PDA

View Full Version : Illegal team takes 3rd in Gold at BCA Nationals


oneshotwiss
08-01-2017, 12:56 PM
The team which took 3rd place in the Gold Division had a combined Fargo of 3015 which is over the 3000 limit which means they should have been in the Platinum division. When we brought this up after getting waxed in the 5th-6th place match it was explained that as long as they were under 3000 when they registered, they are legal, have a 50 point cushion and at time of tournament, if they are over 3050, they then have to spot games. We accepted that explanation.
Then the team who got waxed even worse by them in the 4th place match brings up the same issue. It is explained to them that when they registered, Fargo made a mistake and had one of their players as a 140 instead of a 640. This means that had the Fargo rate been correct they would have been well over the 3000 limit to play in the Gold division. The directors answer to that team was, "well, there's not really a whole lot we can do about it now."
I say bs. The team had to have known that their team member was nowhere near a 140 rating and that the Fargo rating was wrong but failed to say anything. Basically, they screwed every team they played out of an opportunity to do better in this tournament and in my opinion, should have been disqualified.
It sounds as though Karma paid them a visit however because I heard they were ahead in the 3rd place match 9-1 and lost 13-12. And the BCA wonders why their attendance numbers fall a little more every year.

MOJOE
08-01-2017, 01:00 PM
As long as they registered under 3000, that is correct. This was very clearly noted on the registration which makes the title to your post incorrect. You even mentioned that you accepted this explanation yet titled it as "Illegal"

As far as the 140 player that should have been a 640, that's not right assuming it's true.

Better luck next time.

oneshotwiss
08-01-2017, 01:16 PM
I didn't assume anything. The CSI people are the ones who told the team which came in fourth that when the team in question registered, one of their player's Fargo was off by 500. Had his Fargo rate been correct they would have been well over 3000. I'm still trying to figure out why CSI gave us and the team which finished 1 spot in front of us 2 different explanations?

MOJOE
08-01-2017, 01:22 PM
Fair enough. I'm sorry if I did not word my reply correctly. Consistency by BCA and CSI is crucial, I'd agree. Either way, great finish. My team went 2 and out and we had a combined FARGO of 2999. LOL For some reason we just did not click this year. Best of luck with your game & future
.

gutshot
08-01-2017, 01:28 PM
I heard all about this from the Dayton, OH team that took 4th. Guess I'm not too shocked at the story. :D

td873
08-01-2017, 01:46 PM
The team which took 3rd place in the Gold Division had a combined Fargo of 3015 which is over the 3000 limit which means they should have been in the Platinum division. When we brought this up after getting waxed in the 5th-6th place match it was explained that as long as they were under 3000 when they registered, they are legal, have a 50 point cushion and at time of tournament, if they are over 3050, they then have to spot games. We accepted that explanation.
Then the team who got waxed even worse by them in the 4th place match brings up the same issue. It is explained to them that when they registered, Fargo made a mistake and had one of their players as a 140 instead of a 640. This means that had the Fargo rate been correct they would have been well over the 3000 limit to play in the Gold division. The directors answer to that team was, "well, there's not really a whole lot we can do about it now."
I say bs. The team had to have known that their team member was nowhere near a 140 rating and that the Fargo rating was wrong but failed to say anything. Basically, they screwed every team they played out of an opportunity to do better in this tournament and in my opinion, should have been disqualified.
It sounds as though Karma paid them a visit however because I heard they were ahead in the 3rd place match 9-1 and lost 13-12. And the BCA wonders why their attendance numbers fall a little more every year.
If I get your math, they were around 15 points over at the tourney. I don't know what everyone's numbers were when they registered, but, it does seem like they were so close to 3000 that they could have been under 3000 at registration even with the 500 point screw up. I'll give the system the benefit of the doubt.

And, it's not just the Fargo system. NO handicapping system is going to be perfect. Seems like the other team was pretty close to the 3000 cap.

Also - they were on the loser side. So clearly they were beatable in the gold division. Turns out, they played good and got rewarded. I don't think that necessarily means everyone else got screwed.

IMO, the tourney is a huge undertaking. It's not going to be perfect for everyone. I thought it went as well as could be expected. My team stunk it up, but I'm not going to cry foul because we didn't beat everyone. We didn't deserve to win the way we played...

-td

jojopiff
08-01-2017, 01:51 PM
If I get your math, they were around 15 points over at the tourney. I don't know what everyone's numbers were when they registered, but, it does seem like they were so close to 3000 that they could have been under 3000 at registration even with the 500 point screw up. I'll give the system the benefit of the doubt.

And, it's not just the Fargo system. NO handicapping system is going to be perfect. Seems like the other team was pretty close to the 3000 cap.

Also - they were on the loser side. So clearly they were beatable in the gold division. Turns out, they played good and got rewarded. I don't think that necessarily means everyone else got screwed.

IMO, the tourney is a huge undertaking. It's not going to be perfect for everyone. I thought it went as well as could be expected. My team stunk it up, but I'm not going to cry foul because we didn't beat everyone. We didn't deserve to win the way we played...

-td

Assuming the OP story is accurate...

The Ray Charles handicapping system can tell the difference between a 140 and a 640 though...

Perfection is not the goal for rational people, not having a player handicapped wrong by 500 Fargorate points is a pretty fair goal.

Inaction
08-01-2017, 02:33 PM
The top four teams in the Gold division will most likely all be Platinum teams.

I can go from playing as a 140 to a 640 in a 30 minute span. Did it last week. Very frustrating. I have always played at the top of my game in the big tournaments with nice equipment. Tough to gauge everyone in all situations.

SpinDoctor
08-01-2017, 03:25 PM
Every year since the leagues began holding national championships, teams(and players) have slipped through the cracks and into divisions that they shouldn't be in. It's going to take a while to build up enough of a sample size with Fargo so that all players are closer to where they belong but until then, it's going to have flaws and under-rated players(and guys whose ratings are way too high).

It's the nature of the beast unless they deliberately start everyone higher as an unknown or unestablished player so that they are forced to play in events that will accurately log their play and determine their ratings. I've even heard of local events with players entering under aliases so that when they do well they don't get their rating bumped up, which completely defeats the purpose of Fargo.

It used to be the "known ability" clause that was NEVER invoked by league operators so their teams could sandbag into a lower division and now it's just manipulated(or incorrect) Fargo rates.

skip100
08-01-2017, 03:34 PM
If true this is not a FargoRate sample size problem. Given that 200 is described as an "absolute beginner; may miscue frequently" according to Dr. Dave, declaring someone a 140 in a national competition is like APA classifying someone as an SL1, which doesn't exist.

Mark Griffin
08-01-2017, 03:37 PM
Your info is crap.Simple math would mean all 5 players would then have a total Fargo of about 3500. Which is a 700 average for each one. I happen to know all 5 of the players - and have known them for up to 30 years.

They are good player but nothing exceptional. One player did perform consistently above his head - but he is an aggressive player and can be dangerous if things are working.

Their Fargo is now 3020. And that comes from 559, 609, 609, 631, and 612. A good solid team. Where in the hell is the 500 Fargo that they misplaced'?????

And they lost twice. Sounds like you owe someone an apology. Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story!!!!!

Mark Griffin


The team which took 3rd place in the Gold Division had a combined Fargo of 3015 which is over the 3000 limit which means they should have been in the Platinum division. When we brought this up after getting waxed in the 5th-6th place match it was explained that as long as they were under 3000 when they registered, they are legal, have a 50 point cushion and at time of tournament, if they are over 3050, they then have to spot games. We accepted that explanation.
Then the team who got waxed even worse by them in the 4th place match brings up the same issue. It is explained to them that when they registered, Fargo made a mistake and had one of their players as a 140 instead of a 640. This means that had the Fargo rate been correct they would have been well over the 3000 limit to play in the Gold division. The directors answer to that team was, "well, there's not really a whole lot we can do about it now."
I say bs. The team had to have known that their team member was nowhere near a 140 rating and that the Fargo rating was wrong but failed to say anything. Basically, they screwed every team they played out of an opportunity to do better in this tournament and in my opinion, should have been disqualified.
It sounds as though Karma paid them a visit however because I heard they were ahead in the 3rd place match 9-1 and lost 13-12. And the BCA wonders why their attendance numbers fall a little more every year.

cardiac kid
08-01-2017, 03:56 PM
OP,

Not sure how this happened by your post. I've known one of the players on the third place team for over ten years. He used to be the guy who set players in the correct divisions for BCAPL. Also headed the rules and referee programs. Doubt very highly he would involve himself in such chicanery. In past years, I've questioned some of the teams and players involved in the National event. This is one team I would not doubt for a moment!

