Charity Cup Format

[H]

Obviously this is something to bring up at the AGM at the end of the year, but I thought I would get a discussion going on here anyway just to see what others think.

Personally I very much enjoyed the format of the charity cup match last night, but a couple of my players have expressed a concern with two things.

Firstly, you need a minimum of four players, but there are only three singles games meaning one member of the team is, sort of, left out. I didn't really have a problem with this, but I can see how it might leave one person feeling like they have had a bit of a wasted evening.

Secondly, and this is something I do agree with, the handicaps are not nearly high enough. I like the system, but I do think perhaps the figures for B-G players should maybe be a little higher (obviously A players would still get 0). Playing last night, I didn't feel the handicaps had any affect on the games, and they should. I know, having played in the Brighton Summer League, that the top players have handicaps of up to 8000, whereas in Mid-Sussex the most you can be down at the start of a game is about 3500. Alternatively more handicap bands could be introduced.

Just some thoughts, apologies if any of this has been discussed before I am just speaking on behalf of my team from the feedback I got last night. We had a very enjoyable evening and nothing is a complaint, just some thoughts on how the format could be better.

All the best

H

[BB Warrior]

Interesting to hear a viewpoint from "outside" the usual Mid-Sussex stalwarts on the subject...... and some valid points I feel.

But, your judgement of the system is only based on 1 match...... played at the venue of the highest scoring table - with 2 of the highest scoring players currently in Mid-Sussex obviously both on form last night!

Having played in the Brighton Summer League this year, it was nice to be able to compare their system to ours..... and the top players there (SirKT & Nigel) do have to give a start of up to 8k to their opponents.

But, BB Reaper had a handicap of about 3750 in Brighton...... so not much different to the 3450 that he would have had to give to an H Rated player at Hurst Club. Although, I would say that the Hurst Table is as good as most in Brighton, which does help the better players.

Traditionally, the Handicap system in it's current format has worked very well in Mid-Sussex as the starting point (H Rate) is based on the actual average score on each of the individual tables concerned - with the exception of new teams, who are given a starting point in the middle.

The success of the Handicap system was proved last year, when the two teams that finished bottom of Division 1 reached the Final of the Charity Cup.......!!

I do however think that possibly the handicaps should be based more on the individual players averages, rather than necessarily just banding them into groups and, possibly, this could be extended to the Home Team players being graded on the actual average they achieved on their own tables and away players graded based on the average score by away players at that table.

More complicated than the existing system, but it would be possible.

I will be interested to hear the thoughts of your team after you have played a few more Charity matches...... you may decide that giving a 2k plus start to some players on other tables is more than enough.....!! ;D

[Chunky Monkey]

Sept 30, 2008 17:49:40 GMT BB Warrior said:

I will be interested to hear the thoughts of your team after you have played a few more Charity matches...... you may decide that giving a 2k plus start to some players on other tables is more than enough.....!! ;D

On some of the tables it is painful being 500 down >:( ;D ;D

[Sparky]

I rarely get involved in such discussions now-a-days but think your intentions are admirable and hope some good ideas come from it. Some thoughts for you......

I reckon that the 5 games format was decided on as being the same amount of time as used on 5 game league nights which fitted the 'old' pub closing times, and some people would still not want to stay later as they have to get up early the next morning, like me :(

The competition was not based on 4 player teams and many turn up with more, I played for some years with a team that usually had 7 or even 8 players, probably as the social side was good, so extra singles games is difficult to fit in.......'one more' as suggested is probably OK but then the same argument applies to the other players that don't get a 'singles' game.

The handicap question is more difficult to resolve and will never satisfy everyone. To me the rising standard at the top of our league is starting to make the existing system seem in need of overhaul, although when I started there where quite a few players capable of 10k and over the years that dropped away but has now started to come back. Incidentally for quite a few years the handicaps gave us many close games being decided on the last few balls but even that didn't satisfy some people.

In short I would personally accept 6 game matches with a review of the handicaps, but would expect resistance from some others.

edit: 2 quick draw merchants got in while I was typing up ;D ;D ;D

Good points from H, and a good answer on the handicaps front from the Warrior.

