PDA

View Full Version : BCA Nationals 8 Ball - Fargo Discrepancy


Pages : [1] 2

banditgrrr
07-26-2016, 04:44 PM
So I'm watching the finals of the 8 ball gold division. Joe Pierce II vs Russel Cearley. Just out of curiosity, I pull up their Fargo ratings. A bit surprising that Joe Pierce II is a 651. Granted, he only has a robustness of 104 but he also has a starter rating of 625. From my understanding, wasn't the cutoff for the gold division at 624? If so, how could a 651 be entered? Especially if he has a starter rating of 625.

watchez
07-26-2016, 11:56 PM
On the Play BCA website for the tournament entrees he was only rated a 603. Not sure how that could be. I thought maybe they were updating his Fargo Rate as he played but I've been playing here all week and my rating hasn't changed a point.

banditgrrr
07-27-2016, 03:18 AM
I was checking that too. Mine hasn't changed all week either but at the start of the finals he was definitely a 651 with 104 robustness and a 625 starter rating which would have placed him in the platinum division.

SWRLE
07-30-2016, 04:24 AM
I was checking that too. Mine hasn't changed all week either but at the start of the finals he was definitely a 651 with 104 robustness and a 625 starter rating which would have placed him in the platinum division.

I believe CSI and FargoRate should consider changing how it computes a provisional rating. Currently it takes the weighted average between actual results and assumed results and for unknown players with minimal actuals (robustness) the guess (starter rating) far outweighs the actuals. I believe these weights should be reversed when the actuals are higher than the starter rating but should remain as is when actuals are lower than the starter placement rating.

one stroke
07-30-2016, 08:19 AM
Friend on FB told me he played the winner of the gold and the guy said he played real bad in a recent tourney and his Fargo rate dropped 50 putting him in the gold

Hmm I thought I heard someone suggest that exact thing could happen :eek:

1

JC
07-30-2016, 09:05 AM
Friend on FB told me he played the winner of the gold and the guy said he played real bad in a recent tourney and his Fargo rate dropped 50 putting him in the gold

Hmm I thought I heard someone suggest that exact thing could happen :eek:

1

Russ Cearley, the winner of the gold didn't play poorly in any one tournament causing a 50 point drop. He works full time and had not devoted much time to pool the last couple of years resulting in him playing erratically and below his potential in that time stretch. The same time stretch when most of the Fargo rating data has been compiled. At 617 Russ was undervalued substantially due to this. Not his fault nor the result of sandbagging. Just life's ups and downs for the working pool player. I thought there might be thoughts along these lines after he got 3rd in the platinum 9 ball if he went deep in the gold 8 ball but he didn't design the tournament. And he's a fierce competitor with no thoughts of receiving a spot or an advantage that I've ever witnessed. IMO Fargo will always have players undervalued at certain points in time which is going to be it's major criticism moving forward. Time will tell.

If you look at Russell's match history on CSI at events prior to the Fargo compilation you can see clearly he has a gear well above 617. He has some nice wins over tough competition. And plenty of losses to dogs.



JC

robsnotes4u
07-30-2016, 09:07 AM
Friend on FB told me he played the winner of the gold and the guy said he played real bad in a recent tourney and his Fargo rate dropped 50 putting him in the gold



Hmm I thought I heard someone suggest that exact thing could happen :eek:



1



I would advise you to read those posts again. You did not understand it the first time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

BRussell
07-30-2016, 09:16 AM
I watched the stream when Manny Perez beat Mike Dechaine to win the 10-ball challenge. Perez doesn't have any games in FargoRate so was given the default 625. Mike is close to 800, so of course the percentages were 99-1 for much of the match. Jay was commentating and criticizing it saying he didn't believe in FargoRatings, which is understandable in that situation, but they shouldn't have used the ratings when Perez didn't really have one. Just an example of where the starter ratings caused confusion.

edit: Oh and at one point George the other commentator looked up Manny's rating to see if it was a starter rating, and came back on the stream and said he had 625 games in the system! :rolleyes:

saint1
07-30-2016, 09:31 AM
I watched the stream when Manny Perez beat Mike Dechaine to win the 10-ball challenge. Perez doesn't have any games in FargoRate so was given the default 625. Mike is close to 800, so of course the percentages were 99-1 for much of the match. Jay was commentating and criticizing it saying he didn't believe in FargoRatings, which is understandable in that situation, but they shouldn't have used the ratings when Perez didn't really have one. Just an example of where the starter ratings caused confusion.

edit: Oh and at one point George the other commentator looked up Manny's rating to see if it was a starter rating, and came back on the stream and said he had 625 games in the system! :rolleyes:


And Jay is Correct.

mikepage
07-30-2016, 10:32 AM
Friend on FB told me he played the winner of the gold and the guy said he played real bad in a recent tourney and his Fargo rate dropped 50 putting him in the gold

Hmm I thought I heard someone suggest that exact thing could happen :eek:

1


Here is the scoop.

Russell's rating (including where it is now after BCAPL, which you don't see yet) has varied over the last year and a half 16 points in both directions from 633--a total of 32 point range. The drop that sent him down to 617 was after four tournaments (13 matches at Western BCA and Chinook Winds). So basically he was either going to be high in gold or low in platinum.

Bottom line is for him to do what he did last week required he pull things together and keep things together, what we all hope to achieve at tournaments like this. Let's just congratulate him!

mikepage
07-30-2016, 11:18 AM
And Jay is Correct.

He had 450 games in, most recent from Midwest billiard expo in Des Moines last month

SWRLE
08-01-2016, 09:34 PM
On the Play BCA website for the tournament entrees he was only rated a 603. Not sure how that could be. I thought maybe they were updating his Fargo Rate as he played but I've been playing here all week and my rating hasn't changed a point.

It is not realistic that someone could rise 50 points in that timeframe. The fact he was assigned a 625 starter rating indicates the 603 and Gold assignment was a data entry or player name lookup error.

watchez
08-01-2016, 09:49 PM
It is not realistic that someone could rise 50 points in that timeframe. The fact he was assigned a 625 starter rating indicates the 603 and Gold assignment was a data entry or player name lookup error.

It shouldn't be and hopefully it isn't data entry. It should be a link between the BCAPL site and FargoRate.

breakandrun
08-01-2016, 10:47 PM
As long as you can run racks or some balls in a bar box, anybody can beat anybody in a bar box, short race like 6. Just my 2 cents.

banditgrrr
08-01-2016, 10:56 PM
Here is the scoop.

Russell's rating (including where it is now after BCAPL, which you don't see yet) has varied over the last year and a half 16 points in both directions from 633--a total of 32 point range. The drop that sent him down to 617 was after four tournaments (13 matches at Western BCA and Chinook Winds). So basically he was either going to be high in gold or low in platinum.

Bottom line is for him to do what he did last week required he pull things together and keep things together, what we all hope to achieve at tournaments like this. Let's just congratulate him!


Mike,

My original question was regarding Joe Pierce II being in the gold division finals and being a 650+. Did he have a big point swing of 25 that allowed him to be placed in gold?

BuddyWing
08-02-2016, 10:39 AM
Are the BCAPL Fargo-rate up to date ?
I think they are far behind .

one stroke
08-02-2016, 10:57 AM
Here is the scoop.

Russell's rating (including where it is now after BCAPL, which you don't see yet) has varied over the last year and a half 16 points in both directions from 633--a total of 32 point range. The drop that sent him down to 617 was after four tournaments (13 matches at Western BCA and Chinook Winds). So basically he was either going to be high in gold or low in platinum.

Bottom line is for him to do what he did last week required he pull things together and keep things together, what we all hope to achieve at tournaments like this. Let's just congratulate him!

Well that's a big difference zero chance in platinum to winner of gold ,, yes congrats to him and no one said he was sandbagging , however if it can happen by accident it can happen on purpose ,
That's all Iv ever said ,

1

watchez
08-03-2016, 08:39 AM
I watched the stream when Manny Perez beat Mike Dechaine to win the 10-ball challenge. Perez doesn't have any games in FargoRate so was given the default 625. Mike is close to 800, so of course the percentages were 99-1 for much of the match. Jay was commentating and criticizing it saying he didn't believe in FargoRatings, which is understandable in that situation, but they shouldn't have used the ratings when Perez didn't really have one. Just an example of where the starter ratings caused confusion.

edit: Oh and at one point George the other commentator looked up Manny's rating to see if it was a starter rating, and came back on the stream and said he had 625 games in the system! :rolleyes:

I was wondering why Manny didn't have a FargoRate but someone like Nick Evans does (636 games in FargoRate)? They played in many of the same events the past few years.

BRussell
08-03-2016, 08:45 AM
There's both a Manuel Perez and a Manny Perez from Kansas on FargoRate. Manny has 400+ games and Manuel has 0 games.

watchez
08-03-2016, 09:18 AM
ok that makes sense

Put_upor_shutup
08-03-2016, 10:50 AM
There's both a Manuel Perez and a Manny Perez from Kansas on FargoRate. Manny has 400+ games and Manuel has 0 games.

At the Texas state bca tourney a guy used a fargo rating of a guy with the same name.The guy had a lower rating and because of this he got games and stole the tournament.It happens..I know i played Manny in minia at the bca and had to spot him games on the wire.

SWRLE
08-03-2016, 11:03 AM
Here is the scoop.

Russell's rating (including where it is now after BCAPL, which you don't see yet) has varied over the last year and a half 16 points in both directions from 633--a total of 32 point range. The drop that sent him down to 617 was after four tournaments (13 matches at Western BCA and Chinook Winds). So basically he was either going to be high in gold or low in platinum.

Bottom line is for him to do what he did last week required he pull things together and keep things together, what we all hope to achieve at tournaments like this. Let's just congratulate him!

The question is about Joe Pierce not Russell Cearley. Congrats Russ. So who mistyped 603 on Joe's entry form and what steps will be taken to catch such errors in the future?

5aheadforpinks
08-03-2016, 11:12 AM
The system needs to compensate for time off of playing. The score needs to degrade over time. If you play bad in a few tournaments and drop your rating, its better for you then not playing at all for a year. Even though you would be technically worse by not playing.

I've played several years in Vegas and Reno, my Fargo Rate is 656 and I never made it to any final board in the old open division. My starter rating is N/A, robustness of 206.

This year I felt I wasn't able to compete with the Semi-pro division, and I didn't know what the cut off would be for the Platinum division before I signed up. But of course CSI made a decision to place Advanced players at 625 starting, and open players at 525. So they made the cut off at 624 for Gold...

I wonder how much my score would swing if I was given a 525 starting score instead of N/A.

mikepage
08-03-2016, 11:38 AM
The system needs to compensate for time off of playing. The score needs to degrade over time. If you play bad in a few tournaments and drop your rating, its better for you then not playing at all for a year. Even though you would be technically worse by not playing.

I've played several years in Vegas and Reno, my Fargo Rate is 656 and I never made it to any final board in the old open division. My starter rating is N/A, robustness of 206.

This year I felt I wasn't able to compete with the Semi-pro division, and I didn't know what the cut off would be for the Platinum division before I signed up. But of course CSI made a decision to place Advanced players at 625 starting, and open players at 525. So they made the cut off at 624 for Gold...

I wonder how much my score would swing if I was given a 525 starting score instead of N/A.

Nothing at all would be different for you if you had a starter rating of 525 or even 200. Starter ratings are ignored for players with more than 200 games in.

To your first point, your rating itself doesn't degrade with time off. but the volatility of your rating does. So with new play after a gap your rating will adjust more quickly to the "new you" after a gap.

5aheadforpinks
08-03-2016, 01:44 PM
Thank you for that info Mike, looking forward to seeing what the "new me" will be after getting drilled in the Platinum division.

Any news on when the new FargoRate App will be available?

mikepage
08-03-2016, 02:02 PM
Thank you for that info Mike, looking forward to seeing what the "new me" will be after getting drilled in the Platinum division.
[...]

Well, you played four matches in platinum and played several mini tournaments: you went up to 659.

nine_ball6970
08-03-2016, 02:12 PM
Mike,

My original question was regarding Joe Pierce II being in the gold division finals and being a 650+. Did he have a big point swing of 25 that allowed him to be placed in gold?

I am not sure why this has not been answered considering it was the original question, but I am interested in why Joe Pierce was allowed to play in the Gold division being rated 650+ in Fargo.

mikepage
08-03-2016, 02:47 PM
I am not sure why this has not been answered considering it was the original question, but I am interested in why Joe Pierce was allowed to play in the Gold division being rated 650+ in Fargo.

He actually had a starter rating of 525 and not 625 in the CSI Database.

BRussell
08-03-2016, 02:50 PM
I don't know him/them, but there's a Joe Pierce and a Joe Pierce II, both from TX, in the database.

banditgrrr
08-03-2016, 03:40 PM
He actually had a starter rating of 525 and not 625 in the CSI Database.

I call BS. Joe Pierce II was the name shown on the stream and is also the name on the CTS Ondemand site for the brackets. He is currently on the Fargo system as a 651 with a starter rating of 625 and robustness of 104. There's only a couple possible answers:

1. He was allowed to play in the gold division as a 651, or
2. CSI had his name wrong in the brackets as well as the stream and he is Joe Pierce rather than Joe Pierce II....perhaps he's both.


Which is it?

mikepage
08-03-2016, 03:58 PM
I call BS.

Excuse me?

robsnotes4u
08-03-2016, 03:58 PM
I call BS. Joe Pierce II was the name shown on the stream and is also the name on the CTS Ondemand site for the brackets. He is currently on the Fargo system as a 651 with a starter rating of 625 and robustness of 104. There's only a couple possible answers:

1. He was allowed to play in the gold division as a 651, or
2. CSI had his name wrong in the brackets as well as the stream and he is Joe Pierce rather than Joe Pierce II....perhaps he's both.


Which is it?



Doesn't sound like a FargoRate issue. It sounds like a CSI question

Before everyone gets all bent out of shape ask yourself if you have ever made a mistake. It looks like it could have been an honest mistake


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

banditgrrr
08-03-2016, 04:02 PM
As I said, Joe Pierce II is showing as a 651. Either he was allowed to play in gold as a 651 or CSI had a huge case of mistaken identity. You said he had a starter rating of 525 in the "BCA Database." Isn't that the same as the public website that shows a starter rating of 625, not 525?

banditgrrr
08-03-2016, 04:05 PM
Doesn't sound like a FargoRate issue. It sounds like a CSI question

Before everyone gets all bent out of shape ask yourself if you have ever made a mistake. It looks like it could have been an honest mistake


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Completely agree and understand that mistakes can happen. Especially with something new. But again, I thought going to Fargo was going to have some level of transparency. I didn't realize that the public FargoRate and the CSI FargoRate were completely different things.

robsnotes4u
08-03-2016, 04:11 PM
Completely agree and understand that mistakes can happen. Especially with something new. But again, I thought going to Fargo was going to have some level of transparency. I didn't realize that the public FargoRate and the CSI FargoRate were completely different things.



I think you are missing the point. FargoRate doesn't write the match cards etc. they are only a system that rates the player.

If a person, not FargoRate, grabs the wrong information that is on the person

As for a different rating for CSI and The FargoRate app rating I can only guess. FargoRate is a LIVE rating, where CSI might have been locked at a cutoff time. Just my logical guess

I am sure Mike will clarify


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

mikepage
08-03-2016, 04:24 PM
Completely agree and understand that mistakes can happen. Especially with something new. But again, I thought going to Fargo was going to have some level of transparency. I didn't realize that the public FargoRate and the CSI FargoRate were completely different things.

They are not completely different things. But they are separate. What that means is there is a syncing that goes on, and CSI is the "master" for starter ratings. That syncing and our ratings were FROZEN during the event. So anything that happened in the CSI database once things were frozen did not get pushed out to us.

I have no idea what happened here and I haven't had a conversation with anybody about it. It is possible his starter rating was lowered from 625 to 525 [the equivalent of in the old days being lowered from Advanced to Open].

The only tournament history we have for him is in the Open division from 3 years ago--and he finished 33-48. So I don't know--maybe there was a review with his league operator. I just don't know.

I wouldn't even respond after your "I call BS" comment. I have no idea what I might have done in the 15 years I've been posting on pool forums to get that. But other people are reading this, and that is why I responded.

JC
08-03-2016, 04:37 PM
They are not completely different things. But they are separate. What that means is there is a syncing that goes on, and CSI is the "master" for starter ratings. That syncing and our ratings were FROZEN during the event. So anything that happened in the CSI database once things were frozen did not get pushed out to us.

I have no idea what happened here and I haven't had a conversation with anybody about it. It is possible his starter rating was lowered from 625 to 525 [the equivalent of in the old days being lowered from Advanced to Open].

The only tournament history we have for him is in the Open division from 3 years ago--and he finished 33-48. So I don't know--maybe there was a review with his league operator. I just don't know.

I wouldn't even respond after your "I call BS" comment. I have no idea what I might have done in the 15 years I've been posting on pool forums to get that. But other people are reading this, and that is why I responded.

I noticed the same thing that there was a joe pierce and a joe peirce ll and it appeared the one playing in the finals and on the gold bracket was the guy with the 651 rating. I think that's what folks are asking to be cleared up. I wouldn't call BS but it is a bit weird and needs some clarification. Was this guy in the wrong bracket? If so what happened? If not, what's up with Fargorate? One guy's from Texas and the other Kentucky. Who in fact was the player in the tournament? You would expect it was the ll guy since the brackets were formed from entry forms that he filled out himself. It looks to me like a CSI mistake if anything.

mikepage
08-03-2016, 04:45 PM
I noticed the same thing that there was a joe pierce and a joe peirce ll and it appeared the one playing in the finals and on the gold bracket was the guy with the 651 rating. I think that's what folks are asking to be cleared up. I wouldn't call BS but it is a bit weird and needs some clarification. Was this guy in the wrong bracket? If so what happened? If not, what's up with Fargorate? One guy's from Texas and the other Kentucky. Who in fact was the player in the tournament? You would expect it was the ll guy since the brackets were formed from entry forms that he filled out himself. It looks to me like a CSI mistake if anything.

What I am saying is that if the starter rating was 525 instead of 625, then his official rating would be about 600 rather about 650. So if in fact his starter rating was changed--what appears to have happened, then he was placed in the correct division and there was no error at all

alphadog
08-03-2016, 05:09 PM
They are not completely different things. But they are separate. What that means is there is a syncing that goes on, and CSI is the "master" for starter ratings. That syncing and our ratings were FROZEN during the event. So anything that happened in the CSI database once things were frozen did not get pushed out to us.

I have no idea what happened here and I haven't had a conversation with anybody about it. It is possible his starter rating was lowered from 625 to 525 [the equivalent of in the old days being lowered from Advanced to Open].

The only tournament history we have for him is in the Open division from 3 years ago--and he finished 33-48. So I don't know--maybe there was a review with his league operator. I just don't know.

I wouldn't even respond after your "I call BS" comment. I have no idea what I might have done in the 15 years I've been posting on pool forums to get that. But other people are reading this, and that is why I responded.

Mike,thanks for continuing to endure the abuse. Many of us appreiciate all you do.

banditgrrr
08-03-2016, 05:28 PM
Perhaps I completely misunderstood when Mark and Ozzy announced they would be using Fargo. I had thought that meant someone could go to the Fargo website and look up someone's rating and it was public knowledge. I guess I didn't realize that perhaps CSI is using different numbers than what is shown on the website. I guess in the scheme of things it's really not important. It just seems to the casual observer that there was a breakdown somewhere.

watchez
08-03-2016, 06:13 PM
What I am saying is that if the starter rating was 525 instead of 625, then his official rating would be about 600 rather about 650. So if in fact his starter rating was changed--what appears to have happened, then he was placed in the correct division and there was no error at all

His rating on the entree site of the BCAPL was 603. It was not a starter rating of 625. Somehow he got a rating on their site 50 points lower than the FargoRate site. He is still listed as 603 if you go to the BCAPL site that shows the entrees at the bottom of the page. Joe Pierce II. 603. Second place mixed 8 ball gold singles. I sent you a screen shot on Facebook messenger so you can see it.

So where did the 603 come from? It as not 525. It was not 625. It was not 651.

SWRLE
08-03-2016, 06:35 PM
Doesn't sound like a FargoRate issue. It sounds like a CSI question

Before everyone gets all bent out of shape ask yourself if you have ever made a mistake. It looks like it could have been an honest mistake


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Honest mistake? I don't think so. I believe Mr. Pierce knows what his real Fargo rating is. I think at least someone knew he was Platinum level when they assigned that 625 starter rating. I think he knew all along he was a Platinum player playing in the Gold division and decided to capitalize on CSI's error. In my opinion that is not an honest mistake. In my opinion it is cheating. In my opinion CSI should reclaim his payout and send an $8 refund to everyone in that division.

