PDA

View Full Version : P&B Rated Player International



09-12-2002, 01:11 PM
Has anyone looked at this?
http://www.poolmag.com/player/
I stumbled on it a couple of weeks ago, and found it interesting. Since then I've tried several sets using P&Bs rules and compared my results to their chart. I would be interested to know how others feel about the ratings chart... does it seem accurate? How does it compare to other rating systems (BCA/APA/TAP handicaps, Arizona rating system, etc.)?

Personally, I would be interested to know how others score as well.

Karla

9 Ball Girl
09-12-2002, 01:32 PM
Hi Karla. I read the same thing too and I'll probably give it a try this weekend with Naz if he's up for the challenge. I'll let you know how it works out if you don't do it first!

Vicki
09-12-2002, 01:58 PM
I just printed off the rules and a score sheet. I plan to share this with some friends next week when we get together. I saw that members will be able to submit their scores and those scores will be avialable for us to compare ourselves to others. Pretty cool if you don't mind paying $15.95 to be a member. I'll be following along and to get everyone's input on this. Allen Hopkins has a similar system for determining skill level.

<a target="_blank" href=http://www.nmt.edu/~billiard/qskills_scorecard.html>http://www.nmt.edu/~billiard/qskills_scorecard.html</a>

Might be fun to compare the two systems and see if one is better than the other.

Vicki &lt;--- making those nickles scream

Rod
09-12-2002, 02:35 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote: Karla_in_IA:</font><hr> Has anyone looked at this?
<a target="_blank" href=http://www.poolmag.com/player/>http://www.poolmag.com/player/</a>
I stumbled on it a couple of weeks ago, and found it interesting. Since then I've tried several sets using P&amp;Bs rules and compared my results to their chart. I would be interested to know how others feel about the ratings chart... does it seem accurate? How does it compare to other rating systems (BCA/APA/TAP handicaps, Arizona rating system, etc.)?

Personally, I would be interested to know how others score as well.

Karla <hr></blockquote>


Karla,
I live in AZ, and I only see a vague comparison. The problem I see it would make a person look like they play better than they actually do. The rating is a little simplified if you ask me and is not a good test. A large group of people would fall into the class C and B category.
If you took those same players in a heads up match playing real 9 ball the outcome would show they do not play at the same level. Shooting off 9 balls in any order is not a difficult task as I'm sure you found out. The break could be the critical factor from a B to an A or C to B not necessarily the ability. It just looks to simplified.IMO

I like Hopkins Q Skill test or Olympic 9 ball or even better Fargo at playpool.com. The latter is 15 balls and you choose when you want to switch to rotation. Those type of tests will separate the players much better. The biggest reason is they all are played in rotation at some point. Olympic 9 ball is played in rotation from the start. I think 99 was made to be a quick and easy test, if you will, to keep people interested.

Ken
09-12-2002, 03:03 PM
Rod, The rules say "the first ball contacted by the cue ball must be the lowest numbered ball on the table". So how do you get to shoot "off 9 balls in any order"? Fargo is any order, but 99 seems to be 9 ball.

The player classification system is certainly wierd. Apparently if you can average about 4 balls with ball in hand you are an "A" player. Presumably you will make the one most of the time and even one or more on the break. Make about 5 balls and you are a pro but you won't win many tournaments, pro or amateur, with that level of skill.
KenCT

Rod
09-12-2002, 04:02 PM
oops, yeh I read that wrong. Ken leave it to me being a stickler about the rules to foul that one up. Yes the classification is a little strange. It still suggests that people play better than their ability. I'd have to check the Olympic Nine ball rules, but the way I played that was any early nine was spotted. The racking order might play into this to a degree, it's hard to say. Sorry about the mistake.

socrates
09-12-2002, 08:17 PM
I am familar with Alan Hopkins full rack Q-Skill and 99. About the time 99 came out I had just completed rules for a q-skill game specifically for nine ball. I liked Alan's Q-Skill full rack game and rating system so my rules were also based on a twenty-point scoring system and used his skill ratings.

I have seen a couple of posters mention Olympic 9 ball. Can anyone provide a site with the rules. I would like to compare it with my 9-ball Q-Skill rules and 99.

Thanks in advance for your help.

Rod
09-12-2002, 09:32 PM
I'm sure Fred Agnir can provide you with a link. I'd print the rules but I wouldn't want to make a mistake. The way I play the Nine spots. I think in the original game you get nine points for an early nine and 10 points if you run out.