My view shouldn't count on this as my team aren't participating this year, but I will give my 'vote' as we discussed these very points earlier.

I would favour an even simpler handicapping system than the Warrior's - purely based on individual final averages from the previous season. That is to say if player A's was 3560 and player B's 2470, then player B is given a start of (3560-2470) = 1090.

And yes, H, no one has been able to give me any good reason why it can't be 4 singles and 2 doubles - to avoid one player in a 4-person line-up being 'shunned'. Extra money for the charity too ! ;)

[bobhall]

i personally disagree with this as not only did hurst personally start of with not having any of the breaks on which is probably stated the best top in the mid sussex
but also they found the break bar one which is unfortonute

[H]

my comments on handicap were not at all based on kevin's performance one bit, more my own. with no disrespect to peter, and not bigging myself up, I felt he should have had a much bigger lead on me in order for the handicap to really make a difference!

[bobhall]

yer i can see where ur coming from but my father would not agree either as he knows he is capabable of winning on that top it just luck never came

[H]

Fair enough. But, I think every single game would still have gone the same way last night, with or without handicaps. Surely handicaps are there to tip the balance a little?

[BB Warrior]

I would agree with that comment entirely H, there is no point in having a handicap system if it doesn't make a difference! ;)

I also like the idea from Tommo that the handicaps should be based on the individual players average from the previous season......

Sept 30, 2008 18:10:05 GMT tommo III said:

I would favour an even simpler handicapping system than the Warrior's - purely based on individual final averages from the previous season. That is to say if player A's was 3560 and player B's 2470, then player B is given a start of (3560-2470) = 1090.

And yes, H, no one has been able to give me any good reason why it can't be 4 singles and 2 doubles - to avoid one player in a 4-person line-up being 'shunned'. Extra money for the charity too ! ;)

........although it could potentially penalise the players who have a good, high scoring home top (which increases their average) especially when they play on a lower scoring table.

However, as the away team in these matches, they would have the break, although (being cynical for a moment ::)) that might mean that the home team wouldn't want their table to be easy or to play well as that would "help" the visiting team...... >:(

I would support the idea of playing 4 singles and 2 doubles matches, why can't there be a draw in a close match? ???

Finally, and this is one thing that I really do not understand in the way the Charity Cup is set up at the moment.......... I think that if a player knocks the black peg over during the match, their score should return to zero - not back to his starting handicap.

Potentially, as the rules stand at present, we could have a situation where one player knocks the black peg over every time that they visit the table - but still win the match because of their starting handicap score! :o :o

How can that be right....?? >:( ???

[bigtj]

Handicaps are always going to be a bone of contention, because you are not going to please all of the people all of the time.
I do think that handicaps based on last seasons averages are the fairest and as Tommo pointsout in many ways the most uncomplicated. You are always going to get those tables where a high handicap player will be up against further as the table will not hold the scores required to haul back the deficit, but thats a fact of life and I do not feel you can change handicaps to suit different venues.

My other view on handicaps is that they should certainly give the weaker player a very good chance of beating their more illustriuos opponent, therefore I back H`S theory that the handicap should have a significant effect on the result.

[BB Warrior]

Having looked at the scores from the 2 Charity matches played so far this year, these would have been the scores had the handicaps been based on the individual players averages from last season.....

Hurst A v Laughing Fish
Roy (av 3694) 1380 (start 0) v Jim (av 2088) 6480 (start 1610)

Pete (av 3342) 4820 (start 2290) v Henry (av 5632) 11510 (start 0)

Rob (av 2425) & Sandra (av 2481) 7240 (start 0) v Jim (av 2088) & Andy (av 2193) 1410 (start 290)

Kev (av 4943) & Pete (av 3342) 13530 (start 690) v Henry (Av 5632) & Chris (av 1724) 4120 (start 0)

Kev (av 4943) 11750 (start 0) v Chris (av 1724) 3880 (start 3220)

Averages taken from Mid-Sussex for Roy, Pete, Rob & Kevin (Hurst), Brighton for Sandra and Lewes for Laughing Fish players.