Lyn

JC
08-01-2017, 04:11 PM
The team which took 3rd place in the Gold Division had a combined Fargo of 3015 which is over the 3000 limit which means they should have been in the Platinum division. When we brought this up after getting waxed in the 5th-6th place match it was explained that as long as they were under 3000 when they registered, they are legal, have a 50 point cushion and at time of tournament, if they are over 3050, they then have to spot games. We accepted that explanation.
Then the team who got waxed even worse by them in the 4th place match brings up the same issue. It is explained to them that when they registered, Fargo made a mistake and had one of their players as a 140 instead of a 640. This means that had the Fargo rate been correct they would have been well over the 3000 limit to play in the Gold division. The directors answer to that team was, "well, there's not really a whole lot we can do about it now."
I say bs. The team had to have known that their team member was nowhere near a 140 rating and that the Fargo rating was wrong but failed to say anything. Basically, they screwed every team they played out of an opportunity to do better in this tournament and in my opinion, should have been disqualified.
It sounds as though Karma paid them a visit however because I heard they were ahead in the 3rd place match 9-1 and lost 13-12. And the BCA wonders why their attendance numbers fall a little more every year.

Your whining is unbecoming and your math is nonsensical.

Had one player been rated at 140 the rest would have had to average 717 to make it at 3015. I don't even know 4 amateurs that good much less that could make a team.

You got creamed. It happens. I have lost 7-0 to players rated lower than I am. This team didn't even win the event. Why not?

I love beating people like you. It's never your fault. Your crying makes it all the sweeter.

This event had enough legitimate issues without this kind of fake news crap.

JC

Z-Nole
08-01-2017, 05:37 PM
Maybe we should build a wall.

Black-Balled
08-01-2017, 07:17 PM
But they only took third? Sounds like the team was in the same zone as the top few anyway, no?

I know quite a few folks that would be doing real good matching up as indicated but their ratings. It is a little squishy, the science of Fargo. Badass, but there is a definite margin for error that increases as the amount of data decreases.

You don't have many reported events (robustness), your rating could be way off.

The team which took 3rd place in the Gold Division had a combined Fargo of 3015 which is over the 3000 limit which means they should have been in the Platinum division. When we brought this up after getting waxed in the 5th-6th place match it was explained that as long as they were under 3000 when they registered, they are legal, have a 50 point cushion and at time of tournament, if they are over 3050, they then have to spot games. We accepted that explanation.
Then the team who got waxed even worse by them in the 4th place match brings up the same issue. It is explained to them that when they registered, Fargo made a mistake and had one of their players as a 140 instead of a 640. This means that had the Fargo rate been correct they would have been well over the 3000 limit to play in the Gold division. The directors answer to that team was, "well, there's not really a whole lot we can do about it now."
I say bs. The team had to have known that their team member was nowhere near a 140 rating and that the Fargo rating was wrong but failed to say anything. Basically, they screwed every team they played out of an opportunity to do better in this tournament and in my opinion, should have been disqualified.
It sounds as though Karma paid them a visit however because I heard they were ahead in the 3rd place match 9-1 and lost 13-12. And the BCA wonders why their attendance numbers fall a little more every year.

pwd72s
08-01-2017, 07:25 PM
Rumor is that a secret meeting with a Russian Lawyer was held...;)

raistlinsdragon
08-01-2017, 07:36 PM
Your whining is unbecoming and your math is nonsensical.

Had one player been rated at 140 the rest would have had to average 717 to make it at 3015. I don't even know 4 amateurs that good much less that could make a team.

You got creamed. It happens. I have lost 7-0 to players rated lower than I am. This team didn't even win the event. Why not?

I love beating people like you. It's never your fault. Your crying makes it all the sweeter.

This event had enough legitimate issues without this kind of fake news crap.

JCHe didn't say the guy rated at 140 was on the team with 3015 points. That guy was on the team that beat the team with 3015 points. He never said what thats team fargo was with the wrong rating.

GideonF
08-01-2017, 08:37 PM
He didn't say the guy rated at 140 was on the team with 3015 points. That guy was on the team that beat the team with 3015 points. He never said what thats team fargo was with the wrong rating.



Sorry, but I think you are reading it wrong. Pretty sure the OP was indeed saying that they were told one thing (slight adjustment to above 3000) and that the other team was told that this same team had a 140 player 500 points off. Not sure his post can be read any other way.

By the way, the OP's story shows the danger of hearsay. He was reporting on what he heard was told to another team.

oneshotwiss
08-01-2017, 08:55 PM
First of all, I'm just stating what was explained to us and the Dayton team by the people at the payout desk. They stated that when said team registered one of the player's Fargo rates was wrong. It was 500 off so they registered as a 2515. After registration it was corrected and they were still within the 50 point cushion allowed after registration and came into the tournament at a 3015. The point was that had the Fargo number been adjusted properly before registration, they would have been over the 3000 mark at the time of registration meaning Platinum division for them.

justinb386
08-01-2017, 09:01 PM
The team which took 3rd place in the Gold Division had a combined Fargo of 3015 which is over the 3000 limit which means they should have been in the Platinum division. When we brought this up after getting waxed in the 5th-6th place match it was explained that as long as they were under 3000 when they registered, they are legal, have a 50 point cushion and at time of tournament, if they are over 3050, they then have to spot games. We accepted that explanation.
Then the team who got waxed even worse by them in the 4th place match brings up the same issue. It is explained to them that when they registered, Fargo made a mistake and had one of their players as a 140 instead of a 640. This means that had the Fargo rate been correct they would have been well over the 3000 limit to play in the Gold division. The directors answer to that team was, "well, there's not really a whole lot we can do about it now."
I say bs. The team had to have known that their team member was nowhere near a 140 rating and that the Fargo rating was wrong but failed to say anything. Basically, they screwed every team they played out of an opportunity to do better in this tournament and in my opinion, should have been disqualified.
It sounds as though Karma paid them a visit however because I heard they were ahead in the 3rd place match 9-1 and lost 13-12. And the BCA wonders why their attendance numbers fall a little more every year.

Sorry to hear that. I do not think that most pool players are really all that honorable. I understand that they knowingly cheated, but at least 1 team was able to take them down. If they would have wiped the floor with the entire field, and took 1st place, then maybe BCA would have done something about it. They did get beat by 1 team though (so they were not unbeatable, with their current rated players), and I think that might be why nothing was done about it. I do not know. Just a guess.

justinb386
08-01-2017, 09:03 PM
As long as they registered under 3000, that is correct. This was very clearly noted on the registration which makes the title to your post incorrect. You even mentioned that you accepted this explanation yet titled it as "Illegal"

As far as the 140 player that should have been a 640, that's not right assuming it's true.

Better luck next time.

Yeah, I do not see why the 1st team who they beat did not notice that one of the other teams side had a player with only a 140 rating, and did not question them about it. I think there must have been plenty of opportunities for someone to notice the player with the 140 rating. Very strange that it was not noticed (by anyone, who had a good reason to care) until the team had almost won the entire championship.

oneshotwiss
08-01-2017, 09:27 PM
Yeah, I do not see why the 1st team who they beat did not notice that one of the other teams side had a player with only a 140 rating, and did not question them about it. I think there must have been plenty of opportunities for someone to notice the player with the 140 rating. Very strange that it was not noticed (by anyone, who had a good reason to care) until the team had almost won the entire championship.

Read post #19 again. You didn't understand the whole 140 point issue. He was a 140 at registration but adjusted to a 640 at tournament time

oneshotwiss
08-01-2017, 09:37 PM
Your whining is unbecoming and your math is nonsensical.

Had one player been rated at 140 the rest would have had to average 717 to make it at 3015. I don't even know 4 amateurs that good much less that could make a team.

You got creamed. It happens. I have lost 7-0 to players rated lower than I am. This team didn't even win the event. Why not?

I love beating people like you. It's never your fault. Your crying makes it all the sweeter.

This event had enough legitimate issues without this kind of fake news crap.

