There seem to be two main ways to match players during an APA pool match. The "Old School" way, as William Fuentes called it, is trying to match players by rank and skill. So, you put high skilled players against the other team's high skilled players, and likewise with low skilled players. The other way is to what I will title the "insurance" method. This is when you try to play your high skilled players against someone of lower skill on the other team, so that you have a better guarantee of obtaining that point. For example, playing me, a decent 4, against a bad 3 or a bad 4, because that way we will definately obtain that point. So which way is better?

I prefer the Old School method. I think that high skilled players should, first of all, be challenged. Second, I think placing high skill against high skill gives the lower skilled players a better chance to win, too. This maximizes points for the night. So, if I play a 5 against the other team's 5, then my 3 has a better chance of beating the other team's 3, whereas in the "insurance" method, my 5 will probably beat the other team's 3 but then my 3 doesn't have a good chance against their 5. This also subtracts the whole APA "anyone can win" act, because it puts people up fairly against each other, with no one having an advantage of having to play fewer games to win the match.

However, I, as captain, have only been in charge of matching players in one playoff match so far. And we lost... maybe a different method should be used for playoffs? After all, there's no need to maximize points anymore, only 3 is enough to win. I will have to think about this one some more.