|
Post by BB Warrior on Oct 8, 2008 13:50:21 GMT
Option 2
Having just looked back at last years records, it would appear that the average player score in Mid-Sussex was just under 2.5k in each match, which equates to a D Handicap in the current Charity Cup System.
So, if we increased the number of bandings (to allow for the higher scoring players) we could use a system similar to this example based on a 3,000 table score and averages from the previous season......
J Rate (novice - under 500 average) 10/7 (Handicap Start 4290) I Rate (average 500-1k) 9/7 (Handicap Start - 3860) H Rate (average 1-1.5k) 8/7 (Handicap Start - 3430) G Rate (average 1.5-2k) 7/7 (Handicap Start 3000) F Rate (average 2-2.5k) 6/7 (Handicap Start 2570) E Rate (average 2.5-3k) 5/7 (Handicap start 2140) D Rate (average 3-3.5k) 4/7 (Handicap Start 1710) C Rate (average 3.5-4k) 3/7 (Handicap Start 1290) B Rate (average 4-4.5k) 2/7 (Handicap Start 850) A Rate (average 4.5 - 5k) 1/7 (Handicap Start 430) A+ Rate (average 5k+) - 0/7 (Handicap Start 0)
Possibly that is a fairer system than my previous suggestion as it effectively keeps the starting differences the same as the current system for mid-range players while still penalising the existing A Rated players (and splits the B Rated players more effectively than the current system) more severely.....??
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2008 14:37:44 GMT
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. Excellent answer, Roy, and it follows that the converse should apply, ie) if a once good table suddenly gets a pint of beer over it, or falls into a state of neglect or disrepair, then the 'table handicap' could come down - as the table itself has become a leveller of sorts.
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Oct 8, 2008 14:59:41 GMT
but once you have started the season you can't change the system if somebody drops a pint of beer on the top..... ::) sorry BBW - moderator's mistake - pressed modify rather than quote - it's been a hard day
|
|
|
Post by H on Oct 8, 2008 15:21:29 GMT
If people are being as conscientious as they should be pints of beer won't get spilt over tables!!
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Oct 8, 2008 15:33:33 GMT
If people are being as conscientious as they should be pints of beer won't get spilt over tables!! Unfortunately from the point of looking after the tables, at most venues, it isn't just the teams that play on the tables...... sometimes unsupervised kids are playing on them and I've often walked into places and found people sitting on the bar billiards table, using them as somewhere to put their pint down and even eating their meal on them! :o Little wonder really that all of the tables have their "endearing little quirks"......!! ;)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2008 17:45:38 GMT
but once you have started the season you can't change the system if somebody drops a pint of beer on the top..... ::) Not what I meant or said at all. ::) 'The converse should apply' meant from one season to the next. (Roy said a brand new table would have its handicap increased before the new competition kicked off). Obviously you cannot change a system half way through the season. Also, I said earlier that I support Roy's long-standing and tried and tested (albeit rather complicated) method which works for things how they are at the moment. If there were to be a change, I would not support an even more complicated system than the one we have already ! If we had a Poll of League members, and the choices were: do you want a) a more refined system of handicapping ? b) a simpler means of handicapping ? c) to leave things as they are ? ..............I bet most people would choose either b) or c). Because basically most teams treat the main League as the thing that counts, and the Charity as more of a fun evening and not to be taken too seriously.
|
|
|
Post by specialone on Oct 8, 2008 18:02:13 GMT
Just a bit of history. The 'table element' of the handicap system, was introduced at request of the Zeds. Their argument was that when they played away at the Lindfield Club, players were giving away in the region of 4k points, on a table where 2k was a very good score, so they were in fact beaten before they had played a shot. I am pretty sure it was Supersub, who brought this up. All knowing clever clogg.
On the subject of handicaps, I do not believe their purpose is to tip the balance, I believe their purpose is to give everyone an equal chance. This is certainly the aim in golf and horse racing, although in the later I believe it does not always work. The system is sometimes abused, SHOCK HORROR.
