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

tomker

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Hi guys, long-time occasional lurker and first-time poster. :)

I was a team captain for two APA teams for a while. 8-ball and 9-ball. I kept progressively increasing statistics about the players on my team. It started out as a small list of who played most recently so I wouldn't skip a player twice in a row. Then I started keeping track of win percentages and other basic stuff.

Then I wrote a computer program to do my statistics automatically and that increased the amount that I could do since I no longer had to do it by hand.

I gradually had the idea to keep track of how each player was "really" playing, which is pretty easy for 9-ball. For example:

- If a 5 loses a match but got 31 points, that means he played like a 4 for that match.
- If a 5 wins a match against a 4 and the 4 got 25 points, that means the 5 was on track to get 47.12 points by the time the 4 would have finished the match at 31 points. That means the 5 was playing a little better than a 6.

So I would take all these numbers and average them together and I could tell each player "you've been playing like a 5.3" or whatever.

Unfortunately the same method can't be used for 8-ball since the numbers often go off the charts. It's not uncommon for, say, a 5 to beat a 4 4-1. That means the 5 would be on track to win 12 games, which means he played twice as well as a 7, which doesn't seem like very useful (or accurate) information.

Last week I cracked this mathematical nut though. The trick is to be able to calculate the probability of a certain rating having a certain win-loss record. Basically it's the same as calculating the odds of a coin toss experiment, e.g., what are the odds that you get 6 heads if you toss a coin 10 times. Tossing a head would be like winning. And you can figure out the odds of one rating "tossing a head" vs. another rating from the APA 8-ball handicap table.

Once you can calculate the probability of a certain rating having a certain record, it's not a leap to find the most likely rating to have that record.

So, I present to the community a web page that I made where you can put in a player's win-loss record and the page tells you the most probable rating that matches that record. Basically it tells you how well you have "really" been playing if you have a certain record.

http://www.tckerrigan.com/Misc/Pool/

I hope some of you find this as interesting and amusing as I have.
 
You do realize that last time someone attempted to crack the DiVinci (APA) code and got close they actually got sued. You might still be able to find the summons via Google, I did a year ago.
 
There was a law suit, in the early 90's I believe, against the APA. It broke down for the most part the whole APA handicapping system. I'm sure it has slightly changed since then, but it's still holds pretty accurate. If I can find the link again( I found it year's ago) I'll post I think up.
 
Last edited:
That lawsuit actually gave the public access to the rating system. That's how I got it. You just have to know where to look.
 
That lawsuit actually gave the public access to the rating system. That's how I got it. You just have to know where to look.
I used to have a link to a document online, but it was removed. Do you have a link or document you can share?

Thanks,
Dave
 
I'm currently a 4, it rated me 3.94 based on what I could remember for this session, so pretty accurate
 
You do realize that last time someone attempted to crack the DiVinci (APA) code and got close they actually got sued. You might still be able to find the summons via Google, I did a year ago.

Just to be completely clear, I'm making no attempt to reverse-engineer the APA's rating system. (Hence my disclaimer on the page, too.)

I'm just doing some math which is basically the same as a coin-toss problem from a math textbook.

The idea is that we all play better or worse than our ratings sometimes and I think it's interesting to put a number to how well we've actually been playing.
 
I was just raised to a 7 and really did't believe that it was justified. So I was searching for something that would give me some way of putting it to the test. I keep a spreadsheet with pretty good records of all the matches I've played since I started 2 years ago.

I put my last 30 matches into your calculator and it came out as a 7. I took my last match where I beat a S/L five 5-0 and reversed it and I went back down to a 6 point something. I guess I'm on the borderline, not really a good place to be if your north of it.

So I would have to say you're on the money. Thanks for tool.

I still don't like being a 7. But at least I don't feel like I've been unfairly raised. I don't know why the APA wants to keep this stuff Top Secret. Making the process transparent would stop the whining I think.
 
I was just raised to a 7 and really did't believe that it was justified. So I was searching for something that would give me some way of putting it to the test. I keep a spreadsheet with pretty good records of all the matches I've played since I started 2 years ago.

