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

[tomker]

"Not trying very hard to make shots" is most certainly a method of sandbagging. Its a matter of not trying to make the shot, pure and simple. If you accept that it is OK, people will (and are, I suppose) padding their innings by "just missing".

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.

Am I sandbagging? No, I'm not doing this to misrepresent my skill level. It's simply a strategic decision.

It's not my fault if the APA thinks my skill is based on some nonsense innings statistic rather than whether or not I win my games/matches.

 

[railbird99]

Asked and answered. Differences in ELO ratings translate mathematically to different probabilities of winning individual games which translate directly to handicapping matches. I already posted a link to the Fargo page that shows races based on rating differences.

I will agree, as I have 10 times already, that you are not going to hit 50-50 without playing 100 games, just because of the quantization of ratings and games. But the Fargo races will get pretty close to 50-50. (And you can easily determine how close each one gets with a few equations.) It seems that everybody agrees that the APA races don't even try to even the playing field, so using math to get closer seems like a better system, right? Or are you completely happy with uneven APA races in their "handicapped" system?



Nope, not ignoring it. I've already addressed it a couple of times but I'll do it again. First, to manipulate an Elo-based system, you have to throw matches which have a direct impact on your team's score. So that's a direct deterrent to sandbagging, instead of the APA's system where we just have to assume that there's some kind of indirect deterrent.

Second, other games/sports address sandbagging by having rating floors. If this is good enough for chess, where there's much more money involved and thus a bigger incentive to sandbag, then why in the world wouldn't this also be good enough for pool? Do you somehow think that pool is the only game/sport that has sandbaggers and nobody who plays any other game/sport has given any thought to the problem?

As for how good innings-per-win is at approximating skill, we could easily determine this mathematically if we had access to a bunch of match data. But unfortunately I don't. If anybody else does I would be happy to do some analysis.

I like how you pick out just a couple of my points and completely ignore the ones that are simply facts. I already stated above that your comparison to other games is completely flawed. Chess, basketball, etc all DO NOT use the ELO system to handicap the games. They use it as a basis to rank teams and players, and a way to match up opponents. You are playing against each opponent in a completely even game, no matter what your rating is. Therefore, there is little reason to sandbag in those games, unless for seeding purposes. Furthermore, they don't use the ELO system to handicap, so you can't use that as an example of what the APA should use to handicap.

You keep perpetuating the same ideas over and over without offering anything new. I already stated that losing is not much of a deterrent to sandbagging. Players are willing to throw the entire match, and lose, so that in higher level tournaments or towards the end of the season when it matters, they then have a huge advantage at lower skill levels. This is not a problem in other sports because the ELO system is not used to handicap the games. So I'll state it again, using the ELO system will only invite sandbagging.

As far as the math involved to come up with anything close to 50/50, not exactly of course, but anything close, still will not work because you only have a limited amount of games you can play in a match. Let's say your math determines that a perfect 50/50 match would need to be 100-63, which are the type of numbers you are going to come up with. It will be very rare that it will fit anywhere close within that handicap table the league came up with. Furthermore, there is nothing indicating that the league didn't arbitrarily come up with the rating differences, as I doubt it's purely based on math. This is why your theory that the ELO system based on win/losses directly translating into a somewhat close to 50/50 match is not practical, and thus just as flawed as the APA's system.

I will also state again that I am a proponent of the ELO system, so I'm not arguing against it. I'm saying that APA's system ALSO works good for its intended purpose. I really don't know how many times you are going to force me to repeat myself.

And please stop stating things as fact that you know nothing about. You act like the APA, as long as it's been around and as huge as it is, hasn't done their own analysis with people far smarter than you. You are simply jumping to conclusions about things you know nothing about. Just because it makes sense to you, does not mean it's true.

Now, if you want to stop this pointless debate, we can try to have an intellectual conversation about something else you brought up, dealing with the amount of matches needed to formulate an accurate rating. Until then, cheers.