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Oct 8, 2008 23:14:30 GMT
Also, I said earlier that I support Roy's long-standing and tried and tested (albeit rather complicated) method which works for things how they are at the moment. If there were to be a change, I would not support an even more complicated system than the one we have already ! If we had a Poll of League members, and the choices were: do you want a) a more refined system of handicapping ? b) a simpler means of handicapping ? c) to leave things as they are ? ..............I bet most people would choose either b) or c). Because basically most teams treat the main League as the thing that counts, and the Charity as more of a fun evening and not to be taken too seriously. I am sure that you are right Clive in saying that most people would choose options b) or c) if they were given a choice, because very few people seem to understand how Roy calculates the Handicaps at present..... but they realise that they do work pretty well. Neither of my proposals are any more complicated than the current system, all they would do would be to "fine tune" the existing system to reflect the fact that overall scores seem to be getting higher.... especially for the A Rated players. To me, it seems fairly obvious that an A Rated player (who is meant to be above average I assume) should have to give more of a lead than part of the average score on a table...... that's not too complicated to understand really is it?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2008 23:46:08 GMT
I'm sure that your efforts are noble in thought, Warrior, but I haven't really found the time to study them in detail - a bit of a pointless exercise bearing in mind that my team opted out of the event this season, not being disposed to playing five extra matches on 'non-league' nights. (We have however resolved to pay a contribution into the Charity 'pot' at the end of the season).
But I did pay your efforts the respect of saying that they were a 'refining' of Roy's current system: Best of luck in trying to get it across next year.
Having said that, the whole motive behind the proposed change is the difficult thing for me to grasp: Making the handicaps greater just because Henry thinks Papa Hall might then have had a better chance to beat him, in other words it didn't provide him with enough of a challenge ?
Let's take it right to the extreme..........let's say that Sir KT or Nigel played a game in the Charity and had to give the opponent a 10k start (they're good enough). KT or Nigel would then get their heads down and make sure they played out the entire table to win - which if they did wouldn't be any fun at all for the poor opponent as they wouldn't get a go. And if they just failed, it would be a hollow victory for the 'cannon fodder' player. So either way, lose or win, it would be a no-win situation. :-/ :-/ (can't believe I just said that.)
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Oct 9, 2008 7:26:36 GMT
Having said that, the whole motive behind the proposed change is the difficult thing for me to grasp: Making the handicaps greater just because Henry thinks Papa Hall might then have had a better chance to beat him, in other words it didn't provide him with enough of a challenge ? Looking back at H's original post, I don't believe that is what he meant at all....... his point was that both he and his team mates had felt that the existing handicaps had not made any difference to the result of the match! However, I do agree with the point that you made about the higher rated player would certainly try harder (and try to give his opponent less table time) if they were chasing a bigger score to start with. ::) So, let's look at a much simpler option..... Option 3Keep the existing Handicaps (or a similar system) but make the Charity Cup a competition for players with Handicaps between C and H only - ie not allow A & B Rated players to compete. That way the games should be more equal to start with, especially as one of the aims of the Charity Cup (as I understand it) was to encourage new players to compete in the League? ???
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2008 10:15:29 GMT
Option 3Keep the existing Handicaps (or a similar system) but make the Charity Cup a competition for players with Handicaps between C and H only - ie not allow A & B Rated players to compete. That way the games should be more equal to start with, especially as one of the aims of the Charity Cup (as I understand it) was to encourage new players to compete in the League? ??? Are you serious ? I am against 'restriction of trade' as a point of principle. Okay, some competitions are 'closed' - as with the Lower Division Singles, we don't begrudge that. But your latest suggestion, making the Charity Cup 'closed' to A and B rated players goes against the grain. I had a cracking game against SpecialOne last year, and I'm sure he'll be willing to substantiate this: Played him on my home top, Handcross, I was playing off scratch and had to give him 380 only as he was a B. Plus the break of course. And the 'B' beat me by 5280 to 3890 I think (will check records when I get home). Thoroughly enjoyable, both put into the charity fund, and that's what the game's about IMHO. Why should it be any different ?
