Why is the APA so frowned upon?

rjb1168 said:
sandbaggers and slop pool, not crazy about APA 8 ball but I do enjoy APA 9 Ball
Click to expand...

I also like the APA structure for 9ball.. We do not have an APA Masters around my area though, so APA is our for most of my immediate friends and myself.... :mad: (poor local LO)..

Rain-Man
 
brophog said:
The APA, nor other such leagues, are pyramid schemes. A pyramid scheme is by definition an unstable financial model due to the lack, or failing, of goods and services to be the principle revenue generators and instead relying on lower tiered members to be the principle funders. The term 'pyramid' comes from the binomial distribution model often used in such schemes, which generally looks like a pyramid in shape. This lack or failing of an exterior revenue model, combined with its distribution model, is what makes such schemes unstable. A pool league, like the APA, simply provides organizational services through its main office and franchisee systems to a customer base. This distribution system is not structured in a way contingent with such 'pyramid schemes' nor is any more reliant on new growth than any other franchisee based system. A good example of such a franchisee based system would be your average fast food restaurant chain.

The 23 rule does sometimes force teams to break up and it does sometimes lead to new members joining the league but it is also not a pyramid structure. Every player is on the same level of the structure (the customer level). The central fallacy to any argument that the 23 rule is a pyramid scheme is not by definition, however, but simply due to failed assumption that players will continue to improve, thus necessitating new teams formed by new players. (If only the secret to pool was playing one match a week!) In reality, the relative maximum skill level of a player is generally far less than the absolute maximum skill level of the system. Your average league player simply does not play enough, study enough, nor try hard enough to obtain such levels. Many players will not get beyond the low handicap levels because they never put in the time or energy to do so.

The reason the 23 rule can lead to new players joining is not by some attribute that only new players possess, but by the fact the participants are more inclined to actually go look for players. New players are often the most dangerous in such a structure because you don't know how good they are. Unless the entire league is above average, the lower level players will often not be new players at all, as new players enter the system with a higher than minimal handicap. Teams in search of specific handicaps would be far more successful finding others established in the system that have that particular handicap than attempt to find new players whom may or may not resemble that handicap for any significant length of time.

The 23 rule is an attempt to answer a question that challenges a lot of activities; how to merge participants of different abilities and time intervals. The video game industry often describes this as managing 'hardcore' and 'casual' players. How do you build systems that reward and maintain participation between groups of players with wildly divergent needs? Some players may play 16 hours per day, and others 16 hours per month. Other rec activities have similar problems. A basketball league may need to combine players with wildly divergent heights and experience levels. This is a big, big challenge and often the solution is not to merge them at all. Perhaps the basketball leagues may be separated by players who are 6 feet and over/under or those that played at a certain level. The video game company may need to make games only for players who only have time to play a game for a certain time, and be willing to discard segments of the player base that do not fit that particular design.

The question, then, is to examine if a particular structure, however flawed (and attempts such as the 23 rule certainly have their flaws), is right for the particular target base. Should we attempt to form homogenous groups, or attempt solutions that allow the group as a whole to compete together? Neither has universally desirable traits, and often results in the alienation of a specific segment of the player base. When available, the best overall strategy is to provide many different structures to the same group. From the viewpoint of a room owner, this would not therefore be a question of if you wanted one league vs another, but rather in hosting a variety of different leagues with different structures.
Click to expand...

Outstanding analysis.
 
A good post but

1) It doesn't occasionally happen in 9 ball.. it happens a lot in my area. Which is a turn off for me. Part of leagues is hanging out with my friends. I tend to stay on the same teams for years. This just isn't possible especially with the 23 rule.

2) The 23 rule should moved up for 9 ball to at least to 25. It doesn't make sense that it's the same in 8 ball but your highest handy cap is only a 7 where as 9 ball it's 9. They will never increase it though because THAT IS THERE BUSINESS MODEL. keep forcing teams to break up so you can create new teams. I like taps model a little better but there in york unfortunately. A friend who has a large tap league north of where I live swears to me that he steal apa team all the time without trying. He puts more money back in the league , The number is intentionally higher because they want teams to stay together (which I think is more important to people then you think.) and they play to goto vegas twice a year not to mention they have large regional events that at least our apa leagues do not.

brophog said:
The APA, nor other such leagues, are pyramid schemes. A pyramid scheme is by definition an unstable financial model due to the lack, or failing, of goods and services to be the principle revenue generators and instead relying on lower tiered members to be the principle funders. The term 'pyramid' comes from the binomial distribution model often used in such schemes, which generally looks like a pyramid in shape. This lack or failing of an exterior revenue model, combined with its distribution model, is what makes such schemes unstable. A pool league, like the APA, simply provides organizational services through its main office and franchisee systems to a customer base. This distribution system is not structured in a way contingent with such 'pyramid schemes' nor is any more reliant on new growth than any other franchisee based system. A good example of such a franchisee based system would be your average fast food restaurant chain.

