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

[BJTyler]

agree

I kind of agree with both of you...so I would modify the ELO method (as I described above) as follows:

1) All matches would be races to 1 with a coin flip for the break. This would give the lesser skilled player the best chance at winning.

2) The order of play would be determined by ranking your team and playing all matches in order of skill. This would minimize the discrepancy between skill levels.

Regarding the APA/Equalizer. I play it and enjoy it along with 250k (give or take) other people, so they are CLEARLY doing something right. However, their success could either be due to or in spite of their handicapping system. Regardless, there's probably room for improvement. I for one would like to see a way to:

a) eliminate the 23 rule; it has unfortunately lead to many of my friends quitting teams (or getting booted) as their handicaps rise.
b) eliminate the cap (and implicitly the floor) on skill levels.

Finally, as for sandbagging, although I'm sure it exists, I personally have not been witness to many instances. The reality is that the stakes are typically low enough that it is not worth most people's time.

 

[tomker]

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 golf/bowling, when they have nothing to do with each other. You say "Great idea" followed by something unrelated that you were trying to do.

It can't be interpreted different ways. Only if you didn't follow what I was saying.

 

[railbird99]

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

That's the point. You can't say that, either way, with any certainty.

I was merely saying the APA system works well for its intended purpose, and in no way stated that the APA's system is better than a possible ELO system.

You, on the other hand, were stating as fact, that the ELO system would be better, which is something you can't possibly prove, especially since you are failing to take all factors into consideration.

The burden of proof is on you, if you want to insinuate that the ELO system would be better.

 

[railbird99]

It can't be interpreted different ways. Only if you didn't follow what I was saying.

I already said I didn't follow what you were saying, which is pretty clear since it can be interpreted different ways...

Kind of like the countless times you chose to interpret what I was saying one way, even when I made it abundantly clear what I was trying to say.

 

[tomker]

I kind of agree with both of you...so I would modify the ELO method (as I described above) as follows:

1) All matches would be races to 1 with a coin flip for the break. This would give the lesser skilled player the best chance at winning.

2) The order of play would be determined by ranking your team and playing all matches in order of skill.

I have thought about league nights with 1-game matches but I think they'd have a very different feel than APA league nights.

My understanding of APA is that it hinges on the excitement of individuals beating other individuals. I assume this is why the APA is the most popular league.

If we are discussing hypothetical improvements to the APA, I think the rating system could be changed to an Elo-like system behind-the-scenes without impacting actual rating numbers or the match format.

If the ratings were based on wins and losses (and not innings-per-win as many people assume they are now) then it would avoid situations where people have certain ratings but they are constantly winning or losing at those ratings. I think we all know of cases where e.g. somebody moves up a rating and then loses almost every match of a session before they move back down, or vice versa. This situations are frustrating and (in my opinion) unnecessary.

 

[BJTyler]

I have thought about league nights with 1-game matches but I think they'd have a very different feel than APA league nights.

My understanding of APA is that it hinges on the excitement of individuals beating other individuals. I assume this is why the APA is the most popular league.

If we are discussing hypothetical improvements to the APA, I think the rating system could be changed to an Elo-like system behind-the-scenes without impacting actual rating numbers or the match format.

If the ratings were based on wins and losses (and not innings-per-win as many people assume they are now) then it would avoid situations where people have certain ratings but they are constantly winning or losing at those ratings. I think we all know of cases where e.g. somebody moves up a rating and then loses almost every match of a session before they move back down, or vice versa. This situations are frustrating and (in my opinion) unnecessary.

I understand what you are saying. However, my main criticism of the Equalizer is the capping of skill levels at 7 for an individual (8 ball) and 23 for a team. This causes huge inequities among the best players and forces teams to disband as handicaps rise, which in turn incentivizes people to keep their handicaps low by not improving or even worse sandbagging.

Unfortunately simply changing Equalizer's back end to an ELO system while keeping everything else the same, does not address these issues. Although I grant you that it would most certainly simplify the record keeping and make the system more transparent if not equitable.

 

[railbird99]

I have thought about league nights with 1-game matches but I think they'd have a very different feel than APA league nights.

My understanding of APA is that it hinges on the excitement of individuals beating other individuals. I assume this is why the APA is the most popular league.

I'd love to hear an explanation as to how you arrived at the assumption that a single factor is the sole reason the APA is the most popular league.

