 50% of the replies, and responding to my posts.

It's becoming perfectly clear that you are struggling to find any new ways to justify your points, since now all of your posts contain absolutely no substance other than personal attacks towards me.

 

[railbird99]

"Of course it makes sense to take both players' "handicaps" (ratings) into account."

This is pointing out a flaw?

Saying "of course that thing you said is right"?

Your reading comprehension is possibly the worst out of anybody I've ever interacted with.

Again, using your amazing ability to single out sentences, so that they are taken completely out of context. Good job.

Here's the whole quote:

This is a cool idea. I've been trying for a while to think of a way pool handicapping could be closer to golf/bowling handicapping, by just adding some numbers to some scores, but I don't think it's possible because there are two players involved. Of course it makes sense to take both players' "handicaps" (ratings) into account.

The key here, and coincidentally the part you chose to leave out, is:

"but I don't think it's possible because there are two players involved"

I think my reading comprehension is just fine, thanks.

 

[tomker]

...
It's becoming perfectly clear that you are struggling to find any new ways to justify your points, since now all of your posts contain absolutely no substance other than personal attacks towards me.

My only point, or at least the only one I care about, is that innings-to-win is a poor metric of player strength.

I have arguably not said anything concrete to justify this opinion, and I honestly don't care if you agree with it or not. You haven't said anything to contradict my opinion either.

For us to make any progress debating the point we would need some statistical data.

 

[tomker]

...
The key here, and coincidentally the part you chose to leave out, is:

"but I don't think it's possible because there are two players involved"

I think my reading comprehension is just fine, thanks.

Wrong again. I'm saying "I don't think my idea is possible ..." and then agreeing that of course the other guy's idea is right.

They are two different ideas.

Even more problems with reading comprehension are making themselves apparent.

 

[railbird99]

Look up provisional ratings or systems like Glicko. You only think this is a problem or a subject of useful conversation because you aren't informed.

Also, if you're interested in learning something instead of just making rhetorical jabs:

http://research.microsoft.com/apps/pubs/default.aspx?id=67956

I'm sorry, did you mention the Glicko system originally, or the ELO system? Pretty sure it was the latter.

I never said you couldn't come up with ways to fix, or limit the flaws. What I said was that you aren't even considering these issues when you try to state as fact that the ELO system would be better.

It's not until I point them out, that you then go and find possible solutions.

By the way, the Glicko system attempts to improve the flaws of the ELO system. It does not fix them completely, because it is still based on the ELO system, and your rating is still relative only to your opponents.

 

[tomker]

I'm sorry, did you mention the Glicko system originally, or the ELO system? Pretty sure it was the latter. ...

And who's to say that the vanilla ELO system also wouldn't be better than innings-to-win?

 

[railbird99]

Wrong again. I'm saying "I don't think my idea is possible ..." and then agreeing that of course the other guy's idea is right.

They are two different ideas.

Even more problems with reading comprehension are making themselves apparent.

Sorry, I may have misunderstood what you were trying to convey, however what you said can be interpreted different ways, so please stop the unfounded personal attacks.

What was confusing is that you were somehow trying to relate his idea to a handicap system like golf/bowling, when they have nothing to do with each other, since his idea is based off of relative wins/losses and the ELO system. You say "Great idea" followed by something unrelated that you were trying to do.