 

[tomker]

I like how you pick out just a couple of my points and completely ignore the ones that are simply facts. I already stated above that your comparison to other games is completely flawed. Chess, basketball, etc all DO NOT use the ELO system to handicap the games.

Okay, maybe this is my fault because I've made certain assumptions about what you know about the Elo rating system.

The system is based on random variables with gaussian distributions. What this amounts to is that given a numerical difference between ratings, you can find the probability that one player beats the other player at an individual game. This can translate directly to handicapping matches.

For example, if one player is rated 100 points above another player, that means his probability of winning any given game is 64%. That's also the probability that's necessary to make a 5-3 race fair.

So while chess, etc. might not use Elo ratings for handicapping, it's dead simple to come up with an APA-like race chart that's fair based on these ratings. So instead of being a flawed idea, it's extremely possible and in fact the Fargo people have already done it and it works well.

You keep perpetuating the same ideas over and over without offering anything new. I already stated that losing is not much of a deterrent to sandbagging. Players are willing to throw the entire match, and lose, so that in higher level tournaments or towards the end of the season when it matters, they then have a huge advantage at lower skill levels. This is not a problem in other sports because the ELO system is not used to handicap the games. So I'll state it again, using the ELO system will only invite sandbagging.

Just because e.g. chess matches are not handicapped in the same way as APA matches doesn't mean sandbagging isn't a problem. If you think sandbagging "isn't a problem in other sports" for this reason then you clearly have no significant experience with other sports or games.

It is well understood that some chess players will sandbag in order to qualify for lower-tier tournaments, win, and take the prize money. This is a problem. A problem that's well understood and has been addressed.

Now, if you want to stop this pointless debate, we can try to have an intellectual conversation about something else you brought up, dealing with the amount of matches needed to formulate an accurate rating. Until then, cheers.

I don't know that I brought that up but that's also a problem that has been studied and essentially solved mathematically. The Fargo system has a rudimentary way of addressing it. Online chess servers have done a better job but their systems are more mathematically intensive so that's a deterrent to using them.

 

[railbird99]

Okay, maybe this is my fault because I've made certain assumptions about what you know about the Elo rating system.

The system is based on random variables with gaussian distributions. What this amounts to is that given a numerical difference between ratings, you can find the probability that one player beats the other player at an individual game. This can translate directly to handicapping matches.

For example, if one player is rated 100 points above another player, that means his probability of winning any given game is 64%. That's also the probability that's necessary to make a 5-3 race fair.

So while chess, etc. might not use Elo ratings for handicapping, it's dead simple to come up with an APA-like race chart that's fair based on these ratings. So instead of being a flawed idea, it's extremely possible and in fact the Fargo people have already done it and it works well.



Just because e.g. chess matches are not handicapped in the same way as APA matches doesn't mean sandbagging isn't a problem. If you think sandbagging "isn't a problem in other sports" for this reason then you clearly have no significant experience with other sports or games.

It is well understood that some chess players will sandbag in order to qualify for lower-tier tournaments, win, and take the prize money. This is a problem. A problem that's well understood and has been addressed.



I don't know that I brought that up but that's also a problem that has been studied and essentially solved mathematically. The Fargo system has a rudimentary way of addressing it. Online chess servers have done a better job but their systems are more mathematically intensive so that's a deterrent to using them.

Now you're going to resort to putting words in my mouth, and you are trying to hear what you want to hear.

If you would actually take the time to read an understand what I'm trying to say, instead of just searching for ways to refute it, you would see that I said it is LESS of a problem in other sports. Anytime you handicap the game directly like with the APA, you are offering an immediate incentive to sandbag. This is because at lower skill levels you have an advantage over everybody in any single match you play and you can play higher numbers on your team if you yourself are lower ranked. However, in other sports, the only way you get an advantage is if it allows you to cross into a lower tournament bracket like you suggested and then you have an advantage in even games among lower players. In ELO-based systems where there is no handicap, you have a higher incentive to do your best, try to increase your rating, because you know you are just playing even with everyone, and you won't be forced to give up a shit ton of weight to anyone.