You're right that 1-game matches would have a very different feel than APA matches, but you're going to have to elaborate on what you mean by "the excitement of individuals beating other individuals", because even though the lower player will presumably have less of a chance to win in an even 1-game match, you will still have upsets and excitement of "individuals beating other individuals".

If we are discussing hypothetical improvements to the APA, I think the rating system could be changed to an Elo-like system behind-the-scenes without impacting actual rating numbers or the match format.

You still refuse to look at the whole picture, and consider everything the fundamental differences of the ELO-system could impact, before formulating an opinion. It's like talking to a brick wall.

If the ratings were based on wins and losses (and not innings-per-win as many people assume they are now) then it would avoid situations where people have certain ratings but they are constantly winning or losing at those ratings. I think we all know of cases where e.g. somebody moves up a rating and then loses almost every match of a session before they move back down, or vice versa. This situations are frustrating and (in my opinion) unnecessary.

This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

it would avoid situations where people have certain ratings but they are constantly winning or losing at those ratings

Wow, really?

You're proposing they keep the same SL numbers, but they will be based on a range of ELO numbers instead. Somehow that means people won't move up and down in ratings the same way from winning and losing?

So winning and losing won't change your ELO rating, and if it did, it wouldn't possibly change your SL? That's neat.

 

[railbird99]

I understand what you are saying. However, my main criticism of the Equalizer is the capping of skill levels at 7 for an individual (8 ball) and 23 for a team. This causes huge inequities among the best players and forces teams to disband as handicaps rise, which in turn incentivizes people to keep their handicaps low by not improving or even worse sandbagging.

Unfortunately simply changing Equalizer's back end to an ELO system while keeping everything else the same, does not address these issues. Although I grant you that it would most certainly simplify the record keeping and make the system more transparent if not equitable.

Finally, some common sense.

 

[tomker]

I'd love to hear an explanation as to how you arrived at the assumption that a single factor is the sole reason the APA is the most popular league.

You're right that 1-game matches would have a very different feel than APA matches, but you're going to have to elaborate on what you mean by "the excitement of individuals beating other individuals", because even though the lower player will presumably have less of a chance to win in an even 1-game match, you will still have upsets and excitement of "individuals beating other individuals".

Are you kidding me? Have you ever played an APA match? Maybe somebody's losing a match but then over the course of several games and the better part of an hour they manage to battle back and win the match for an exciting finish and a big swing in the team's score and everybody was on the edge of their seats for half an hour and has a great story to tell at the bar when ordering the next pitcher of beer? How is that NOT more exciting than one person playing one game against one other person?

No human can possibly be this dense and it has just now dawned on me that you must be trolling. Golf clap, troll successful, you've infuriated me. Mission accomplished and I'm going to figure out how the 'ban' feature works now.

 

[tomker]

I understand what you are saying. However, my main criticism of the Equalizer is the capping of skill levels at 7 for an individual (8 ball) and 23 for a team. This causes huge inequities among the best players and forces teams to disband as handicaps rise, which in turn incentivizes people to keep their handicaps low by not improving or even worse sandbagging.

Those aspects of the system are a bummer but it's hard to imagine a similar league format without similar problems.

People are going to get better with experience and you have to have some kind of skill cap on teams for practical reasons--it would be unfair to have teams just stacked with all the best 7s. And, the fact that teams eventually get top heavy and have to split up sucks for those particular teams but ultimately it's good for the league--it forces people to bring new players into the league, with all the benefits that entails.

I don't know if there are any changes to the rating system that the APA could make to address these problems.

It is an interesting thought experiment to try to think of a league format that keeps all the advantages of the APA format and addresses the disadvantages. The people at Fargo Billiards seem to have it figured out pretty well but I don't have any first-hand experience there and I don't know anybody who does. It sounds great from their web site though.

 

[railbird99]

Are you kidding me? Have you ever played an APA match? Maybe somebody's losing a match but then over the course of several games and the better part of an hour they manage to battle back and win the match for an exciting finish and a big swing in the team's score and everybody was on the edge of their seats for half an hour and has a great story to tell at the bar when ordering the next pitcher of beer? How is that NOT more exciting than one person playing one game against one other person?

No human can possibly be this dense and it has just now dawned on me that you must be trolling. Golf clap, troll successful, you've infuriated me. Mission accomplished and I'm going to figure out how the 'ban' feature works now.

I simply said that you needed to elaborate on what you meant by "the excitement of individuals beating other individuals" because clearly both formats will still have that, whether it's different or not.

The fact that you are calling me dense and acting like I'm being nitpicky is laughable, after all the times you have argued over semantics and put every single word I used under scrutiny.