09-12-2002, 11:34 PM
IMHO, P&amp;B's "99" is terribly flawed. IF I understand correctly, Break, make a ball (2-points) Then, take ball in hand on the 1 ball or lowest ball and not worry about numerical order (?) Well it gets pretty simple now... since when the 9 ball is pocketed any time you automatically get 9- points and re-rack. Make the 1 ball (1 point) play shape for the nine ball and pocket the 9--ball and you have maxed out your points for an inning, so it 's time to re-rack.
That is not a somewhat inflated rating, that is ludicrous! There's gonna be alot of players nation wide with a false sense of ability. Q-skill definately has more of a challenge to it. According to "99" I should be a hall of fame nominee, and I know that's not the case /ccboard/images/icons/laugh.gif

Rod
09-13-2002, 12:39 AM
Scott, I made a mistake it is in rotation. It still is not a real good test though. As was mentioned an A amature is easy as an average.

09-13-2002, 12:44 AM
Hi Rod, it should be rotation but, in print @ P&amp;B, it says in any order as long as the first shot after the break is the lowest #ed ball.

Rod
09-13-2002, 02:12 AM
Scott, not quite I read it as you did and figured there will be a lot of new pros out there. Here is what is says,

On "each" shot, except the break, "the first ball" contacted by the cue ball must be the "lowest numbered ball on the table", but the balls need not be pocketed in order.

By not any order they mean combinations. But on each shot it has to be the lowest numbered ball. Well let me say this, why in the heck didn't they just say play them in rotation, then add the specifics. Well I am going to try this game after a little warm up and become a class B Pro or at least a class C. I sure can think of a bunch of class B pros I wouldn't want any part of for the doe. Well if the weight was right. Class B IMO in the real world, is out of the top 100 as a number. I don't like my chances!

Ludba
09-13-2002, 05:10 AM
I would agree with the complaint made that the scoring system is too easy or inflated. You could do just as well (or better) keeping track of your runs in eleven racks of actual nine ball games.

The ball in hand rule after the break is a little odd to me, especially since the beginning game in nine ball or eight-ball is what separates the wheat from the chaff. The rule makes cue ball position off of the break worthless and the break shot itself almost meaningless. It seems to me that "99" reduces pool skill rating down to shot making ability and running out. From my limited experience, that is only a fraction of actual play.

The problem is that the more subtle aspects of playing, e.g. safeties, tactics in no-shot situations, breaking out balls etc. are very difficult to measure in terms of skill level.

I appreciate Pool and Billiard International's efforts to establish some kind of rating system, but the danger here is in reducing the game down so much that it misses the complexity of pool. The perspective of the person(s) who created this system seems to be that of novice players, who assume that to be good at pool all you have to do is make all the shots in the pockets. It's more complicated than that.

Also, I don't know how well recognized P&amp;B International is in the pool community, but in order to establish a standard like this, you need a lot of support even for a great idea. The Golf handicap (P&amp;B listed the advantages of Golf's handicap and bowling averages as a parallel to the advantages of "99"'s ranking system) is already set up. This system would take some time and effort to implement before it could be very meaningful. This is probably a good task for a large, central organization like BCA or APA. Unfortunately, pool is characteristically UN-centralized and rife with organizations(WPBA, IBC, WPA, et al) trying to fill the various needs of amateur and professional pool players. Some of these problems will dissipate as pool gains more exposure (read: television exposure), but some tensions will get worse.

The deal is: pool players do need an objective way to measure progress and skill, but until its governing organizations achieve some kind of unity, that is not likely to happen

Rod
09-15-2002, 02:04 PM
Karla,
I tried this last night. I just remembered it at the very end of practice. At the end of the 7th rack my score was 71. I knew I needed to leave so I checked the time. I played the 8th rack, made 3 on the break and run out. At 83 after the 8th I can only guess what my finishing score would have been had I played the 9th rack. I'm not class A pro.

I realize the results will vary and next time it might be a 75 at the very lowest, I imagine, or an 85. I think it is useful to track ones progress but the problem is, it is all offense. In a real game situation that won't apply as I'm sure you know.

I still think Fargo is the best test as far as games go because only you can decide when to run the balls in rotation based on your ability. Of course the granddaddy of them all has to be 14-1 to chart progress. I also think if a person really likes a particular game or test over another then that is what they should play. What ever keeps our interest is a good thing.