Are snooker handicaps wrong ??

[Jaymo9]

Hi everybody, following years of playing in pro-ams it has become ever more apparent that players who give starts are getting beat by players that are equally good and can make high breaks no problem. From where I stand, players have practiced hours to become as good as they are and then have to give starts to players who can go toe to toe with them. Surely the point should be that everybody should start off scratch as this is the only way you will improve as a player and is the fairest way to play for everybody. I have experienced both sides of the coin and think it isn't right to handicap somebody just because they enter bigger tournaments to improve or try to make a living as a professional. All opinions are welcome as this appears to be a touchy subject.

Cheers,

Jaymo9.

[CoachGavin]

I run a handicap event every month at my club. From a personal point of view it would really be fair if everyone was off scratch. Then the players who are the best win. Many of the slightly weaker players agree that they would not mind giving up their start to play a proper match against one of the top players.

I think the problem occurs when you have a strong player and someone who is very weak. Many weaker players enjoy the competition and pressure that tournaments give them. If they had no chance at all of winning then there is no point them entering. At the same time a stronger player will find it boring to beat a weaker player just by turning up. This is where handicaps come in.

Also you then have younger players and elderly who would never have a chance to play in competitions if they were not handicapped. They can also see their improvement over time. I also know of many disabled players who play in handicapped events.

I think you just have to see that scratch events are where the best players are and many prefer to play in. However handicap events have their place and many people enjoy competing in them. I am sure many professionals who started off as juniors got their first taste of tournament play in handicaps and by winning the odd match got some enjoyment. How many would have been completely put off if they had been taking balls out for others in every match with no chance of winnning?

[The Statman]

I think that is the problem with snooker in regards to handicapping - it can be very close to right but results can still appear very wrong.

The point is, a regular 100-maker and a regular 70-maker can still win the frame in one visit. I'm a regular 30/40-maker and I will still win quite a few frames against plently of players who are, on paper, quite a bit better than me.

People down our club sometimes moan when they are beaten by someone whom they are giving, say, 28 start. But snooker is a game of such varying parameters that one or even a series of 'vogue' results do not make it wrong.

I might beat you in one frame 80 points to 1 and the next frame goes to the black. Neither of those is a freak result and a quick look at frame scores in almost any match between a top pro and a journeyman show it.

Our league team-knockout comp is handicapped across the whole team (even more of a minefield than individual) and we almost always have a top team reach the final. There is nothing much you can do about it.

As Gavin says above, handicap comps do have their place. How many low-standard players would pay to enter a Saturday evening comp down the club if they knew they'd be out in the first or second round and would only be paying for someone else's beers week after week? Not many. If the complainants spent less time moaning about the handicaps and more time concentrating on the match they were playing, perhaps they wouln't lost quite so often!

[jrc750]

One of our better players was having a right whinge the other week about having to give too many start to players who are more than capable of knocking in a 25 to 30 break. He said it was ruining his game as the pressure is just too much to enjoy his game and play freely. I can see his point, but at the time he suggested playing for money, so we said ok then, but we will need our club handicaps to give us a chance, to which he agreed...........until he started to lose.... .............he obviously thought he would get some easy money off us lesser players, to be honest it nearly came to blows and we have said we wont be playing him again ever...........for money that is

[Gerry Armstrong]

Hi everybody, following years of playing in pro-ams it has become ever more apparent that players who give starts are getting beat by players that are equally good and can make high breaks no problem. From where I stand, players have practiced hours to become as good as they are and then have to give starts to players who can go toe to toe with them. Surely the point should be that everybody should start off scratch as this is the only way you will improve as a player and is the fairest way to play for everybody. I have experienced both sides of the coin and think it isn't right to handicap somebody just because they enter bigger tournaments to improve or try to make a living as a professional. All opinions are welcome as this appears to be a touchy subject.

Cheers,

Jaymo9.

Handicap tournaments have their place alongside scratch tournaments. If all you had were scratch tournaments then most of the lesser players wouldn't bother taking part as all they would be doing is donating to the prize pool for the best players to divide up time after time after time. The point of a handicap event is to give everyone an equal chance of winning matches and progressing.

The tricky part with snooker handicaps is how do you get them right?

In other sports like Golf for example where handicaps are used, it's easy to measure as each golfer has his own ball and his performance and final result i.e. his score is not affected by any of his opponents. This isn't the case in snooker of course so it makes it very tricky to get right.

In my experience, handicaps for lesser players generally don't give them enough of a start as time and time and time again over many years I see the better players winning all the handicap events as well as the scratch events, so over a long time span the better players have a significantly better chance to win than the lesser players and therefore the handicaps can't be fair as by definition everyone doesn't have an equal chance to win.