If you are referring to CSI's blunder as an honest mistake, I don't think so on that one either. Apparently there are no checks or validation in the CSI Fargo lookup and/or data entry process. It is particularly disturbing that no one from FargoRate, CSI, or Bad Boys will step up, own the mistake and resolve to correct the flawed process.

robsnotes4u
08-03-2016, 06:40 PM
Honest mistake? I don't think so. I believe Mr. Pierce knows what his real Fargo rating is. I think at least someone knew he was Platinum level when they assigned that 625 starter rating. I think he knew all along he was a Platinum player playing in the Gold division and decided to capitalize on CSI's error. In my opinion that is not an honest mistake. In my opinion it is cheating. In my opinion CSI should reclaim his payout and send an $8 refund to everyone in that division.



If you are referring to CSI's blunder as an honest mistake, I don't think so on that one either. Apparently there are no checks or validation in the CSI Fargo lookup and/or data entry process. It is particularly disturbing that no one from FargoRate, CSI, or Bad Boys will step up, own the mistake and resolve to correct the flawed process.



More disturbing is you libeling all entities with out any factual argument.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

SWRLE
08-03-2016, 06:43 PM
They are not completely different things. But they are separate. What that means is there is a syncing that goes on, and CSI is the "master" for starter ratings. That syncing and our ratings were FROZEN during the event. So anything that happened in the CSI database once things were frozen did not get pushed out to us.

I have no idea what happened here and I haven't had a conversation with anybody about it. It is possible his starter rating was lowered from 625 to 525 [the equivalent of in the old days being lowered from Advanced to Open].

The only tournament history we have for him is in the Open division from 3 years ago--and he finished 33-48. So I don't know--maybe there was a review with his league operator. I just don't know.

I wouldn't even respond after your "I call BS" comment. I have no idea what I might have done in the 15 years I've been posting on pool forums to get that. But other people are reading this, and that is why I responded.

Yes it looks like that is what happened. If you start him at 525 and use the same actuals his transitional rating becomes 603. But now the question is why was his starter changed to 525 when his 104 actuals were played at a 675 level?

SWRLE
08-03-2016, 08:51 PM
His rating on the entree site of the BCAPL was 603. It was not a starter rating of 625. Somehow he got a rating on their site 50 points lower than the FargoRate site. He is still listed as 603 if you go to the BCAPL site that shows the entrees at the bottom of the page. Joe Pierce II. 603. Second place mixed 8 ball gold singles. I sent you a screen shot on Facebook messenger so you can see it.

So where did the 603 come from? It as not 525. It was not 625. It was not 651.

He answered your question. Someone changed the starter rating to 525 and recalculated his preliminary rating to be 603 based on his 104 games played at a 675 level. What's not being addressed is why someone overrode the initial starter rating, why 675 actuals should be reduced arbitrarily to 603, and why the Fargo database still shows 625 if it was "corrected" by CSI.

Put_upor_shutup
08-03-2016, 09:46 PM
So what is the reasoning for pushing the Fargo rating on us to go by if in fact there is another system by CSI?When got to CSI page it sas check your fargo.How can i check what CSI uses?Or am I just confused ha ha

SWRLE
08-03-2016, 10:23 PM
So what is the reasoning for pushing the Fargo rating on us to go by if in fact there is another system by CSI?When got to CSI page it sas check your fargo.How can i check what CSI uses?Or am I just confused ha ha

There is no other system. A tournament director has the right to change anyone's rating to anything they deem appropriate if they feel it is wrong. Until it is explained why CSI changed his starter rating from 625 to 525 all the data suggests Mr. Pierce is a strong Platinum player, That data includes his 651 Fargo rating, his 625 initial starter placement, his 104 games played at a 675 level, and his overall performance in the tournament which appears to be at a 660+ level.

Edit: The video below tells the story. Travesty.

Put_upor_shutup
08-03-2016, 10:40 PM
There is no other system. A tournament director has the right to change anyone's rating to anything they deem appropriate if they feel it is wrong. Until it is explained why CSI changed his starter rating from 625 to 525 all the data suggests Mr. Pierce is a strong Platinum player, That data includes his 651 Fargo rating, his 625 initial starter placement, his 104 games played at a 675 level, and his overall performance in the tournament which appears to be at a 660+ level.

ok thank you

BmoreMoney
08-03-2016, 11:38 PM
I am not sure why this has not been answered considering it was the original question, but I am interested in why Joe Pierce was allowed to play in the Gold division being rated 650+ in Fargo.

Anyone have a pic of this Joe Pierce fellow or knows what he looked like? I know obviously more than 1 person have the same name, only curious because here in Bmore we also have a Joe Pierce that's pretty heavy into leagues and the 650 ish ranking sounds like it would be right around his speed.

watchez
08-03-2016, 11:55 PM
He answered your question. Someone changed the starter rating to 525 and recalculated his preliminary rating to be 603 based on his 104 games played at a 675 level. What's not being addressed is why someone overrode the initial starter rating, why 675 actuals should be reduced arbitrarily to 603, and why the Fargo database still shows 625 if it was "corrected" by CSI.

Ok thanks for the explanation. I didn't understand Mike Page explanation. But I am still confused because not all players that were given a starter rating and then played games under FargoRate prior to the BCAPL had their starter rating adjusted. I know one player that was given a starter rating, played games that were entered into FargoRate ----his FargoRate went down to actually reflecting that he started with a zero rating but his CSI FargoRate stayed the same.

I said it prior to BCAPL --- having two rating systems, one for FargoRate and one for CSI FargoRate was a mistake.

oneballeddie
08-04-2016, 01:39 PM
Anyone have a pic of this Joe Pierce fellow or knows what he looked like? I know obviously more than 1 person have the same name, only curious because here in Bmore we also have a Joe Pierce that's pretty heavy into leagues and the 650 ish ranking sounds like it would be right around his speed.

Unlikely your guy. Joe Pierce II is from Sheperdsville, KY.

sbpoolleague
08-04-2016, 02:47 PM
Anyone have a pic of this Joe Pierce fellow or knows what he looked like? I know obviously more than 1 person have the same name, only curious because here in Bmore we also have a Joe Pierce that's pretty heavy into leagues and the 650 ish ranking sounds like it would be right around his speed.

How about the video of this year's gold finals between Pierce and Cearley (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96NeKejQB6M)?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96NeKejQB6M


Pierce is third from left

http://www.insidepoolmag.com/wp-content/uploads/michaels-720.jpg

oneballeddie
08-04-2016, 08:33 PM
How about the video of this year's gold finals between Pierce and Cearley (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96NeKejQB6M)?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96NeKejQB6M


Pierce is third from left

http://www.insidepoolmag.com/wp-content/uploads/michaels-720.jpg

Michael Medley (no Fargo?), Mike Grooms (616), and Shannon Daulton (757).

JC
08-04-2016, 11:25 PM
There is no other system. A tournament director has the right to change anyone's rating to anything they deem appropriate if they feel it is wrong. Until it is explained why CSI changed his starter rating from 625 to 525 all the data suggests Mr. Pierce is a strong Platinum player, That data includes his 651 Fargo rating, his 625 initial starter placement, his 104 games played at a 675 level, and his overall performance in the tournament which appears to be at a 660+ level.

Edit: The video below tells the story. Travesty.

Russ beat him and that is data which cannot be ignored. If he was so good that wouldn't have happened. The strongest players in the gold were low six hundreds. Joe played a hell of a tournament, just like Russ did.

End of story.

JC

Bank it
08-05-2016, 05:37 AM
Michael Medley (no Fargo?), Mike Grooms (616), and Shannon Daulton (757).



What's that, pounds?

SWRLE
08-05-2016, 07:41 AM
Russ beat him and that is data which cannot be ignored. If he was so good that wouldn't have happened. The strongest players in the gold were low six hundreds. Joe played a hell of a tournament, just like Russ did.

End of story.

JC

Oh I totally agree. He just played in the wrong division. If you don't think so simply explain who changed his starter rating from 625 to 525 and why. That will end the story.

robsnotes4u
08-05-2016, 07:44 AM
Oh I totally agree. He just played in the wrong division. If you don't think so simply explain who changed his starter rating from 625 to 525 and why. That will end the story.



I did it., because of his record in the BCA before.

There is your answer


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

SWRLE
08-05-2016, 10:04 AM
They are not completely different things. But they are separate. What that means is there is a syncing that goes on, and CSI is the "master" for starter ratings. That syncing and our ratings were FROZEN during the event. So anything that happened in the CSI database once things were frozen did not get pushed out to us.

I have no idea what happened here and I haven't had a conversation with anybody about it. It is possible his starter rating was lowered from 625 to 525 [the equivalent of in the old days being lowered from Advanced to Open].

The only tournament history we have for him is in the Open division from 3 years ago--and he finished 33-48. So I don't know--maybe there was a review with his league operator. I just don't know.

I wouldn't even respond after your "I call BS" comment. I have no idea what I might have done in the 15 years I've been posting on pool forums to get that. But other people are reading this, and that is why I responded.

Don't think the BS call was about you or Fargo, Mike. Sorry you took offense. This was a CSI override on the starter rating sometimes referred to as an honest mistake and at other times referred to as based on some "BCA results" you don't have. Whatever the case we appreciate your keeping the database pure and based on actual objective results.

GideonF
08-05-2016, 10:25 AM
I did it., because of his record in the BCA before.

There is your answer


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Was that supposed to say "CSI did it", or did you really mean "I did it". If it is the second, none of your previous comments in this thread make any sense.

In any event, whoever made the decision, I really wish they would explain it - what was the reasoning, what record are they talking about, why was he rated 625 to start with, etc. I support what FargoRate is trying to do, and think CSI is a good organization, but this was the first real test of the system and people have raised legitimate questions that should be answered. For the system to be accepted, it has not only BE fair, but it also has to APPEAR to be fair.

Slasher
08-05-2016, 10:42 AM
How about the video of this year's gold finals between Pierce and Cearley (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96NeKejQB6M)?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96NeKejQB6M


Pierce is third from left

http://www.insidepoolmag.com/wp-content/uploads/michaels-720.jpg

Love the new dress code, pool is class.

mikepage
08-05-2016, 11:52 AM
Was that supposed to say "CSI did it", or did you really mean "I did it". If it is the second, none of your previous comments in this thread make any sense.

In any event, whoever made the decision, I really wish they would explain it - what was the reasoning, what record are they talking about, why was he rated 625 to start with, etc. I support what FargoRate is trying to do, and think CSI is a good organization, but this was the first real test of the system and people have raised legitimate questions that should be answered. For the system to be accepted, it has not only BE fair, but it also has to APPEAR to be fair.

Gideon, I'm going to try again. There really is nothing to see here.

First, here is the old system. Players were rated by CSI leisure, open, advanced, master, grand master and put into divisions. There were certain automatic triggers to advance, like finishing above a certain place the year before. There was also subjective judgment on lowering a division after a review. I note the guy in question played in the open three years ago and did not make the final 32.

Think of the role of the CSI office not as setting starter ratings, but merely as continuing the old system like they have always done, categorizing players as open, advanced, etc.

Then FargoRate takes those categories and uses the information in as sensible a way as we can for players with fewer than 200 games. That's it.

What people are talking about here is the old system, CSI doing what it has always done. This is what we are working VERY hard to replace. But it is not yet completely gone. CSI has 5000+ players to place for this event, and it has a lot of inquiries and reviews and conversations with league operators. This has happened every year for forever.

We are working hard to get beyond any subjective judgments. So for people in this forum to make a big deal on the Monday morning after about the subjective judgments that remain just feels kinda blah....

They are doing the best they can with the subjective judgments and they are diving head-first into a MAJOR effort to make those judgments unnecessary.

banditgrrr
08-05-2016, 11:59 AM
Gideon, I'm going to try again. There really is nothing to see here.

First, here is the old system. Players were rated by CSI leisure, open, advanced, master, grand master and put into divisions. There were certain automatic triggers to advance, like finishing above a certain place the year before. There was also subjective judgment on lowering a division after a review. I note the guy in question played in the open three years ago and did not make the final 32.

Think of the role of the CSI office not as setting starter ratings, but merely as continuing the old system like they have always done, categorizing players as open, advanced, etc.

Then FargoRate takes those categories and uses the information in as sensible a way as we can for players with fewer than 200 games. That's it.

What people are talking about here is the old system, CSI doing what it has always done. This is what we are working VERY hard to replace. But it is not yet completely gone. CSI has 5000+ players to place for this event, and it has a lot of inquiries and reviews and conversations with league operators. This has happened every year for forever.

We are working hard to get beyond any subjective judgments. So for people in this forum to make a big deal on the Monday morning after about the subjective judgments that remain just feels kinda blah....

They are doing the best they can with the subjective judgments and they are diving head-first into a MAJOR effort to make those judgments unnecessary.



Lyn,

There's your justification for asking to be moved down a division next year. Tell Mark you want to be classified using the previous system.

GideonF
08-05-2016, 12:46 PM
Gideon, I'm going to try again. There really is nothing to see here.

First, here is the old system. Players were rated by CSI leisure, open, advanced, master, grand master and put into divisions. There were certain automatic triggers to advance, like finishing above a certain place the year before. There was also subjective judgment on lowering a division after a review. I note the guy in question played in the open three years ago and did not make the final 32.

Think of the role of the CSI office not as setting starter ratings, but merely as continuing the old system like they have always done, categorizing players as open, advanced, etc.

Then FargoRate takes those categories and uses the information in as sensible a way as we can for players with fewer than 200 games. That's it.

What people are talking about here is the old system, CSI doing what it has always done. This is what we are working VERY hard to replace. But it is not yet completely gone. CSI has 5000+ players to place for this event, and it has a lot of inquiries and reviews and conversations with league operators. This has happened every year for forever.

We are working hard to get beyond any subjective judgments. So for people in this forum to make a big deal on the Monday morning after about the subjective judgments that remain just feels kinda blah....

They are doing the best they can with the subjective judgments and they are diving head-first into a MAJOR effort to make those judgments unnecessary.

Mike,

Thank you for your explanation. This makes sense and I see that the issue is a legacy issue that will slowly disappear as more people become rated.

Based on this, the answer seems to be that what CSI did was in accordance with their past practice. I guess I would still like someone from CSI to explain why they did it. Even under the old system, I would think it would raise some questions if they lowered someone into the open division and the person then won the division (or took second).

GideonF
08-05-2016, 12:48 PM
Lyn,

There's your justification for asking to be moved down a division next year. Tell Mark you want to be classified using the previous system.

If the Lyn you are referring to the Cardiac Kid, then so long as they retain FargoRate that would not work - he has many games in the system and is therefore rated. The issue Mike raised was about the starter rating being changed, which only has an impact on non-established players.

SWRLE
08-05-2016, 01:09 PM
I did it., because of his record in the BCA before.

There is your answer


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are you referring to his 2013 Open tournament where he rolled over 9 opponents (including a 702, a 687 and a 630) with an average rating of 600? How do we get 525 from that?

watchez
08-05-2016, 01:20 PM
Gideon, I'm going to try again. There really is nothing to see here.

First, here is the old system. Players were rated by CSI leisure, open, advanced, master, grand master and put into divisions. There were certain automatic triggers to advance, like finishing above a certain place the year before. There was also subjective judgment on lowering a division after a review. I note the guy in question played in the open three years ago and did not make the final 32.

Think of the role of the CSI office not as setting starter ratings, but merely as continuing the old system like they have always done, categorizing players as open, advanced, etc.

Then FargoRate takes those categories and uses the information in as sensible a way as we can for players with fewer than 200 games. That's it.

What people are talking about here is the old system, CSI doing what it has always done. This is what we are working VERY hard to replace. But it is not yet completely gone. CSI has 5000+ players to place for this event, and it has a lot of inquiries and reviews and conversations with league operators. This has happened every year for forever.

We are working hard to get beyond any subjective judgments. So for people in this forum to make a big deal on the Monday morning after about the subjective judgments that remain just feels kinda blah....

They are doing the best they can with the subjective judgments and they are diving head-first into a MAJOR effort to make those judgments unnecessary.

How many games did Joe Pierce II have prior to the BCAPL Nationals -- when he was rated a 651? (because I see now he is a 686 with 252 games - so am I correct he had 158 games in your system prior?)

as a side question - is FargoRate going to only put the single matches in the system or all team matches as well?

sbpoolleague
08-05-2016, 01:25 PM
as a side question - is FargoRate going to only put the single matches in the system or all team matches as well?

We turned in all of our team score sheets this year because they said they were entering team results into Fargo.

watchez
08-05-2016, 01:38 PM
We turned in all of our team score sheets this year because they said they were entering team results into Fargo.

Ok well somehow my rating went up and I went 2-2 in the singles, winning 15 games and losing 17. I beat a 603 my first match but he was obviously way overrated (I would say he was the worst of the 4 players I played) and he went 2 and out in the singles. I did terrible in 9 ball teams and did about the same for my winning % in 8 ball teams? Just curious which data has been used.

nine_ball6970
08-05-2016, 01:50 PM
How many games did Joe Pierce II have prior to the BCAPL Nationals -- when he was rated a 651? (because I see now he is a 686 with 252 games - so am I correct he had 158 games in your system prior?)

as a side question - is FargoRate going to only put the single matches in the system or all team matches as well?

What is Cearley rated now?

watchez
08-05-2016, 02:04 PM
What is Cearley rated now?

656 --- 806 games in the system

mikepage
08-05-2016, 02:08 PM
How many games did Joe Pierce II have prior to the BCAPL Nationals -- when he was rated a 651? (because I see now he is a 686 with 252 games - so am I correct he had 158 games in your system prior?)

as a side question - is FargoRate going to only put the single matches in the system or all team matches as well?

I think he had 102 games in prior.

He also has new games from the Gold 9-Ball event. He finished 17-34 in that, losing to a player now rated 568 and another now rated 608.

We will eventually get team games in, but that will be a while and I can't say when.

mikepage
08-05-2016, 02:10 PM
what is cearley rated now?

656 ...........

gutshot
08-05-2016, 02:20 PM
Someone can improve quite a bit in 3 yrs. It's hard to say if they played at that speed, better or worse 3 yrs ago.


Are you referring to his 2013 Open tournament where he rolled over 9 opponents (including a 702, a 687 and a 630) with an average rating of 600? How do we get 525 from that?

Poolplaya9
08-05-2016, 02:28 PM
Ok well somehow my rating went up and I went 2-2 in the singles, winning 15 games and losing 17. I beat a 603 my first match but he was obviously way overrated (I would say he was the worst of the 4 players I played) and he went 2 and out in the singles. I did terrible in 9 ball teams and did about the same for my winning % in 8 ball teams? Just curious which data has been used.

I think you already know this, but just in case Fargo doesn't rate you by whether you won or loss against an opponent. It rates you based on how well you did against them versus how well you should have done based on your rating. So you can lose most or even all of your matches and still go up. For example, if you get to the hill against SVB in a race to 9 but lose, Fargo says "oh crap, watchez must be a better player than I thought he was. I thought he was only supposed to win 3 games against SVB (or whatever the actual number is), and he won a lot more than that and ended up hill hill with him. I better raise him up some because he is a better player than I realized".

Also as you probably already know your rating will move as they get more information on your past opponents, even if you don't have any new games going into the system yourself. So if the 603 you played was overrated, as his rating drops over time, your rating will subsequently drop as a result too. FargoRate will essentially say "oh crap, that guy that watchez beat turns out to not be nearly as good as I thought he was. I better lower watchez rating to reflect this".

cleary
08-05-2016, 02:34 PM
I think Fargo is going to take many years (and hopefully with changes) before it's really that accurate. And unless there's is better transparency as to how each player became their rating, it's hard for people to trust.

As of now, it's wacky. The winner of the bronze and silver mixed 8ball both live in NYC. Both are much better players than me. Both lower ratings. Not sure how... Because I cannot see their history.

watchez
08-05-2016, 02:38 PM
I think you already know this, but just in case Fargo doesn't rate you by whether you won or loss against an opponent. It rates you based on how well you did against them versus how well you should have done based on your rating. So you can lose most or even all of your matches and still go up. For example, if you get to the hill against SVB in a race to 9 but lose, Fargo says "oh crap, watchez must be a better player than I thought he was. I thought he was only supposed to win 3 games against SVB (or whatever the actual number is), and he won a lot more than that and ended up hill hill with him. I better raise him up some because he is a better player than I realized".