I am extremely familiar with the ELO system. The problem with using it to handicap APA matches is two-fold. First, the percentage chance that a player has to beat another player is rarely ever going to fit into the limited permutations of matches available in the handicap table because there are only a limited number of handicap levels. Secondly, since each handicap level is a range of ELO points, it means that pretty much never will you have a fair match with that much variance at each level. It's even more flawed if you consider the low and high ends of the spectrum, where the handicap system completely breaks because of the limited number of handicap levels.

You keep saying you know you can't get exactly 50/50, and what I'm saying is because of the two factors above, you are very rarely going to even get close to 50/50. What this means is that both this system and the APA system are flawed, so you can't sit here and say the ELO system is perfect and it's the way to go if both systems are clearly flawed.

I will keep coming back to the same point. Due to time constraints in matches and the very nature of how 8-ball games are played, there will be no perfect handicapping system. The best way to make things fair would be to use an ELO-based system to give each player an individual rating, and then match everyone up with people of similar skill levels based on ratings. Then all games will be an even race.

 

[ejasons]

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.

Am I sandbagging? No, I'm not doing this to misrepresent my skill level. It's simply a strategic decision.

It's not my fault if the APA thinks my skill is based on some nonsense innings statistic rather than whether or not I win my games/matches.

You are absolutely incorrect...

The criterion isn't "was the player trying to play a defensive shot", it is "was the player trying to pocket a ball". If you're not *really* trying, then that doesn't qualify.

 

[Skippy27]

There's a difference between purposely missing shots to keep your rating down and just not trying very hard to make certain shots. Or strategically choosing to take low-percentage shots.

No really there is not which is why you have to watch. Once you get up in the levels shot making becomes less of a difference. It begins to become a much more strategic game where shape, safeties and run outs differentiates players. Purposely missing, not trying very hard and taking low-percentage shots when better are available are all big signs of sandbagging.

You have to analyze players with the a strategic mind. Seeing someone that is a 5, 6 or 7 attempt what is a very difficult shot or at least much more difficult one then what is available for no justifiable reason is a sign of sandbagging in my book. It is one thing to have a ball being blocked from a pocket or pockets and you happen to get shape for a tough bank or very low % side cut and it would be hard for you to get that shape again so you go a head and try it then because if you make it you can continue your run, but it is a whole other story when you take that same shot when that ball is not tied up and you could have easily gotten shape another way. Or you simply don't try very hard by just walking up with little "aiming" and just hit it.

I watch and I analyze the table with people to view it from a strategic perspective. It is something I learned to do as I was getting into the game for my own learning. If they have a shot at 2 or 3 balls and can still get good shape on them by choosing a much easier shot, but then choose the much harder shot and miss it gets marked. If they miss a pretty simple shot but it appears to give them a strategic advantage (moved to a break out position, forces player to break out balls, snookers them) it gets marked. If a 6 or 7 misses a shot that they should have made but did not even address the cue ball with the correct English or use the correct speed to attempt to get shape on another ball, I will mark it. Those are strategic things players do that go unrecognized all the time and they shouldn't be.

You can't just look at those things on the surface either as you should account for their opponent skill. As a 6, if I shoot a 3 or even a 4 I do not expect that they will run out on me ever so I may take chances; break a ball out I would never do against higher skills or even try more difficult shots with little regard to my leave of the cue ball. All to give me an advantage later in the game. However, a 5, 6 or 7 could very well run out on you so you have to be more strategic in how you sandbag and this does not go unnoticed by me and should be something every score keep strives to do.

The above players I mention do what you would call, not trying very hard in their matches they sandbag. You can play or watch them on the practice table and their match and it is night and day. The strategic choices they make to stay on the practice table become much better than the choices they make on the match table. Their shot choices change, their shape changes, their analyzing of table layout and hard shots all suddenly declines when they don't want to win. Come time for them to win and the practice games are just like the match games.

 

[tomker]

You are absolutely incorrect...