|
|
|
Post by Chunky Monkey on Oct 9, 2008 10:28:48 GMT
So, let's look at a much simpler option..... Option 3Keep the existing Handicaps (or a similar system) but make the Charity Cup a competition for players with Handicaps between C and H only - ie not allow A & B Rated players to compete. That way the games should be more equal to start with, especially as one of the aims of the Charity Cup (as I understand it) was to encourage new players to compete in the League? ??? UMMMMMMMM YER OK :o ::) Looks like Hurst A wont be playing next year if that goes forward as they are now only playing one regular player that fits in to that bracket :o >:( ::)
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Oct 9, 2008 10:58:18 GMT
Okay Tommo, I give up...... any suggestion that I am making just gets shot down in flames by you. ::)
This season, 5 teams have chosen not to play in the Charity Cup...... among them are many of the Premier teams with the "better" players in our League (Zeds, Hurst B, Plough) while St Francis (with Shaun, Chris & Co) and USC (Sparky) also have players who are more than useful....... either because they couldn't "fit in" another night of bar billiards, or, of course, they simply couldn't be bothered to play because they don't enjoy the Charity Cup Format and prefer to play just League matches. >:(
Last year, I think that I personally won just 1 game in the Charity Cup, while my team (Hurst A) lost every match we played in the competition...... despite the fact that we (arguably) had one of the best teams in the whole League. :o
It's probably fair to say that the handicapping system worked against us last year.... especially at home where we had to give all 5 breaks away and considerable starts to most of our opponents on the best table in the League. ::)
Yet, here I am saying that the handicapping system should make it harder for the "top" players - simply because I believe that the Charity Cup is aimed at encouraging new / "lesser" players to play the game.... and have a good chance of taking a couple of scalps along the way - even if it is by "default" after receiving a start!
I wasn't going to mention this (hence no match report) but Sportsman played our first Charity Cup match the other night at Watermill A....... I was picked to play first by my captain, a decision which delayed the start of our match for several minutes while the opposition decided who they were going to choose to play me! :o
At one stage, I even wondered if I was going to have an opponent at all...... eventually one of their players made his way to the table, and was duly beaten by about 3k even though I lost a 3k break during the game.
You would have to ask them why there was so much confusion when my name was put down...... I can only assume that had the handicap system given them more of a start then they might have been more enthusiastic. ???
At least they were able to provide 2 opponents in the doubles, both of whom played better than my partner & I did..... and they easily won that game. :-[
But, the apparent reluctance to play me (against the break) in a singles match did make me think again about the Handicaps..... hence my alternate suggestions.
I can't say (if I am really honest) that I am personally a huge fan of the Charity Cup format as it stands, the League is far more important to me, however I will happily help to support the Charity and my team mates and play whenever required........
But I'm all out of suggestions for any changes to the format now and, frankly, won't waste any more of my time trying to think of other ideas............... especially if the main criticism seems to come from those who aren't playing in the competition anyway!! :P
|
|
|
Post by Chunky Monkey on Oct 9, 2008 11:08:25 GMT
At the moment we have all played ONE charity round where ONE PLAYER scored well on another teams table. It has worked well all this time, Why not wait until the Charity season is Over and then think about a change. This ONE PLAYER may fell by the end of it the handicap system is quite fair. We are all going to have very Good games and Very bad ones along the season.
|
|
|
Post by H on Oct 9, 2008 11:11:29 GMT
I personally think everyone has made some valid contributions to this thread, and the whole point is to discuss and put things on the table, not shoot each others ideas down.
I think, in moderation, the best course of action, as far as I can see, is to increase the value of the handicaps on some of the top tables (off the top of my head, Hurst Club, Greyhound, possibly the Fish) while leaving them the same on the more challenging tops.