Also as you probably already know your rating will move as they get more information on your past opponents, even if you don't have any new games going into the system yourself. So if the 603 you played was overrated, as his rating drops over time, your rating will subsequently drop as a result too. FargoRate will essentially say "oh crap, that guy that watchez beat turns out to not be nearly as good as I thought he was. I better lower watchez rating to reflect this".

I guess so - I don't feel that Mike Page should tell us exactly how it works or someone will figure out a way to work the system, no matter how complex it is. I was just surprised I went up, that's all. I didn't play my best against the last two opponents (double days of 9 AM matches will do that to you but that is part of it) but I would have had to play fairly well for myself to beat them. The first guy that beat me got 33rd overall.

mikepage
08-05-2016, 03:16 PM
[...] The winner of the bronze and silver mixed 8ball both live in NYC. Both are much better players than me. Both lower ratings. Not sure how... Because I cannot see their history.

Of course it is a work in progress. Here is Ron Mason's history (winner of bronze)

He won one out of the five matches he played in the three years he player Open singles. He did play in a couple bigger tournaments, but he went two and out both times (I believe he does brackets for some of the NYC events).

He had a good tournament and he won. Good for him. He did win 3 of his matches on the hill.

mikepage
08-05-2016, 03:25 PM
[...] The winner of the bronze and silver mixed 8ball both live in NYC. Both are much better players than me. Both lower ratings. Not sure how... Because I cannot see their history.


And Noah V., winner of the Silver, played in the Leisure Division last year and did not cash; in fact he was three matches away from making the final bracket.

Put_upor_shutup
08-05-2016, 04:53 PM
at what point are u not allowed to play in the bca events..I just went from a 663 to a 697 in the last 30 minutes .
700 is the cutoff correct?

sbpoolleague
08-05-2016, 05:06 PM
at what point are u not allowed to play in the bca events..I just went from a 663 to a 697 in the last 30 minutes .
700 is the cutoff correct?

The cutoff is currently 720 for the division events, but anyone can play in the open events (8/9/10 ball Challenges).

watchez
08-05-2016, 05:08 PM
at what point are u not allowed to play in the bca events..I just went from a 663 to a 697 in the last 30 minutes .
700 is the cutoff correct?

No Jardin (sp?) played in both the Platnium singles (winner) and Gold Men's teams. Matt Edwards (New Zealand) also played in Gold 9 ball teams and Gold 8 ball teams.

JC
08-05-2016, 06:05 PM
What is Cearley rated now?

656 --- 806 games in the system

How many games did Joe Pierce II have prior to the BCAPL Nationals -- when he was rated a 651? (because I see now he is a 686 with 252 games - so am I correct he had 158 games in your system prior?)

as a side question - is FargoRate going to only put the single matches in the system or all team matches as well?

So Russ moves up to a 656 and Joe to a 686. So what will it take for this to "correct" itself in the Fargo system? It seems like anyone who watched the final match could see that Russ is more skilled. So the system isn't going to be perfect. Ever. Oh well.

JC

Put_upor_shutup
08-05-2016, 06:20 PM
No Jardin (sp?) played in both the Platnium singles (winner) and Gold Men's teams. Matt Edwards (New Zealand) also played in Gold 9 ball teams and Gold 8 ball teams.


I see that now looking at the rosters from some other teams.If my team is over we will just play the platinum.They like to play but just not many teams.

Poolplaya9
08-05-2016, 06:42 PM
So the system isn't going to be perfect. Ever. Oh well.

It's not. It can't be. No system ever can be. But this one is as close as is possible IMO. And it is miles better than anything else out there. Once everybody has a lot more games in the system I think it is going it is going to be pretty darn good and it seems at lot more people are seeing that now. Heck isn't like it is bad right now. Like I said it is already miles better than the next best system both in terms of what it can do and take into consideration and also in terms of its accuracy. It is just going to get better and better over time.

On a slightly side note, one of the main reasons no system can even be perfect is because there are always trade offs that have to be made. Think of anything you can think of that you would like to be better about FargoRate. The thing is, you could improve any of those things to near perfection but something else will be affected and will get worse so with every improvement comes some other drawback. Ultimately what you have to do is find the perfect compromise where everything is fairly good and nothing is too bad and finding that perfect balance and compromise is as good as it can ever get. That is where Fargo is now. All it needs to fulfill a little more of its potential is more data, more players with more games in the system and that will come with time. It is actually ramping up pretty quick and with the exposure from Vegas and pressure from the players more and more league and tournament directors are going to be submitting their match statistics and the data is going to ramp up at an even faster rate.

cleary
08-06-2016, 05:50 AM
Of course it is a work in progress. Here is Ron Mason's history (winner of bronze)

He won one out of the five matches he played in the three years he player Open singles. He did play in a couple bigger tournaments, but he went two and out both times (I believe he does brackets for some of the NYC events).

He had a good tournament and he won. Good for him. He did win 3 of his matches on the hill.

It's just amazing that this is all the info you have on someone who plays in a tournament every weekend. I get that you couldn't possibly get info on every match that every person plays but it's not going to be accurate with just a handful of situations on someone. This is why a players history should be visible. It definitely makes these numbers seem more credible.

Not to pick on Ron, he's a friend of mine, but your history doesn't nearly tell the same story as just taking a look at his azb profile. He's a strong B player and always does pretty well on the predator tour and tri state tour. Your info on him and number you've stamped on him suggest he's a very weak player. I'm happy he won the tournament and took advantage of his low ranking.

http://www.azbilliards.com/people/7892-ron-mason/

robsnotes4u
08-06-2016, 06:12 AM
It's just amazing that this is all the info you have on someone who plays in a tournament every weekend. I get that you couldn't possibly get info on every match that every person plays but it's not going to be accurate with just a handful of situations on someone. This is why a players history should be visible. It definitely makes these numbers seem more credible.



Not to pick on Ron, he's a friend of mine, but your history doesn't nearly tell the same story as just taking a look at his azb profile. He's a strong B player and always does pretty well on the predator tour and tri state tour. Your info on him and number you've stamped on him suggest he's a very weak player. I'm happy he won the tournament and took advantage of his low ranking.



http://www.azbilliards.com/people/7892-ron-mason/



What's it amazing?

FargoRate doesn't have a scrubbing mechanism to pull information from misc. tournaments and leagues. Data needs to be submitted.

The amazing part is all of crying done by a few of you about people who try to make the pool environment better.

You all remind me of my kids, all kids for that matter. You try to find fault, when the fault is you do not understand. Mike has been kind enough to pull out data that answers your questions. It is always answers the question.

Except for a few people, who actually want to learn, the rest of you say "but". You should say wow, that makes sense, and thank you.

All this *****ing by a bunch of keyboard cowboys who think they are the voice of pool is embarrassing. You are the whining employee who brings up problems where there are none, and should be fired.

You guys maybe professionals in your field. Mike, Steve, FargoRate, Mark and Ozzy are the professionals in theirs. They don't tell you how to do what you do. It is time you act with professionalism and do the same.

To end this. You guys crying you deserve to know who and why. They do not owe you any explanation. If you don't like it then don't play.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

gutshot
08-06-2016, 06:27 AM
B-I-N-G-O! :clapping::clapping::clapping:


What's it amazing?

FargoRate doesn't have a scrubbing mechanism to pull information from misc. tournaments and leagues. Data needs to be submitted.

The amazing part is all of crying done by a few of you about people who try to make the pool environment better.

You all remind me of my kids, all kids for that matter. You try to find fault, when the fault is you do not understand. Mike has been kind enough to pull out data that answers your questions. It is always answers the question.

Except for a few people, who actually want to learn, the rest of you say "but". You should say wow, that makes sense, and thank you.

All this *****ing by a bunch of keyboard cowboys who think they are the voice of pool is embarrassing. You are the whining employee who brings up problems where there are none, and should be fired.

You guys maybe professionals in your field. Mike, Steve, FargoRate, Mark and Ozzy are the professionals in theirs. They don't tell you how to do what you do. It is time you act with professionalism and do the same.

To end this. You guys crying you deserve to know who and why. They do not owe you any explanation. If you don't like it then don't play.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wedge
08-06-2016, 06:57 AM
What's it amazing?

FargoRate doesn't have a scrubbing mechanism to pull information from misc. tournaments and leagues. Data needs to be submitted.

The amazing part is all of crying done by a few of you about people who try to make the pool environment better.

You all remind me of my kids, all kids for that matter. You try to find fault, when the fault is you do not understand. Mike has been kind enough to pull out data that answers your questions. It is always answers the question.

Except for a few people, who actually want to learn, the rest of you say "but". You should say wow, that makes sense, and thank you.

All this *****ing by a bunch of keyboard cowboys who think they are the voice of pool is embarrassing. You are the whining employee who brings up problems where there are none, and should be fired.

You guys maybe professionals in your field. Mike, Steve, FargoRate, Mark and Ozzy are the professionals in theirs. They don't tell you how to do what you do. It is time you act with professionalism and do the same.

To end this. You guys crying you deserve to know who and why. They do not owe you any explanation. If you don't like it then don't play.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Very well said and spot on ;) ;) ;)

cleary
08-06-2016, 07:07 AM
What's it amazing?

FargoRate doesn't have a scrubbing mechanism to pull information from misc. tournaments and leagues. Data needs to be submitted.

The amazing part is all of crying done by a few of you about people who try to make the pool environment better.

You all remind me of my kids, all kids for that matter. You try to find fault, when the fault is you do not understand. Mike has been kind enough to pull out data that answers your questions. It is always answers the question.

Except for a few people, who actually want to learn, the rest of you say "but". You should say wow, that makes sense, and thank you.

All this *****ing by a bunch of keyboard cowboys who think they are the voice of pool is embarrassing. You are the whining employee who brings up problems where there are none, and should be fired.

You guys maybe professionals in your field. Mike, Steve, FargoRate, Mark and Ozzy are the professionals in theirs. They don't tell you how to do what you do. It is time you act with professionalism and do the same.

To end this. You guys crying you deserve to know who and why. They do not owe you any explanation. If you don't like it then don't play.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Have you considered that maybe, just maybe... My "crying" is an attempt to improve his system? Make it better? More accurate? You've heard of constructive criticism before, right? I guess there's no possible way that maybe, just f*cking MAYYYYYBE, his system isn't perfect?

But it's cool... I'm just crying and making loud noises. Continue being butt hurt.

robsnotes4u
08-06-2016, 07:10 AM
Have you considered that maybe, just maybe... My "crying" is an attempt to improve his system? Make it better? More accurate? You've heard of constructive criticism before, right?



But it's cool... I'm just crying and making loud noises. Continue being butt hurt.



Like I said. You do not understand it.

You are correct you are just making loud noise and people are sick of it.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

cleary
08-06-2016, 07:15 AM
Like I said. You do not understand it.

You are correct you are just making loud noise and people are sick of it.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good, be sick of it. I'm only gotta get louder. And maybe it's you that doesn't understand.

robsnotes4u
08-06-2016, 07:25 AM
Good, be sick of it. I'm only gotta get louder. And maybe it's you that doesn't understand.



I have been in the system for about 6 years. Watched at least 10,000 games under the system. Played in hundreds of tourneys under the system. Spent many hours with both Steve and Mike discussing it, along with systems from Jeff Sagarin in comparison.

Do I understand all of the math? No. do I need to? No. Am I the expert? No. Am I the voice of FargoRate? Definitely not.

Am I qualified to say it works amazingly? Definitely.

I definitely have a better understanding than you, as proven by your posts.


Again. Just say thank you.

Don't worry I won't reply to you comments any further.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

cleary
08-06-2016, 07:33 AM
I have been in the system for about 6 years. Watched at least 10,000 games under the system. Played in hundreds of tourneys under the system. Spent many hours with both Steve and Mike discussing it, along with systems from Jeff Sagarin in comparison.

Do I understand all of the math? No. do I need to? No. Am I the expert? No. Am I the voice of FargoRate? Definitely not.

Am I qualified to say it works amazingly? Definitely.

I definitely have a better understanding than you, as proven by your posts.


Again. Just say thank you.

Don't worry I won't reply to you comments any further.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What you're not understanding is it's not about the system he has in place, it's about the obvious holes in it that leads to players being poorly rated. The system has potential, it's just not there yet. And if he doesn't listen to and actually consider the concerns of myself and many many many others, it's just going to be what it is.

I don't need to thank anyone for Fargo lol. He's not curing cancer buddy...

Put_upor_shutup
08-06-2016, 08:52 AM
one more thing im nit understanding is how my 3 man team won the platinum 9 ball division and my rating went up 30 points yet my teamates fargo dropped 2 points.

robsnotes4u
08-06-2016, 09:01 AM
one more thing im nit understanding is how my 3 man team won the platinum 9 ball division and my rating went up 30 points yet my teamates fargo dropped 2 points.



Mike stated earlier that the team results have not been added to the system. Even if they were added your individual rating would never change at the same rate as someone else unless you were an exact clone of each other, which is impossible

Post #74 is a good explanation how it could happen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

robsnotes4u
08-06-2016, 09:19 AM
People speak of accuracy. Here is an earlier post by Mike.
New Rating System

[quote name="Corwyn_8" post=5415973]





I agree. There are some underlying assumptions--like that we don't have paper-rock-scissor situations--that we can only really test by looking at the results.





Here are some of those interesting results. We can do a small case study on ME. I have a rating of 632. That rating is based on 5500 games played against nearly 400 different opponents, with no more than a few percent of my games against any particular opponent.





There are six players (all of whom themselves have thousands of games against many opponents determining their ratings) against whom I've played at least 100 games total--generally several tournament matches and perhaps some league games.... I'll show the expected versus actual against those, and then I'll include my teammate Linda Zsedeney to get a bigger rating range











Larry Wentz (500) expectation, 174 to 69: actual, 179 to 64


Rory Hendrickson (725) expectation, 40 to 76; actual 40 to 76


Dustin Hansen (576) expectation 69 to 46; actual 79 to 36


Bruce Wheeler (610) expectation 62 to 53; actual 67 to 48


Tim Blinn (576) expectation 67 to 45; actual 64 to 48


Gary Dandurand (517) expectation 72 to 32; actual 75 to 29


Linda Zsedeney (434) expectation 55 to 15; actual 54 to 16





These are all close with the exception of games against Dustin Hansen, who has moved up about 50 points since most of those games were played.





Now if you look at Rory (you've already seen he beats me 76 to 40), we can see how he does against a few others. He is a 725, and he's played 38 games against Justin Bergman (795) and 43 games against Dennis Orcollo (813)





Bergman (795) expectation 14 to 24; actual 14 to 24


Orcollo (813) expectation 15 to 28; actual 14 to 29"

https://r.tapatalk.com/shareLink?url=http%3A%2F%2Fforums%2Eazbilliards%2E com%2Fshowthread%2Ephp%3Fp%3D5416054&share_tid=414672&share_fid=2711&share_type=t&share_pid=5416054


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

JC
08-06-2016, 10:11 AM
Larry Wentz (500) expectation, 174 to 69: actual, 179 to 64


Rory Hendrickson (725) expectation, 40 to 76; actual 40 to 76


Dustin Hansen (576) expectation 69 to 46; actual 79 to 36


Bruce Wheeler (610) expectation 62 to 53; actual 67 to 48


Tim Blinn (576) expectation 67 to 45; actual 64 to 48


Gary Dandurand (517) expectation 72 to 32; actual 75 to 29


Linda Zsedeney (434) expectation 55 to 15; actual 54 to 16






How in the world did you lose 16 games to Linda? The 400 range players around here will not win a game from me. Not one, not ever. You must "favor" her.

And Larry should consider quitting pool.

JC

Put_upor_shutup
08-06-2016, 10:29 AM
Mike stated earlier that the team results have not been added to the system. Even if they were added your individual rating would never change at the same rate as someone else unless you were an exact clone of each other, which is impossible

Post #74 is a good explanation how it could happen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

well I know they will not be the same.Just trying to figure how i went up 30 points?I olayed minis.Surely 3 mini tournaments race to 3 cant raise me 30 points.I didnt play singles.He only played teams also.But he dropped 2 points.We shall see.Just trying to understand it better.Dont know what they could have raised me with of they didnt add the teams yet.

robsnotes4u
08-06-2016, 10:30 AM
How in the world did you lose 16 games to Linda? The 400 range players around here will not win a game from me. Not one, not ever. You must "favor" her.



And Larry should consider quitting pool.



JC



If you were the same FargoRate number as Mike she would win the same amount against you.

I played Linda in a handicapped tourney 8-2 was the race. Broke dry and she got out. Then she broke and ran. I lost 2-0. She was screaming, that is the first time she had ever done that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

mikepage
08-06-2016, 10:35 AM
If you were the same FargoRate number as Mike she would win the same amount against you.

I played Linda in a handicapped tourney 8-2 was the race. Broke dry and she got out. Then she broke and ran. I lost 2-0. She was screaming, that is the first time she had ever done that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And yes, I DO favor her; she is my scotch doubles partner

SWRLE
08-06-2016, 10:36 AM
Someone can improve quite a bit in 3 yrs. It's hard to say if they played at that speed, better or worse 3 yrs ago.

How true! But that has nothing to do with this discussion.

robsnotes4u
08-06-2016, 10:37 AM
And yes, I DO favor her; she is my scotch doubles partner



Well you two kicked Mo and my butt before Vegas and we might be just a slight bit favored




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

bwally
08-06-2016, 10:40 AM
And yes, I DO favor her; she is my scotch doubles partner
This begs the question... Should a break and run out against you carry the same weight as a loss where you had an (or more than one) inning at the table? I for one in Vegas lost a couple matches like this. Tied 2-2 (race to 5) opponent breaks and runs. Me dry break, opponent runs out. Opponent, breaks and runs out. I lose 5-2. As well in the teams I had one match where I went 0-4 and only had one inning at the table!

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

robsnotes4u
08-06-2016, 10:50 AM
This begs the question... Should a break and run out against you carry the same weight as a loss where you had an (or more than one) inning at the table? I for one in Vegas lost a couple matches like this. Tied 2-2 (race to 5) opponent breaks and runs. Me dry break, opponent runs out. Opponent, breaks and runs out. I lose 5-2. As well in the teams I had one match where I went 0-4 and only had one inning at the table!

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk



In the long run it all works out


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

mikepage
08-06-2016, 11:16 AM
This begs the question... Should a break and run out against you carry the same weight as a loss where you had an (or more than one) inning at the table? I for one in Vegas lost a couple matches like this. Tied 2-2 (race to 5) opponent breaks and runs. Me dry break, opponent runs out. Opponent, breaks and runs out. I lose 5-2. As well in the teams I had one match where I went 0-4 and only had one inning at the table!

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

This is a good question: Should your opponent's break & runs, where you did nothing wrong, count against your rating?

Surprisingly, the answer is yes.

If I play Linda 500 games of 8-ball, she is supposed to win about 100 and I am supposed to win about 400.

Perhaps 100 of my wins will by run-outs. Perhaps 2 or 3 of hers will be run-outs. What is important is that these run-outs are baked into the 400 to 100 expectation.

If we play 10 games, she is expected to win 2 and I am expected to win 8. Once again, the run-outs are baked into this.

mikepage
08-06-2016, 11:40 AM
well I know they will not be the same.Just trying to figure how i went up 30 points?I olayed minis.Surely 3 mini tournaments race to 3 cant raise me 30 points.I didnt play singles.He only played teams also.But he dropped 2 points.We shall see.Just trying to understand it better.Dont know what they could have raised me with of they didnt add the teams yet.

WE don't raise you; YOU are playing the games.

Maybe this--score and opponent--will refresh your memory. I see this as the system doing what it is supposed to do.

3 to 2 Eddie Brightman (575)
3 to 0 Andy Klenzak
5 to 2 David Nunn (579)
2 to 3 Stan Moon (584)
3 to 0 Jason Secor (602)
6 to 1 Joe Corpuz (602)
3 to 2 Scott Miller
4 to 5 Manny Perez (678)
6 to 1 Daniel Wise
3 to 0 Randy White (637)
5 to 0 Jose Palacios
5 to 1 Sevada Yeghanian (557)

48 to 17 total against a 600-ish crowd; that's pretty sporty...

sbpoolleague
08-06-2016, 12:02 PM
Like I said. You do not understand it.

You are correct you are just making loud noise and people are sick of it.

No one is listening to a 477 whine about Fargo ratings.

bwally
08-06-2016, 12:33 PM
This is a good question: Should your opponent's break & runs, where you did nothing wrong, count against your rating?

Surprisingly, the answer is yes.

If I play Linda 500 games of 8-ball, she is supposed to win about 100 and I am supposed to win about 400.

Perhaps 100 of my wins will by run-outs. Perhaps 2 or 3 of hers will be run-outs. What is important is that these run-outs are baked into the 400 to 100 expectation.