JC

Your reading skills suck JC. I said he was a 140 at registration and adjusted to 640 at tournament time to get them at the 3015 number but thanks for your exemplary math skills.

justinb386
08-01-2017, 09:37 PM
First of all, I'm just stating what was explained to us and the Dayton team by the people at the payout desk. They stated that when said team registered one of the player's Fargo rates was wrong. It was 500 off so they registered as a 2515. After registration it was corrected and they were still within the 50 point cushion allowed after registration and came into the tournament at a 3015. The point was that had the Fargo number been adjusted properly before registration, they would have been over the 3000 mark at the time of registration meaning Platinum division for them.

They (the team) must have known that the 2515 Fargo rating was not correct (for their teams combined Fargo rating), during registration (I assume). I do not know. They may not have been paying attention to that.

justinb386
08-01-2017, 09:43 PM
Read post #19 again. You didn't understand the whole 140 point issue. He was a 140 at registration but adjusted to a 640 at tournament time

Sorry, I understand now. Sounds like they actually had a team with a combined Fargo rating of 3015. That does not sound much stronger then one of the posters teams above (who said his team went 2 and out), who had a rating of 2,999. Sounds like all of these players are on around the same level. Some just played stronger under pressure then others, on that day.

pocket
08-01-2017, 09:43 PM
Now I'm confused. OP said "legal team takes third". Yet explains how they were legal? Within the buffer by his own complaint?

Was the issue the two different explanations? Neither seemed to make the team "illegal"?

justinb386
08-01-2017, 09:51 PM
Now I'm confused. OP said "legal team takes third". Yet explains how they were legal? Within the buffer by his own complaint?

Was the issue the two different explanations? Neither seemed to make the team "illegal"?

I think that if the team knew that there was an error in one of their players Fargo rating at registration, then in a way, they did cheat, because had they noticed it, and fixed the mistake during registration (or maybe even before registration), then they would have been in the higher ranking field of teams. I can only assume that they did look at their players Fargo ratings during registration, to make sure everything looked correct. I am baffled that them or BCA did not see the 140 number player during registration. If the average player is around a 600 ranking, then 140 would look very out of place, right?

jasonlaus
08-01-2017, 10:14 PM
If there is a 3000 limit and they were over, it should be automatic disqual. These teams know EXACTLY what their total handicap is. Doesnt matter if they were beat by other teams or not, if they were over, they cheated, period.

Now whether this is the whole complete story is another thing. Just commenting on whats been presented.
Jason

marek
08-01-2017, 10:16 PM
Reading this thread makes me feel little sorry for you guys. *****ing about the handicaps is taking out of the enjoyment of the game big time. While i understand the reasoning that handicaps bring more amateur players to the game i dont believe that it is the only way how to do it. In Europe you can scarcely see a handicapped tournament,basically 99% of the tournaments are open to all players,there are virtually no "pros banned" tournaments. So quite often you have an opportunity to play pro-level player even at rather small regional tournament which is great opportunity to see how the game is played on higher level. You learn faster that way,trust me :smile:

jasonlaus
08-01-2017, 11:06 PM
Reading this thread makes me feel little sorry for you guys. *****ing about the handicaps is taking out of the enjoyment of the game big time. While i understand the reasoning that handicaps bring more amateur players to the game i dont believe that it is the only way how to do it. In Europe you can scarcely see a handicapped tournament,basically 99% of the tournaments are open to all players,there are virtually no "pros banned" tournaments. So quite often you have an opportunity to play pro-level player even at rather small regional tournament which is great opportunity to see how the game is played on higher level. You learn faster that way,trust me :smile:

If these people wanted to play pros they would, this is about a handicapped tournament where teams can compete against similar play. There is nothing hard to understand, but for some reason, many of you just dont get it.
Jason

marek
08-02-2017, 12:16 AM
If these people wanted to play pros they would, this is about a handicapped tournament where teams can compete against similar play. There is nothing hard to understand, but for some reason, many of you just dont get it.
Jason

Believe me, I understand the concept of handicapping and its benefits, I am just saying that problems connected to handicapping (sandbagging, handicap limits/cutting players from the team because they got too good, etc.) are pain in the a$$ and basically not worth it in my opinion.

Justin Bergman
08-02-2017, 12:49 AM
I understand Marek's point. I know pool halls that used to have 50-60 players every Sunday for an open race to 7 & they switched to handicapped and everyone complained to the point it wasn't even fun & on top of that it lost a lot of interest in watching the finals. Then the real players stopped playing be used now they lose to a 2 that doesn't even care about the game and the 6's are robbing it now. So after a month or two they were getting 20-30 players, then 15, now they quit having them. Now I think they occasionally have Friday night your mantra but won't let anyone that can run 2 balls play. If you're an APA 3 you're banned literally. They get like 6 players.

If you handicapped or just ban/punish the good players it really hurts pool in the long run. Just like the little tournament above I was talking about the good players just quit coming in. Those players are the ones that come in 5 times a week, practice, spend money, eat, etc. The 3 that *****es and complains about handicaps don't care if they come in again ever. Those same type people probably won't spend a dollar eating or drinking or probably won't tip the waitress a dollar but pool halls around where I live cater to people like that it's amazing.

jasonlaus
08-02-2017, 01:15 AM
I understand Marek's point. I know pool halls that used to have 50-60 players every Sunday for an open race to 7 & they switched to handicapped and everyone complained to the point it wasn't even fun & on top of that it lost a lot of interest in watching the finals. Then the real players stopped playing be used now they lose to a 2 that doesn't even care about the game and the 6's are robbing it now. So after a month or two they were getting 20-30 players, then 15, now they quit having them. Now I think they occasionally have Friday night your mantra but won't let anyone that can run 2 balls play. If you're an APA 3 you're banned literally. They get like 6 players.

If you handicapped or just ban/punish the good players it really hurts pool in the long run. Just like the little tournament above I was talking about the good players just quit coming in. Those players are the ones that come in 5 times a week, practice, spend money, eat, etc. The 3 that *****es and complains about handicaps don't care if they come in again ever. Those same type people probably won't spend a dollar eating or drinking or probably won't tip the waitress a dollar but pool halls around where I live cater to people like that it's amazing.

We're talking about a once a year event, this post has nothing to do with that.

Btw, I like how you called everybody out plus 10 games in the other thread. Well done sir!
Jason

justinb386
08-02-2017, 01:45 AM
If there is a 3000 limit and they were over, it should be automatic disqual. These teams know EXACTLY what their total handicap is. Doesnt matter if they were beat by other teams or not, if they were over, they cheated, period.

Now whether this is the whole complete story is another thing. Just commenting on whats been presented.
Jason

That is a very good point. I assume that the team probably knew at Registration, that they did not quality to compete in the Gold bracket, or whatever it is called (Gold bracket of the BCA National Team Championships?). I think that it should be considered cheating if the team captain knew what the teams total Fargo rating was, and that they did not quality for the Gold bracket. There was an error in one of the players Fargo rating, and they did not say anything (due to the fact that the staff at Registration did not notice it), because they knew that they would have a much stronger chance in the Gold bracket. Makes sense to me. Sorry, I am just guessing as to what happened, based on what I have read on here.

justinb386
08-02-2017, 01:53 AM
Reading this thread makes me feel little sorry for you guys. *****ing about the handicaps is taking out of the enjoyment of the game big time. While i understand the reasoning that handicaps bring more amateur players to the game i dont believe that it is the only way how to do it. In Europe you can scarcely see a handicapped tournament,basically 99% of the tournaments are open to all players,there are virtually no "pros banned" tournaments. So quite often you have an opportunity to play pro-level player even at rather small regional tournament which is great opportunity to see how the game is played on higher level. You learn faster that way,trust me :smile:

I agree that playing stronger players (under pressure, and not just for fun) is the best way to improve your game.

Having a handicapped system does get better turn outs to tournaments though, and if BCA were not doing things the way that they are, then I do not think that the league would be nearly as successful as it is. In fact, it might be completely dead.

I see what you are saying though, and I agree with you.

It is nice to hear that pool is going strong in Europe.

I would love to live over there.

justinb386
08-02-2017, 02:01 AM
If these people wanted to play pros they would, this is about a handicapped tournament where teams can compete against similar play. There is nothing hard to understand, but for some reason, many of you just dont get it.
Jason

Yeah, I would much rather compete against a player that is around my same skill level, then to have to give a spot to a weaker player, or take a spot from a stronger player. I like that the BCA is trying their best to put similar level players in the same brackets with each other, and not make them compete against stronger players (playing even). They are trying their best to give all players a fair chance to get far into a tournament, and make some prize money.