The criterion isn't "was the player trying to play a defensive shot", it is "was the player trying to pocket a ball". If you're not *really* trying, then that doesn't qualify.

Do you play every single shot as if $10,000 was riding on it?

And if the answer is no, does that mean you're sandbagging?

So there's a grey area.

 

[railbird99]

Do you play every single shot as if $10,000 was riding on it?

And if the answer is no, does that mean you're sandbagging?

So there's a grey area.

There's no grey area here. The reason people don't play every shot like there $10,000 on it is because there is rarely $10,000 riding on it... It's not because the player is purposefully playing the shot lazily and not caring whether it goes in or not.

It's one or the other. Either trying to make the shot is best choice, or trying to miss it and play safe is the best choice. If it's a two-way shot, you are still trying to make the ball, with a backup plan if you happen to miss. It makes absolutely no sense to be in between. If you don't want to make it, and you want to play safe, intentionally miss the shot and play safe... If making the ball would be an advantage, then go for the shot, while having the backup plan. Not making a decision one way or the other makes no sense at all.

Why would you just "not try" on a shot when there is no downside to trying. I mean seriously? "not trying" would be the definition of sandbagging.

 

[tomker]

... In ELO-based systems where there is no handicap, you have a higher incentive to do your best, try to increase your rating, because you know you are just playing even with everyone, and you won't be forced to give up a shit ton of weight to anyone.

This makes no sense. The incentive to sandbag is so you can eventually play at your real skill level in a particular situation and win money (or a title or whatever) that you wouldn't have won if you had been playing at your skill level the entire time.

Thus, the incentive to sandbag is a dollar value and has nothing to do with what sport/game you're playing or the details of its rating system.

Now, different measures can be implemented in a rating system to deter sandbagging. We COULD discuss how effective those are except that the APA rating system is secret, so any such discussions would just be speculation.

You keep saying you know you can't get exactly 50/50, and what I'm saying is because of the two factors above, you are very rarely going to even get close to 50/50.

Okay, let's step back for a second because I think you're very focused on this 50-50 issue whereas that's barely related to what I'm trying to communicate.

Everybody on this forum seems to agree that the APA handicap table exists only to give the lower rated player "a chance" and the higher rated player is expected to win most uneven races.

If this is true, then it seems like everybody is super cool with all the races being 40-60 or whatever, instead of some of them being 45-55 and some being 55-45 and some being 60-40 or whatever. Basically all I'm trying to say is that there's no reason why the all races have to be unfair in one direction (if they are). Because if they are, all it would take is changing some of the numbers on the chart so that the lower rated player is favored in some, and the entire chart can average out to 50-50 (ish).

If you don't want to get on board with that idea, then fine. I don't know why anybody would be jazzed to be in a handicapped league where the lower rated player is always at a disadvantage when that could be easily changed, but whatever.

 

[tomker]

...
Why would you just "not try" on a shot when there is no downside to trying. I mean seriously? "not trying" would be the definition of sandbagging.

That's only if you consider the game on a per-shot basis.

When I was a 4, I would hit in every ball I could. I often ended up with a problem ball or two that I had to bat around the table for several innings and I would usually lose my games.

I quickly learned that trying as hard as I could to make every ball I could was a losing strategy. As soon as I figured that out I moved up to a 5 and now I usually win my games/matches.

So I adopted this style of play so I could win games and matches, which is the opposite of sandbagging.

Not trying 100% on every single one of my shots is strategically better for me, so I'm actually playing as well as I can.

Remember, pool is about winning the game, not sinking balls.

 

[railbird99]

That's only if you consider the game on a per-shot basis.

When I was a 4, I would hit in every ball I could. I often ended up with a problem ball or two that I had to bat around the table for several innings and I would usually lose my games.

I quickly learned that trying as hard as I could to make every ball I could was a losing strategy. As soon as I figured that out I moved up to a 5 and now I usually win my games/matches.

So I adopted this style of play so I could win games and matches, which is the opposite of sandbagging.