If we play 10 games, she is expected to win 2 and I am expected to win 8. Once again, the run-outs are baked into this.
Thanks for the reply Mike. As usual you have the answer. It's probably sour grapes on my part. I felt I played the best I had in all the BCA events I have attended (4), just didn't get the results I was hoping for. Mostly because of the above post. My Fargo rating took a beating because of that too.

On another note I sent you an email the other day regarding LMS. I'm hoping to make a pitch to our League Executive very soon.

Thank you for all you're doing to help our sport.

Cheers
Brian

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

watchez
08-06-2016, 12:54 PM
What's it amazing?

FargoRate doesn't have a scrubbing mechanism to pull information from misc. tournaments and leagues. Data needs to be submitted.

The amazing part is all of crying done by a few of you about people who try to make the pool environment better.

You all remind me of my kids, all kids for that matter. You try to find fault, when the fault is you do not understand. Mike has been kind enough to pull out data that answers your questions. It is always answers the question.

Except for a few people, who actually want to learn, the rest of you say "but". You should say wow, that makes sense, and thank you.

All this *****ing by a bunch of keyboard cowboys who think they are the voice of pool is embarrassing. You are the whining employee who brings up problems where there are none, and should be fired.

You guys maybe professionals in your field. Mike, Steve, FargoRate, Mark and Ozzy are the professionals in theirs. They don't tell you how to do what you do. It is time you act with professionalism and do the same.

To end this. You guys crying you deserve to know who and why. They do not owe you any explanation. If you don't like it then don't play.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They owe me an explanation when 50% of my money pays their salaries. And you keep speaking for Mike Page - I am not sure your relationship to him but if you pay attention, Mike politely responds to almost every inquiry so obviously HE THINKS people deserve an explanation. He doesn't remain silent say as Ozzy does.

robsnotes4u
08-06-2016, 12:59 PM
They owe me an explanation when 50% of my money pays their salaries. And you keep speaking for Mike Page - I am not sure your relationship to him but if you pay attention, Mike politely responds to almost every inquiry so obviously HE THINKS people deserve an explanation. He doesn't remain silent say as Ozzy does.



I never speak for Mike. I am a proponent of FargoRate., but I have no ties.

Any business you exchange money for a product. Unless you are an investor or owner they OWE you nothing but the product they provide

You are lucky they are transparent as they are and willing.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

sbpoolleague
08-06-2016, 01:13 PM
They owe me an explanation when 50% of my money pays their salaries. And you keep speaking for Mike Page - I am not sure your relationship to him but if you pay attention, Mike politely responds to almost every inquiry so obviously HE THINKS people deserve an explanation. He doesn't remain silent say as Ozzy does.

50 pct of your $15 membership fee goes towards CSI salaries? That's too low. They can have all of mine.

If I send you $7.50 will you shut up?

BTW if you hadn't read the 1000+ posts by Mark and Ozzy explaining that they will answer any phone call but cannot guarantee they will respond on AZB, then let this be your first.

cleary
08-06-2016, 01:14 PM
No one is listening to a 477 whine about Fargo ratings.

Let me know when you're on the east cost. We can play.

I guess if I were a... I don't know... 551, then my concerns would have more value? lol

cleary
08-06-2016, 01:24 PM
If this system were worth it's weight in turds I'd probably be a 551 too lol.

watchez
08-06-2016, 01:28 PM
No one is listening to a 477 whine about Fargo ratings.

Hey genius -- guess what player CSI is going for with the Fargo Ratings. I'll save you the phone call to Mark or Ozzy. It is the 477 player.

And when you get caught up on math then we will see if my money only adds up to $7.50.

robsnotes4u
08-06-2016, 01:31 PM
Transparency.

Get rid of screeen Names

Robert Martin
Moving to Billings, Mt
Currently Bismarck:Fargo ND


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

cleary
08-06-2016, 01:32 PM
50 pct of your $15 membership fee goes towards CSI salaries? That's too low. They can have all of mine.

If I send you $7.50 will you shut up?

Why don't you go buy yourself some new shoes pal.

cleary
08-06-2016, 01:37 PM
Transparency.

Get rid of screeen Names

Robert Martin
Moving to Billings, Mt
Currently Bismarck:Fargo ND


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Robert Martin with a robustness of 7? Hmmmm

robsnotes4u
08-06-2016, 01:46 PM
Amazing how people jump to conclusions without thinking outside the box or researching. They are too worried about finding holes.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

SWRLE
08-06-2016, 01:47 PM
Of course it is a work in progress. Here is Ron Mason's history (winner of bronze)

He won one out of the five matches he played in the three years he player Open singles. He did play in a couple bigger tournaments, but he went two and out both times (I believe he does brackets for some of the NYC events).

He had a good tournament and he won. Good for him. He did win 3 of his matches on the hill.

Yes by all accounts he had a great tournament. All the data before BCA supports putting him in Bronze at 400. Playing at a 610 level throughout the tournament is a stunning achievement indeed. My only questions would be why retain that 400 starter rating at this point and what division would he be placed in if the same format were held again next week?

cleary
08-06-2016, 01:49 PM
Amazing how people jump to conclusions without thinking outside the box or researching. They are too worried about finding holes.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Is asking a question the same as "jumping to conclusions"?

cleary
08-06-2016, 01:51 PM
Yes by all accounts he had a great tournament. All the data before BCA supports putting him in Bronze at 400. Playing at a 610 level throughout the tournament is a stunning achievement indeed. My only questions would be why retain that 400 starter rating at this point and what division would he be placed in if the same format were held again next week?

lol all of the data was very little data at all. Ron won that tournament because he was supposed to. He's a good player. A better player than the guy who won the silver div. He didn't sandbag to get a 402 ranking... They just had no data on him, which is strange considering how many tournaments he plays in.


But what do I know, I'm a 477 lol

robsnotes4u
08-06-2016, 01:56 PM
Does anyone else wonder why the almighty Oz has to ask questions as he seems to have all the answers? I am confused. Did he actually ask me a question?

Myself, if I put hmm at the end it a question but sarcasm.

Oh well now yo the almighty as he is trying to find holes.

Playing s set right now to get a robstuness above 7.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

cleary
08-06-2016, 02:01 PM
Does anyone else wonder why the almighty Oz has to ask questions as he seems to have all the answers? I am confused. Did he actually ask me a question?

Myself, if I put hmm at the end it a question but sarcasm.

Oh well now yo the almighty as he is trying to find holes.

Playing s set right now to get a robstuness above 7.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hey, maybe the Fargo site is busted... There are several people with your name but only one in your state. That person doesn't have 47 million matches in the system so it's confusing, hence the "hmmm".

Do you always get this butt hurt?

cleary
08-06-2016, 02:07 PM
But yea it's me, the "almighty oz" with "all the answers" but I'm not the one with the perfect rating system and any suggestions to improve it are stupid and just "crying". Gotcha.

robsnotes4u
08-06-2016, 02:11 PM
1. Never said I had 47 million games but like all of Oz posts, exaggeration is common
2. Oz is smarter than everyone so I am baffled.
3. How does someone who understands everything about something. Not figure out something so simple?
4. Maybe I don't okay I just love to watch

Oz is not Ozzy of CSI,


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

watchez
08-06-2016, 02:15 PM
I wish when you show Huey and Louie they are wrong, they slide away. Instead they try to change the subject.

robsnotes4u
08-06-2016, 02:16 PM
I wish when you show Huey and Louie they are wrong, they slide away. Instead they try to change the subject.



Me too them the naysayers would have disappeared.

Let's get it done.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

cleary
08-06-2016, 02:18 PM
1. Never said I had 47 million games but like all of Oz posts, exaggeration is common
2. Oz is smarter than everyone so I am baffled.
3. How does someone who understands everything about something. Not figure out something so simple?
4. Maybe I don't okay I just love to watch

Oz is not Ozzy of CSI,


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

lol funny you can't give me a straight answer, being all about transparency and all. The Fargo fanboy gang is funny. Not the sharpest tools in the shed but very funny!

watchez
08-06-2016, 02:22 PM
1. Never said I had 47 million games but like all of Oz posts, exaggeration is common
2. Oz is smarter than everyone so I am baffled.
3. How does someone who understands everything about something. Not figure out something so simple?
4. Maybe I don't okay I just love to watch

Oz is not Ozzy of CSI,


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No you said you have been involved using Fargorate for years and seen over 10,000 games of it......but you have only been involved in 7 games????? I think you failed in that transparency you were trying to get at. You've played one race to 4 under it. Lmao. That is nothing more than special. Like I said previously Mike Page should send you a PM and request you stop trying to explain or speak for him.

I also said I think FargoRate is a good thing -- just needs some tweaking and more info to be visible as Cleary suggests.

robsnotes4u
08-06-2016, 02:23 PM
lol funny you can't give me a straight answer, being all about transparency and all. The Fargo fanboy gang is funny. Not the sharpest tools in the shed but very funny!



Lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

robsnotes4u
08-06-2016, 02:24 PM
lol funny you can't give me a straight answer, being all about transparency and all. The Fargo fanboy gang is funny. Not the sharpest tools in the shed but very funny!



Lol come on you are smarter than this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

robsnotes4u
08-06-2016, 02:32 PM
No you said you have been involved using Fargorate for years and seen over 10,000 games of it......but you have only been involved in 7 games????? I think you failed in that transparency you were trying to get at. You've played one race to 4 under it. Lmao. That is nothing more than special. Like I said previously Mike Page should send you a PM and request you stop trying to explain or speak for him.



I also said I think FargoRate is a good thing -- just needs some tweaking and more info to be visible as Cleary suggests.



Unfortunately. I have a lot more than 7 games. Too think different is a very closed mind.

Being able to understand and watch 10,000 games has no bearing on the amount I have played.

Maybe I suck at pool and lose two and out in every tourney does that mean I do not have the intelligence to understand? Hell I could be a guy that doesn't play but. It's people in a Calcutta. If I had 100, 300, maybe 1000 games does that make me understand it more if I have been around it for 6 years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

gregcantrall
08-06-2016, 02:38 PM
Wow, that was a tough one.........

Martin, Rob (516)
Fargo ND
Robustness: 1269
Starter Rating: N/A
532

cleary
08-06-2016, 02:39 PM
Unfortunately. I have a lot more than 7 games. Too think different is a very closed mind.

Being able to understand and watch 10,000 games has no bearing on the amount I have played.

Maybe I suck at pool and lose two and out in every tourney does that mean I do not have the intelligence to understand? Hell I could be a guy that doesn't play but. It's people in a Calcutta. If I had 100, 300, maybe 1000 games does that make me understand it more if I have been around it for 6 years.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was told by Mr Ackler that being a 477, that I cannot possibly be smart enough to understand.

Again Robert, you've yet to give us a straight answer after claiming to be so transparent.

robsnotes4u
08-06-2016, 02:39 PM
As s lawyer wold say. I am finished. You may step down.

Thanks for playing.

You just cost me two sets. List one 5-0 and the other 5-1. You got your money's worth


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

SWRLE
08-06-2016, 02:41 PM
Have you considered that maybe, just maybe... My "crying" is an attempt to improve his system? Make it better? More accurate? You've heard of constructive criticism before, right? I guess there's no possible way that maybe, just f*cking MAYYYYYBE, his system isn't perfect?

But it's cool... I'm just crying and making loud noises. Continue being butt hurt.

You are not crying. You are just arguing with facts and first hand knowledge with experts stuck with an aversion to admitting and correcting flaws in their system. Ironically, no one is bashing the Fargo system or CSI's intent to make the divisions as fair as possible. They are simply pointing out the simple fact that setting starter ratings at the bottom of one's known playing level (or in one case even lower) allowed 8 un-established Gold level players to come in and sweep the top 8 Silver payouts.

There are two types of people. Some listen to the criticism, admit their mistakes, apologize, correct them and we can all move on with a better system. Others deny the facts, bash the critics, try to bully them into silence and we can all go thru this next year again. I don't see how people can say they are trying to make the BCA National Tournament better by saying if you don't like it don't play.

robsnotes4u
08-06-2016, 02:42 PM
I was told by Mr Ackler that being a 477, that I cannot possibly be smart enough to understand.



Again Robert, you've yet to give us a straight answer after claiming to be so transparent.



I gave you my name and where I live who else has done that.

By the way, what does my rating or robustness have to do with anything? That rates my skill level of pool, not my intelligence.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

cleary
08-06-2016, 02:44 PM
Wow, that was a tough one.........

Martin, Rob (516)
Fargo ND
Robustness: 1269
Starter Rating: N/A
532

He said Robert Martin... I typed in Robert Martin. I didn't care to search Rob, Robby, Bob, Bobby, Bert or any other nicknames that could possibly be short for Robert. My bad bro.

cleary
08-06-2016, 02:46 PM
By the way, what does my rating or robustness have to do with anything? That rates my skill level of pool, not my intelligence.

Did you even read what I wrote? Trust me, I've got a pretty good read on your intelligence.

SWRLE
08-06-2016, 02:48 PM
Is asking a question the same as "jumping to conclusions"?

There you go jumping to conclusions again

robsnotes4u
08-06-2016, 02:50 PM
Did you even read what I wrote? Trust me, I've got a pretty good read on your intelligence.


Sir, I said no further questions you can step down.

Bailiff?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

cleary
08-06-2016, 02:52 PM
There you go jumping to conclusions again

http://cdn1.thecomeback.com/theoutsidecorner/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2015/04/jump_conclusions-600x356.jpg

cleary
08-06-2016, 02:53 PM
Sir, I said no further questions you can step down.

Bailiff?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly. Too easy. Next...

robsnotes4u
08-06-2016, 02:58 PM
Exactly. Too easy. Next...



Lol. Funny. We need to have a beer together!

You opinion is yours. Mine is mine.!

I will buy if we cross paths. Since I only have a robustness of 7 I don't get out much

You can spot my me three to seven


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

gregcantrall
08-06-2016, 03:05 PM
By the way, what does my rating or robustness have to do with anything? That rates my skill level of pool, not my intelligence.



By playing intelligently it is possible to defeat a player with better physical skills.

My rating is proof of that.:cool:

robsnotes4u
08-06-2016, 03:07 PM
By playing intelligently it is possible to defeat a player with better physical skills.



My rating is proof of that.:cool:



That is a great point. So are you the guy in the car with Archer Appleton? Or I am I messed up again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

gutshot
08-06-2016, 03:07 PM
Since we are blasting people...:rotflmao1:

"watchez" aka

Steve Sobel
O'Fallon, MO
Robustness: 219
Fargo Rating: 573

Wow, that was a tough one.........

Martin, Rob (516)
Fargo ND
Robustness: 1269
Starter Rating: N/A
532

watchez
08-06-2016, 03:15 PM
Damn Cleary my opinion counts more than yours.

Thanks for the assist Kelly

gregcantrall
08-06-2016, 03:18 PM
That is a great point. So are you the guy in the car with Archer Appleton? Or I am I messed up again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I wish.

Once I drove Cole Dickson from Kelso/Longview to Seattle though.;)

I learned a lot on that drive.:eek:

robsnotes4u
08-06-2016, 03:22 PM
I wish.



Once I drove Cole Dickson from Kelso/Longview to Seattle though.;)



I learned a lot on that drive.:eek:



I bet. That is cool


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

gutshot
08-06-2016, 03:23 PM
No problem man. Nice team finish by the way. Just like playing GT. :thumbup:

Damn Cleary my opinion counts more than yours.

Thanks for the assist Kelly

watchez
08-06-2016, 03:27 PM
No problem man. Nice team finish by the way. Just like playing GT. :thumbup:

Thanks ......and except GT pays better than pool. I'll be in Mason OH August 25-28. Come by and I'll buy you a beer. I'm hoping Dean makes one of his surprise arrivals.

gutshot
08-06-2016, 03:33 PM
I saw that event while surfing the net about 30 minutes ago. I live about 10 minutes from there. It's hard to tell about Dean. You just never know when or where he'll pop up. Does he even know about it? I asked Steve Tirey if he knew about the event and he said he just found out so Dean might not even know about it. Unfortunately I will be playing golf up in Akron that weekend so I won't be able to swing by.

Thanks ......and except GT pays better than pool. I'll be in Mason OH August 25-28. Come by and I'll buy you a beer. I'm hoping Dean makes one of his surprise arrivals.

cleary
08-06-2016, 03:40 PM
sad face.

Kelly Chrisman doesn't seem to have a fargo rating.

gutshot
08-06-2016, 03:43 PM
I'm going to sneak in next year and rob the tournament with my 525 starter rating!

sad face.

Kelly Chrisman doesn't seem to have a fargo rating.

cleary
08-06-2016, 03:45 PM
I'm going to sneak in next year and rob the tournament with my 525 starter rating!

You and everyone else.

watchez
08-06-2016, 03:52 PM
I saw that event while surfing the net about 30 minutes ago. I live about 10 minutes from there. It's hard to tell about Dean. You just never know when or where he'll pop up. Does he even know about it? I asked Steve Tirey if he knew about the event and he said he just found out so Dean might not even know about it. Unfortunately I will be playing golf up in Akron that weekend so I won't be able to swing by.

Dean knows. I have this fancy website he checks.

calcuttaman
08-06-2016, 06:11 PM
What you're not understanding is it's not about the system he has in place, it's about the obvious holes in it that leads to players being poorly rated. Doesn't this lead to the question, "Are they rated better under FargoRate then they were under the old system?

cleary
08-06-2016, 06:42 PM
Doesn't this lead to the question, "Are they rated better under FargoRate then they were under the old system?

There was no old system. New players played in the "open" and when you finished high in that, you went to "advanced". Nobody showed up after they were bumped out of the bigger money tournament... That, isn't really a ranking system at all. It was terrible lol

I'm not saying Fargo can't be good. It absolutely can be. It could be great for pool... It's just not there yet.

robsnotes4u
08-06-2016, 06:48 PM
There was no old system. New players played in the "open" and when you finished high in that, you went to "advanced". Nobody showed up after they were bumped out of the bigger money tournament... That, isn't really a ranking system at all. It was terrible lol



I'm not saying Fargo can't be good. It absolutely can be. It could be great for pool... It's just not there yet.



Calcuttaman. Do yourselves a favor go to www.fargorate.com and watch the videos. FargoRate is way past "there". That happened years ago.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

robsnotes4u
08-06-2016, 07:08 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

calcuttaman
08-06-2016, 07:43 PM
There was no old system. New players played in the "open" and when you finished high in that, you went to "advanced". Nobody showed up after they were bumped out of the bigger money tournament... That, isn't really a ranking system at all. It was terrible lol
Bingo

Calcuttaman. Do yourselves a favor go to www.fargorate.com and watch the videos. FargoRate is way past "there". That happened years ago. I am very, very familiar with Fargorate

robsnotes4u
08-06-2016, 07:48 PM
Bingo



I am very, very familiar with Fargorate



Awesome


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Poolplaya9
08-06-2016, 07:58 PM
well I know they will not be the same.Just trying to figure how i went up 30 points?I olayed minis.Surely 3 mini tournaments race to 3 cant raise me 30 points.I didnt play singles.He only played teams also.But he dropped 2 points.We shall see.Just trying to understand it better.Dont know what they could have raised me with of they didnt add the teams yet.

The last time you asked the same question Robsnotes4u mentioned that the answer was already posted in post #74. It doesn't appear that you read it. You should, it answers your question.
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=5631310&postcount=74

Mark Griffin
08-06-2016, 08:16 PM
Cleary,
Evidently you think we did nothing to screen players all the past years. I guess I better tell Bill Stock that he didn't do anything the last 10 years or so.

I do read the forums, and I do believe most people want to offer positive suggestions. However some just want to complain, and in the process make statements that are way more fiction than fact.

Fargo has made a lot of impact on rating of players - and it will get better over time. Obviously, we don't have data from events that don't send it to us, but most promoters and TD will participate because it is better for the players, and the game.

I try not to respond to many posters who want to argue and have the tendency to get 'stuck' in a narrow perspective- and refuse to see the bigger (and better) picture. There are a few posters who 'think' they know best - but their facts are highly distorted. Maybe if they actually inquired they might get the facts.

Let's also remember the tournament ended on Sunday. Usually our office is back in order by Wednesday or Thursday. This year is different because our email server went south and we won't have email until next week. It is causing a lot if issues for us doing our job - but it is what it is.

What is not acceptable is some posters almost demanding an immediate answer to sometimes complicated topics. Until we get caught up, that just isn't realistic. We usually respond and I feel the AZ community should just chill a little. I am sure there are some legitimate complaints, but there are Also some bogus questions and misleading information being put out there. We do appreciate real constructive ideas. Once in awhile a real new idea is presented-and it makes reading all the crap worthwhile when you might find a gem......