It sounds like the team in question (about cheating) was on a very even playing field, with all of the teams they competed against. They were just a hair over in the max Fargo rate, and got very lucky that there was an error in one of their players Fargo rating. They may, or may not have known about the error at registration. BCA should have known though, and seen the error during registration, so I think the fault should be, in part, on BCA (the registration staff). If the team captain also knew about the error, then the fault would be on him too (but maybe not the entire team). The team Captain would have known though, right? I do not know.

Justin Bergman
08-02-2017, 02:04 AM
Yeah I know it's complety different but just trying to make a point. CSI/BCA pool league are a lot smarter than me but I know a lot of people from my area that didn't come this year because of Fargo. St. Louis used to have like 10 teams always that come sometimes more I think... I remember like around 80-100 people I knew from St. Louis came out every year to play or watch. This year I seen literally one guy I knew named Paul but I know he was on a team with two other guys I know but that was the only team.

My point is and I know that every sport has handicaps to a certain extent but pool seems to be way way obsessed with it.... Like in pool everyone even good players will say oh I haven't been playing or he plays better than me I should be a 6 instead of a 7.... In almost every other game/sport they all brag how much better than they really are... Every poker player I know thinkers Phil Ivey, they all win money they never lose... In Golf you can make a living by giving lessons, being a club pro, by gambling, probably make a good living playing tournaments if you're a low level pro or semi pro.... In pool especially where I live you're better off being an APA 5 under over.... You can match up gamble with way more people, get better games, play in a tournament every day of the week, have a chance to win $15K in Vegas at APA playing guys way under your speed...

I remember one year I was 15/16 got 2nd in a tournament paid like around $10,200 and Alex Pagulayan won the pro event and he got $8,000... Also I made a few thousand playing people that week... So I made more as an amateur than the pro that week... So why would anyone want to get better at pool or say they are better? You get punished in this game.... That needs to change to make pool better.

That was my whole reason for posting that. Not to do with CSI saying that team should or shouldn't be allowed to play.... Just stating my opinion on handicaps and how I think pool could be better.

justinb386
08-02-2017, 02:23 AM
I understand Marek's point. I know pool halls that used to have 50-60 players every Sunday for an open race to 7 & they switched to handicapped and everyone complained to the point it wasn't even fun & on top of that it lost a lot of interest in watching the finals. Then the real players stopped playing be used now they lose to a 2 that doesn't even care about the game and the 6's are robbing it now. So after a month or two they were getting 20-30 players, then 15, now they quit having them. Now I think they occasionally have Friday night your mantra but won't let anyone that can run 2 balls play. If you're an APA 3 you're banned literally. They get like 6 players.

If you handicapped or just ban/punish the good players it really hurts pool in the long run. Just like the little tournament above I was talking about the good players just quit coming in. Those players are the ones that come in 5 times a week, practice, spend money, eat, etc. The 3 that *****es and complains about handicaps don't care if they come in again ever. Those same type people probably won't spend a dollar eating or drinking or probably won't tip the waitress a dollar but pool halls around where I live cater to people like that it's amazing.

Nice post. I see that the Race to 7 open tournament (with no handicap) had a pretty strong weekly tournament, because in a short Race to 7, even some of the weaker B level players have a chance, right? In a longer race to 9 or 11, probably not though (the A level or stronger player would always have a big advantage). I think that in an open non handicapped tournament, the shorter the race, the stronger the turn out (within reason). The stronger players (like A level, or better) would probably not want the race to be less then a race to 5 games (playing 9 ball, for example). I also think that handicapped tournaments are very boring, as a spectator (pool fan). We pool fans want to see the best players show up, and play in the tournaments. They (the good A level, or stronger players) are not going to show up though, if it is unfairly handicapped, or if there is not a decent amount of money added to the pot. Who wants to stick around a tournament (and spend money on food, and beer for example) just to watch a level 4 player in the finals? No, we pool fans want to see the strongest players in our area (or the strongest road players, from all over) competing in the finals. And if there is not a really big field of players showing up to the tournaments every week, then the bar might decide to stop adding money, and that is when the tournaments turn outs really start to die.

Sorry for going so far off topic.

GideonF
08-02-2017, 08:14 AM
Your reading skills suck JC. I said he was a 140 at registration and adjusted to 640 at tournament time to get them at the 3015 number but thanks for your exemplary math skills.

With no disrespect intended, your original post did not make this clear at all. When everyone "misreads" your post such that they think the team was "well over" the 3000 limit because of a 500 point Fargo error as meaning they were close to 3000 as registered and then around 3500 at match time then you have to accept that maybe you didn't write it as clearly as you intended.

As an aside, I don't think 15 points over 3000 is "well over" the limit. I think people's reaction to your post might have been different if you made it clear that the team was only just over the limit, not way over. If the rules were not complied with, that is one thing, but I think the magnitude of the issue is important.

PoppaSaun
08-02-2017, 09:15 AM
When I used to play foosball, we would have doubles tourneys where we would divide the players into two groups based on skill level and pair a higher level person with a lower level person.

I was one of several people who were in the middle, and since I wouldn't cry and moan about it, I would usually be assigned to the 'high' skill division, which meant that I was on one of the worst teams and would generally go 2-and-out.

On the rare occasion that I would get put in the lower skill side, a bunch of whiny twattles would complain all tourney that I should have been in the A-player side.

Finally I just told all of the tourney directors that no matter who showed up I was playing as an A player, then the only person who could complain would be the person who drew me as a partner. And if they complained, I'd just put in about 20% effort and lose out really quickly.

Pussificationly entitled people bore me to no end, crying about how they were cheated by a team that was statistically in the margin of error of an imperfect (tho good) handicapping system. Cheated by a team that only finished two places higher than they did, cheated by a mistake that the directors made. Cheated by a team that didn't even win the tourney. Waaaaahhhhhhhhhh!

cardiac kid
08-02-2017, 09:28 AM
With no disrespect intended, your original post did not make this clear at all. When everyone "misreads" your post such that they think the team was "well over" the 3000 limit because of a 500 point Fargo error as meaning they were close to 3000 as registered and then around 3500 at match time then you have to accept that maybe you didn't write it as clearly as you intended.

As an aside, I don't think 15 points over 3000 is "well over" the limit. I think people's reaction to your post might have been different if you made it clear that the team was only just over the limit, not way over. If the rules were not complied with, that is one thing, but I think the magnitude of the issue is important.

Gideon,

Although somewhat off topic, on behalf of East Ridge Billiards in Rochester, NY, we would like to invite you to participate in our Second Annual Joss Northeast Nine Ball Tour event to be held February 24th and 25th. 2018. Please mark your calendar. We're about three hours across the border.

Lyn

book collector
08-02-2017, 10:07 AM
That's one of the things I hate about leagues.
No matter how much you cheat, somebody else cheats more, and beats you're unbeatable team.

oneshotwiss
08-02-2017, 11:14 AM
I understand Marek's point. I know pool halls that used to have 50-60 players every Sunday for an open race to 7 & they switched to handicapped and everyone complained to the point it wasn't even fun & on top of that it lost a lot of interest in watching the finals. Then the real players stopped playing be used now they lose to a 2 that doesn't even care about the game and the 6's are robbing it now. So after a month or two they were getting 20-30 players, then 15, now they quit having them. Now I think they occasionally have Friday night your mantra but won't let anyone that can run 2 balls play. If you're an APA 3 you're banned literally. They get like 6 players.

If you handicapped or just ban/punish the good players it really hurts pool in the long run. Just like the little tournament above I was talking about the good players just quit coming in. Those players are the ones that come in 5 times a week, practice, spend money, eat, etc. The 3 that *****es and complains about handicaps don't care if they come in again ever. Those same type people probably won't spend a dollar eating or drinking or probably won't tip the waitress a dollar but pool halls around where I live cater to people like that it's amazing.

I do not disagree with you at all Justin. I wish there were more pros around my area that WOULD play in our local tournaments. I would welcome the opportunity to play with you guys more. Dennis Hatch and Mark Jarvis play on occasion. However, the BCA Nationals has been a handicapped tournament since as long as I can remember so it has it's own set of rules that people are supposed to follow. I am not complaining about playing stronger players because I always welcome that opportunity and realize that is what makes you a better player. I guess my whole point is...what is the purpose of having rules in place if they aren't followed? It wasn't my idea to come up with this Fargo system or place a 3000 limit on the team event

BRussell
08-02-2017, 12:13 PM
Just to be clear, the BCA Nationals are not handicapped. People go into different divisions depending on their skill level.