Greyhound v Watermill B
Geoff (av 2018) 1390 (start 0) v Paul B (av 1198) 4430 (start 820)

Paul G (av 2759) 640 (start 0) v Tony (av 1444) 5380 (start 1320)

Geoff (av 2018) & Paul G (av 2759) 2440 (start 0) v Paul B (av 1198) & Martin (av 1172) 3630 (start 1560)

Hassan (av 670) & Jean (av 380) 1020 (start 560) v Sabina (av 1130) & Gavin (av 1227) 1220 (start 0)

Peter (av 3163) 8960 (start 0) v Nigel (av 632) 3900 (start 2530)

So, in both of these particular matches it wouldn't have made a difference to the result of any of the games.

[bobhall]

excatly dave and to be honest do i personally fancy playing a charity match at home with my opponents getting all the breaks on an easy top and giving them something stupid like a 4k handicap no thankyou.

Also with the way some off the laughing fish are capable of playing they are certainly capable of knocking up big scores, so to let the away team have the breaks and a huge advantage this would not be a charity match it would be a waste of missing eastenders.

But like i now feel if you dont capatalise on the situation when you have the chance then that is the way it goes, but as far as i have noticed the handicaps are fair and should stay the same.


Dont get me wrong if i was 4 k down on a handicap and they had the break and i came back to win i would be impressed and but too me on certain tops it is unlikely to happen.

But this is all i have to say on this discussion

[H]

One further point. If I go on, chasing about 5k, as opposed to the 400 or something I was down, I will feel a lot more pressured and this WILL affect how I play...that is something that should be thought about as well.

I don't see a great deal wrong in the handicap bands system that has been employed over the past 'x' number of seasons: It seems to have given the underdogs an even chance and some say it's success culminated earlier this year with the main league's bottom two teams making the Final and playing on Finals Night.

It should be remembered that part of the secret of success in this competition lies with the Captains' skilfull handling of the material at their disposal (ie picking horses for courses taking into account what table you're on, who is likely to be selected for singles and doubles by the other side, as well as the relevant handicaps).

So if you handicap the good players out of existence, all that will happen is that the captains will stop putting forward their best players to play, and use the lowly ones with the huge handicaps. Which will be great for those who don't normally get a game, but not so good for the regular players.

I say "if it ain't broke, why try to fix it ?". I agree with the Warrior though on his point about having the black peg over should lose the total score - for the very good reason he put forward.

[BB Warrior]

Very true H...... but the effect that having a bigger target to chase is very hard to quantify fairly....... I will just have to remember to try to get a 5k lead against you next time we play!! :P ;D ;D ;D

Certainly, at somewhere like the Hurst Club I would feel fairly confident that I could chase down a 5k starting deficit if I had the break....... but at some places I would feel that it would probably be unrealistic.

Given your own comments after your match last week..... would you feel that you could have won your game there starting 5k down? :-/

Traditionally, Mid-Sussex has had it's share of good players in the League, but (without meaning any offence to anybody!) it hasn't had the really "big-hitters" that play in Brighton, Horsham & Worthing Leagues who regularly hit 10k+ in many of their matches.

Although I do agree that the Handicap system does perhaps need to be reviewed with playing standards improving in Mid-Sussex, I also feel that possibly this topic has been prompted the high scores that we have seen in the first 2 weeks of the season....... with 3 scores already in the League that are higher than any scores in the previous 3 seasons. :o

So, possibly, we should review this subject later in the season to see if the higher scores continue to be made..... bearing in mind that many of the high scores made so far have also been made by players who will not be regularly playing in Mid-Sussex (SirKT, Nigel & BB Reaper) throughout the season. ;)

[Chunky Monkey]

I agree with Tommos comment 'If its not broken dont fix it' and Warriors Comment 'So, possibly, we should review this subject later in the season to see if the higher scores continue to be made..... bearing in mind that many of the high scores made so far have also been made by players who will not be regularly playing in Mid-Sussex (SirKT, Nigel & BB Reaper) throughout the season'.
It is something to keep an eye on and possibly change for next season, but like what also has been said it has only been two weeks into the season and only TWO charity matches have been played. Both of which have been on the higher standard tables.

[iang]

I don't know what Tommo & BBW are on but if they look closley the handicap bands ARE & have always been based on the players average from the previous season that's why you have to declare a new players history.