Here's a news flash. FargoRate is possibly the best thing to happen to pool in many years. It is in its infancy and already has kept most players in their respective divisions. More data is the answer and we are getting more data on an ever increasing frequency.

So I really wish people would cut us a little slack - what CSI (and FargoRate) has undertaken is a monster task. No other billiard entity would or could do what we are in the process of doing. BTW, have the naysayers ever considered who is paying for all this development and implementation, at no cost to the players? Some people who 'get it' appreciate it because they see the future.

Others want to tell us what we should do 'if we were smart' .........

In the effort to make peace in the world of pool, please understand that I gave a huge passion for pool. And I know the players and the game deserve much better than what has been available. Fortunately, I have the tools available to undertake this very time consuming and expensive project. And I am now lucky enough to have a decent pair of lungs so I can torture all the people wanting us to fall short......

I don't want to argue with anyone, but I really cannot respect people who attack something because they don't understand what is really happening. I'm not calling anyone stupid or irrational - but some pretty stupid and irrational statements seem to show up on these threads.

So, onward towards better billiards

Mark Griffin
702-835-2000. Cell
(Oh yeah, if you really want a better glimpse of what's we are doing, you know how to find me. But please remember our email us down a few more days, and believe it or not, I'm pretty busy in opening the 'nicest pool room in America')



There was no old system. New players played in the "open" and when you finished high in that, you went to "advanced". Nobody showed up after they were bumped out of the bigger money tournament... That, isn't really a ranking system at all. It was terrible lol

I'm not saying Fargo can't be good. It absolutely can be. It could be great for pool... It's just not there yet.

Poolplaya9
08-06-2016, 09:08 PM
lol all of the data was very little data at all. Ron won that tournament because he was supposed to. He's a good player. A better player than the guy who won the silver div. He didn't sandbag to get a 402 ranking... They just had no data on him, which is strange considering how many tournaments he plays in.

Just how do you expect FargoRate to get all those results of all those tournaments Ron plays in? Clairvoyance? The answer is people. League and tournament directors have to submit it. And to make that happen, the players have to request it of them.

As with any system including your own personal judgement, you can't make a good analysis with little or no data whether it be in clocking someone's speed or anything else. FargoRate is no exception. It can't make a super accurate analysis when it has little game results on someone to work with. I couldn't tell you for sure who the better player is either if all I knew was that Craig beat Allen 3 to 1 in a race to 3. Being inaccurate due to lack of data is not a problem with FargoRate, it is a problem with a lack of data, which is a people problem.

I agree that some people with little data in FargoRate were incorrectly rated at nationals, a few fairly significantly so. That problem existed under the old "system" too though. The question is, did it get better with FargoRate? I think the answer is a clear yes. Far few players slipped into the wrong divisions, and the ones that did almost always went into the division next to the one they should have been in instead several divisions off like in the past where pros and masters players were often getting into the open division. It was already better this year but as more players and more games go into FargoRate this problem with continue to decrease and if we can get most of the tournaments out there submitting their match results the issue would all but disappear.

Going back to the players this year that were inaccurately rated because they had few or no games in the system, what could have been done about it? I think it is a good discussion to have. One way it could have been done differently is to have someone research all the players with low robustness, search the internet for their tournament results and such, and based on that as well as the results of their matches in FargoRate use some subjective judgement to then place them into the division that seems most appropriate. One obvious problem with that though is just that, that it has a degree of subjectivity to it, which ideally you want to get away from for obvious reasons. Another problem is that because this is the first year that FargoRate has been public, lots and lots of players (maybe the majority?) did not yet have a sufficiently robust rating. Is CSI supposed to do all this manual research on 1,500 different players or however many it was that had a low robustness (under 200) this year? That doesn't sound very practical and would take a whole lot of man hours.

The fact that FargoRate can't be as accurate as we would like for someone with little or no robustness isn't a problem with FargoRate, it is a problem with people. FargoRate isn't clairvoyant. It isn't an all seeing god that knows everything that goes on in the pool universe. Without people submitting the information, the information won't be there. For the most part it can only get its information when league and tournament directors submit it. If we want FargoRate to be more accurate, it is up to us to make league and tournament directors aware of FargoRate and request that they submit their tournament or league data so that we all benefit from it. Obviously nobody has any obligation to do that, but if they don't IMO they lose their right to complain about people with few games in the system being rated incorrectly.

I know you don't agree but FargoRate actually works pretty well with enough data. Even if you don't agree on that, we all agree that it works better with more data, so either way it makes sense for us all to ask league and tournament directors to submit their data so that it will improve. For those that don't have the ability to fully understand FargoRate the proof will be in the pudding once there is enough data in there on most people. Then we can truly answer the question of just how accurate it is. Lets get the data in there and find out, and we are all going to have to ask our league and tournament directors to submit it to make it happen and to make it happen more quickly. Then let the results speak for themselves.

robsnotes4u
08-06-2016, 09:14 PM
Very good post


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

cleary
08-06-2016, 09:23 PM
Just how do you expect FargoRate to get all those results of all those tournaments Ron plays in? Clairvoyance? The answer is people. League and tournament directors have to submit it. And to make that happen, the players have to request it of them.

Which is why I said it's not there yet. I believe that's on fargorate to be in contact with these regional events. The predator pro-am tour is pretty big, they record the match score for every match. Ron plays in A LOT of these.

See, that's kind of the problem. It's so hard to get all of this info. I think, in time, it will come together because people will want to use the fargo rate to handicap players... get the wire on new players to a tournament ect. I've repeatedly said it's a good thing. But, I'm a hater because I have ANY sort of issues...

cleary
08-06-2016, 09:29 PM
Cleary,
Evidently you think we did nothing to screen players all the past years. I guess I better tell Bill Stock that he didn't do anything the last 10 years or so.

I do read the forums, and I do believe most people want to offer positive suggestions. However some just want to complain, and in the process make statements that are way more fiction than fact.

Fargo has made a lot of impact on rating of players - and it will get better over time. Obviously, we don't have data from events that don't send it to us, but most promoters and TD will participate because it is better for the players, and the game.

I try not to respond to many posters who want to argue and have the tendency to get 'stuck' in a narrow perspective- and refuse to see the bigger (and better) picture. There are a few posters who 'think' they know best - but their facts are highly distorted. Maybe if they actually inquired they might get the facts.

Let's also remember the tournament ended on Sunday. Usually our office is back in order by Wednesday or Thursday. This year is different because our email server went south and we won't have email until next week. It is causing a lot if issues for us doing our job - but it is what it is.

What is not acceptable is some posters almost demanding an immediate answer to sometimes complicated topics. Until we get caught up, that just isn't realistic. We usually respond and I feel the AZ community should just chill a little. I am sure there are some legitimate complaints, but there are Also some bogus questions and misleading information being put out there. We do appreciate real constructive ideas. Once in awhile a real new idea is presented-and it makes reading all the crap worthwhile when you might find a gem......

Here's a news flash. FargoRate is possibly the best thing to happen to pool in many years. It is in its infancy and already has kept most players in their respective divisions. More data is the answer and we are getting more data on an ever increasing frequency.

So I really wish people would cut us a little slack - what CSI (and FargoRate) has undertaken is a monster task. No other billiard entity would or could do what we are in the process of doing. BTW, have the naysayers ever considered who is paying for all this development and implementation, at no cost to the players? Some people who 'get it' appreciate it because they see the future.

Others want to tell us what we should do 'if we were smart' .........

In the effort to make peace in the world of pool, please understand that I gave a huge passion for pool. And I know the players and the game deserve much better than what has been available. Fortunately, I have the tools available to undertake this very time consuming and expensive project. And I am now lucky enough to have a decent pair of lungs so I can torture all the people wanting us to fall short......

I don't want to argue with anyone, but I really cannot respect people who attack something because they don't understand what is really happening. I'm not calling anyone stupid or irrational - but some pretty stupid and irrational statements seem to show up on these threads.

So, onward towards better billiards

Mark Griffin
702-835-2000. Cell
(Oh yeah, if you really want a better glimpse of what's we are doing, you know how to find me. But please remember our email us down a few more days, and believe it or not, I'm pretty busy in opening the 'nicest pool room in America')

Sorry Mark but the last "system" you had was an absolute joke. I tried to tell you several years ago it was a clusterf*ck but you didn't seem to care. You gave me one of your famous lines, "no matter what we do, someone will be upset". Well, at least with Fargorate, you're trying to have some sort of system... So, at least you are sort of moving in a better direction. Cheers to that!

robsnotes4u
08-06-2016, 09:30 PM
Which is why I said it's not there yet. I believe that's on fargorate to be in contact with these regional events. The predator pro-am tour is pretty big, they record the match score for every match. Ron plays in A LOT of these.



See, that's kind of the problem. It's so hard to get all of this info. I think, in time, it will come together because people will want to use the fargo rate to handicap players... get the wire on new players to a tournament ect. I've repeatedly said it's a good thing. But, I'm a hater because I have ANY sort of issues...



No. funny this just came up in conversation. You don't understand the math and statistics.

You don't need all the data to be statistically correct


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

cleary
08-06-2016, 09:35 PM
No. funny this just came up in conversation. You don't understand the math and statistics.

You don't need all the data to be statistically correct


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You don't need "all" the data to be 'statistically correct' but you need A LOT of data regular correct.

robsnotes4u
08-06-2016, 09:39 PM
You don't need "all" the data to be 'statistically correct' but you need A LOT of data regular correct.



Then we finally agree it works.

That was round about but we got there

You may step down.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

cleary
08-06-2016, 09:48 PM
Then we finally agree it works.

That was round about but we got there

You may step down.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Did you eat paint chips as a child?

Poolplaya9
08-06-2016, 11:21 PM
Which is why I said it's not there yet. I believe that's on fargorate to be in contact with these regional events. The predator pro-am tour is pretty big, they record the match score for every match. Ron plays in A LOT of these.

See, that's kind of the problem. It's so hard to get all of this info. I think, in time, it will come together because people will want to use the fargo rate to handicap players... get the wire on new players to a tournament ect. I've repeatedly said it's a good thing. But, I'm a hater because I have ANY sort of issues...

To be fair, you have been arguing that FargoRate as a system is inherently inaccurate itself even when it has enough data on players, not just that it is inaccurate in cases where it doesn't have enough data. But also to be fair, it sounds like you are backing slightly away from that some now and are now starting to have a more mind about it and for that I commend you. The math and concepts involved with FargoRate are complex and above most people's ability to fully comprehend, and you are in that boat. That isn't a slight as it involves a lot of pretty complex concepts that while absolutely correct are very counter-intuitive to most people, not just a few people.

The math and concepts behind FargoRate are a lot like this very famous math/logic/probability problem where the answer is also very counter-intuitive to most people and no matter how much you try to explain the answer to them most will still fail to comprehend it.

"Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors: Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat. He then says to you, "Do you want to pick door No. 2?" Is it to your advantage to switch your choice?"

Most people say it makes no difference to your odds of winning if you switch doors. They are wrong. Your odds of winning go up by switching doors. And even the people that can see that the odds of winning go up by switching doors still often get the amount that your odds of winning go up by wrong (you will win twice as often by always switching doors as you would have by never switching doors).

I bring up this famous problem because it can help illustrate how easily the average person can be wrong and not be able to see it. The reason that this is a good example for that is that for those who think that the idea of switching doors increasing your odds for winning is stupid and ridiculous and makes no sense and just can't possibly be true, you can easily prove without doubt just how wrong you are no matter how much you can't see it or understand it. Just run the "game show" experiment with somebody else a few dozen times to see. Get three coffee mugs or something (that are not clear) and put them upside down on a table, have the other person turn around, and put something under one of the mugs. Now have them turn back around and try to pick the mug with the item underneath. Do this like 25 times and see how often they pick they pick the right mug. Then do the same thing again 25 times, but this time after they choose, lift up one of the mugs that has nothing under it, and tell them that they have to switch their choice to the other mug, so this time they are switching their answer all 25 times after you have shown one of the mugs that has nothing under it. See how many times they picked the mug with the item under it this time. It won't even be close.

So now those people who would have sworn it made no difference can see without doubt the proof that they were wrong even though they still don't comprehend it, still don't get it, and are still completely baffled by it, and maybe now they can have a more open mind that the principles involved in FargoRate that they don't get and have argued against just might be another case of something that that seems so obvious to be one way but that they were wrong about because it was just beyond their ability to understand.

And for those that do understand the game show door problem and got the correct answer and comprehend it, it still serves as a reminder how counter-intuitive things can seem at times and that maybe just maybe FargoRate is one of these things for you, absolutely correct in its use of math and principle but just beyond your ability to comprehend it.

What I would say to people is that once there is enough data on enough players in the system, it will be crystal clear just how accurate or inaccurate it is. The results will speak for themselves. Until then try to keep an open mind. We will all have our proof soon enough.

Put_upor_shutup
08-06-2016, 11:52 PM
WE don't raise you; YOU are playing the games.

Maybe this--score and opponent--will refresh your memory. I see this as the system doing what it is supposed to do.

3 to 2 Eddie Brightman (575)
3 to 0 Andy Klenzak
5 to 2 David Nunn (579)
2 to 3 Stan Moon (584)
3 to 0 Jason Secor (602)
6 to 1 Joe Corpuz (602)
3 to 2 Scott Miller
4 to 5 Manny Perez (678)
6 to 1 Daniel Wise
3 to 0 Randy White (637)
5 to 0 Jose Palacios
5 to 1 Sevada Yeghanian (557)

48 to 17 total against a 600-ish crowd; that's pretty sporty...

Thats why I asked if it was minis.However I dont know if minis are really a good judge of speed.I dont make the rules and I did win those games.Do u get judged off the games u lose or just your win?Those just look like winning matches.Thanks for the response.

Put_upor_shutup
08-06-2016, 11:58 PM
The last time you asked the same question Robsnotes4u mentioned that the answer was already posted in post #74. It doesn't appear that you read it. You should, it answers your question.
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=5631310&postcount=74

It didnt answer my question but thank you for your concern.

Put_upor_shutup
08-07-2016, 12:41 AM
Cleary,
Evidently you think we did nothing to screen players all the past years. I guess I better tell Bill Stock that he didn't do anything the last 10 years or so.

I do read the forums, and I do believe most people want to offer positive suggestions. However some just want to complain, and in the process make statements that are way more fiction than fact.

Fargo has made a lot of impact on rating of players - and it will get better over time. Obviously, we don't have data from events that don't send it to us, but most promoters and TD will participate because it is better for the players, and the game.

I try not to respond to many posters who want to argue and have the tendency to get 'stuck' in a narrow perspective- and refuse to see the bigger (and better) picture. There are a few posters who 'think' they know best - but their facts are highly distorted. Maybe if they actually inquired they might get the facts.

Let's also remember the tournament ended on Sunday. Usually our office is back in order by Wednesday or Thursday. This year is different because our email server went south and we won't have email until next week. It is causing a lot if issues for us doing our job - but it is what it is.

What is not acceptable is some posters almost demanding an immediate answer to sometimes complicated topics. Until we get caught up, that just isn't realistic. We usually respond and I feel the AZ community should just chill a little. I am sure there are some legitimate complaints, but there are Also some bogus questions and misleading information being put out there. We do appreciate real constructive ideas. Once in awhile a real new idea is presented-and it makes reading all the crap worthwhile when you might find a gem......

Here's a news flash. FargoRate is possibly the best thing to happen to pool in many years. It is in its infancy and already has kept most players in their respective divisions. More data is the answer and we are getting more data on an ever increasing frequency.

So I really wish people would cut us a little slack - what CSI (and FargoRate) has undertaken is a monster task. No other billiard entity would or could do what we are in the process of doing. BTW, have the naysayers ever considered who is paying for all this development and implementation, at no cost to the players? Some people who 'get it' appreciate it because they see the future.

Others want to tell us what we should do 'if we were smart' .........

In the effort to make peace in the world of pool, please understand that I gave a huge passion for pool. And I know the players and the game deserve much better than what has been available. Fortunately, I have the tools available to undertake this very time consuming and expensive project. And I am now lucky enough to have a decent pair of lungs so I can torture all the people wanting us to fall short......

I don't want to argue with anyone, but I really cannot respect people who attack something because they don't understand what is really happening. I'm not calling anyone stupid or irrational - but some pretty stupid and irrational statements seem to show up on these threads.

So, onward towards better billiards

Mark Griffin
702-835-2000. Cell
(Oh yeah, if you really want a better glimpse of what's we are doing, you know how to find me. But please remember our email us down a few more days, and believe it or not, I'm pretty busy in opening the 'nicest pool room in America')


I probably shouldnt even say this because I do enjoy just getting to play now that I dont play pool or gamble for a living..I dont want any hard feelings at all because I do believe this rating system will work out in the long run.But that comment in bold right there is pretty harsh shot at those that played this event.

ex. Mens 8 ball Gold division
Roughly 430 entries 400$ entry each team
Around 170,000$ in entry money received for this division
Payback to the teams that placed Roughly 90,500

That means in this one division alone roughly 80,000 dollars was taken out.Not to mention these guys pay league dues every week to be faithful to your organization and then spend another 1000.00 to 1500.00 in hotel/flight and food to go to Vegas for a week and play.You really dont think they deserve a little credit on helping fund this?

Poolplaya9
08-07-2016, 02:22 AM
Thats why I asked if it was minis.However I dont know if minis are really a good judge of speed.I dont make the rules and I did win those games.Do u get judged off the games u lose or just your win?Those just look like winning matches.Thanks for the response.

Why wouldn't mini's be a good judge of speed? FargoRate essentially measures a person's average speed, which is overall what is most useful and accurate. To get a person's true average, you have to count all their games you are aware of. If you pick and choose which games and matches to count it is no longer a true representation of their average.

It didnt answer my question but thank you for your concern.

It did, you just didn't understand it I guess. No problem, you should have just said so. I will try to explain it a little more.

Your question was essentially that you couldn't think of any possible reason to explain how after the team event your FargoRating could have gone up while a teammates went down. Post #74 gave you two possible reasons.

One of the reasons that could explain this that was in that post is that FargoRate doesn't rate you based on whether you win or lose your matches against opponents, and it seems that you have the impression that it does. Whether you win or lose the match is immaterial. It only rates you based on how many games you won, compared to how many games you were expected to win based on your's and your opponent's ratings.

For example, lets say you play Shane Van Boening a race to nine. According to your current rating level (697) and Shane's current rating level (822) you are only supposed to get to 4 games by the time Shane wins the match. But lets say you lose 8-5. Well you won more games than a person rated a 697 is supposed to (you were only supposed to win 4 on average), so your rating is going to go up. It will probably only go up a minuscule amount since you didn't perform that much better than expected but your rating is going to go up none the less (although it may only up say .2 points, which after you round off you are still a 697).

Now say you lose to Shane 9-8. Now you won twice as many games as a 697 is supposed to win against Shane (you won 8 games but were only supposed to win 4) so your rating will go up even more than if you had lost 8-4 like in the first example. This time your rating might go up .8 points, and after you round off you are now a 698.

Now lets say you were to lose that match to Shane 8-2. Well then your rating would go down because you did not win the 4 games that were expected of a 697 speed player.

Now lets say you actually beat Shane in the match, and the final score is you won 9-6. Well you rating will go up even more than in any of the other examples. It isn't because you won that match though. That part doesn't matter. It is because you even further exceeded what you were supposed to do on average, which was only win 4 games. So you go up when you do better than a guy your speed was supposed to do, and you go down when you under perform how you were supposed to do against your opponent. So whether you actually won or lost a match is immaterial, it is by how much you exceeded or fell short of how a 697 would have done on average that makes the difference.

Something to keep in mind is that the more games you have in the system, the less difference any one match makes. If you have only ten games in the system and are a 697, and you lose 9-8 to Shane, your rating is going to go up, and go up a lot. But if you have a thousand games in the system your rating will only go up very slightly. Same thing when you perform lower than your rating.

When it comes to matches where you only won one game against an opponent (as in the team play at nationals) it gets kind of complicated to explain, but it essentially works the same way. You are generally going to go up when you win that one game against the guy, and how much you go up depends on how good he was. Since it was only one game it will generally only be a minuscule change in rating, again, depending on how many games you have in the system, but it probably won't even be enough to change your rating after you round off. It is the reverse if you lose the one game. All of the above (that was in post #74 just not spelled out nearly as detailed) leads to an answer to your original question of how after the team event you could go up and your teammate could go down, and one of those ways is because you could have performed better than you were expected to for a 697 (maybe you beat several 750 players, or maybe you beat all the players rated around your speed instead of just half of them, etc). That would be one explanation for you going up. And maybe your teammate perform slightly worse than he was expected to do for someone of his rating against the level of opponents that he played and therefore he went down.