5aheadforpinks
08-02-2017, 02:50 PM
The real question is whether the captain or team members intentionally submitted the wrong fargo scores to make sure they entered the Gold division.

If they calculated a 15 point overage, and knew they would be forced to play Platinum; then submitted faulty paperwork on purpose, they should be banned from BCA permanently.

How do you prove this?

iusedtoberich
08-02-2017, 03:38 PM
I can't believe I actually read all of this thread, ha ha.

Why has no one commented on what Griffin said? It seems his post paints a different picture.

No one on this thread knows what the facts are. Its all heresy. Griffen is probably the most reliable.

I'd bet a dollar to your doughnut that this is what really happened:

1) No one cheated from the team in question, by either blatantly lying about their Fargo, or letting an administrative error on their Fargorate slip through the cracks in order to get into the Gold division instead of Platinum division.

2) When they signed up for the tournament (months ago?), they were under the 3000 fargorate cap for the Gold division, and they were appropriately placed in it.

3) When the tournament started (months later?), they were a combined 3015. Within the buffer, and allowed.

4) There was never a 500 point administrative error. Someone pulled that out of their ass, or misunderstood.

5) Another thread was started complaining about "handicapped" league events.

That's my take on all of this:)

FastManners
08-02-2017, 04:16 PM
So our team signed up under 3000 (about 50 points under) and we then got verified on the website 6/12 in Gold and everyone booked their flights hotels etc.
On the last day of registration they bumped up two of our players so our total was about 3040 based on info they had apparently found online. We got moved up to platinum and even though they have a rule on the website stating that there is a 50 point buffer they refused to let us play gold. Almost an identical team, (actually a worse team than last year that barely cashed) and we were forced to play in platinum or try and find another player with two weeks to go and drop someone who had booked a ticket. Unsurprisingly we went two and out. Thanks BCA.
After eleven years of going every year and barely cashing in any event but still having to play in platinum singles and platinum team, I am done. The story about the team who finished 3rd only cements my feelings about how this tournament is now run.
I am sad about it as it has always been the highlight of my year, but I have slowly watched it become a shadow of its former self.
My team and players from my league will play the ACS instead, at least you have fun at that event.

iusedtoberich
08-02-2017, 04:31 PM
So our team signed up under 3000 (about 50 points under) and we then got verified on the website 6/12 in Gold and everyone booked their flights hotels etc.
On the last day of registration they bumped up two of our players so our total was about 3040 based on info they had apparently found online. We got moved up to platinum and even though they have a rule on the website stating that there is a 50 point buffer they refused to let us play gold. Almost an identical team, (actually a worse team than last year that barely cashed) and we were forced to play in platinum or try and find another player with two weeks to go and drop someone who had booked a ticket. Unsurprisingly we went two and out. Thanks BCA.
After eleven years of going every year and barely cashing in any event but still having to play in platinum singles and platinum team, I am done. The story about the team who finished 3rd only cements my feelings about how this tournament is now run.
I am sad about it as it has always been the highlight of my year, but I have slowly watched it become a shadow of its former self.
My team and players from my league will play the ACS instead, at least you have fun at that event.

It seems a way to improve the situation then, is one of these two options:

1) LOCK in the fargorate of the team members at the moment they register, for the purpose of this tournament. That is probably more doable now, since there is much more data than last year.

---or---- and I personally like this one better....

2) Teams and/or individuals sign up, book flights, and arrive. They do NOT know which division they are playing in, upon sign up. Once there, the computer system looks at everyone's CURRENT fargorate, and assigns individuals/teams to an even distribution (or whatever distribution csi wants) at that moment.

FastManners
08-02-2017, 04:35 PM
It seems a way to improve the situation then, is one of these two options:

1) LOCK in the fargorate of the team members at the moment they register, for the purpose of this tournament. That is probably more doable now, since there is much more data than last year.

---or---- and I personally like this one better....

2) Teams and/or individuals sign up, book flights, and arrive. They do NOT know which division they are playing in, upon sign up. Once there, the computer system looks at everyone's CURRENT fargorate, and assigns individuals/teams to an even distribution (or whatever distribution csi wants) at that moment.

I agree with either one of these solutions. Maybe the second option is a better one, because at least you don't get a worthless division with 21 teams in it, as the platinum mixed division was. That was actually our biggest issue. We signed up to play in a major tournament with hundreds of teams and ended up having to play in a tournament that we could have organized in our own room. And being totally outgunned, traveling across the country and spending thousands of dollars for. Sounds like a good deal, right? Ha ha

BRussell
08-02-2017, 04:39 PM
---or---- and I personally like this one better....

2) Teams and/or individuals sign up, book flights, and arrive. They do NOT know which division they are playing in, upon sign up. Once there, the computer system looks at everyone's CURRENT fargorate, and assigns individuals/teams to an even distribution (or whatever distribution csi wants) at that moment.

Yes! They do this with singles, I wonder why not with teams. Then you just go with your buddies and not worry about getting a team just under x points.

justinb386
08-02-2017, 05:02 PM
The real question is whether the captain or team members intentionally submitted the wrong fargo scores to make sure they entered the Gold division.

If they calculated a 15 point overage, and knew they would be forced to play Platinum; then submitted faulty paperwork on purpose, they should be banned from BCA permanently.

How do you prove this?

You are right, and I agree. I was thinking the same thing. How could they not have known? The Captain must have known (or whoever registered), I imagine.

justinb386
08-02-2017, 05:08 PM
I can't believe I actually read all of this thread, ha ha.

Why has no one commented on what Griffin said? It seems his post paints a different picture.

No one on this thread knows what the facts are. Its all heresy. Griffen is probably the most reliable.

I'd bet a dollar to your doughnut that this is what really happened:

1) No one cheated from the team in question, by either blatantly lying about their Fargo, or letting an administrative error on their Fargorate slip through the cracks in order to get into the Gold division instead of Platinum division.

2) When they signed up for the tournament (months ago?), they were under the 3000 fargorate cap for the Gold division, and they were appropriately placed in it.

3) When the tournament started (months later?), they were a combined 3015. Within the buffer, and allowed.

4) There was never a 500 point administrative error. Someone pulled that out of their ass, or misunderstood.

5) Another thread was started complaining about "handicapped" league events.

That's my take on all of this:)

Why would someone make up, and lie about the 500 point error on one of the players rating, during registration? Would a team really lie about something like this to try to get another team in trouble? It does sound unbelievable though (a 500 point error, from 640 down to 140).

Mowem down
08-02-2017, 05:12 PM
Yeah I know it's complety different but just trying to make a point. CSI/BCA pool league are a lot smarter than me but I know a lot of people from my area that didn't come this year because of Fargo. St. Louis used to have like 10 teams always that come sometimes more I think... I remember like around 80-100 people I knew from St. Louis came out every year to play or watch. This year I seen literally one guy I knew named Paul but I know he was on a team with two other guys I know but that was the only team.

My point is and I know that every sport has handicaps to a certain extent but pool seems to be way way obsessed with it.... Like in pool everyone even good players will say oh I haven't been playing or he plays better than me I should be a 6 instead of a 7.... In almost every other game/sport they all brag how much better than they really are... Every poker player I know thinkers Phil Ivey, they all win money they never lose... In Golf you can make a living by giving lessons, being a club pro, by gambling, probably make a good living playing tournaments if you're a low level pro or semi pro.... In pool especially where I live you're better off being an APA 5 under over.... You can match up gamble with way more people, get better games, play in a tournament every day of the week, have a chance to win $15K in Vegas at APA playing guys way under your speed...

I remember one year I was 15/16 got 2nd in a tournament paid like around $10,200 and Alex Pagulayan won the pro event and he got $8,000... Also I made a few thousand playing people that week... So I made more as an amateur than the pro that week... So why would anyone want to get better at pool or say they are better? You get punished in this game.... That needs to change to make pool better.

That was my whole reason for posting that. Not to do with CSI saying that team should or shouldn't be allowed to play.... Just stating my opinion on handicaps and how I think pool could be better.

There is some very good insight in that post... In almost all other games the way to the pros is through leagues, but pool leagues with all their participation have produced how many pros in the last 20 years... Just for the record I think TAP has a good handicap (the races are fair if the skills are correct) but the score sheets are REICULOUS..