Not trying 100% on every single one of my shots is strategically better for me, so I'm actually playing as well as I can.

Remember, pool is about winning the game, not sinking balls.

It's not missing the balls that doesn't make sense. It's the fact that you aren't committing to one or the other.

If it's better in a situation to leave the ball on the table and not pocket it, fine, then commit 100% to missing it and leaving it safe. If making the ball and staying at the table is ideal, then commit to making the ball.

It makes absolutely no sense to get down on a ball, not try for a specific outcome, and lazily hit the ball, so that you are leaving it up to chance whether or not it ends up being a safe, or an offensive shot.

 

[railbird99]

This makes no sense. The incentive to sandbag is so you can eventually play at your real skill level in a particular situation and win money (or a title or whatever) that you wouldn't have won if you had been playing at your skill level the entire time.

Thus, the incentive to sandbag is a dollar value and has nothing to do with what sport/game you're playing or the details of its rating system.

Of course it makes sense... the only incentive you have to sandbag in chess is that you could get into a couple tournaments that you would otherwise not be able to get in to, and in order to accomplish that you have to sandbag and lose enough in official competition that you drop into an entirely different class. The ranges for a class are a lot wider than one skill level in the APA.

All of that sandbagging does no good in competitions where the classes aren't split that way. Every actual chess game you have to play even, so no matter what the other person's rating is, you have to flat out beat them, with no handicap.

In the APA, there are countless reasons to sandbag. Every single APA-related event you play in is handicapped, and being as low as possible is always advantageous. Every match you play you are either getting spotted weight, or you are playing in an extremely unfair even game. The lower you are, the more partners you can play in doubles with, the better handicap in singles events, and on teams, it means the team has more room to throw higher numbers.

I could go on... For instance, sandbaggers in the APA have a much better chance of beating higher players. Well in chess if you sandbag, it does nothing to help you against higher players.

If you can't see the difference here, I don't know what to tell you. Sandbagging is the number one issue in the APA, and is far from a huge issue in other sports that don't handicap the games.

Now, different measures can be implemented in a rating system to deter sandbagging. We COULD discuss how effective those are except that the APA rating system is secret, so any such discussions would just be speculation.

What would a discussion of the measures to deter sandbagging in an ELO rating system have to do with the APA system?

Okay, let's step back for a second because I think you're very focused on this 50-50 issue whereas that's barely related to what I'm trying to communicate.

Everybody on this forum seems to agree that the APA handicap table exists only to give the lower rated player "a chance" and the higher rated player is expected to win most uneven races.

If this is true, then it seems like everybody is super cool with all the races being 40-60 or whatever, instead of some of them being 45-55 and some being 55-45 and some being 60-40 or whatever. Basically all I'm trying to say is that there's no reason why the all races have to be unfair in one direction (if they are). Because if they are, all it would take is changing some of the numbers on the chart so that the lower rated player is favored in some, and the entire chart can average out to 50-50 (ish).

If you don't want to get on board with that idea, then fine. I don't know why anybody would be jazzed to be in a handicapped league where the lower rated player is always at a disadvantage when that could be easily changed, but whatever.

Lmao, 50/50 is everything you're trying to communicate. Your entire reason for arguing for the ELO system and against the APA system is because you believe the ELO system will produce equally fair matches for everyone. I've already gone into great detail in the previous post as to why the ELO system is just as flawed as the APA system.

The APA says "a chance" because they know it's impossible to produce 50/50 matches. That doesn't mean they haven't gotten fairly close to 50/50. You need to stop fooling yourself into believing that just because the ELO system may give you an accurate percentage chance of winning against someone else with enough matches recorded, that the resulting handicapped matches will then be equal. That's simply not the case, and is the entire point of what I'm trying to say.