I also believe that a 4 singles, 2 doubles format would be far more enjoyable for the teams as a whole - it is not fair to penalise a single player - everyone should be entitled to a singles game.
I don't believe there is any cause to be any more radical than that with the changes, the format on the whole, while not perfect, is good and does not need to be completely re-vamped by any means.
All the best each
H
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Oct 9, 2008 11:11:33 GMT
UMMMMMMMM YER OK :o ::) Looks like Hurst A wont be playing next year if that goes forward as they are now only playing one regular player that fits in to that bracket :o >:( ::) Oh, the problems of having all the "Superstar A Rated Players" in a team......!! :P ;D ;D ;) Don't worry Kev, it wasn't a serious suggestion and it certainly would never be approved..... but, unless something changes I really don't think that the Charity Cup will survive in future years as even less teams will support it. :'( Glad to see you won your match last night..... no longer a Brighton Winter League "virgin"....... ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by Chunky Monkey on Oct 9, 2008 11:30:05 GMT
Glad to see you won your match last night..... no longer a Brighton Winter League "virgin"....... ;D ;D ;D Nope not any more :) made one big C**k up at begining but managed to screw me head on for long enough that i was given the nod to come off. Yipeeeeee ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2008 11:45:42 GMT
Okay Tommo, I give up...... any suggestion that I am making just gets shot down in flames by you. ::) Please don't give up BBW, as that's what our Forum is for. If you come up with ideas that are too radical, or impractical, then others are going to shoot that particular idea down in flames: I've had it done to me on a number of occasions, especially on the Sussex County topics. But if you notice, I also support you on a good idea and am quick to say so - providing it isn't one that you've stolen from me in the first place ! The latest idea of banning A and B players from the competition sucked, as then there would be no 'big gun' available for the lesser player to have a go at shooting down, which is part of the fun of this competition. Whatever handicaps are eventually decided on tend to become evened out by the Captain's choice. Last year I gave Margo a couple of games in the singles with an eye on the start she might be getting on a bad table. But I agree that for the lowest bands (G and H) the handicaps sometimes weren't generous enough and therefore those players in my team weren't 'risked' when otherwise they might have been. Next year I would like to see the Charity League brought back into the framework of Wednesday night play, but even if it were hung out to dry like this year I still think that it has a healthy future as there were so many willing to defend it.
|
|
|
Post by BB Warrior on Oct 9, 2008 12:33:46 GMT
The latest idea of banning A and B players from the competition sucked, as then there would be no 'big gun' available for the lesser player to have a go at shooting down, which is part of the fun of this competition. Whatever handicaps are eventually decided on tend to become evened out by the Captain's choice. Last year I gave Margo a couple of games in the singles with an eye on the start she might be getting on a bad table. But I agree that for the lowest bands (G and H) the handicaps sometimes weren't generous enough and therefore those players in my team weren't 'risked' when otherwise they might have been. The suggestion (idea) to prevent A & B players from taking part was meant as very "tongue in cheek"..... we both know that it would not be approved or supported.... and I wouldn't even think of officially putting it to the Committee. ::) I was surprised though to read that you wouldn't "risk" your lower rated players in last years competition when one of the main advantages of the Charity Cup is that it gives these players a chance to play some matches on a "more equal" basis, especially those who may not necessarily get a game at all during normal League matches....? ??? :o Surely, not selecting those players defeats the whole object of the Charity Cup doesn't it........ ???