Another reason that was in post #74 that could explain how you could go up but your teammate could go down is that you are re-rated every single day and your rating can change even if you have played no new games in the system. Basically if the ratings of the past opponents you have played against ends up going down on average, then your rating is going to go down too. And if the your past opponent's average ratings go up, then yours is going to go up too. And if they went up a lot, then yours will go up a lot.

What could easily have happened is that you beat a lot of players who were very under rated because they had no games in the system, or few games in the system. Lets say one of the guys you beat had a starter rating of 525, but as he played more matches and more singles and more mini's his rating went up to a 610 to closer reflect his true speed. Well part of your rating was taking into consideration that you beat this "525", but now that FargoRate knows that he is actually a 610, your win against a 610 is more "impressive" and means more or counts for more than when it was a win against a 525 and so your rating is going to go up to. And if you beat several of these significantly under rated players during the nationals whose ratings ended up going up quite a bit after they got more games in the system then your rating could see a pretty significant increase too. And being that there were lots of people with starter ratings, this is very likely a part of why you went up so much. Maybe your teammate didn't face as many of these unrated players, or if he did half of them were under rated but half of them were over rated so even after their ratings changed after they got more games in the system your teammate ended up staying about the same.

This was not mentioned in post 74, but while we are at it another reason you could have gone up while you teammate went down is that you could have won more games that he did during the team matches. How many games you won and how high your opponents are rated both make a significant difference to your rating.

And then as was already mentioned some time after you had asked the original question, the mini tournament results (where you did really well against high quality opponents) had already been entered and that certainly had a large affect on your rating too. In the mini's you way outplayed your previous rating and so your rating went up.

SWRLE
08-07-2016, 04:15 AM
I agree that some people with little data in FargoRate were incorrectly rated at nationals, a few fairly significantly so. That problem existed under the old "system" too though. The question is, did it get better with FargoRate? I think the answer is a clear yes. Far few players slipped into the wrong divisions, and the ones that did almost always went into the division next to the one they should have been in instead several divisions off like in the past where pros and masters players were often getting into the open division. It was already better this year but as more players and more games go into FargoRate this problem with continue to decrease and if we can get most of the tournaments out there submitting their match results the issue would all but disappear.

I don't think you are switching doors when you should be. Some people? A few people? Far fewer? I don't think 27 unestablished players sweeping 27 out of 32 top spots is "a few." I don't think moving 7 Gold level players who are known to be Gold level players before the tournament into sweeping 7 of the top 8 spots in the Silver division is "a few." I think it's a lot. And I think it is easily corrected by setting starter ratings at the TOP of one's known bracket rather than at the bottom so the weighted average formula doesn't pull them into a lower division. Really easy. But it's behind both doors #2 and #3 and people appear to be holding onto door #1 ("continue as is" "there really wasn't a problem" "if there was it will go away eventually").

This is not an issue about data entry or data collection. Sure, if everyone has established ratings and no new players enter the system then this problem goes away with time. But everyone doesn't have established ratings and may not for several more tournaments, and, hopefully, new players will come online every year with a best effort at setting their starter rating and division correctly. Let's not let some formula arbitrarily reassign them to divisions we know they should not be in.

jojopiff
08-07-2016, 05:56 AM
Much of the scrutiny Fargo is under is directly due to the Fan boys as well as Mark Grifin himself. When you tout something as the greatest thing to happen to pool you're setting expectations very high. Then, when questions/concerns/problems arise now Fan boys wanna say "give it time", or "its in its infancy", or "it's better than it used to be". We were told its the greatest thing to happen to pool, not that it'd simply be better than it was. And then, expect leniency on what they painted as the greatest thing since sliced bread. Fan Boys made their bed, now get to lay in it.

robsnotes4u
08-07-2016, 06:28 AM
Much of the scrutiny Fargo is under is directly due to the Fan boys as well as Mark Grifin himself. When you tout something as the greatest thing to happen to pool you're setting expectations very high. Then, when questions/concerns/problems arise now Fan boys wanna say "give it time", or "its in its infancy", or "it's better than it used to be". We were told its the greatest thing to happen to pool, not that it'd simply be better than it was. And then, expect leniency on what they painted as the greatest thing since sliced bread. Fan Boys made their bed, now get to lay in it.



According to the website
109,427 players
3,466,280 games
130 countries

And 6 years

Not in its infancy. It doesn't need time.

Just because you don't like the answer, doesn't mean it isn't correct


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

mikepage
08-07-2016, 06:29 AM
[...] I don't think 27 out of 32 top finishers playing in the wrong division is "a few." [...]

We have analysis coming, and first up will be an analysis or who is the group of players who came in with a 525 starter-rating and no other information. How did they do as a group? What is our best guess of the over/under for their actual ratings? I will say right now that the answer is under 500. So if you went to your table for your first match and your opponent was 525 with no games, the chances appear to be better than 50% that player actually plays below 500 speed.

I'm not sure where the above statement comes from. But I will say if you take ANY tournament, no matter how even the field, and then you try to compute ratings just based on that tournament, the people who finish high in the tournament will appear to be WAY UP, well above their actual speed. This is a selection bias. It is a little like looking at the lottery ticket in your hand, computing just how improbably it was YOU had that exact number, and then being amazed you have it.

Consider this: Imagine a 512-player single elimination tournament where every player has the EXACT SAME SKILL. This is not hard to find. All we have to do is hold a coin-flipping tournament, with good coins, where WE KNOW everybody is the same. So everybody flips coins...first round, second round... At the end there is a winner,

one player won 9 flips in a row, has a 9 and 0 record
one who is 8 and 1
two who are 7 and 1

Someone coming considering there might be biased coins might choose to look at these four players and say look at how extraordinary their records are. The coins must be strongly biased.

But wait! Even with no bias to the coins, there WILL be a winner, and there WILL be a second place.

We must be careful we are not amazed by our own losing lottery ticket...

watchez
08-07-2016, 06:54 AM
We have analysis coming, and first up will be an analysis or who is the group of players who came in with a 525 starter-rating and no other information. How did they do as a group? What is our best guess of the over/under for their actual ratings? I will say right now that the answer is under 500. So if you went to your table for your first match and your opponent was 525 with no games, the chances appear to be better than 50% that player actually plays below 500 speed.

I'm not sure where the above statement comes from. But I will say if you take ANY tournament, no matter how even the field, and then you try to compute ratings just based on that tournament, the people who finish high in the tournament will appear to be WAY UP, well above their actual speed. This is a selection bias. It is a little like looking at the lottery ticket in your hand, computing just how improbably it was YOU had that exact number, and then being amazed you have it.

Consider this: Imagine a 512-player single elimination tournament where every player has the EXACT SAME SKILL. This is not hard to find. All we have to do is hold a coin-flipping tournament, with good coins, where WE KNOW everybody is the same. So everybody flips coins...first round, second round... At the end there is a winner,

one player won 9 flips in a row, has a 9 and 0 record
one who is 8 and 1
two who are 7 and 1

Someone coming considering there might be biased coins might choose to look at these four players and say look at how extraordinary their records are. The coins must be strongly biased.

But wait! Even with no bias to the coins, there WILL be a winner, and there WILL be a second place.

We must be careful we are not amazed by our own losing lottery ticket...
I would have to go back and find the quote but when the explanation by CSI was given why one bracket had 56% of the field in it, it was "because the people that were rated 525 were most likely 50 points too low anyways". I posted than that made no sense cause it was CSI that gave them the 525 starter rating. As a poster here basically said, they should have ranked them with a starter rating that put them higher up in the grouping. There is only one reason why they weren't. Also like the APA I believe never would start a male player as a 2, no male player should be given a starter rating of 400.

JAM
08-07-2016, 07:05 AM
...Also like the APA I believe never would start a male player as a 2, no male player should be given a starter rating of 400.

In a day and age where we have the first woman presidential candidate nominated by the Democratic Party, one should be careful about sexism statements. :embarrassed2:

robsnotes4u
08-07-2016, 07:05 AM
I would have to go back and find the quote but when the explanation by CSI was given why one bracket had 56% of the field in it, it was "because the people that were rated 525 were most likely 50 points too low anyways". I posted than that made no sense cause it was CSI that gave them the 525 starter rating. As a poster here basically said, they should have ranked them with a starter rating that put them higher up in the grouping. There is only one reason why they weren't. Also like the APA I believe never would start a male player as a 2, no male player should be given a starter rating of 400.



Curious.

How many games do you have in FargoRate? What is your rating? How long have you experienced it in your league?

I read such things as, "I would never lose to a 400", and "no male should be given a starter rating of 400".

I would guess a lot of people making such statements do not know what a 400 level player is.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

ronscuba
08-07-2016, 07:12 AM
Curious.

How many games do you have in FargoRate? What is your rating? How long have you experienced it in your league?

I read such things as, "I would never lose to a 400", and "no male should be given a starter rating of 400".

I would guess a lot of people making such statements do not know what a 400 level player is.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Using the letter grade system of D to Pro, what is a 400, 525, 600 level player in letters ?

mikepage
08-07-2016, 07:23 AM
Using the letter grade system of D to Pro, what is a 400, 525, 600 level player in letters ?

It strongly depends on where you are. In the northeast, that might be D, C, B.

In Minnesota it is C, B/A, and A/AA

There is no universal letter system.

cleary
08-07-2016, 07:24 AM
According to the website
109,427 players
3,466,280 games
130 countries

And 6 years

Not in its infancy. It doesn't need time.

Just because you don't like the answer, doesn't mean it isn't correct


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just because you think it's perfect, doesn't mean it is.

cleary
08-07-2016, 07:24 AM
Using the letter grade system of D to Pro, what is a 400, 525, 600 level player in letters ?

Apparently 400 means B player. Ron Mason was a 402 and he's a solid B player.

gregcantrall
08-07-2016, 07:27 AM
Using the letter grade system of D to Pro, what is a 400, 525, 600 level player in letters ?
Here is a link to a Dr. Dave rating comparison chart.
http://billiarduniversity.org/documents/BU_Rating_Comparisons.pdf

It covers multiple rating systems.

cleary
08-07-2016, 07:27 AM
In a day and age where we have the first woman presidential candidate nominated by the Democratic Party, one should be careful about sexism statements. :embarrassed2:

What I find strange is I saw someone post a while back what the bronze, silver, gold, platinum number range was for bcapl and women and men had different numbers. I don't get that. A female 500 should be the same as a male 500.

It might have been a misprint or bad info, it wasn't from their site. I just found it strange.

jojopiff
08-07-2016, 07:47 AM
According to the website
109,427 players
3,466,280 games
130 countries

And 6 years

Not in its infancy. It doesn't need time.

Just because you don't like the answer, doesn't mean it isn't correct


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Funny thing is, Mark Griffin said its in its infancy only a few posts up from mine.

Those aren't my words, those are the words of Mr Griffin & many Fan Boys. You may think it's the answer & it may be, for you. Doesn't mean it is for everyone.

Put_upor_shutup
08-07-2016, 07:48 AM
Why wouldn't mini's be a good judge of speed? FargoRate essentially measures a person's average speed, which is overall what is most useful and accurate. To get a person's true average, you have to count all their games you are aware of. If you pick and choose which games and matches to count it is no longer a true representation of their avera

It did, you just didn't understand it I guess. No problem, you should have just said so. I will try to explain it a little more.

Your question was essentially that you couldn't think of any possible reason to explain how after the team event your FargoRating could have gone up while a teammates went down. Post #74 gave you two possible reasons.

One of the reasons that could explain this that was in that post is that FargoRate doesn't rate you based on whether you win or lose your matches against opponents, and it seems that you have the impression that it does. Whether you win or lose the match is immaterial. It only rates you based on how many games you won, compared to how many games you were expected to win based on your's and your opponent's ratings.

For example, lets say you play Shane Van Boening a race to nine. According to your current rating level (697) and Shane's current rating level (822) you are only supposed to get to 4 games by the time Shane wins the match. But lets say you lose 8-5. Well you won more games than a person rated a 697 is supposed to (you were only supposed to win 4 on average), so your rating is going to go up. It will probably only go up a minuscule amount since you didn't perform that much better than expected but your rating is going to go up none the less (although it may only up say .2 points, which after you round off you are still a 697).

Now say you lose to Shane 9-8. Now you won twice as many games as a 697 is supposed to win against Shane (you won 8 games but were only supposed to win 4) so your rating will go up even more than if you had lost 8-4 like in the first example. This time your rating might go up .8 points, and after you round off you are now a 698.

Now lets say you were to lose that match to Shane 8-2. Well then your rating would go down because you did not win the 4 games that were expected of a 697 speed player.

Now lets say you actually beat Shane in the match, and the final score is you won 9-6. Well you rating will go up even more than in any of the other examples. It isn't because you won that match though. That part doesn't matter. It is because you even further exceeded what you were supposed to do on average, which was only win 4 games. So you go up when you do better than a guy your speed was supposed to do, and you go down when you under perform how you were supposed to do against your opponent. So whether you actually won or lost a match is immaterial, it is by how much you exceeded or fell short of how a 697 would have done on average that makes the difference.

Something to keep in mind is that the more games you have in the system, the less difference any one match makes. If you have only ten games in the system and are a 697, and you lose 9-8 to Shane, your rating is going to go up, and go up a lot. But if you have a thousand games in the system your rating will only go up very slightly. Same thing when you perform lower than your rating.

When it comes to matches where you only won one game against an opponent (as in the team play at nationals) it gets kind of complicated to explain, but it essentially works the same way. You are generally going to go up when you win that one game against the guy, and how much you go up depends on how good he was. Since it was only one game it will generally only be a minuscule change in rating, again, depending on how many games you have in the system, but it probably won't even be enough to change your rating after you round off. It is the reverse if you lose the one game. All of the above (that was in post #74 just not spelled out nearly as detailed) leads to an answer to your original question of how after the team event you could go up and your teammate could go down, and one of those ways is because you could have performed better than you were expected to for a 697 (maybe you beat several 750 players, or maybe you beat all the players rated around your speed instead of just half of them, etc). That would be one explanation for you going up. And maybe your teammate perform slightly worse than he was expected to do for someone of his rating against the level of opponents that he played and therefore he went down.

Another reason that was in post #74 that could explain how you could go up but your teammate could go down is that you are re-rated every single day and your rating can change even if you have played no new games in the system. Basically if the ratings of the past opponents you have played against ends up going down on average, then your rating is going to go down too. And if the your past opponent's average ratings go up, then yours is going to go up too. And if they went up a lot, then yours will go up a lot.

What could easily have happened is that you beat a lot of players who were very under rated because they had no games in the system, or few games in the system. Lets say one of the guys you beat had a starter rating of 525, but as he played more matches and more singles and more mini's his rating went up to a 610 to closer reflect his true speed. Well part of your rating was taking into consideration that you beat this "525", but now that FargoRate knows that he is actually a 610, your win against a 610 is more "impressive" and means more or counts for more than when it was a win against a 525 and so your rating is going to go up to. And if you beat several of these significantly under rated players during the nationals whose ratings ended up going up quite a bit after they got more games in the system then your rating could see a pretty significant increase too. And being that there were lots of people with starter ratings, this is very likely a part of why you went up so much. Maybe your teammate didn't face as many of these unrated players, or if he did half of them were under rated but half of them were over rated so even after their ratings changed after they got more games in the system your teammate ended up staying about the same.

This was not mentioned in post 74, but while we are at it another reason you could have gone up while you teammate went down is that you could have won more games that he did during the team matches. How many games you won and how high your opponents are rated both make a significant difference to your rating.

And then as was already mentioned some time after you had asked the original question, the mini tournament results (where you did really well against high quality opponents) had already been entered and that certainly had a large affect on your rating too. In the mini's you way outplayed your previous rating and so your rating went up.

Thanks for the response.

robsnotes4u
08-07-2016, 08:11 AM
What I find strange is I saw someone post a while back what the bronze, silver, gold, platinum number range was for bcapl and women and men had different numbers. I don't get that. A female 500 should be the same as a male 500.

It might have been a misprint or bad info, it wasn't from their site. I just found it strange.



Yes a 500 women and man would be the same.

I don't know what you are saying, but I assume you mean the division cut off numbers were not the same for men and women.

Fargo Billiards puts on tournaments named Quadrangles. Each time the cut offs are different, depending on the ratings of players. In other words Gold doesn't mean 425 - 525 for example. Gold is just a name.

I am not talking for CSI but this maybe the case. The splits between the two tournaments would be different because the two fields do not mirror each other in number and ratings.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

mikepage
08-07-2016, 08:13 AM
What I find strange is I saw someone post a while back what the bronze, silver, gold, platinum number range was for bcapl and women and men had different numbers. I don't get that. A female 500 should be the same as a male 500.

It might have been a misprint or bad info, it wasn't from their site. I just found it strange.

A female 500 IS the same as a male 500, and when a female and male play in the mixed division, there is no issue.

But when we apply the word "platinum" to a female-only group, and the word means the top xx% of that group, it is going to be associated with a different rating range than if we use the same criterion for a different group.

robsnotes4u
08-07-2016, 08:14 AM
Funny thing is, Mark Griffin said its in its infancy only a few posts up from mine.



Those aren't my words, those are the words of Mr Griffin & many Fan Boys. You may think it's the answer & it may be, for you. Doesn't mean it is for everyone.



The relationship between CSI and FargoRate might be considered in its infancy.

FargoRate itself is not when you look at the games, years, players, and countries.

I look as these as two separate things.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

cardiac kid
08-07-2016, 08:20 AM
You know guys, it seems no one wants to answer the simple question I asked in other threads about Fargo. What happens to a player stuck by ability in the middle of a bracket? Any bracket. How does that player get a REASONABLE chance to drop out of that bracket other than to SANDBAG? Some say get better. What if your closer to the end of life than the beginning? What if the player is already playing as hard as they can? How long will that player continue to support the event with no chance to win a match or two let alone cash? Think everyone is stuck worrying about how their rating is determined and how it is determined in relation to other players. It's such a simple question. Why can't the powers that be answer it? I know, just wait and the answer will magicly appear. You'll see. Just wait a few more years.

Lyn

mikepage
08-07-2016, 08:40 AM
Funny thing is, Mark Griffin said its in its infancy only a few posts up from mine.
[...]

Is FargoRate in its infancy or is it honed and well developed?

The answer is yes.

We worked many thousands of person-hours for several years collecting data and building the infrastructure before anybody knew what was going on and before we hooked up with CSI. By the time we partnered with CSI a little over a year ago, we already had over a million games in the system, tens of thousands of players, many countries, and the full functioning global optimization. It was very tempting during those years to spill the beans and let people know what was going on but we didn't.

It was as though nobody had heard of the concept of a railroad, and we were secretly building trans-continental railroad tracks without every showing a train.

In the short time we have been working with CSI, our database has grown from 1.0 million games to 3.5 million games and we are only now introducing the LMS league management software that will bring games automatically in.

So think about this. Five years to get to 1.0 million games, one more year to get to 3.5 million games right now Things are growing very fast and the pace is only getting faster. We are at a VERY exciting time for CSI and FargoRate.

So back to the railroad analogy. Though we have tracks across the country with functioning trains, the North Dakota Soybean farmer may not be able get his crop to Asia until some of the side-routes are constructed.

So in terms of bringing this new concept of railroad transportation to the world, we are fully established. In terms of the typical farmer using rail traffic with his crops, we are in the infancy.

Some areas are quite established; other areas are quite thin. But the infrastructure for ALL areas is in place, and things are moving fast in an exciting direction.

mikepage
08-07-2016, 08:52 AM
You know guys, it seems no one wants to answer the simple question I asked in other threads about Fargo. What happens to a player stuck by ability in the middle of a bracket? Any bracket. How does that player get a REASONABLE chance to drop out of that bracket other than to SANDBAG? Some say get better. What if your closer to the end of life than the beginning? What if the player is already playing as hard as they can? How long will that player continue to support the event with no chance to win a match or two let alone cash? [...]

Lyn -- I recall responding to this in some more detail.

If, in fact, a player is in a situation where he has "no chance to win a match or two let alone cash," that player will MOST DEFINITELY be in a lower division.

But if that player is someone like you, who legitimately plays--currently--at 655 speed, who played 11 matches this year in Platinum singles divisions, winning 7 matches and losing 4 matches, then it would be unfair to the players in the Gold division to have the player added.

Surely you can appreciate this.

Mark Griffin
08-07-2016, 08:55 AM
In ten years, the data collected and the data available will be much more than now. FargoRate will be much more common and be used in ways we can't even imagine.