Your idea of trying to manipulate matches to intentionally make it unfair in one direction or the other is ridiculous, no matter what the overall outcome is over time. People want to feel like each match is consistent at least, and lower players are generally ok with feeling like they don't have an exactly equal chance against a higher player, because they usually play people around their skill level, and it just makes sense for better players to win. What tends to happen is you don't throw 7's against 2's, and if you do, 2's still have a decent chance to win in a 7-2 race. and they do more often than you would think. You throw players against other players that are at most two skill levels of difference and it tends to work out fine.

The APA is the biggest league in the world, and people generally do not have a problem with the handicapping system, so stop trying to fix what isn't broken, and have fun with your ELO system.

 

[tomker]

... Your idea of trying to manipulate matches to intentionally make it unfair in one direction or the other is ridiculous, no matter what the overall outcome is over time. ...

No, I've always maintained that it must be possible to manipulate the races to make them MORE fair.

APA races are fair for a range of win probabilities from 0.2 to 0.8 with 17 different values that are fairly evenly distributed along that range.

The goal for any given matchup should (theoretically) be to find the race with the win probabilities that best match the win probabilities of the two players, given their ratings.

The odds that the best matches ALL happen to favor the highest rated player are extremely bad. It's basically like saying you picked 18 random numbers and to round them all to the nearest 0.1, you had to round all of them down. Not freaking likely.

But whatever. I actually just ran all the numbers and here are some actual figures.

If you assume that APA ratings are evenly distributed along 400 ELO points, then every single race DOES favor the higher-rated player by an average of 4.6%.

So it looks like conventional wisdom on this forum is indeed correct.

And if you calculate the races that best match the expected win percentages, it turns out there are 6 cells that favor the loser and the average amount of unfairness per cell drops down to 1.5%.

Here are the optimal races given the assumption of range of APA ratings:

2-2 2-3 3-7 2-7 2-7 2-7
3-2 2-2 2-3 3-7 2-7 2-7
7-3 3-2 2-2 2-3 3-7 2-7
7-2 7-3 3-2 2-2 2-3 3-7
7-2 7-2 7-3 3-2 2-2 2-3
7-2 7-2 7-2 7-3 3-2 2-2

Of course some of these races can be changed according to taste without affecting the fairness significantly (or at all). For example, the 6-7 race should probably be 6-4 instead of 3-2, etc.

Anyway, I think this basically proves the point I've been trying to make all along, which is that the APA races don't always have to favor the higher rated player and could be made more fair.

 

[railbird99]

If you assume that APA ratings are evenly distributed along 400 ELO points

Well you can't assume that, so you haven't proven anything. Furthermore, 400 ELO points isn't standard, 400 ELO points is different in every ELO system, because of varying k-factors among other variables. If you want to try to prove APA matches could be more fair, then please stop comparing it to ELO-based systems, and do analysis based solely on the APA's system. You're already biased because you don't believe in the innings-per-win metric.

You're making more assumptions that are unfounded, just because a few people say that races tend to favor the higher player doesn't make it mathematically sound, and your "math" is not even close to proving anything.

 

[railbird99]

No, I've always maintained that it must be possible to manipulate the races to make them MORE fair.

APA races are fair for a range of win probabilities from 0.2 to 0.8 with 17 different values that are fairly evenly distributed along that range.

The goal for any given matchup should (theoretically) be to find the race with the win probabilities that best match the win probabilities of the two players, given their ratings.

The odds that the best matches ALL happen to favor the highest rated player are extremely bad. It's basically like saying you picked 18 random numbers and to round them all to the nearest 0.1, you had to round all of them down. Not freaking likely.

But whatever. I actually just ran all the numbers and here are some actual figures.

If you assume that APA ratings are evenly distributed along 400 ELO points, then every single race DOES favor the higher-rated player by an average of 4.6%.

So it looks like conventional wisdom on this forum is indeed correct.

And if you calculate the races that best match the expected win percentages, it turns out there are 6 cells that favor the loser and the average amount of unfairness per cell drops down to 1.5%.