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2008 16:49:56 GMT
Whatever handicaps are eventually decided on tend to become evened out by the Captain's choice. Last year I gave Margo a couple of games in the singles with an eye on the start she might be getting on a bad table. But I agree that for the lowest bands (G and H) the handicaps sometimes weren't generous enough and therefore those players in my team weren't 'risked' when otherwise they might have been. I was surprised though to read that you wouldn't "risk" your lower rated players in last years competition when one of the main advantages of the Charity Cup is that it gives these players a chance to play some matches on a "more equal" basis, especially those who may not necessarily get a game at all during normal League matches....? ??? :o Surely, not selecting those players defeats the whole object of the Charity Cup doesn't it........ ??? Once again, words taken out of context. ::) Just because I say I especially like a bit of ice-cream on a Saturday doesn't mean I'm not prepared to eat it on any other days of the week ! ;) Last year I put Margo forward in a singles against Lynn Storr on equal handicaps and Lynn won 2970-2880. The following match I pitted John Turner (a D) against Andy F/W (strangely a C) and John won 4420-1880. I used Johnny Haigh (also a D) twice, once against an 'H' from the Watermill B, and once against yourself - which misfired horribly ! :o I used myself sparingly in Singles - only when it warranted a 'captain's innings' - but if the situation had been reversed and I had had to find a player to face Shaun on the (then-difficult) St Francis table I might well have used a 'D' player or lower, but I couldn't find it in my heart to do it on the nice benign Handcross top with its easy break. :-/ So, after this defence of my previous post, I re-iterate the real message I was trying to convey which is that in this long-established competition there is the added dimension involved in the form of the Captain's input, where by skilful manipulation of the resources at his disposal, he can seek to either level the playing field or turn things slightly to his team's advantage. "HORSES FOR COURSES". And I've yet to find the secret myself of course, as in recent years my horse has always fallen at the last fence ! :'(
|
|
|
Post by iang on Oct 10, 2008 18:25:34 GMT
I also believe that a 4 singles, 2 doubles format would be far more enjoyable for the teams as a whole - it is not fair to penalise a single player - everyone should be entitled to a singles game. I don't believe there is any cause to be any more radical than that with the changes, the format on the whole, while not perfect, is good and does not need to be completely re-vamped by any means. All the best each H H you have mentioned this idea before it seems that you assume a team of 4 players. In recent years most Charity Matches have been played with 5 or 6 players giving the reserves a game & team players match's before the start of the Season. Most night's a friendly or extra game would be played so it would be possible to alter the format, but not all teams go out with 4. I think that the biggest improvement which would be difficult to fit in would be to play each team in the pool home & away. As has been said the biggest problem is giving big head start to your opponent but also giving them the break & the chance to leave lots of awkard balls all over the table. If I had a chance to play the oppopstion away & then have the break & the chance to catch up the Handicapp would help.
|
|
|
Post by H on Oct 10, 2008 18:28:43 GMT
I see what you are saying, but the fact is, whether you go with 4, 5 or 6 there are still only 3 players that get a singles game, and therefore there are those that feel left out whether it be 1, 2 or 3 members of the team. I do see where they are coming from - personally I play so much bar billiards that I wouldn't mind being dropped for a night, but people who only play once weekly when they are picked I think are entitled to a game, so hopefully you can see where I am coming from.
|
|
|
Post by iang on Oct 10, 2008 18:34:48 GMT
Yes I do see where you are coming from I like most people enjoy singles rather doubles & agree that there is room to expand it to a 6 leg match.
We will have to leave to the committee & have the support to what is usually apretty well attended AGM but agree with BBReaper ( MR ) lets get this season out of the way as the committee have listened to people's oppinions & put on the Charity Cup. All the best. Ian.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2008 19:08:52 GMT
Just to add my support to the 4 singles and 2 doubles idea.
Having the luxury of a 7-man squad, where possible I would be giving everyone a chance: players 1,2,3 in the singles and 4,5,6 and 7 in the doubles.