Calm down.

 

[Banks]

I simply said that you needed to elaborate on what you meant by "the excitement of individuals beating other individuals" because clearly both formats will still have that, whether it's different or not.

The fact that you are calling me dense and acting like I'm being nitpicky is laughable, after all the times you have argued over semantics and put every single word I used under scrutiny.

Calm down.

Single game format would be no fun for most lower players. That's why a 2 or 3 can get 1 point for winning a game in the new format against almost every other player. Matches can be fought out. Imagine a boxing contest that was one round.

 

[leto1776]

I understand what you are saying. However, my main criticism of the Equalizer is the capping of skill levels at 7 for an individual (8 ball) and 23 for a team. This causes huge inequities among the best players and forces teams to disband as handicaps rise, which in turn incentivizes people to keep their handicaps low by not improving or even worse sandbagging.

Unfortunately simply changing Equalizer's back end to an ELO system while keeping everything else the same, does not address these issues. Although I grant you that it would most certainly simplify the record keeping and make the system more transparent if not equitable.

Imagine you take away the cap. In my division, there are several teams out of one club, each with high level players. If the club president had his way, his team would be stacked with the strongest players. It'd be the APA equivalent of the Yankees around here. Stuff like that kills competition, and everyone else would quit. No one wants to pay all that money, and play all those matches, to have no chance and see the same results every session.

 

[leto1776]

Single game format would be no fun for most lower players. That's why a 2 or 3 can get 1 point for winning a game in the new format against almost every other player. Matches can be fought out. Imagine a boxing contest that was one round.

Single game format does, indeed, suck. You wait a few hours to play one game, pay your dues, and go home? No thanks.

 

[railbird99]

Single game format would be no fun for most lower players. That's why a 2 or 3 can get 1 point for winning a game in the new format against almost every other player. Matches can be fought out. Imagine a boxing contest that was one round.

I never said 1 game formats would be ideal. It wasn't my idea. I completely agree with and understand why 1 game matches wouldn't be great.

It just wasn't clear what exactly tomker was trying to say, given the vague way he worded it, that's all.

 

[mikepage]

[...]
It is an interesting thought experiment to try to think of a league format that keeps all the advantages of the APA format and addresses the disadvantages. The people at Fargo Billiards seem to have it figured out pretty well but I don't have any first-hand experience there and I don't know anybody who does. It sounds great from their web site though.

This in-house league has grown at a steady but not stellar rate over the last five years--about 15% annually.. 30 teams, then 36, 41, 47, and 50 teams this year.

We have three unhandicapped divisions with four-player teams.

ADVANCED (18 teams) has a Fargo Rating cap of 2100. This is about like 4 6's in the APA, or perhaps 7,7,6,5 if they are weak 7's.

INTERMEDIATE (24 teams) has a cap of 1800. This is probably closest to a legitimate APA 23 team speed --Perhaps 5,5,4,4 or maybe 5,5,5,4 or 6,5,4,4 at the top

FUN (8 teams) has a cap of 1400--maybe 4,4,3,3 at the top in APA lingo.

Advanced has stayed at about the same size, mostly because there are only so many sufficiently-rated players in town. Intermediate has shown the most growth--partly people coming from other league systems and partly FUN players moving up. The FUN division used to be 5 or 6 teams, and now it's been 8 to 10 teams. We are disappointed this hasn't shown better growth.

Teams must play under the rating cap. But players on a roster may use the lower of the current rating and the beginning-of-league-season rating to meet this requirement. So nobody needs to break up during the year. Each year a few teams end the year above the cap, say at 2140. Those teams generally need to switch out one player to make a team the next season.

I think if I polled the top 50 players in this league, the very strong consensus would be that sandbagging doesn't happen.

 

[tomker]

...
Advanced has stayed at about the same size, mostly because there are only so many sufficiently-rated players in town. Intermediate has shown the most growth--partly people coming from other league systems and partly FUN players moving up. The FUN division used to be 5 or 6 teams, and now it's been 8 to 10 teams. We are disappointed this hasn't shown better growth.
...

I suspect one aspect of the APA's popularity for new players is the opportunity to play on a team with much better players. There's a certain "hero worship" factor, plus the benefit of being able to get time-outs from a 6/7, and also being able to watch stronger players play matches against each other. Oh, and the occasional opportunity to take down one of the stronger players in a match.

I imagine you've thought of this already though and I can't think of a way to incorporate this into your system.