Here are the optimal races given the assumption of range of APA ratings:

2-2 2-3 3-7 2-7 2-7 2-7
3-2 2-2 2-3 3-7 2-7 2-7
7-3 3-2 2-2 2-3 3-7 2-7
7-2 7-3 3-2 2-2 2-3 3-7
7-2 7-2 7-3 3-2 2-2 2-3
7-2 7-2 7-2 7-3 3-2 2-2

Of course some of these races can be changed according to taste without affecting the fairness significantly (or at all). For example, the 6-7 race should probably be 6-4 instead of 3-2, etc.

Anyway, I think this basically proves the point I've been trying to make all along, which is that the APA races don't always have to favor the higher rated player and could be made more fair.

Just to add to what I said above, in order to change the APA races to be more fair, you have to do it without changing the length of matches, because as I've stated before, playing 5 matches in one night already takes a long time as it is.

The APA has to balance time constraints along with the fairness of each match, while making compromises both ways. This is something you aren't factoring in. Yes, it's clear that the APA matches could possibly be closer to 50/50, but they are weighing the cost/benefit of keeping matches shorter vs. having them be perfectly fair.

Given this is supposed to be a fun, amateur league, as long as the better player doesn't have an overwhelming advantage, then everything is fine. Also, people are going to have a better time playing against people close to their own skill level, regardless if the race is even or not. No 3 wants to play a 6 or 7, even if the race is fair. This is why teams tend to match players up evenly, and the handicap really doesn't come into play.

You can go ahead and crunch the numbers, as long as you do it the correct way, and come up with races that are more fair. Just make sure the races for each match will never result in more than 9 games, and that maximum is only when at least one high player is playing. If you have mid-level or low-level players playing, the races need to be shorter because their games tend to take longer.

For example, the highest race is between two 7's, which is 5-5, which means at the most, 9 games are played. Other long matches include a 7 playing a 2, which is a 7-2 race, where no more than 8 games can be played. As you move down to less skilled players, the matches need to be shorter because their games take longer.

If you want to waste your time to find more fair matches that fit within the current time constraints, go ahead. It really boggles my mind how arrogant you must be to think that you are smarter than the biggest most successful league there ever was. Like the APA doesn't have any math majors working for them and they haven't invested millions in coming up with their system. What isn't getting through your thick skull is that there are so many other factors than making matches perfectly fair that factor into the equation.

Clearly, they are doing something right, otherwise there would have been plenty other people like you offering fair matches for all players that would have taken over the APA years ago.

 

[justadub]

There's no grey area here. The reason people don't play every shot like there $10,000 on it is because there is rarely $10,000 riding on it... It's not because the player is purposefully playing the shot lazily and not caring whether it goes in or not.

It's one or the other. Either trying to make the shot is best choice, or trying to miss it and play safe is the best choice. If it's a two-way shot, you are still trying to make the ball, with a backup plan if you happen to miss. It makes absolutely no sense to be in between. If you don't want to make it, and you want to play safe, intentionally miss the shot and play safe... If making the ball would be an advantage, then go for the shot, while having the backup plan. Not making a decision one way or the other makes no sense at all.

Why would you just "not try" on a shot when there is no downside to trying. I mean seriously? "not trying" would be the definition of sandbagging.

This is the bottom line. You either try to make a ball, or you don't. It really is that simple.

Yes, there are many strategic reasons and situations where not making a ball is a good idea. That isn't to be discouraged, only to be accounted for in the handicap system.

Its those who miss on purpose to drive up the inning count that cause the problem. Which is only a problem when those shots aren't noted as defensive. Even if it looked like the shooter was "kinda trying"...

 

[justadub]

Okay, let's step back for a second because I think you're very focused on this 50-50 issue whereas that's barely related to what I'm trying to communicate.

Everybody on this forum seems to agree that the APA handicap table exists only to give the lower rated player "a chance" and the higher rated player is expected to win most uneven races.

If this is true, then it seems like everybody is super cool with all the races being 40-60 or whatever, instead of some of them being 45-55 and some being 55-45 and some being 60-40 or whatever. Basically all I'm trying to say is that there's no reason why the all races have to be unfair in one direction (if they are). Because if they are, all it would take is changing some of the numbers on the chart so that the lower rated player is favored in some, and the entire chart can average out to 50-50 (ish).

