Fargo Ratings of both WPC and US Open 10-ball

JarnoV

JarnoV

JarnoV
Silver Member
Mike Page posted the Fargo Ratings of US Open 10-ball recently. I thought it'd be cool to combine those with at least 2009 World Championship 10-ball results so I scraped the results from AZ and Mike re-calculated the Fargo Ratings based on both WPC and US Open 10-ball. (I posted the ratings to the original thread, but I figured these deserve a thread of their own.)

The list is much longer now, so I filtered for those players that have a over 100 games in their rating. Here's a link to a complete list of players that have at least 50 games played.

Below you can see the Fargo Ratings of WPC and US Open 10-ball (combined) for players that have a robustness of over 100.

I'd be curious to hear comments about these ratings.

PHP: 
Name               Rating Robustness
Francisco Bustamante  850 139
Hi-Wen Lo             838 120
Shane Van Boening     832 195
Dennis Orcollo        826 165
Mika Immonen          816 224
Lee Van Corteza       813 268
Darren Appleton       811 183
Manny Chau            811 103
Rodney Morris         800 106
Edwin Montal          799 105
Thomas Engert         785 153
Charlie Williams      783 150
Ralf Souquet          782 151
Roberto Gomez         780 131
Tony Drago            779 113
David Alcaide         770 145
Dennis Hatch          770 118
Warren Kiamco         767 141
Po-Cheng Kuo          751 113
Thorsten Hohmann      750 118
Marcus Chamat         743 154
Corey Deuel           737 113
Imran Majid           723 117
Oscar Dominguez       722 108
Tyler Edey            717 108
Chris Melling         717 101
Johnny Archer         712 142
Toru Kuribayashi      707 115
Daryl Peach           695 129
Shaun Wilkie          692 109
Huidji See            678 109
Ben Nunan             677 122
 
Last edited:
Like many sets of player 'rankings' their weakness is in the fact that they serve no purpose. They are for amusement only. Nobody featured on them gets any tangible benefit from them.

Beyond that what are they meant to imply. Good a player like Edwin Montal is should we really be expected to believe that he is a better player than Johnny Archer?
Or Ben Nunan the young Australian who found his way into the top 20 through a WPA quota system would struggle to make the top 500 in a Filipino Ranking List.

No disrespect to the people who spend their time compiling the data but why not spend your precious time shooting a few racks instead.
 
pro9dg said:
Like many sets of player 'rankings' their weakness is in the fact that they serve no purpose. They are for amusement only. Nobody featured on them gets any tangible benefit from them.
Click to expand...

I agree that this particular list probably has no other purpose than entertainment. It is here to show how it works, maybe get someone interested in using it. You can use Fargo Ratings say for handicapping tournaments or perhaps restricting entries for player of certain level.

That said, there are some Internet-savvy gamblers hanging around, who could very well use this type of information to their advantage.
 
JarnoV said:
I agree that this particular list probably has no other purpose than entertainment. It is here to show how it works, maybe get someone interested in using it. You can use Fargo Ratings say for handicapping tournaments or perhaps restricting entries for player of certain level.

That said, there are some Internet-savvy gamblers hanging around, who could very well use this type of information to their advantage.
Click to expand...

I applaud your efforts over the last few months.Consistently compiling data and providing statistical boundaries and terms are what define all games.Story telling with numbers.In baseball there is a big difference between a hitter who has .220 batting average and someone who hits .350,or a pitcher with 1.50 ERA vs. one with a 5.00 ERA.

Once terms are introduced and applied over and over their use can bleed down to a greater number of players becoming commonplace in the games lexicon.This is how weaknesses and strengths are found and how improvements can be made in an individuals game.All this has a layering effect and creates games within games.Complexity can provide great interest and enhance the competition.Nice work by you and Mike Page.
 
pro9dg said:
Like many sets of player 'rankings' their weakness is in the fact that they serve no purpose. They are for amusement only. Nobody featured on them gets any tangible benefit from them.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but amusement is a pretty worthy goal, imo!