NINEBALLART
08-02-2017, 10:00 PM
We had a female player and a men's player for singles from our league bumped up at the last minute from Gold to Platinum....They changed our Men's player's table he was to play on at 10:30, 3 times...Then lastly told him, oh by the way, we moved you to Platinum Division...

When they registered they were Gold according to Fargo Rate...

GideonF
08-02-2017, 10:37 PM
We had a female player and a men's player for singles from our league bumped up at the last minute from Gold to Platinum....They changed our Men's player's table he was to play on at 10:30, 3 times...Then lastly told him, oh by the way, we moved you to Platinum Division...



When they registered they were Gold according to Fargo Rate...



Okay, but why? If they got another 100 games data and the players clearly were much higher than previously thought, it is hard to fault them. That said, I get how this would be frustrating as things transition to Fargo.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

MOJOE
08-03-2017, 07:03 AM
It seems a way to improve the situation then, is one of these two options:

1) LOCK in the fargorate of the team members at the moment they register, for the purpose of this tournament. That is probably more doable now, since there is much more data than last year.

---or---- and I personally like this one better....

2) Teams and/or individuals sign up, book flights, and arrive. They do NOT know which division they are playing in, upon sign up. Once there, the computer system looks at everyone's CURRENT fargorate, and assigns individuals/teams to an even distribution (or whatever distribution csi wants) at that moment.

Option 2 is what happens for singles. For example, if I would have signed up for singles this year, I would not have know until all entries were in that I would have been in Platinum until very late. They put you in division by percentage. This may not be exact but for example, the top 25% of the players would have been platinum. I'd be amongst the lowest Fargo rated players as a 625. The cutoff ended up being 624 and above.

Having said that, I knew that was a risk and would have been fine playing as platinum although it would have been super stiff competition.

Teams were different as mentioned previously.

Nostroke
08-03-2017, 07:20 AM
I understand Marek's point. I know pool halls that used to have 50-60 players every Sunday for an open race to 7 & they switched to handicapped and everyone complained to the point it wasn't even fun & on top of that it lost a lot of interest in watching the finals. Then the real players stopped playing be used now they lose to a 2 that doesn't even care about the game and the 6's are robbing it now. So after a month or two they were getting 20-30 players, then 15, now they quit having them. Now I think they occasionally have Friday night your mantra but won't let anyone that can run 2 balls play. If you're an APA 3 you're banned literally. They get like 6 players.

If you handicapped or just ban/punish the good players it really hurts pool in the long run. Just like the little tournament above I was talking about the good players just quit coming in. Those players are the ones that come in 5 times a week, practice, spend money, eat, etc. The 3 that *****es and complains about handicaps don't care if they come in again ever. Those same type people probably won't spend a dollar eating or drinking or probably won't tip the waitress a dollar but pool halls around where I live cater to people like that it's amazing.

Thinking about your self interests perhaps? Every top player complains about handicapped events. One exception is Frankie Hernandez-He used to make a living giving half the field the 5 out (doesnt count on the break) and also gambled and won giving the 3 out many times. Sorry you cant find free money in your area.

mikepage
08-03-2017, 08:11 AM
I understand Marek's point. I know pool halls that used to have 50-60 players every Sunday for an open race to 7 & they switched to handicapped and everyone complained to the point it wasn't even fun & on top of that it lost a lot of interest in watching the finals. Then the real players stopped playing be used now they lose to a 2 that doesn't even care about the game and the 6's are robbing it now. So after a month or two they were getting 20-30 players, then 15, now they quit having them. Now I think they occasionally have Friday night your mantra but won't let anyone that can run 2 balls play. If you're an APA 3 you're banned literally. They get like 6 players.

I think we should be a little careful here about the order of events and what causes what. Pool rooms don't generally change the format of a Sunday tournament that gets 50-60 players.

More likely the tournament was already falling off and that is why they explored new formats

--maybe if we ban the top players people will start coming back
--maybe if we handicap it people will start coming back

And then when those things don't help, it is easy to view them as the cause of the problem rather than a too-little, too-late attempt to fix a problem that already existed.



If you handicapped or just ban/punish the good players it really hurts pool in the long run. [...]

I think there is room for both. We run two weekly tournaments. One is not handicapped --big-table 9-ball. The other is highly-handicapped 8-ball on the 7-foot tables. Justin would give me 5 games on the wire to 8! I have a chance of running out the set--about the same chance he has, by the way.

The 8-ball gets more players, but we've been doing both for years.

Look at the Omega Tour in Dallas. It is handicapped by FargoRate. Melinda has a stop this weekend that is full with 128 players. In fact all her stops are full months in advance.

Handicapping, when done right, and in conjunction with non-handicapped events, not instead of them, is not the death of pool. It just seems that way when it is added reluctantly --and often poorly--to attempt to right a sinking ship.

cardiac kid
08-03-2017, 08:48 AM
Option 2 is what happens for singles. For example, if I would have signed up for singles this year, I would not have know until all entries were in that I would have been in Platinum until very late. They put you in division by percentage. This may not be exact but for example, the top 25% of the players would have been platinum. I'd be amongst the lowest Fargo rated players as a 625. The cutoff ended up being 624 and above.

Having said that, I knew that was a risk and would have been fine playing as platinum although it would have been super stiff competition.

Teams were different as mentioned previously.

As it turned out, the Senior singles cut off was around 580. That was 25% of the near two hundred and seventy entries. Top was Gil Hernandez at 720 (at the time). I was just below the mid-point at 643. Thought the cut off would have been 625 as well. Like you, I would have preferred to know which division I would have been entered in before I left Rochester for Vegas. Guess it's just not possible at this time.

In a moment of light headedness, I accidentally entered the regular singles. Thanks to the office staff at CSI, they were able to move me to the senior event a month or so before the tournament. For some reason, think the high entrant in the Open singles was at 730. Not sure if I'd have played Platinum or not. Only the top 15% moved up. Not sure how many total entries there were for the Open but it would have been close!

Anyway Mojoe, guess I'll be back again next year. Hadn't planned on going this year but fate intervened. Want another shot at that Ed Borrega guy!!!!

Lyn

alstl
08-03-2017, 08:53 AM
It's been a long time since I played in a league and I doubt I have a Fargo rating. If I entered a tournament like this what would my rating be?

frankncali
08-03-2017, 08:56 AM
My event experience

I played platinum singles and platinum teams. Finished 49th in singles and 5th in teams..

I thank the BCA and all those involved for putting on an event that I am sue has more moving parts than most of us can imagine. That said I think some things could be better especially with Fargo Ratings.

No handicapping system is perfect but if your going to use it then use it 100%. That and hold people accountable. If I was rated 525 by mistake instead of the 666 I went in with i would know its wrong and i should say something. There were a few people there that knowing should have questioned things but did not. I hope they are held accountable.

Singles-
This is a very tough division for me as I play one day per week and feel I am a bit over rated. I dont understand why my league matches were not counted and I had a large change in rating a few months before the event. I am just in a weird position that I can not regularly play with the player levels that beat me.
First loss was to Chris Calabrese who represented his country of Australia in the World Cup of Pool. The one where we send guys like SvB. Nice guy but he was rated 20 points or so lower than me and now is rated 20 points higher. I then lost out one spot from the money to Brian Begay. Strong player that is now a 699. Our first 5 games consisted of him having 3 BnRs on his breaks and me breaking dry and him running out on his. He and Chris were both nice guys but I think it will be tough for me to cash (not win) in a tournament where I am going to run into these guys regularly.

Teams we finished 5th after a disappointing set against a team from Australia. We might have been a bit tight after being told they were all underrated. We knew Chris and his brother Vinnie Calabrese. Vinnie played on the pro snooker tournament and we had watched as he and his well underrated partner robbed a scotch doubles event. Vinnie was a 691 which surprised me and a friend that knows him and his team. He is now a 736

All of heir team went up and one player on there team Danny Stone really impressed me. Even with his ratings increase he is still under where he plays. good player.
The team was the nicest team we played and they all seemed like really good guys. i just think somewhere in there the ratings were off. not sure if the new ratings put them over the limit or if a 736 can play or not.

They had a ton of robustness so I am not sure how that works.