The 23 rule does sometimes force teams to break up and it does sometimes lead to new members joining the league but it is also not a pyramid structure. Every player is on the same level of the structure (the customer level). The central fallacy to any argument that the 23 rule is a pyramid scheme is not by definition, however, but simply due to failed assumption that players will continue to improve, thus necessitating new teams formed by new players. (If only the secret to pool was playing one match a week!) In reality, the relative maximum skill level of a player is generally far less than the absolute maximum skill level of the system. Your average league player simply does not play enough, study enough, nor try hard enough to obtain such levels. Many players will not get beyond the low handicap levels because they never put in the time or energy to do so.

The reason the 23 rule can lead to new players joining is not by some attribute that only new players possess, but by the fact the participants are more inclined to actually go look for players. New players are often the most dangerous in such a structure because you don't know how good they are. Unless the entire league is above average, the lower level players will often not be new players at all, as new players enter the system with a higher than minimal handicap. Teams in search of specific handicaps would be far more successful finding others established in the system that have that particular handicap than attempt to find new players whom may or may not resemble that handicap for any significant length of time.

The 23 rule is an attempt to answer a question that challenges a lot of activities; how to merge participants of different abilities and time intervals. The video game industry often describes this as managing 'hardcore' and 'casual' players. How do you build systems that reward and maintain participation between groups of players with wildly divergent needs? Some players may play 16 hours per day, and others 16 hours per month. Other rec activities have similar problems. A basketball league may need to combine players with wildly divergent heights and experience levels. This is a big, big challenge and often the solution is not to merge them at all. Perhaps the basketball leagues may be separated by players who are 6 feet and over/under or those that played at a certain level. The video game company may need to make games only for players who only have time to play a game for a certain time, and be willing to discard segments of the player base that do not fit that particular design.

The question, then, is to examine if a particular structure, however flawed (and attempts such as the 23 rule certainly have their flaws), is right for the particular target base. Should we attempt to form homogenous groups, or attempt solutions that allow the group as a whole to compete together? Neither has universally desirable traits, and often results in the alienation of a specific segment of the player base. When available, the best overall strategy is to provide many different structures to the same group. From the viewpoint of a room owner, this would not therefore be a question of if you wanted one league vs another, but rather in hosting a variety of different leagues with different structures.
Click to expand...
 
trob said:
A good post but

1) It doesn't occasionally happen in 9 ball.. it happens a lot in my area. Which is a turn off for me. Part of leagues is hanging out with my friends. I tend to stay on the same teams for years. This just isn't possible especially with the 23 rule.

2) The 23 rule should moved up for 9 ball to at least to 25. It doesn't make sense that it's the same in 8 ball but your highest handy cap is only a 7 where as 9 ball it's 9. They will never increase it though because THAT IS THERE BUSINESS MODEL. keep forcing teams to break up so you can create new teams. I like taps model a little better but there in york unfortunately. A friend who has a large tap league north of where I live swears to me that he steal apa team all the time without trying. He puts more money back in the league , The number is intentionally higher because they want teams to stay together (which I think is more important to people then you think.) and they play to goto vegas twice a year not to mention they have large regional events that at least our apa leagues do not.
Click to expand...

I think 24 or 25 would be fitting but would allow a second strong shooter to play in some instances. I would go with 24 for sure, i am also not against 25.
 
rjb1168 said:
I think 24 or 25 would be fitting but would allow a second strong shooter to play in some instances. I would go with 24 for sure, i am also not against 25.
Click to expand...

It's just common sense to me if 8 ball is 23 with a max handy cap being 7 that 9 ball should be a little higher when your max handy cap is 9 lol
 
I know in my area, Denton, Texas you have the WORST league operator known to the world. PPL go to the extremes to show him, have a look see lol. Local APA players back window on his car.


IMAG0130.jpg

IMAG0131.jpg
 
apa does not care when teams lose matches on purpose. i recently played in a masters playoffs where our opponents did exactly that to go to the losers side where it was easier to win a trip to vegas (which they did win) league operators were talked to and aware of it when it was happening, and apa corporate did not care when they were told about it.
 
