The APA Equalizer

Fun to speculate, but that's about it...

I recently wrote about my APA 8 ball skill level dropping to an embarrassing 3. 😦Today, I’m a 5?! It’s only been 2 weeks. How did this happen?

I’m the analytical type. I’ve been down the rabbit hole of studying the purported “Equalizer” algorithm. (apparently here) I’ve studied documents from court cases. I’ve done the math. You want to know something? It doesn’t matter that much.

Me, as an example

Here is my data, using the algorithm described on Dr Dave’s archive version of the Equalizer. (Note, Dr Dave never endorses or comments on the algorithm. He’s just archiving it. I’m not implying anything else.)

Okay, that’s my performance over the last 25 matches or so. I’ve done the math per the posting. There are a few issues with what the person posted. I could do a long write-up on those and I probably will someday.

The orange line is my data through “The Equalizer”, per that document. Parts of it make sense. When my “wins per adjusted inning” dropped below 5, I immediately went to a skill level 4. But… see when I had an excellent (for me) match drop off? I went to SL 3 but my average was somewhere around 4.8. That’s nowhere near the 5 limit that signaled transition from SL 3 to 4.

Next, see that tiny drop at the last point? Somehow now I’m a SL 5? Well, yes actually. (For a week at least. 🙂) Did someone manually adjust me? Has the algorithm changed? (For the record, I have played 3 of my best-ever matches in a row and I had a suspicion this week.)

Reality Check

If the APA hasn’t adjusted the algorithm after one of the most well known American pool instructors posts it on his website 18 YEARS AGO, then shame on the APA. (Note: the APA used to sue people for doing that. They either haven’t gone after Dr Dave or failed. Why?) I think they have adjusted the algorithm, which is good for the league. They should be re-evaluating what they do constantly. It’s good business and keeps people guessing.

Could my new league operator be adjusting skill levels based on watching matches? Sure. Further, I hope he is. I’ve seen him and his wife there on league night. He appeared to be watching a match and evaluating a player. I sincerely hope he’s that invested. If you read the APA’s vision for how things are supposed to work, the best practice is to have an advisory group that can help adjust skill levels. The APA is admitting that the Equalizer can use the help. While we don’t have that here yet, I would welcome it.

But, what if he’s manipulating the skill levels to help his team? (He’s on a team.) Well, if he’s so shortsighted that he’d risk his investment and livelihood for a thousand dollar voucher towards a trip to Vegas, then he’ll reap what he sows. The rest of the league is watching and the BCA is waiting in the wings around here. He seems smarter than that to me. Plus, I can’t imagine the APA doesn’t have operator rules around this. They’d be crazy not to.

The Equalizer is the APA’s biggest piece of intellectual property. It’s not perfect, especially in 8 ball, but it’s what they’ve got. (It’s actually pretty good in 9 ball.) Could it be reverse engineered with all the data available and all the tools we have today? Absolutely. (I used artificial intelligence to make that chart I posted up there earlier FYI.) I won’t be using my skills for reverse engineering the Equalizer.

If the Equalizer becomes a solved problem that we all just plug our data into and can manipulate, the league is ruined. That’s not good for amateur pool. For all the complaining we all do about some of the rules, we need the APA to continue to grow the sport. (We need the BCA, VNEA, TAP and other leagues too.)