I put my last 30 matches into your calculator and it came out as a 7. I took my last match where I beat a S/L five 5-0 and reversed it and I went back down to a 6 point something. I guess I'm on the borderline, not really a good place to be if your north of it.

So I would have to say you're on the money. Thanks for tool.

I still don't like being a 7. But at least I don't feel like I've been unfairly raised. I don't know why the APA wants to keep this stuff Top Secret. Making the process transparent would stop the whining I think.

It would also help the sandbaggers tremendously.
 
It would also help the sandbaggers tremendously.

Not really. The APA is small beer compared to chess, and chess doesn't have a secret rating system. You can calculate changes to your chess rating yourself on the back of a napkin if you wanted. Sandbagging is addressed with the very simple provision that your chess rating can't go below your all-time high rating minus 200 points.

The idea that pool needs a secret rating system when chess doesn't is pretty funny.
 
The main component is your adjusted innings if you win. If you lose a match, you get the actual innings apples to your rank. If you win, and you win in more innings that rank range, you get an adjusted amount based on your rank and winning percentage. This is obviously in place to keep someone from running up innings and still winning, which people try and do anyway.
 
Before anyone goes digging up the document, please don't.

The story is that someone posted up how the system works, and was warned/slapped/reprimanded for doing so as this may have breached a signed non-disclosure.

Since it (the post) was in public domain, I foolishly revisited it. I immediately got emails and calls from the APA. There's no lawsuit against me, as I was taking a public domain post and reposting it in an open source forum (hey, just like WIKI!!). But, someone went to the lengths of copying MY repost with MY email and MY name on it as the official document to file whatever they were thinking of filing (complaints, charge, lawsuit, whatever).

So, yeah, it's out there. It ain't mine. But, my name got hooked onto it (my fault, really). I'm asking to not dredge it up... or at least don't put my name or the original poster's name to it.

Freddie <~~~ slap, slap, slap
 
That lawsuit actually gave the public access to the rating system. That's how I got it. You just have to know where to look.

Before anyone goes digging up the document, please don't.

The story is that someone posted up how the system works, and was warned/slapped/reprimanded for doing so as this may have breached a signed non-disclosure.

Since it (the post) was in public domain, I foolishly revisited it. I immediately got emails and calls from the APA. There's no lawsuit against me, as I was taking a public domain post and reposting it in an open source forum (hey, just like WIKI!!). But, someone went to the lengths of copying MY repost with MY email and MY name on it as the official document to file whatever they were thinking of filing (complaints, charge, lawsuit, whatever).

So, yeah, it's out there. It ain't mine. But, my name got hooked onto it (my fault, really). I'm asking to not dredge it up... or at least don't put my name or the original poster's name to it.

Freddie <~~~ slap, slap, slap

I sent PM's to both of you, regarding the subject.
 
Is it that website "Chilling Effects"?
I remember seeing something there about a lawsuit and letters from lawyers and stuff.
I think it was kind of a bastardized version of the system.
But if there is a link and someone could PM it to me I'd appreciate it
 
I found the answer I was looking for.

There IS a variable in the system that is automated, but I won't go into explanation of how it works. My LO has been truthful, but I would not be surprised if there are overrides in the system.
 
And remember that the document in question is over 10 years old at this point, and has been exposed into the public domain.

It isn't unreasonable to think that the APA may have adjusted things in the Equalizer since then, in one way or another...

Still, the basic premise should still apply. Wins, innings, safeties... how the math works is another whole thing.
 
And remember that the document in question is over 10 years old at this point, and has been exposed into the public domain.

It isn't unreasonable to think that the APA may have adjusted things in the Equalizer since then, in one way or another...

Still, the basic premise should still apply. Wins, innings, safeties... how the math works is another whole thing.

What it all boils down to, is the exact reason the APA was created...

How much fun do you want to have? I have enjoyed playing with handicaps.
I don't enjoy paying weekly to purposely lose, so I can compete at a beginner's level.
 
Back
Top