Our team came in at the limit exactly. 3250 .. I felt we had 4 over rated and one under rated by a little bit but not really sure how much. What surprises me is that our league matches are not entered and our robustness doesnt seem to match actual playing. One of our guys didnt move and still shows 0 robustness after playing two years with us in Vegas plus league.

The scotch doubles with Vinnie and Joey Tohme perplexed me a lot. Vinnie was a 691 and she played as a 400 with no robustness. She now is listed with a starter rating of 500 after it said 400. She is 527 and Vinnie is now 736. That is a huge difference. we watched the finals that last about 20 minutes where they won 4-0.

Joey had a great week and Vinnie went on to finish 5th in the US Open 8 Ball. Actually most of their platinum 8 ball team had good events at the Us Open 8ball. They ran into each other a few times.

Nothing is perfect but I left vegas feeling like I would not be back s I just do not play enough and or well enough to compete with correctly rated players and those that slip in. Now that I am back and decompressed I really would like a couple matches back and think I would play singles or teams again. However in teams I would want to play on a gold team.

i do not know if money is added to events or not but I was surprised when I saw out of the $500 entry for teams that $300 goes to the event. Entry for singles was $160 and I think it was $115 that goes to the event but i am not sure.

I would like to see Fargo ratings succeed and I wonder what has to be done to get more games turned in. Why wasn't league matches for a year turned in or rather were they taken out?

I know nothing about the two teams in the platinum finals but they must have been strong teams. I am going to see if I can watch the matches if they were streamed.

BasementDweller
08-03-2017, 10:41 AM
It is a bit perplexing how year after year foreign teams sneak in and either win a team event or come really close to it. It definitely sounds like their team was way underrated. At this point, I would think all foreign teams would be placed under a fine microscope before being allowed to play.

JohnnyOzone
08-03-2017, 12:07 PM
Is there NOONE who is not a victim? Sheesh
We have stories of teams that are underrated, they fly under the radar, and the teams they beat are victims.
Then we have players/teams that are underrated, they are discovered and moved to the proper division, and THEY are victims

No matter what the tournament administrators do, they will be blamed for it by some victim

BasementDweller
08-03-2017, 12:22 PM
There's a difference between playing the victim card and honestly critiquing things. I'm not a victim here since I didn't even play but yet I think there are legitimate questions that can be asked. There's no reason this tournament or any other can't be just a little bit better next year.

FastManners
08-03-2017, 12:33 PM
There's a difference between playing the victim card and honestly critiquing things. I'm not a victim here since I didn't even play but yet I think there are legitimate questions that can be asked. There's no reason this tournament or any other can't be just a little bit better next year.

I agree. I think all people ask for is fairness and to be treated equally. A cynic might look at the players who were on the team that came third and summize that an almighty coincidence occurred......

I don't think anyone intentionally cheated, in the case of the players, but I do think that the BCA needs to take a long hard look at the rules on their website and themselves for future tournaments.

skip100
08-03-2017, 01:24 PM
I agree. I think all people ask for is fairness and to be treated equally. A cynic might look at the players who were on the team that came third and summize that an almighty coincidence occurred......
Especially when the TD says "I happen to know all 5 of the players - and have known them for up to 30 years."

fastone371
08-03-2017, 01:52 PM
The solution is easy. If there is a registration mistake and a players Fargo rating does not match his actual Fargo rating at time of sign up the team is automatically DQed. That way it falls upon the players to make sure there are no mistakes at sign up time.

jasonlaus
08-03-2017, 04:34 PM
The solution is easy. If there is a registration mistake and a players Fargo rating does not match his actual Fargo rating at time of sign up the team is automatically DQed. That way it falls upon the players to make sure there are no mistakes at sign up time.

Exactly! These teams know EXACTLY what their ratings are.
Jason

FastManners
08-03-2017, 05:29 PM
Exactly! These teams know EXACTLY what their ratings are.
Jason

Some teams I am sure.
We actually had all of our guys rated and verified. Two had starter ratings although one was an odd number and been playing at the BCA for 13 years (so weird to have a starter rating) and both play close to their rating. Then 10 days before the tournament and two weeks after being verified on the BCA site they got bumped up massively and our team bumped from Gold to Platinum. We came 49th last year in gold with a better starting 5 than we would have had this year. Unsurprisingly we went two and out and all but two of our players have since dropped down, most by quite a bit.
Next year I am going to vote with my feet and my wallet and play the ACS instead.

Anyway, I am venting as I am grumpy! Ha ha.

oneshotwiss
08-03-2017, 07:09 PM
Some teams I am sure.
We actually had all of our guys rated and verified. Two had starter ratings although one was an odd number and been playing at the BCA for 13 years (so weird to have a starter rating) and both play close to their rating. Then 10 days before the tournament and two weeks after being verified on the BCA site they got bumped up massively and our team bumped from Gold to Platinum. We came 49th last year in gold with a better starting 5 than we would have had this year. Unsurprisingly we went two and out and all but two of our players have since dropped down, most by quite a bit.
Next year I am going to vote with my feet and my wallet and play the ACS instead.

Anyway, I am venting as I am grumpy! Ha ha.

It was explained to us that your Fargo rates are locked in when you register your team and must be under 3000 total for the Gold Division. Then you have a 50 point buffer between registration and tournament time in case of Fargo increases. At tournament time you spot other teams a game for every 10 additional points you are over the 3050 mark. They said nothing about a team being bumped up to Platinum between registration and tournament time. That is exactly how it was explained by the people at the payout desk so if that isn't correct, then CSI needs to educate their employees on exactly how their system works. Sounds to me like people are getting different answers and different explanations depending on with whom they are speaking

FastManners
08-04-2017, 03:06 AM
It was explained to us that your Fargo rates are locked in when you register your team and must be under 3000 total for the Gold Division. Then you have a 50 point buffer between registration and tournament time in case of Fargo increases. At tournament time you spot other teams a game for every 10 additional points you are over the 3050 mark. They said nothing about a team being bumped up to Platinum between registration and tournament time. That is exactly how it was explained by the people at the payout desk so if that isn't correct, then CSI needs to educate their employees on exactly how their system works. Sounds to me like people are getting different answers and different explanations depending on with whom they are speaking

That is exactly what we understood the case to be and is what is on the website rules, however both the tournament director and office manager refused to honour that rule and said the rule on the website was not to be interpreted that way.
We registered well before the deadline then on 6/12 the website stated verified next to our team name and Fargo ratings that we registered with. Then about 10 days before the start of the tournament we get an email stating that two players have been bumped up and we have to either replace at least one player to get us under 3000 again as we were ovwr the limit based on new info. Apparently they had googled two of our players (including one player who had played bca nationals 13 years and who was 519) and bumped them both up. The other was 525 starter rating, which was not far off from what is ranking could be (we had a 518 who couldn't travel for health reasons who plays stronger). We would not have booked our flights and hotels if we knew all we could play in was a 21 team tournament, let alone a tournament we knew we were going to get toasted in (which we did). If we wanted to play in a 21 team tournament we would just organize an in house tournament and save thousands of dollars on travel.
My biggest gripes are with the horrendous timing, the fact that they did not honor the rules on their own website (try arguing "down to interpretation in court") and the fact that they let a team do exactly what they would not let us do (we would have been about 3020) with our strongest line up after they adjusted us) i.e. Entering gold when they were over.
I am annoyed as the current management has destroyed (in my eyes) what was a great tournament for me and the highlight of my vacation time every year. I have been going 11 years and never won more than a few hundred dollars, but enjoyed the competition and even embraced being moved into platinum even though I never did anything at all in the open, but this latest debacle of an event has killed it for me.

Bca8ball
08-04-2017, 05:53 PM
After reading the entire thread and putting heavy consideration on Griffins post, there is still one question that comes to mind.

When a team signs up for this event, they must be qualified within BCA.
Their names show up as allowable participates within the system if they are in fact qualified.
During the sign-up/registration the team captain (or whoever is completing the document) has to list each player's Fargo rating:

Question: Did they actually list a player as a 140 rating on their entry form or not?
* There is simply no possible way a 640 level player doesn't know 140 isn't an error: period!!!
Seems like that question could be easily answered!

* If the system corrects the error and it results in them being over the 3000; they aren't gold, they are platinum at registration but the error allowed them to play in gold. If true (a lot of assuming here) the team should have been moved to the platinum division as a few others were.

For the record, my team went 2 and 2.
We took advantage of a better team's bad rolls to win one we probably shouldn't have and lost to a team we should have beaten because we couldn't get out of our own way; the opportunities were clearly there but we didn't execute when it mattered.