[BB Warrior]

Oct 1, 2008 15:31:36 GMT iang said:

I don't know what Tommo & BBW are on but if they look closley the handicap bands ARE & have always been based on the players average from the previous season that's why you have to declare a new players history.

The Handicap bands are based on previous seasons averages...... but not the actual handicap scores that you start with in each game!

At present, anybody averaging over 4k in a season gets an A Rating....... it doesn't matter whether their average was 4001 or 14001 from the season before...... that is the point that H is making - and I agree with him!

The only problem with basing it on the actual averages that I can see, is that someone who plays their home matches on a high scoring top should have a higher average than an equally good player who plays on a lower scoring top...... using myself as an example - in the season I played at the White Horse, I averaged just over 3k..... last year at Hurst I averaged about 4.5k. Did I improve by 50%, or was it just the higher scoring home top?? ::)

So, whatever system you bring in (unless it is very complex in it's calculations!) there will always be someone at a disadvantage...... ???

Oct 1, 2008 15:31:36 GMT iang said:

I don't know what Tommo & BBW are on but if they look closley the handicap bands ARE & have always been based on the players average from the previous season that's why you have to declare a new players history.

BBW has gone into great depth but I prefer to answer Ian simply thus:
They're loosely based Ian - loosely based.
But if you read my previous post, I defended Roy's system - although I've always felt that it is unnecessarily complicated.

[BB Warrior]

Oct 1, 2008 22:45:17 GMT tommo III said:

Oct 1, 2008 15:31:36 GMT iang said:

I don't know what Tommo & BBW are on but if they look closley the handicap bands ARE & have always been based on the players average from the previous season that's why you have to declare a new players history.

BBW has gone into great depth but I prefer to answer Ian simply thus:
They're loosely based Ian - loosely based.
But if you read my previous post, I defended Roy's system - although I've always felt that it is unnecessarily complicated.

To be honest, I like the fact that the existing system takes the scoring on different tables into consideration. 8-)

I think that is a much fairer system than Brighton operates for it's Summer League competition, which is purely based on the players average.

In the first leg of the Summer Cup Final this year, we played the match on a table that was very unfriendly (break nearly impossible, plenty of rolls and pockets whippy) and SirKT had to give a 7.5k+ start to his opponent....... even he couldn't manage it! :(

So I think that if we do update the Handicap system, we do still need to retain some method of adjustment to allow for variation in scoring between the tables that are in Mid-Sussex...... I will try to have a look at a few options and see what I can come up with as suggestions. ;)

[Chunky Monkey]

Oct 2, 2008 7:45:06 GMT BB Warrior said:

Oct 1, 2008 22:45:17 GMT tommo III said:

In the first leg of the Summer Cup Final this year, we played the match on a table that was very unfriendly (break nearly impossible, plenty of rolls and pockets whippy) and SirKT had to give a 7.5k+ start to his opponent....... even he couldn't manage it! :(

The Break their was alot easier there lastnight, once the red ball settled (it rolled towads me on my break making me hit the break too thick) But the table was still rolling in every direction apart fom straight ::)

[Sir Jock o The Strap]

Sept 30, 2008 23:09:07 GMT H said:

Fair enough. But, I think every single game would still have gone the same way last night, with or without handicaps. Surely handicaps are there to tip the balance a little?

Hey H great to have your comments on the forum buddy, but I'm not so sure about tipping the balance, I always felt that the handicapping system was in place to provide a more even playing field to those less experienced players that all leagues have.

[Sir Jock o The Strap]

Black pegs in the charity matches have always been a contentious point, but its pretty simple really, in a league match we start from 0, we score we black peg we return to 0.

Charity matches rarely start from 0 apart from those flashy enough to be on an A band, so its pretty straight forward if you black peg you return to your starting point. No idea why this is how it is, but I would assume that it was discussed at the introduction of the charity cup into our league, all those distant years ago, perhaps Roy or some other all knowing clever clog could shed some light on it.

Personally I like the system as it is. I too am a great fan of the charity cup I'm all from change as long as its for the good of the competition.

[Chunky Monkey]

Oct 3, 2008 7:54:07 GMT Sir Jock o The Strap said:

Charity matches rarely start from 0 apart from those flashy enough to be on an A band,

Me Me Me im one of those ;D ;D ;D This year anyway ::) ;D

[theoldfella (R.I.P.)]