Mikes railroad analogy is accurate. Improvements will be constantly made and the product will improve. That is what I was referring to as 'in its infancy'

Several have misinterpreted my statement. I did not say the method was incorrect or data was inaccurate-I was saying improvements in applications of this data will come over the years.
Some of these are a obvious (use it as a handicapping tool)-others aren't so obvious. The major area that will increase is data collection.

I never implied FargoRate was perfect. But more data will improve the accuracy of the system.

Hope this explains it more clearly.

Mark Griffin

robsnotes4u
08-07-2016, 08:55 AM
Great conversation by all. Mike thanks for all your answers to hard, good questions.

Mark also thanks for being involved.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

cleary
08-07-2016, 09:10 AM
In ten years, the data collected and the data available will be much more than now. FargoRate will be much more common and be used in ways we can't even imagine.

Mikes railroad analogy is accurate. Improvements will be constantly made and the product will improve. That is what I was referring to as 'in its infancy'

Some of these are a obvious (use it as a handicapping tool)-others aren't so obvious. The major area that will increase is data collection.

I never implied FargoRate was perfect. But more data will improve the accuracy of the system.

Hope this explains it more clearly.

Mark Griffin

I agree with this. It's not perfect but it as potential to be great. Mike should be a little more open minded and not assume everyone is stupid. As far as I can tell, he's not open to any suggestions. His fanboys should let him do the talking as well.

robsnotes4u
08-07-2016, 09:31 AM
I agree with this. It's not perfect but it as potential to be great. Mike should be a little more open minded and not assume everyone is stupid. As far as I can tell, he's not open to any suggestions. His fanboys should let him do the talking as well.



II will let Mike do all the writing. He
Explains things the best. He answers every question asked, you just don't like the answers.

For the record that was an uncalled for statement about Mike. If Mike wanted you to look stupid he would put part of his math on here and ask you to pinpoint where it needs to be corrected, or have you explain it. Mike is not that type of person, he writes at a level for us all to understand, not talking above us


You need to read your statement while looking in the mirror.

I look forward to sitting around the table at the pool hall as we did last night laughing at you responses. Do you do not spew out some BS. Mike was not with us and wouldn't laugh. He would some analysis, if it want already done before to verify.

Cool thing in life. You don't need the approval of everyone.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

mikepage
08-07-2016, 09:41 AM
[...] Mike should be a little more open minded and not assume everyone is stupid. As far as I can tell, he's not open to any suggestions. [...]

Cleary -

I mean no disrespect and I apologize if I have come across as closed to ideas or discussion. Please give me a blank slate and a new start on this. If you would be so kind as to detail the items you feel I have not addressed or not addressed adequately or respectfully, I will make the effort to do so.

BRussell
08-07-2016, 10:16 AM
In the short time we have been working with CSI, our database has grown from 1.0 million games to 3.5 million games and we are only now introducing the LMS league management software that will bring games automatically in.

I think this will be key. My impression - please correct me if I'm wrong - is that most league games have not gone into the database. So this year lots of people go to Nationals but you still need to just guess at their rating. But by this time next year, if leagues input games this year, the number of guesses should decrease substantially. You'll have at least the dozens of games that each league player plays each season going in.

I wonder why you didn't get the league games in the system prior to using it in Nationals. Maybe getting the league games is harder than I think, or maybe Nationals was a good place to jump-start getting everyone familiar with the system.

cardiac kid
08-07-2016, 10:29 AM
But if that player is someone like you, who legitimately plays--currently--at 655 speed, who played 11 matches this year in Platinum singles divisions, winning 7 matches and losing 4 matches, then it would be unfair to the players in the Gold division to have the player added. Surely you can appreciate this.

Mike,

We did speak in person. You had to leave in a hurry to play a match.

Perhaps you should have looked closer. In the nine ball I won two and lost two. Played to the very best of my ability. Got beat by two players who were better than I. One significantly. I've played in four consecutive National nine ball events without cashing.

In the eight ball, I lost my first match. Then, if I remember correctly, I received a bye (never lost to him), won a match, then received a forfeit (player misread the board) then lost my last match.

My figures say I won three and lost four. If your figures are correct, I must have won four matches I don't remember playing or you're counting byes which, in my view, is an error that needs to be corrected.

Still Mike, you haven't addressed my question of how someone in my position gets to drop a division. That is without "sandbagging". Yes, this is about my situation specifically. Yet there are hundreds of current and thousands of future players in my position. CSI and Fargo have to find a remedy for this situation. How many of those players will continue to attend?

We've seen this before. All you have to do is reseaarch the top forty two or so players who graduated to the Master event year after year after year. We both know the attendence dropped instead of increasing. Last year there were 28 players. I one, two buckle my shoe'd out of that event as well. Certainly not intentionally. Anyway, it appears I'm just beating a dead horse.

Lyn

SWRLE
08-07-2016, 10:37 AM
Cleary -

I mean no disrespect and I apologize if I have come across as closed to ideas or discussion. Please give me a blank slate and a new start on this. If you would be so kind as to detail the items you feel I have not addressed or not addressed adequately or respectfully, I will make the effort to do so.

I too mean no disrespect to Fargo, CSI, Mark, Mike, Robert or anyone working hard to make pool better. I also apologize for any harsh comments about people ducking the questions or knowingly playing in the wrong division or people making honest mistakes. I am a Fargo supporter and BCA supporter who just spent thousands to play in the National Tournament and had a lot of fun. Can I have a clean slate too?

I would like to very respectfully ask two simple questions to CSI and Fargo:

1. If the Mixed Singles BCA tournament were held again tomorrow with the same players, what division(s) would Joe Pierce, Ron Mason, and Noah Vogelman play in?

2. How would that be determined in each of the above cases?

Thank you very much.

watchez
08-07-2016, 10:39 AM
Curious.

How many games do you have in FargoRate? What is your rating? How long have you experienced it in your league?

I read such things as, "I would never lose to a 400", and "no male should be given a starter rating of 400".

I would guess a lot of people making such statements do not know what a 400 level player is.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

We don't use FargoRate in league. But if 400 is 173 points less than me, no man should start out as an 'unknown' player with this ranking. I tried to video a 400 level initial ranked player out there but I was too busy playing when he was to capture it.

Yes a man could be that low but to give him that ranking as a starter is a BIG mistake.

JC
08-07-2016, 10:40 AM
I am president of our local league. How can I get step by step help in entering our league results into Fargo each week. I am not currently the person who enters our data to league sys each week but I do know how to do it. Our league secretary who does the data entering for us tells me it's too cumbersome to do currently for the sake of Fargorate. Is this correct? Or is there software that makes it easy that he's not aware of. We had a WBCA tournament at our local casino recently that we also did not enter into the Fargo system for the same reason. The results there would have had a dramatic effect on several players with low robustness that I can think of. So how do we get past this to do our share to help the project and pool.

Thanks,

JC

SWRLE
08-07-2016, 10:51 AM
Mike,

We did speak in person. You had to leave in a hurry to play a match.

Perhaps you should have looked closer. In the nine ball I won two and lost two. Played to the very best of my ability. Got beat by two players who were better than I. One significantly. I've played in four consecutive National nine ball events without cashing.

In the eight ball, I lost my first match. Then, if I remember correctly, I received a bye (never lost to him), won a match, then received a forfeit (player misread the board) then lost my last match.

My figures say I won three and lost four. If your figures are correct, I must have won four matches I don't remember playing or you're counting byes which, in my view, is an error that needs to be corrected.

Still Mike, you haven't addressed my question of how someone in my position gets to drop a division. That is without "sandbagging". Yes, this is about my situation specifically. Yet there are hundreds of current and thousands of future players in my position. CSI and Fargo have to find a remedy for this situation. How many of those players will continue to attend?

We've seen this before. All you have to do is reseaarch the top forty two or so players who graduated to the Master event year after year after year. We both know the attendence dropped instead of increasing. Last year there were 28 players. I one, two buckle my shoe'd out of that event as well. Certainly not intentionally. Anyway, it appears I'm just beating a dead horse.

Lyn

Are you making an argument that people who haven't cashed for a long time in their division or haven't improved, or may actually be declining year over year, should be lowered into an easier division?

jojopiff
08-07-2016, 10:57 AM
I am president of our local league. How can I get step by step help in entering our league results into Fargo each week. I am not currently the person who enters our data to league sys each week but I do know how to do it. Our league secretary who does the data entering for us tells me it's too cumbersome to do currently for the sake of Fargorate. Is this correct? Or is there software that makes it easy that he's not aware of. We had a WBCA tournament at our local casino recently that we also did not enter into the Fargo system for the same reason. The results there would have had a dramatic effect on several players with low robustness that I can think of. So how do we get past this to do our share to help the project and pool.

Thanks,

JC

I also run a league and would like to know exactly what I need to do to get this info entered.

I also play in the league so can I enter the info or is that a sort of conflict of interest?

sbpoolleague
08-07-2016, 11:01 AM
In ten years, the data collected and the data available will be much more than now. FargoRate will be much more common and be used in ways we can't even imagine.

Mikes railroad analogy is accurate. Improvements will be constantly made and the product will improve. That is what I was referring to as 'in its infancy'

Several have misinterpreted my statement. I did not say the method was incorrect or data was inaccurate-I was saying improvements in applications of this data will come over the years.
Some of these are a obvious (use it as a handicapping tool)-others aren't so obvious. The major area that will increase is data collection.

I never implied FargoRate was perfect. But more data will improve the accuracy of the system.

Hope this explains it more clearly.

Mark Griffin

Mark,

The single most important thing to do that will ensure the success of Fargo ratings is to limit entry into the Nationals' Fargo divisions to those players with a minimum "robustness".

Perhaps next year this minimum could be less than the 200 game threshold so that unknown players have a reasonable chance to get their games in.

Of course to implement this two other things must happen immediately:
1. The new LMS software needs to roll out
2. CSI must broadcast this new requirement to all players

I will happily volunteer my services to any league operator that has tons of game data but limited knowledge of how to extract and format the data so it can be inserted into Fargo.

Contact me (Chris Ackler) at sbpoolleague@cox.net if you have historical league data and need help.

gutshot
08-07-2016, 11:06 AM
..........

cardiac kid
08-07-2016, 11:51 AM
Are you making an argument that people who haven't cashed for a long time in their division or haven't improved, or may actually be declining year over year, should be lowered into an easier division?

Perhaps being considered to be lowered might be more accurate. Problem is there is no such mechanism anymore. How many years should an average player in their Fargo determined division play and lose before they quit playing BCAPL Nationals due to frustration? It just appears to me no one at CSI / Fargo seems to have thought about this problem. Sure, they can stick their heads in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist but the significant drop in entries over the past several years can not be totally blamed on either the Rio or the July dates.

Lyn

watchez
08-07-2016, 12:13 PM
Perhaps being considered to be lowered might be more accurate. Problem is there is no such mechanism anymore. How many years should an average player in their Fargo determined division play and lose before they quit playing BCAPL Nationals due to frustration? It just appears to me no one at CSI / Fargo seems to have thought about this problem. Sure, they can stick their heads in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist but the significant drop in entries over the past several years can not be totally blamed on either the Rio or the July dates.

Lyn

Lyn - you have had some pretty good success over the years at the BCAPL. Guess how many of 1000s go and each year have no chance.

PMGB

BRussell
08-07-2016, 12:39 PM
Getting moved into a lower division by a buddy who runs the tournament sounds exactly like the kind of thing the new system is supposed to stop.

skip100
08-07-2016, 12:49 PM
Being ranked in the middle of a group isn't unfair. It's normal. This is not a problem that needs to be solved.

SWRLE
08-07-2016, 01:12 PM
Being ranked in the middle of a group isn't unfair. It's normal. This is not a problem that needs to be solved.

Actually it's an interesting marketing question. We see customer retention incentives all the time when a business is concerned about loss its customer base or is trying to capture some new target customer. 2nd chance tournaments being an example. Certainly not something Fargo would try to address beyond the natural evolution of ratings. And of course letting higher ratings into lower brackets might be taken poorly by those customers.

BRussell
08-07-2016, 01:14 PM
Being ranked in the middle of a group isn't unfair. It's normal. This is not a problem that needs to be solved.

And group cut offs are bound to change from year to year, so who's to say one would be in the middle next year?

SWRLE
08-07-2016, 01:20 PM
Mark,

The single most important thing to do that will ensure the success of Fargo ratings is to limit entry into the Nationals' Fargo divisions to those players with a minimum "robustness".

Perhaps next year this minimum could be less than the 200 game threshold so that unknown players have a reasonable chance to get their games in.

Of course to implement this two other things must happen immediately:
1. The new LMS software needs to roll out
2. CSI must broadcast this new requirement to all players

I will happily volunteer my services to any league operator that has tons of game data but limited knowledge of how to extract and format the data so it can be inserted into Fargo.

Contact me (Chris Ackler) at sbpoolleague@cox.net if you have historical league data and need help.

Lowering the robustness requirement encourages sandbagging and barring unestablished players altogether would probably destroy participation. Why not simply drop starter ratings and put unestablished players in the divisions where they belong?

JC
08-07-2016, 01:29 PM
Mark,

The single most important thing to do that will ensure the success of Fargo ratings is to limit entry into the Nationals' Fargo divisions to those players with a minimum "robustness".

Perhaps next year this minimum could be less than the 200 game threshold so that unknown players have a reasonable chance to get their games in.

Of course to implement this two other things must happen immediately:
1. The new LMS software needs to roll out
2. CSI must broadcast this new requirement to all players

I will happily volunteer my services to any league operator that has tons of game data but limited knowledge of how to extract and format the data so it can be inserted into Fargo.

Contact me (Chris Ackler) at sbpoolleague@cox.net if you have historical league data and need help.


Thanks Chris,

So one of my questions has been answered by #1 above. It appears that even if us leagues are ready, CSI is not. It doesn't take a statistician to identify this as the bottle neck in moving forward.

We have paper copies of every score sheet played in our league going back to it's inception in 2008. I have no problem understanding how to extract the data but no inclination to do so retroactively with a pencil and paper. If this is ever going to work well the new LMS software needs to be very well designed. People are lazy. I am people. I am lazy. And many are considerably lazier.

If the goal is to mandate leagues to report then the software has to be up to the job. Don't want to send a crew out to build a hydroelectric dam and hand them shovels when they arrive. The dam will not be built.

JC

BRussell
08-07-2016, 01:55 PM
Mark,

The single most important thing to do that will ensure the success of Fargo ratings is to limit entry into the Nationals' Fargo divisions to those players with a minimum "robustness".




That would solve the problem of unknown players, but I'd be afraid you'd exclude people who, through no fault of their own, don't have enough games in the system.

I wonder if part of the issue is that BCA is a sanctioning body, and does not have the same level of influence over the leagues as APA or USAPL. I doubt they want to start requiring FargoRate for sanctioned leagues.

I'd prefer that they make it available, people see the benefits of it and voluntarily use it.

GideonF
08-07-2016, 03:20 PM
Lowering the robustness requirement encourages sandbagging and barring unestablished players altogether would probably destroy participation. Why not simply drop starter ratings and put unestablished players in the divisions where they belong?



How do you decide "where they belong"? Is the process any different than assigning a starter rating?

Mark Griffin
08-07-2016, 04:02 PM
The software is currently being tested by many (20?) and hopefully ready for release in fairly short order. I had heard maybe a month. This is a Mike and Steve question.

Mark Griffin

Mark Griffin
08-07-2016, 04:17 PM
Chris,
I kinda agree with what you're suggesting, we haven't had our event debriefing yet (server down till Monday or Tuesday), but we are definitely going to address starter rates, low robustness, and other factors. We did get a ton of info from this year's event and hope to maximize its usefulness.

There are other options, like taking the starter rate and adding 50 points (or similar), and then their play will help establish a more accurate rating. As time goes on, we will have more data and that alone will assist us in being accurate.

I appreciate constructive criticism and especially appreciate your offer to help leagues get their info into Fargo.


As far as Lyn's predicament of being in the middle of a division-----I'm inclined to say that is something that every player potentially faces. The divisions will have different Fargo numbers from year to year. Not every player can be at the top of their division- unless the divisions are very narrow. It begs the question---does everyone realistically have a chance to win an event? The answer is yes and no. Fargo gives a much better chance you will be playing someone if a similar skill level. But if there are 150 entrants, and only one winner, there are a lot of disappointed players.

Why do we play the game? Because of the challenge! You cannot expect to 'win it all' but you can always hope, and try to improve.


Mark Griffin


Mark,

The single most important thing to do that will ensure the success of Fargo ratings is to limit entry into the Nationals' Fargo divisions to those players with a minimum "robustness".

Perhaps next year this minimum could be less than the 200 game threshold so that unknown players have a reasonable chance to get their games in.

Of course to implement this two other things must happen immediately:
1. The new LMS software needs to roll out
2. CSI must broadcast this new requirement to all players

I will happily volunteer my services to any league operator that has tons of game data but limited knowledge of how to extract and format the data so it can be inserted into Fargo.

Contact me (Chris Ackler) at sbpoolleague@cox.net if you have historical league data and need help.

Hits 'em Hard
08-07-2016, 04:20 PM
Maybe this has been asked before, but how do I search for particular players without having to make an account?

watchez
08-07-2016, 05:44 PM
Maybe this has been asked before, but how do I search for particular players without having to make an account?

Just make an account -- what's the issue in doing that ?

cardiac kid
08-07-2016, 06:00 PM
Lyn - you have had some pretty good success over the years at the BCAPL. Guess how many of 1000s go and each year have no chance.

PMGB

Steve,

The problem lies in the fact entries have continued to drop year after year. Everyone has a theory. Some of it may be players tired of not having a chance. Forget about me. Think of the average player who spends well over $1000 to travel to nationals. Some continue to go. Some have given up. IMHO, placing players in a perpetual position of losing does not bode well for BCAPL. How many years will you go if you have no chance? CSI does not need me or you to succeed. They need fresh meat just like APA and TAP. How many young players does Teacher's have coming up through the ranks? How many did we lose to video games? Maybe I'm missing a point but I don't know which one!

Yes, you are correct. Over the twenty five years or so I've been travelling to Vegas for BCA pool league or the BCAPL event, I've had some success. One year I even made money. The last four years has been a big change. Several friends of mine have commented on differences in my game. It may sound like a joke, but I miss shots now I never used to miss. I chalk it down to getting old. Some on AZ told me to get better. At 72 I should get better? Practice roughly 10 - 12 hours a week just to try to stay the same. One thing for sure, there is no way I'll miss or lose intentionally. That is a slippery slope I'd prefer not to face.

Anyway, congratulations again on your teams finish. May be driving out to Vegas again this winter. If I do, perhaps we can meet up at Teacher's.

Lyn

cardiac kid
08-07-2016, 06:12 PM
Being ranked in the middle of a group isn't unfair. It's normal. This is not a problem that needs to be solved.

How many years have you travelled to Vegas and lost? How many years would you continue to travel to Vegas if you had no chance? Yep, it is a normal situation. Until it affects you! Then it will become special.

Lyn

jojopiff
08-07-2016, 06:37 PM
Steve,

The problem lies in the fact entries have continued to drop year after year. Everyone has a theory. Some of it may be players tired of not having a chance. Forget about me. Think of the average player who spends well over $1000 to travel to nationals. Some continue to go. Some have given up. IMHO, placing players in a perpetual position of losing does not bode well for BCAPL. How many years will you go if you have no chance? CSI does not need me or you to succeed. They need fresh meat just like APA and TAP. How many young players does Teacher's have coming up through the ranks? How many did we lose to video games? Maybe I'm missing a point but I don't know which one!

Yes, you are correct. Over the twenty five years or so I've been travelling to Vegas for BCA pool league or the BCAPL event, I've had some success. One year I even made money. The last four years has been a big change. Several friends of mine have commented on differences in my game. It may sound like a joke, but I miss shots now I never used to miss. I chalk it down to getting old. Some on AZ told me to get better. At 72 I should get better? Practice roughly 10 - 12 hours a week just to try to stay the same. One thing for sure, there is no way I'll miss or lose intentionally. That is a slippery slope I'd prefer not to face.

Anyway, congratulations again on your teams finish. May be driving out to Vegas again this winter. If I do, perhaps we can meet up at Teacher's.

Lyn

You're stuck in your own situation. There's nothing to see here. You think you should be lowered because you "had no chance". What was the Fargo spread in your division? Do you have no chance or did you simply not play well? If you get your wish & moved down it doesn't fix the problem. It fixes your problem & creates the same problem for people in the division your in that you likely have no business in. You keep wanting to know why no one will answer the question with the "problem" you propose and it's because you've created a straw man.

SWRLE
08-07-2016, 06:47 PM
How do you decide "where they belong"? Is the process any different than assigning a starter rating?