But there have been occasions when we've got out with only four players, and on those occasions everyone gets to play twice - except one person who I have to discriminate against.
|
|
|
Post by H on Oct 11, 2008 0:52:39 GMT
Again, I see what you are saying, but I DO have a sqaud of 8 players at my disposal, all of which will play if called upon. I chose to take 4 to the charity cup game to try and minimise those who would feel left out of the singles. The fact is that the number of singles matches = the number of satisfied players in general. Doubles is good fun, but nobody can truly feel they have contributed to a game in its entirity when they are also relying on a partner as harsh as it sounds, bar billiards is very much an every man for himself sport.
|
|
|
Post by specialone on Oct 11, 2008 9:56:31 GMT
We are not in the charity this year. this is nothing to do with the format. It is to do with the amount of bar bills my team wishes/can afford to be involved in. 3 of us are bringing up young children in a decpicably expensive part of the country to live in. And although I am no expert, the economic situation looks a tad 'iffy' to me.
Anyway my thoughts.
Leave the handicaping the way it is. The trophy seems to get shared around. In the early days(before the present system) the zeds were either winners or runners up. And anyway, should we be that worried about the winning and the loosing of 'The Charity'. My team were crap in the charity for about 12 years, then we started winning it or being runners up. I would like to think we treated both eras with drunken indifference.
Quite like H's idea of 4 singles. However the comp usually reaches a semi final and final stage. and drawn matches could cause problems. Don't think we should be playing 7th and deciding game. We need a rule, agregate score, count back etc.] Specialone
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2008 10:04:10 GMT
Quite like H's idea of 4 singles. However the comp usually reaches a semi final and final stage. and drawn matches could cause problems. Don't think we should be playing 7th and deciding game. We need a rule, agregate score, count back etc.] Specialone Good point. And I think I agree with the proferred solution. And, in case H gained the impression I wasn't, I was supporting his idea of 4 singles and 2 doubles.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Jock o The Strap on Oct 11, 2008 10:40:13 GMT
I'll simply say its not broken so why fix it?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2008 10:40:49 GMT
I was just looking back over some old threads, and stumbled upon this: barbilliards.proboards30.com/index.cgi?board=midsussex&action=display&thread=1228Starts off with a bit of a whinge from me about the White Horse table, but then develops into a really good diary of the Charity Competition of a couple of years ago leading up to the final. And people seemed to gain so much pleasure and enjoyment out of the game in those days (whilst remaining competitive). I think some of us, perhaps myself included, are missing a bit of that by taking things a bit too seriously. Hate to admit it, and it's partly my own fault, but I have to say that I'm beginning to miss the Charity competition. Roll on next year! ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by Sparky on Oct 11, 2008 12:26:25 GMT
I was just looking back over some old threads, and stumbled upon this: barbilliards.proboards30.com/index.cgi?board=midsussex&action=display&thread=1228Starts off with a bit of a whinge from me about the White Horse table, but then develops into a really good diary of the Charity Competition of a couple of years ago leading up to the final. And people seemed to gain so much pleasure and enjoyment out of the game in those days (whilst remaining competitive). I think some of us, perhaps myself included, are missing a bit of that by taking things a bit too seriously. Hate to admit it, and it's partly my own fault, but I have to say that I'm beginning to miss the Charity competition. Roll on next year! ;D ;D ;D Good post Tommo (nostalgia) and miss the Charity too..............such a pity that we will probably be struck with the same dilemma on Wednesday nights with EITHER 'no Charity' but playing on every table in the League OR 'playing Charity' but splitting the divisions, which seems the most likely result following this year's reactions. In the case of the USC team we may well be able support a limited amount of games on other nights next year but it was too soon this year when we were struggling to get even the league night sorted out. Although we have quite a few names registered we have struggled at times to even get a team out on Wednesdays but seem to be starting to generate the enthusiasm, following some enjoyable evenings already, that encourages me to think some that said 'no way' this year might be persuaded next year. Some already have commitments on other nights with Snooker/Pool/Darts/sleeping ;D etc. The Charity functioned well when sufficient games are played to really encourage the 'lesser player' who could take a scalp and feel good about it, meanwhile the 'better player' gets a real challenge when chasing a target and can feel good about that too. My concern is that too few games doesn't work so well for the 'lesser players' and reduces the fund raising chances.
|
|