[nrage]

In my experience, handicaps for lesser players generally don't give them enough of a start as time and time and time again over many years I see the better players winning all the handicap events as well as the scratch events, so over a long time span the better players have a significantly better chance to win than the lesser players and therefore the handicaps can't be fair as by definition everyone doesn't have an equal chance to win.

I'm not sure it's possible to get it 100% fair in that respect. The lesser players are lesser players because for the most part they are much less consistent. Even a 'correct' handicap, one which accurately reflects the average ability of a player will be wrong more often for a lesser player, than a better one.

In a single frame the handicaps may be reasonably 'fair' but if you start looking at them with a longer event in mind, the more consistent (better) player has an advantage. But, if you decode to increase the lesser player handicaps to compensate, then the lesser player will have a slight single frame advantage. The Q is, do these cancel each other out or is it impossible to balance/make it fair?

[nrage]

One of our better players was having a right whinge the other week about having to give too many start to players who are more than capable of knocking in a 25 to 30 break. He said it was ruining his game as the pressure is just too much to enjoy his game and play freely.

I think better players can suffer from one of two things.

They might not really believe a lesser player can beat them, so they do not take complete care and attention on all their shots, resulting in them giving the lesser player chances they would never leave an opponent of equal skill level. The handicap means the lesser player is effectively a player of equal skill, they should play as if they are, or risk losing. It is true that you can leave a lesser player more shots and expect them to miss more of the time, but you're running the risk that this time, they pot them all.

The opposite can happen, and I can think of a few players in my comp that do this. They see how far 'behind' they are, and they play extra defensive snooker. This is as wrong as leaving too many, because if they do not take their chances, they cannot score, and if they cannot score they cannot make up the handicap points. They are in fact, not 'behind' at all, they're 'level' (according to the handicap system). They do need to make more points than their opponent, but that should just happen if they play naturally.

I believe the best way to approach a handicap match, whether you're giving a start, or taking one is to play as if you're playing off scratch. Ignore the score unless you need to calculate when to play for snookers etc.

[Jaymo9]

Hi everyone. I think that each of you have valid points on this issue. From what I can gather, I think we all would love to have a scratch tournament but you can't get away from the handicapping system. It's very much like a players performance being reflective of how confident they feel etc, meaning good performance=positive attitude etc. At the same time, giving a start can lead you into a falsehood and in turn force you to play erratic shots. Moreover, players are duly put under unnecessary pressure, even more so when playing very capable players. Also...everybody is paying the same money to play in these comps and the rules of handicaps can actually aid a player into winning. For instance, a pro who has just fell off the main tour and I have just got on and then I have to give him 14, 18 or at Pontins 21. It really is a hard one to justify, you could be giving Ronnie 0' Sullivan 21...(hearsay) and where would that get you?? Therefore, as CoachGavin mentions...you would not have a fair playing field for lesser players. I'm not saying that I do not enjoy handicapped comps because they do give people a chance...but at the same time a very good player is being robbed for being good at what they do. It really is a tough issue and maybe there isn't a right or wrong answer on this one. Once again, I fully appreciate the time and care taken in your replies.

Cheers.

[Gerry Armstrong]

I'm not sure it's possible to get it 100% fair in that respect. The lesser players are lesser players because for the most part they are much less consistent. Even a 'correct' handicap, one which accurately reflects the average ability of a player will be wrong more often for a lesser player, than a better one.

In a single frame the handicaps may be reasonably 'fair' but if you start looking at them with a longer event in mind, the more consistent (better) player has an advantage. But, if you decode to increase the lesser player handicaps to compensate, then the lesser player will have a slight single frame advantage. The Q is, do these cancel each other out or is it impossible to balance/make it fair?

It's impossible to get them 100% spot on, but in my view it is definitely possible to make them fairer with respect to the lesser players.

Let me illustrate by giving you an example.

I played twice a week for 18 months in a handicap event in the same club, every Wed and Fri night. Allowing for breaks for holidays, Christmas etc. plus the odd missed night, that's approximately 70 appearances. Approxiamte numbers were around the 32 player mark and it was randon draw and straight knockout. There were several MT pros who regularly took part as well as a number of top amateur players.

I never won an event, I never got to a final. I got to 1 semi final.

It was almost always a pro or a top amateur who won the event week in week out and rarely did a lesser player get anywhere in the event. So over that time period with largely the same group of players taking part, the lesser players didn't have a big enough start.

This is just one example and drawn from my experience so I'm by no means saying this is always the case, just an example of what I have witnessed time and again over the past 15 years where I am.