If you don't want to get on board with that idea, then fine. I don't know why anybody would be jazzed to be in a handicapped league where the lower rated player is always at a disadvantage when that could be easily changed, but whatever.

You seem to be missing the point. Most of us merely point out that an exact 50-50 race isn't truly possible. There are way too many variables to account for, different abilities, styles of play, experience, proper (or improper) scorekeeping, and so on.

And most of us realize that better players will generally win more often than lesser players, when both players shoot to their average ability. That's why the better player is....better. Unless you adjust the handicap too far, in which the better player then has to overcome too big an obstacle.

The goal certainly appears to be to make it as close as possible, while still being able to be played in a manageable amount of time.

No one is "jazzed" that the races aren't exact. We just understand that this less-than-perfect-system works reasonably well for the majority of matches, in a VERY large league system. There will always be exceptions to that (and any) rule, but by and large, it works reasonably well for most players.

 

[railbird99]

This is the bottom line. You either try to make a ball, or you don't. It really is that simple.

Yes, there are many strategic reasons and situations where not making a ball is a good idea. That isn't to be discouraged, only to be accounted for in the handicap system.

Its those who miss on purpose to drive up the inning count that cause the problem. Which is only a problem when those shots aren't noted as defensive. Even if it looked like the shooter was "kinda trying"...

I was referring to how retarded his strategy is of "lazily shooting balls at the pocket not caring if it goes or not" without committing to one or the other. This has nothing to do with the APA's flaws in how they determine defensive shots.

 

[justadub]

I was referring to how retarded his strategy is of "lazily shooting balls at the pocket not caring if it goes or not" without committing to one or the other. This has nothing to do with the APA's flaws in how they determine defensive shots.

Agreed.

Regardless, in order for the system to work even close to properly, the system needs to be accounted for in the way it's designed.

Myself, I wish they would add Ball-In-Hand opportunities to the formula. I've seen way too many beginner players get moved up to a level higher than they should be at, because their opponent gave them WAY too many BIHs. Of course it doesn't take a SL2 many innings to win a match if they get BIH every trip to the table

 

[railbird99]

Agreed.

Regardless, in order for the system to work even close to properly, the system needs to be accounted for in the way it's designed.

Myself, I wish they would add Ball-In-Hand opportunities to the formula. I've seen way too many beginner players get moved up to a level higher than they should be at, because their opponent gave them WAY too many BIHs. Of course it doesn't take a SL2 many innings to win a match if they get BIH every trip to the table

Ya, that brings up a good point actually. Even though I believe the APA's system works well for its intended purpose, it relies heavily on accurate score keeping. When you start trying to account for all of the factors in a game, you reach a point where there's too much room for inaccuracies in scoring for the system to work well.

BCA's 8-ball system is much more simple, but inherently flawed as well, because the average amount of balls you make in a game is highly dependent on how many opportunities your opponent gives you to make balls. This means your skill level is highly dependent upon the skill level of the competition you happen to be playing any given night. This is why their handicapping system still heavily favors the better players.

The one point that tomker made that I agree with is that the best way to determine the relative chance of one player to beat another player is to just use wins/losses over a long period of time, and not try to control all of the factors in the game.

What tomker doesn't understand is that it takes a lot of games to come up with an accurate relative rating using a system like that, and since the system is not very accurate in the short term, it doesn't do a good job of determining how a player is playing right now, in the past month, etc.

Using the APA's system, you can have a good amount of accuracy in the short term, and they use just your last 20 matches to determine your skill level. This means as you get better or worse, the APA's system does a better job of reflecting that in your skill level. This also makes it more fair since your skill level is more current.

What tomker further doesn't get is that no matter how accurate a system is at determining skill level or percentage chance to win, you still can't handicap 8-ball by games in way that is completely fair, so all systems are ultimately flawed.