RazaXML said:
apa does not care when teams lose matches on purpose. i recently played in a masters playoffs where our opponents did exactly that to go to the losers side where it was easier to win a trip to vegas (which they did win) league operators were talked to and aware of it when it was happening, and apa corporate did not care when they were told about it.
Click to expand...

In what world is it ever easier to win from the losers bracket? That isn't how double elimination tourneys work. If the team did what you say, it was a stupid gamble, not cheating. Maybe this is why nobody did anything about it.
 
RazaXML said:
apa does not care when teams lose matches on purpose. i recently played in a masters playoffs where our opponents did exactly that to go to the losers side where it was easier to win a trip to vegas (which they did win) league operators were talked to and aware of it when it was happening, and apa corporate did not care when they were told about it.
Click to expand...
You brought this out of the way back machine to complain about losing on purpose 🤣

I thought I'd seen it all ...
 
DeeDeeCues said:
In what world is it ever easier to win from the losers bracket? That isn't how double elimination tourneys work. If the team did what you say, it was a stupid gamble, not cheating. Maybe this is why nobody did anything about it.
Click to expand...
the world is one where apa organizes tournaments. it wasn't true doub elim. in the winners bracket final it was all or nothing. the loser is out and does not get a chance in the losers bracket. so nobody wanted to play the team that was stacked with 3 players over 650 fargo. they wanted to go to the losers bracket where there was also a trip to vegas that was way easier to win (one on the winners side and one on the losers side). on the winners side it was an almost guaranteed loss against the stacked team...

my team (who was the second best team in the entire league other than the stacked team) got to be the lucky "winners" to get to the final of the winners bracket because nobody wanted to be there. even though our team is good it was really no match. fargo stats put us at about a 9 percent chance of winning. so we only had one loss and then out of the tournament. every other team got to take a loss and go to the losers bracket but us.

It was by far the dumbest playoffs I've ever played in.

I should add the team that dumped on us did in fact go on to win the trip to vegas on the losers bracket. so yeah
 
Last edited:
RazaXML said:
the world is one where apa organizes tournaments. it wasn't true doub elim. in the winners bracket final it was all or nothing. the loser is out and does not get a chance in the losers bracket. so nobody wanted to play the team that was stacked with 3 players over 650 fargo. they wanted to go to the losers bracket where there was also a trip to vegas that was way easier to win (one on the winners side and one on the losers side). on the winners side it was an almost guaranteed loss against the stacked team...

my team (who was the second best team in the entire league other than the stacked team) got to be the lucky "winners" to get to the final of the winners bracket because nobody wanted to be there. even though our team is good it was really no match. fargo stats put us at about a 9 percent chance of winning. so we only had one loss and then out of the tournament. every other team got to take a loss and go to the losers bracket but us.

It was by far the dumbest playoffs I've ever played in.

I should add the team that dumped on us did in fact go on to win the trip to vegas on the losers bracket. so yeah
Click to expand...
Now you know what to do for next time 🤣
That is dumb.
Take advantage where you can.
 
I played in the APA for a few years when I was just learning, it was great then what I didn't notice is the team always had to change a couple of players, after a while I learned it was because of skill levels, as you go up in skill level it's YOUR job to find new players with low skill levels, finding new players in small markets is not easy, so sandbagging by taking a lot of "innings" and just barely winning is rampant, you put together a team for a few years and then eventually it has to be broken up due to skill level, it helped me alot when I first started but there is just not enough young people interested in the sport to keep adding players, there are some new leagues I would like to join but none of them anywhere close to where I live.
 
SSP said:
I played in the APA for a few years when I was just learning, it was great then what I didn't notice is the team always had to change a couple of players, after a while I learned it was because of skill levels, as you go up in skill level it's YOUR job to find new players with low skill levels, finding new players in small markets is not easy, so sandbagging by taking a lot of "innings" and just barely winning is rampant, you put together a team for a few years and then eventually it has to be broken up due to skill level, it helped me alot when I first started but there is just not enough young people interested in the sport to keep adding players, there are some new leagues I would like to join but none of them anywhere close to where I live.
Click to expand...

No USA or BCA pool leagues in your area?
 
David in FL said:
No USA or BCA pool leagues in your area?
Click to expand...
I wish, the only league we have is an amusement company league, here is the scoring, each ball counts as 1 point and 3 for the 8, a break and run and you win 10 to 0, 8 on the break is 10 to 0 win, there is a run back rule, you have to worry about scoring points, I definitely play different under these rules, it's all we got......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top