[CUEBOY1]

weres your club coachgavin? theres hardly any comps round my way! personally im not a fan of handicaps, but ure quite right the lesser players wont enter if they have no chance! i also run a handicap comp as part as comp secretary job! i find handicaps easy to do if you know all the players! as they all have good days and bad days!

i do know of a league locally to me that has a league handicap with the same old faces year in year out, but they still cannot handicap it properly! i will also add i am deemed a better player in that league, i will say theres 2 sides to the coin they basically handicapped me out of it, i was giving silly starts to players not far off my ability! i totally unenjoyed it, and also had no respect for the players who took the handicap knowing it was wrong! hence i withdrew from there league and comps for 8 years!

absolutly no fun in goin 2 play a match under those circumstances!

[nrage]

It's impossible to get them 100% spot on, but in my view it is definitely possible to make them fairer with respect to the lesser players.

Let me illustrate by giving you an example.

I played twice a week for 18 months in a handicap event in the same club, every Wed and Fri night. Allowing for breaks for holidays, Christmas etc. plus the odd missed night, that's approximately 70 appearances. Approxiamte numbers were around the 32 player mark and it was randon draw and straight knockout. There were several MT pros who regularly took part as well as a number of top amateur players.

I never won an event, I never got to a final. I got to 1 semi final.

It was almost always a pro or a top amateur who won the event week in week out and rarely did a lesser player get anywhere in the event. So over that time period with largely the same group of players taking part, the lesser players didn't have a big enough start.

This is just one example and drawn from my experience so I'm by no means saying this is always the case, just an example of what I have witnessed time and again over the past 15 years where I am.

Interesting. I play in a weekly handicapped comp, every Wed night.

Handicaps range from -24 (can make an 80 break, likely to make a 30+ break per frame) to 55 (red+colour at best). My handicap was 36 to start, and 1.5 years later is now 28. We typically only get 8-12 players per night. We play a best of 3 first round, followed by knockout.

The player on 55 has won once, perhaps twice in the 1.5 years I've been playing. A couple of players on 40+ have each won 2-4 times. The players on 20-30 have won a few more than that each, myself included. Of the players we have on 0-10, one seems to win as often as the 40+ players and one as often as the 20-30 players. The player on -24 has won once, maybe twice, but he plays with us rarely .. I managed to beat him in the semis last week, and came 2nd to one of the guys in the 0-10 group.

My personal record is better than most, but then I have been gradually improving and when that happens my handicap is a touch high, until I win, then it comes back in line until the next time I get a bit better.

The guy on -24 seldom loses in the first round, and almost always makes it to the semis. The guys on 40+ could very well lose the first round...

I think this is where I was going with consistency, the guy on -24 will generally play well enough to win a few rounds, but can be beaten by someone on form that evening, unless he is the guy on form. The guys on 40+ are less consistent, they may have a few bad frames and lose in the first round. Actually, that can happen to anyone really, but doesn't happen to the guys under 10 that often.

[magicman]

A decent handicap system adjusts itself after every tournament so any discrepancies should iron themselves out over a relatively short time. When I ran h'cap events the winner would lose 10 points, r/up 7, semi's 4, quarters stayed static, last 16 went up 2 points, last 32 up 4 points. The ruling body of snooker should definitely look to achieve a world handicap system so snooker players, like golfers, can compare skill level.

[philthoms]

You could use the 'sealed handicap system' which means no player knows what his handicap is until his match is completed and then the final scores are calculated. This system was used by professionals back in the fifties when Joe Davis was more or less the top player. The handicaps were sealed in an envelope until each round was completed. In some cases after each round was finished some of the handicaps were re-calculated.

[Souwester]

Our snooker league is so small and with a significant variation in ability, so has been handicapped since the mid 1990s, and still there are complaints about handicaps, despite umpteen tweaks to the handicapping system over the years.

The problem really stems from the fact that apart from the top 10% who are consistently good, and the bottom 10% who are consistently poor, the other 80% are totally inconsistent, and frequently play well above or well below their handicap. On a night when one player is playing well above his handicap paired against someone playing poorly, then cue the 'discussions' about the fairness of handicaps.

[CoachGavin]

My last handicap for the season was in May but I have had a lot of requests to have another one. I was not going to start again until September but I am now having a handicap event on Sunday 17th July. £10 entry and plate for first round losers. £100 guaranteed first prize. 10am registration to make the draw at 10-30am.

The event is at Barratts Snooker Club in Northampton. Here is the link to previous results

http://www.121snookercoaching.com/am...petitions.html

Maybe some of you will come down. Its a nice big club. Plenty of facilities and friendly atmosphere.

By the way on the above system there was one match where Fred Davis actually beat Joe Davis but when the envelope was opened Joe was given 2 frames start and so won the match!