Yes you get a completely different set of assignments and tournament results based on 1) how you assign the starter rating for a player 2) where you set the starting rating for a division, and those in combination with 3) the weighted average formula used to combine starter ratings with actual fargo game results.

CSI are experts in assigning players a division and have been doing that fairly accurately and successfully for at least ten years under the old system. I think they did an excellent job assigning players to intended divisions this year - with a few exceptions discussed previously. They also set some astute breakpoints for the divisions - 425 for Silver, 525 for Gold, 625 for Platinum, etc. - rather than blindly following the advertised division target %'s that will work fine once everyone is established. However, these good decisions were nullified when you bring in the weighted average formula in combination with setting target starter ratings at the bottom of the division breakpoints.

This is what allowed 8 Gold level players to sweep the Silver bracket. Since this seems to be a point of contention how do we know these were Gold level players playing in Silver? Well because 7 of them were ASSIGNED Gold level starter ratings but their few actual games played under that level allowed them to slip back into Silver. The Silver winner was assigned a 400 (Bronze!) starter rating despite the fact he had 52 games in the fargo database played at a 560+ Gold level which allowed him to slip into Silver. Had he also been assigned a 525 starter like the other 7 he would have been moved to Gold immediately by the same formula that moved the others down.

I remain confused on CSI's and Fargo's stance on these Silver results. There has been a lot of discussion about how we need a lot more data (this will NOT address the issue) and how top finishers will always perform high (this does not address the issue either), but no response whatsoever to the assertion that people assigned to play in Gold or should have played in Gold swept the Silver bracket.

So I ask csi and fargo again - if the same tournament were held tomorrow in which divisions would Mason, Vogelman and Pierce play? In the absence of any changes to the starter ratings policy or the weighted average idea we can answer the question ourselves. Mason would play in Bronze again, Vogelman would play in Silver again, but robust Pierce would now be returned to the Platinum division in which he belongs. N'est ce pas?

SWRLE
08-07-2016, 06:54 PM
Chris,
I kinda agree with what you're suggesting, we haven't had our event debriefing yet (server down till Monday or Tuesday), but we are definitely going to address starter rates, low robustness, and other factors. We did get a ton of info from this year's event and hope to maximize its usefulness.

There are other options, like taking the starter rate and adding 50 points (or similar), and then their play will help establish a more accurate rating. As time goes on, we will have more data and that alone will assist us in being accurate.

I appreciate constructive criticism and especially appreciate your offer to help leagues get their info into Fargo.

Mark Griffin

Good deal. Thank you doing that. SWRLE out.

one stroke
08-07-2016, 06:55 PM
Being ranked in the middle of a group isn't unfair. It's normal. This is not a problem that needs to be solved.

True dat unfortunately in handicap pool being in the middle is the worst possible place to be ,, the system is worthless to them it's worth is on the edges and thier the ones who may try to minipulate the system ,, most good people want to be the best they can be that's the true competive spirt ,, I don't have a rating myself I've knocked down some pretty good players lately played a session of BCA but still have no ranking


1

skip100
08-07-2016, 07:15 PM
How many years have you travelled to Vegas and lost? How many years would you continue to travel to Vegas if you had no chance? Yep, it is a normal situation. Until it affects you! Then it will become special.

Lyn
When everyone's experience is special and deserving of special treatment, then no one is special.

cardiac kid
08-07-2016, 07:28 PM
You're stuck in your own situation. There's nothing to see here. You think you should be lowered because you "had no chance". What was the Fargo spread in your division? Do you have no chance or did you simply not play well? If you get your wish & moved down it doesn't fix the problem. It fixes your problem & creates the same problem for people in the division yoeur in that you likely have no business in. You keep wanting to know why no one will answer the question with the "problem" you propose and it's because you've created a straw man.

Guess I'm just amazed in the lack of vision. Most of you think this is just about me. There are hundreds of players out there in my position. Numbers keep dropping. Why can most of you only think of the condition of the host hotel, the price of food , the cost of transportation to and from or the weather? Why is my question so quickly dispatched? It's just another possibility for the loss of players. Frankly I don't give a damn if I play BCAPL next year or not. I've already made my reservations for two trips to Vegas next May. About this time next year, I'll drop by just to see what your thoughts are regarding the 2017 event. Should be interesting. Maybe there is a problem and you just don't see it. Maybe I just don't see it. Oh well.

Incidentally in 2012, the CSI published results showed there were 516 players in the senior / super senior events. There were 236 fewer players this year. Wonder how many old foggies like me just gave up? There is a point where fun turns to pain.

Lyn

one stroke
08-07-2016, 07:36 PM
When everyone's experience is special and deserving of special treatment, then no one is special.

Guess I'm just amazed in the lack of vision. Most of you think this is just about me. There are hundreds of players out there in my position. Numbers keep dropping. Why can most of you only think of the condition of the host hotel, the price of food , the cost of transportation to and from or the weather? Why is my question so quickly dispatched? It's just another possibility for the loss of players. Frankly I don't give a damn if I play BCAPL next year or not. I've already made my reservations for two trips to Vegas next May. About this time next year, I'll drop by just to see what your thoughts are regarding the 2017 event. Should be interesting. Maybe there is a problem and you just don't see it. Maybe I just don't see it. Oh well.

Incidentally in 2012, the CSI published results showed there were 516 players in the senior / super senior events. There were 236 fewer players this year. Wonder how many old foggies like me just gave up? There is a point where fun turns to pain.

Lyn

Well it's highly unlikely it's do to a handicap system nor is it likely the system offers any change
1

GideonF
08-07-2016, 07:41 PM
Guess I'm just amazed in the lack of vision. Most of you think this is just about me. There are hundreds of players out there in my position. Numbers keep dropping. Why can most of you only think of the condition of the host hotel, the price of food , the cost of transportation to and from or the weather? Why is my question so quickly dispatched? It's just another possibility for the loss of players. Frankly I don't give a damn if I play BCAPL next year or not. I've already made my reservations for two trips to Vegas next May. About this time next year, I'll drop by just to see what your thoughts are regarding the 2017 event. Should be interesting. Maybe there is a problem and you just don't see it. Maybe I just don't see it. Oh well.



Incidentally in 2012, the CSI published results showed there were 516 players in the senior / super senior events. There were 236 fewer players this year. Wonder how many old foggies like me just gave up? There is a point where fun turns to pain.



Lyn



Lyn,

I wonder whether the issue is that most players know they don't have a realistic chance of winning or cashing high. Unless a player happens to be at the top of their division (whether fixed by CSI as in the past or determined by FargoRate) they know they likely won't have a real chance.

If that's the case, then the trip is about the rest - the hotel, the food, the experience. (That doesn't mean that those players don't want to win, or take the game less seriously, or won't be upset if a player sneaks in way under handicapped).

Maybe the difference is that you once were at the top of a division (or towards the top) so your expectations are different.

The other issue, which many have noted, is that the problem isn't solvable. The vast majority of those in any division are going to be real underdogs to the top 10% of that division.

jojopiff
08-07-2016, 07:41 PM
Guess I'm just amazed in the lack of vision. Most of you think this is just about me. There are hundreds of players out there in my position. Numbers keep dropping. Why can most of you only think of the condition of the host hotel, the price of food , the cost of transportation to and from or the weather? Why is my question so quickly dispatched? It's just another possibility for the loss of players. Frankly I don't give a damn if I play BCAPL next year or not. I've already made my reservations for two trips to Vegas next May. About this time next year, I'll drop by just to see what your thoughts are regarding the 2017 event. Should be interesting. Maybe there is a problem and you just don't see it. Maybe I just don't see it. Oh well.

Incidentally in 2012, the CSI published results showed there were 516 players in the senior / super senior events. There were 236 fewer players this year. Wonder how many old foggies like me just gave up? There is a point where fun turns to pain.

Lyn

I'll ask for a 3rd time, what were the high end/low end Fargo rates of your bracket? Are you in the middle/low end? If you think your Fargo is wrong then simply come out and say it.

I'm baffled you don't see it. I seriously doubt BCA/CSI (or whatever they are) is about 100% retention, more so, about losing a person in your position and keeping 20/50/100's of players by not putting someone who's over skilled into their bracket. And letting go of the guy who wants lowered and mentions several times they've been 25 times, a if you're owed something.

It seems as though you want tons of cash but yet still want smaller divisions so you have a better chance to cash.

cardiac kid
08-07-2016, 08:42 PM
I'll ask for a 3rd time, what were the high end/low end Fargo rates of your bracket? Are you in the middle/low end? If you think your Fargo is wrong then simply come out and say it.

My first Fargo number at the start of the year was 676. Was dropped to 618 then raised back to 662 when Mike PM'ed me to tell me some data they used was invalid. Asked him if he was sure all the data was valid. Now at 655 after nationals. A player at 719 won the event. He was highest. Lowest Fargo was 606 in the Senior Platinum event. Exactly in the middle according to Fargo.

I'm baffled you don't see it. I seriously doubt BCA/CSI (or whatever they are) is about 100% retention, more so, about losing a person in your position and keeping 20/50/100's of players by not putting someone who's over skilled into their bracket. And letting go of the guy who wants lowered and mentions several times they've been 25 times, a if you're owed something.

Sorry, didn't realize I was owed something. Actually I am owed something. Equal opportunity! Paid my league sanction fee every year. The guy who won the senior division I played in was a CSI associate member. In other words, he joined just to play nationals. No league late nights. No weekly league dues. No table fees. Just show up in Vegas and sorry for this but stole the event. 719 in an amateur event? A guy who is known nationally as a pro player / gambler? Look at the list of winners of the BCA pool league Open division and you'll find his name there as well. What happened to known ability?

Why isn't BCAPL not trying to have near 100% retention? What makes BCAPL different from other leagues? Right now it's the best league out there for better players. They should be doing everything possible to keep the players they've won over. Would you agree with that? Don't think CSI gives a rats ass whether I play or not. It is the 200/500/1000 players leaving the national tournament I wonder about.

It seems as though you want tons of cash but yet still want smaller divisions so you have a better chance to cash.

Haven't figured that one out yet. My best guess is most players going to Vegas do dream about, if not winning an event, at least cashing. No different than those slot players who think they will win the jackpot. Odds are even they will win neither! Yep, I dream of winning tons of cash. Just hasn't happened yet! Incidentally, smaller divisions mean smaller payouts.

Lyn

mikepage
08-07-2016, 09:26 PM
[...] My best guess is most players going to Vegas do dream about, if not winning an event, at least cashing. [...]

We agree on this.

My close friend Rory Hendrickson played in the US Open 8-Ball event. With 6600 games in the system he is as established as they come at a 729.

He was somewhere in the middle of this field with many well above him, including
Van Boening,
Rodney Morris
Corey Deuel,
Jason Klatt,
Mike Dechaine,
Alex Pagulayan,
Josh Roberts,
Oscar Dominguez,
John Morra,
Danny Smith,
Rodrigo Geronimo,
Mitch Ellerman,
Brandon Shuff,
Ernesto Dominguez,
Shawn Wilkie,
Amar Kang,
Jesse Bowman,
Billy Thorpe,
Skylar Woodward,
Thorston Hohmann,
Francisco Bustamante,
Vilmos Foldes
John Schmidt

Despite this he came in second place and got to play SVB on the stream table in the finals. I will tell you this was the tournament of Rory's life. And he had to beat champions 40 to 50+ points above him to get there.

I gather the equivalent of your idea would be that if the past few years Rory didn't cash in this event, he should have been able to join the platinum division instead.

But here is my take. Not only would that have been unfair to players like you, legitimately in the platinum division, but it would not have meant the same thing to Rory to finish high. Had Rory finished high in platinum, he would have 'great , my trip is paid for,' or he would have felt, 'nice, a good evening at the blackjack table.'

But now? Finishing second in the tournament he belongs in? pulling things together at the right time to do it? Beating champions along the way? Now, Rory has a memory he will cherish as long as he lives. This is what we go for. Doing something in some ways we are not supposed to do.. We all have our own version of what it takes to generate a memory like this. And one is thing is for sure. This vision doesn't involve being bumped down to a division where we are the favorite.

jojopiff
08-08-2016, 02:28 AM
My first Fargo number at the start of the year was 676. Was dropped to 618 then raised back to 662 when Mike PM'ed me to tell me some data they used was invalid. Asked him if he was sure all the data was valid. Now at 655 after nationals. A player at 719 won the event. He was highest. Lowest Fargo was 606 in the Senior Platinum event. Exactly in the middle according to Fargo.

So you are 64 points lower than the top and 49 better than the bottom. Do you not realize that if you were dropped into the lower division those people (except not one person but hundreds) would have the same feeling you do that they have no chance? So, it seems as if you're not opposed to the tournament being unfair as long as you're the one benefitting.


Sorry, didn't realize I was owed something. Actually I am owed something. Equal opportunity! Paid my league sanction fee every year. The guy who won the senior division I played in was a CSI associate member. In other words, he joined just to play nationals. No league late nights. No weekly league dues. No table fees. Just show up in Vegas and sorry for this but stole the event. 719 in an amateur event? A guy who is known nationally as a pro player / gambler? Look at the list of winners of the BCA pool league Open division and you'll find his name there as well. What happened to known ability?

Same point as above, the people in the division you want to be moved down into are also owed EQUAL OPPORTUNITY to win and if you're moved down it's no different than the guy who was evidently wrongly placed into your division, and appears to have simply stole the cash. They would point to your good finishes along the way and your 665 Fargo and say you had no business in their division.

Why isn't BCAPL not trying to have near 100% retention? What makes BCAPL different from other leagues? Right now it's the best league out there for better players. They should be doing everything possible to keep the players they've won over. Would you agree with that? Don't think CSI gives a rats ass whether I play or not. It is the 200/500/1000 players leaving the national tournament I wonder about.

You're not understanding my point, which is that BCAPL would rather lose 1-2 people such as yourself stuck in the middle with not a lot of chance to cash as opposed to losing 20-50-100 people they would lose by throwing you a bone and placing you into a division you don't belong in. Not that there only 1-2 people in this/your situation, but that for every 1-2 people in your situation there's probably 20-50-100 people (I don't know, making an assumption) who would be getting screwed by you being in the lower division.

So what is BCAPL to do in a no-win situation? Because as I see it, it's a no win situation. They either piss you and people of your ilk off, or they piss off the larger group of people whom have these much better players moving into their division. They, obviously, would choose the lesser of two evils and piss off the fewer people (you) and not move you down and risk losing you.

Haven't figured that one out yet. My best guess is most players going to Vegas do dream about, if not winning an event, at least cashing. No different than those slot players who think they will win the jackpot. Odds are even they will win neither! Yep, I dream of winning tons of cash. Just hasn't happened yet! Incidentally, smaller divisions mean smaller payouts.

Lyn

I didn't word my original point well. It is, you seem to want smaller divisions. You haven't necessarily said that but that's really the only way you're going to get what you're after. A reasonable chance to win but not in the lower division where you're stealing. That's really only possible if you have a total gap of 50 points (50 points is an assumption and open for discussion/debate as to wether or not it's the correct number) or so? Well, obviously, the smaller the division the smaller the cash in each division. But, you've made note several times that you've only ever once made money.

So, how is BCAPL to accommodate both things? Make the divisions smaller so that you feel you have a reasonable chance, and still have enough cash in it for you to be able to profit? This isn't rhetorical, provide an answer to how they're supposed to do both of these things for you.

cardiac kid
08-08-2016, 05:55 AM
Mike,

Conratulations to Rory for a great finish in a tough tournament. His achievement is one for the books. Also agree he would have been a favorite in the division I played in. Perhaps even against Ron Wiseman and Gil Hernandez.

Frankly, I appreciate what you are trying to do. I'm sure in the future the benefits will far outway the few problems it generates. My fellow posters seem to feel my question has no validity. I bow to the forum. Guess I'll have to join some others and vote with my pocket book. Have a long time to make a decision.

Incidentally, did you do me the honor of checking the figures you quoted to me about the number of matches I played last month. You said Fargo shows eleven. My memory says seven with four byes or forfeits. Three wins, four losses. If you can research this I would appreciate an answer. You quoted the number of "wins" I had to show my rating was correct. Thanks.

Lyn

cardiac kid
08-08-2016, 06:14 AM
Jojo,

I'll ask you just one more question. What if the Fargo number I was given for a while this Spring of 618 was really the correct number? By next year, I might have played in the Gold event. Would only have had to drop another ten or twelve points to get there. Would that have made you and some other posters happy? As I have no way to check how Fargo determines my number, I'm (we're) at their mercy. I've done a bit of winning and a lot of losing over the past few years. Just like eveyone else on this forum.

Thanks for your input. I really do appreciate your view as I do others here. Hope I'm wrong on my outlook.

Lyn

mikepage
08-08-2016, 06:26 AM
[...]

Incidentally, did you do me the honor of checking the figures you quoted to me about the number of matches I played last month. You said Fargo shows eleven. My memory says seven with four byes or forfeits. Three wins, four losses. If you can research this I would appreciate an answer. You quoted the number of "wins" I had to show my rating was correct. Thanks.

Lyn

You are correct Lyn. I don't know what I was looking at. Here are the most recent matches we have for you. I count 32 wins and 32 losses. Does this look right to you?

jojopiff
08-08-2016, 06:41 AM
Jojo,

I'll ask you just one more question. What if the Fargo number I was given for a while this Spring of 618 was really the correct number? By next year, I might have played in the Gold event. Would only have had to drop another ten or twelve points to get there. Would that have made you and some other posters happy? As I have no way to check how Fargo determines my number, I'm (we're) at their mercy. I've done a bit of winning and a lot of losing over the past few years. Just like eveyone else on this forum.

Thanks for your input. I really do appreciate your view as I do others here. Hope I'm wrong on my outlook.

Lyn

Well, what if turtles had wings? I mean if you're of the opinion your Fargo isn't correct then I simply cannot argue that. If you are, in fact, actually a 608 and you are on the cut line and you ended up in the lower bracket then so be it. I'm for a person being in the correct bracket.

I've been of the opinion that Fargo might be great but don't want it used at BCA and its use and my not knowing what bracket I would be in is the sole reason I didn't attend this year. I wasn't gonna play teams anyways but had planned to go for singles.

mikepage
08-08-2016, 06:43 AM
Jojo,

I'll ask you just one more question. What if the Fargo number I was given for a while this Spring of 618 was really the correct number? [...]

I know YOU know this because I sent you a private message about it in April. But for the sake of others, you rating was never really 618. We imported a large number of league games from Leaguesys, which included many different formats and divisions. Doing this we inadvertently imported a scotch doubles (nonsense for Fargo) division that you played in. We corrected it and I sent you a message about it. It was the bogus scotch doubles division that temporarily dropped your rating to 618. As soon as we removed the offending data, your rating was back where it belongs

cardiac kid
08-08-2016, 06:56 AM
I know YOU know this because I sent you a private message about it in April. But for the sake of others, you rating was never really 618. We imported a large number of league games from Leaguesys, which included many different formats and divisions. Doing this we inadvertently imported a scotch doubles (nonsense for Fargo) division that you played in. We corrected it and I sent you a message about it. It was the bogus scotch doubles division that temporarily dropped your rating to 618. As soon as we removed the offending data, your rating was back where it belongs

Mike,

As I asked jojo, what if my number was really 618. I have no way to double check Fargo. Frankly I don't want to double check anyone. I asked a hypothetical question. Received an answer. Done.

Lyn

cardiac kid
08-08-2016, 07:13 AM
You are correct Lyn. I don't know what I was looking at. Here are the most recent matches we have for you. I count 32 wins and 32 losses. Does this look right to you?

Mike,

Really don't remember playing Tom Cronin but the rest of the info appears to be correct. Remember playing Nick, Think it was in the finals of that event. Jingle something. Thanks for the effort. Really appreciate it.

Might you do me another favor? Could you show me another player of my rating and how my last sixty four games compares with them? As age evidentally doesn't matter, just pick any player around 660.

Thanks again for your efforts and your patience.

Lyn

watchez
08-08-2016, 07:35 AM
Just as it looks odd and I don't know the tournament - the Tri State Invitational was triple elimination or was it round robin with different races, as they went to 4, 5 and 6?

mikepage
08-08-2016, 07:54 AM
Just as it looks odd and I don't know the tournament - the Tri State Invitational was triple elimination or was it round robin with different races, as they went to 4, 5 and 6?

It is Paul Schofield's baby (Gold Crown Billiards, Erie PA)--some sort of quadruple-elimination qualifying...

http://www.goldcrownbilliardseriepa.com/2016/05/04/corey-deuel-crowned-in-tri-state-invitational/