Beyond that what are they meant to imply. Good a player like Edwin Montal is should we really be expected to believe that he is a better player than Johnny Archer?
Click to expand...

No they are not meant to imply that.

Suppose Edwin and Johnny each played 100 games against a COMMON opponent, some unnamed pro (or 20 games against each of the same five opponents). And suppose Edwin won 80-20 against that/those opponent(s) and Johnny won 69-31 against that/those opponent(s).

While it's not enough information to conclude Edwin's a better player, we would readily conclude Edwin outperformed Johnny in that/those sessions. Right?

What this analysis does is allow the same kind of comparison even though they played against different opponents.


Or Ben Nunan the young Australian who found his way into the top 20 through a WPA quota system would struggle to make the top 500 in a Filipino Ranking List.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what your point is about Ben.

No disrespect to the people who spend their time compiling the data but why not spend your precious time shooting a few racks instead.
Click to expand...

lol
 
mikepage said:
Perhaps, but amusement is a pretty worthy goal, imo!

I'LL GO ALONG WITH THAT

No they are not meant to imply that.

Suppose Edwin and Johnny each played 100 games against a COMMON opponent, some unnamed pro (or 20 games against each of the same five opponents). And suppose Edwin won 80-20 against that/those opponent(s) and Johnny won 69-31 against that/those opponent(s).

While it's not enough information to conclude Edwin's a better player, we would readily conclude Edwin outperformed Johnny in that/those sessions. Right?

What this analysis does is allow the same kind of comparison even though they played against different opponents.

WITHIN THOSE PARAMETERS THEY REPRESENT MORE VALUE THAN MANY OTHER RANKING LISTS. THE MOST PROMINENT RANKING LIST WHICH ARE USED TO SELECT PLAYERS FOR MAJOR EVENTS ARE THE BCA LIST AND THE EUROTOUR RANKINGS. APART FROM THEM THE OTHER LISTS - WPA IS FLAWED, BILLIARDS DIGEST IS TOO NARROW AND THE UK'S GB9BALL TOUR IS OVERRIDDEN BY ANOTHER ORGANISATION.
BUT THERE IS PLENTY TO KEEP US AMUSED.


I'm not sure what your point is about Ben.



lol
Click to expand...

Doug Gordon
 
pro9dg said:
No disrespect to the people who spend their time compiling the data but why not spend your precious time shooting a few racks instead.
Click to expand...

No disrespect to the people who spend their precious time commenting on data that they, themselves, deem insignificant, but why not spend your precious time shooting a few racks instead. :thumbup:
 
pro9dg said:
No disrespect to the people who spend their time compiling the data but why not spend your precious time shooting a few racks instead.
Click to expand...

"i just did" pro9dg

Hmmm, I always figured since you guys across the pond invented the language, you would understand the meaning of the word instead .
 
allprobilliards said:
pretty cool but can someone explain how this works?
Click to expand...

Fargo Ratings system gives everyone a rating based on past results. The rating difference of two players gives a prediction of the most likely result between these two players. A rating difference of exactly 100 means that the better player is "twice as good", ie. twice as likely to win a single game than his opponent. If they play a match to eight, the most likely result (based on this system) is 8-4.

A word of warning: the ratings of WPC and US Open 10-ball are subject to some error margin for the simple reason that they are just two tournaments. One could easily imagine a player that plays two tournaments below his/her usual level and this would reflect to his/her rating.

You can find a more complete explanation of Fargo Ratings here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRWECaLnaxY
 
I would like to note that the result that these Fargo Ratings predicted for Shane vs. Mika was Shane winning 100-89.

Just sayin'. ;-)
 
I like 'em. I like objective measures and comparisons which are statistically well-considered. "Casual" assessments of such things are NOTORIOUSLY biased--it's almost impossible not to be biased.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top