This all-knowing clever clogs has no idea why the handicap value is never breached but your reasoning Sir Jock is, to me, very sound.

I wouldn't like to see player handicaps stand alone without the table handicaps playing their all-important role and H will probably feel the benefit when he visits less than fantastic tables.

What if a table that was the 'worst one around' last year got a brand new top that was perfect, though ? (Just thinking of the Limes in the Redhill League: A dog last year, but now that Sav's reclothed it, it's hard to miss on). ;D

The handicap would probably be irrelevant - as whoever got in first would win: but giving someone a big start on the basis of how it played last year would surely be a bit strange ?

[H]

Oct 7, 2008 12:04:14 GMT theoldfella (R.I.P.) said:

This all-knowing clever clogs has no idea why the handicap value is never breached but your reasoning Sir Jock is, to me, very sound.

I wouldn't like to see player handicaps stand alone without the table handicaps playing their all-important role and H will probably feel the benefit when he visits less than fantastic tables.

I think I probably will, but perhaps the handicaps on the better tables should be raised a bit, or as previously suggested and a few higher handicap bands introduced?

[theoldfella (R.I.P.)]

If an existing table is brought to a new high level 'tween seasons, the committee should be informed and it can be rated as a new table with handicaps pitched in the middle as we do now eg Royal Oak and Laughing Fish

The table handicaps are available for perusal at the kick-off meeting before the season starts. There have been occasions, particularly when Richard Deadman was Chairman, when the bands were increased by some 25% because he felt they were pitched low. That hasn't happened for a number of seasons now but is a committee option.

[BB Warrior]

I have been giving this some (very quiet) thought over the last few days....... and think that I have found a flaw in the existing system that, if rectified, could provide a workable solution to the original comment from H that started this thread......

At present, the table bandings are based on the average score achieved the previous season........... with new (or the least able) being given that score as their starting point and the best starting at zero.

But, the score for those new (least able) players is only based on the average score achieved....... not the A Rated players, who presumably would be expected to score more than the average?

Therefore, the A Rated players are not penalised as heavily as they should be under the current system.

There are currently 8 bandings (A-H) in the existing system and I believe that the OldFella would usually take the table average (let us assume that this is 3000 for this exercise) and then divides it by 7 on the following basis.......

H Rate - 7/7 - Handicap start 3000
G Rate - 6/7 - Handicap start 2570
F Rate - 5/7 - Handicap start 2140
E Rate - 4/7 - Handicap start 1710
D Rate - 3/7 - Handicap start 1290
C Rate - 2/7 - Handicap start 850
B Rate - 1/7 - Handicap start 430
A Rate - 0/7 - Handicap start 0

However, since most average players in Mid-Sussex are probably on C/D Handicaps, surely that should be the starting place rather than A.....??

So, assuming we used C as a starting point, that would mean dividing the table average by 5 (rather than 7) but still having the 8 existing bands. So, keeping the same parameter of a 3,000 table average as above, the revised handicapping system would look like this......

H Rate - 7/5 - Handicap start 4200
G Rate - 6/5 - Handicap start 3600
F Rate - 5/5 - Handicap start 3000
E Rate - 4/5 - Handicap start 2400
D Rate - 3/5 - Handicap start 1800
C Rate - 2/5 - Handicap start 1200
B Rate - 1/5 - Handicap start 600
A Rate - 0/5 - Handicap start 0

In my opinion, this is probably a more accurate reflection of the difference in standards between an A Rated player and some of the lower Rated players (no disrespect meant to anybody with that comment, we all know that good scores are not exclusive to the A Rated players!) although it possibly would then have an unfair impact on a match between C v F Rated Players, where the C Rate suddenly has to give away a 1800 start rather than 1290 under this example..... :(

The only other alternatives that I can think of have both already been mentioned....... either more bandings (to allow for the higher averages now being achieved in the whole League) or for us to adopt a similar system to the Brighton Summer Cup where the handicaps are based on the averages achieved the previous season and your opponent receives your average score as their starting point?

Any more ideas from anybody......??