We were ultimately eliminated by a team clicking on all cylinders.
They clearly showed us from the first round with 4 break and runs and the second round with 3 rack and runs that we weren't at their speed...

Great tournament, looking forward to next year!

poolscholar
08-04-2017, 11:45 PM
I think the only way these events will grow or survive is to add light handicapping to divisions. And probably need to combine divisions so there are bigger payouts. Who wants to sign up if they know they are going to be in the bottom half of the division in terms of skill? Then they will just need a formula to detect sandbagging.

Fargorate is great, but before it was used, there were a lot more people with illusions that they can win, now it is quite clear when you have basically zero chance of winning a tournament (ie platinum, a 625 playing vs guys that are 700+) .

goettlicher
08-06-2017, 12:04 PM
Fair enough. I'm sorry if I did not word my reply correctly. Consistency by BCA and CSI is crucial, I'd agree. Either way, great finish. My team went 2 and out and we had a combined FARGO of 2999. LOL For some reason we just did not click this year. Best of luck with your game & future
.




BCAPL!

randyg

PocketSpeed11
08-06-2017, 01:26 PM
With no disrespect intended, your original post did not make this clear at all. When everyone "misreads" your post such that they think the team was "well over" the 3000 limit because of a 500 point Fargo error as meaning they were close to 3000 as registered and then around 3500 at match time then you have to accept that maybe you didn't write it as clearly as you intended.

As an aside, I don't think 15 points over 3000 is "well over" the limit. I think people's reaction to your post might have been different if you made it clear that the team was only just over the limit, not way over. If the rules were not complied with, that is one thing, but I think the magnitude of the issue is important.

To be fair to the OP, I thought it was clearly stated as intended.

Jdubp
08-07-2017, 10:22 PM
Just curious where is the post (if ever was one) with the list of payouts?

5aheadforpinks
08-08-2017, 10:16 AM
I think the only way these events will grow or survive is to add light handicapping to divisions. And probably need to combine divisions so there are bigger payouts. Who wants to sign up if they know they are going to be in the bottom half of the division in terms of skill? Then they will just need a formula to detect sandbagging.

Fargorate is great, but before it was used, there were a lot more people with illusions that they can win, now it is quite clear when you have basically zero chance of winning a tournament (ie platinum, a 625 playing vs guys that are 700+) .

Yes, this is exactly what kept me from playing singles this year. I'm rated a ~664, I played the platinum division last year not knowing where the cut off was. I finished in the money, but was very outclassed by a bunch of people. So I knew this year that I had no chance of winning the platinum, and I would have to compete at a higher level for less money pay out? Doesn't make sense.

Combine the division and issue handicaps. Its the only way I'll play singles again.

cardiac kid
08-08-2017, 10:56 AM
Yes, this is exactly what kept me from playing singles this year. I'm rated a ~664, I played the platinum division last year not knowing where the cut off was. I finished in the money, but was very outclassed by a bunch of people. So I knew this year that I had no chance of winning the platinum, and I would have to compete at a higher level for less money pay out? Doesn't make sense.

Combine the division and issue handicaps. Its the only way I'll play singles again.

5,

For the past year, I tried to get other posters on this forum to understand why being in the lower half of a division is a death notice. To get to the next division up, you might have to devote years of additional practice with no guarantee of success. To go down, you will probably have to sandbag for a couple of years. Fargo to me is just numbers. The numbers can be manipulated just like APA and TAP.

If a player goes up by Fargo number, there is no mechanism to help if they go years without cashing let alone winning. How many years will YOU play if YOU have no chance of winning? Why would you play now? A vacation? Competition?

Handicaps? Really? If Fargo is inaccurate now, what will handicapping do other than reward the lower number player? Or penalize the higher number player? Sometimes playing even is the best force for improvement.

JMHO,

Lyn

5aheadforpinks
08-08-2017, 01:45 PM
Handicaps? Really? If Fargo is inaccurate now, what will handicapping do other than reward the lower number player? Or penalize the higher number player? Sometimes playing even is the best force for improvement.

I agree with you except, according to Mike at Fargo Rate, these numbers are not inaccurate once you are established.

I've heard talk about not allowing anyone to play that isn't established, but this would take several years to establish all the players.

A better idea is to make non-established ratings volatile. Meaning, they move by large numbers after every match is recorded and are adjusted on the fly during the tournament.

Right now, the divisions are too broad, the highest rated players in each division are twice as strong as the lowest rated in that same division.

So, make everyone play together, but handicap it like Fargo suggests with these caveats.

oneballeddie
08-09-2017, 06:56 PM
I agree with you except, according to Mike at Fargo Rate, these numbers are not inaccurate once you are established.

I've heard talk about not allowing anyone to play that isn't established, but this would take several years to establish all the players.

A better idea is to make non-established ratings volatile. Meaning, they move by large numbers after every match is recorded and are adjusted on the fly during the tournament.

Right now, the divisions are too broad, the highest rated players in each division are twice as strong as the lowest rated in that same division.

So, make everyone play together, but handicap it like Fargo suggests with these caveats.

Don't see how you can change ratings during the tournament. The brackets are drawn and fixed. Maybe you could handicap the matches and change handicaps during the tournament but that sounds chaotic and vulnerable to extreme sandbagging.

hang-the-9
08-10-2017, 06:22 AM
Yes, this is exactly what kept me from playing singles this year. I'm rated a ~664, I played the platinum division last year not knowing where the cut off was. I finished in the money, but was very outclassed by a bunch of people. So I knew this year that I had no chance of winning the platinum, and I would have to compete at a higher level for less money pay out? Doesn't make sense.

Combine the division and issue handicaps. Its the only way I'll play singles again.

So the odd thing is that everyone seems to complain that handicaps ruined pool, step up and play, I don't ask for spots, yet the there are big long threads where people want MORE handicaps LOL

There is a higher level than Platinum? A 664 is a very good player, solid A or A+. At that point there is not much need for handicaps on a 7 footer.

Adam Tetzlaff
08-10-2017, 10:00 AM
Why would someone make up, and lie about the 500 point error on one of the players rating, during registration? Would a team really lie about something like this to try to get another team in trouble? It does sound unbelievable though (a 500 point error, from 640 down to 140).

Because for some people, excuses need to be made for why they didn't win. Sounds like they were salty that they lost. Makes for good gossip though.

JohnnyOzone
08-10-2017, 11:41 AM
If all singles was one bracket w/ games-on-the-wire handicaps, and if the handicaps were legit to the point that whoever won the match played well (FOR THEM), then if you had a final match and one of the players was a 525 and the other player was a 700, and the 525 played well and the 700 made some unforced errors, and the 525 won, what do you think the 700 would say?


SANDBAGGER!!!!!!

FastManners
08-10-2017, 12:11 PM
Personally, I hate the idea of handicaps. It should have been kept to the old divisions of Trophy, Open, Advanced, Masters, Grand Masters. When you cash at a certain level you move up a division. If you continually fail (say for 2/3 years) to cash you move down.
What the Fargo rating system has changed, is that players can now play for years and still have zero chance in their division, which basically means that they are donating every year. You will get players such as myself who are at the low end of platinum and who barely cashed in the Open every year, deciding that the BCAPL is no longer worth it. Especially if they are going to move my team up to Platinum a week before the tournament, because of some flawed info found on Google (and not sticking to their own rules on their own site).
From my experience, the Fargo Starter ratings are based on someone Googling players and making assumptions. These Starter ratings can be changed at any point up until the start of the tournament and players/teams moved into a division accordingly.
This Google research holds more stock than BCA Nationals past results and Local BCA league results.

As you can tell, I am still bitter and twisted at my teams treatment by the BCAPL...... lol

5aheadforpinks
08-10-2017, 12:12 PM
If all singles was one bracket w/ games-on-the-wire handicaps, and if the handicaps were legit to the point that whoever won the match played well (FOR THEM), then if you had a final match and one of the players was a 525 and the other player was a 700, and the 525 played well and the 700 made some unforced errors, and the 525 won, what do you think the 700 would say?


SANDBAGGER!!!!!!

First off, after 200 tournament games logged why would anyone throw that much money away to sandbag one tournament? I'm talking established (200+ games) players only.
If you put those ratings in the FargoRate game matcher, you will see that the 525 has a 2.3% chance of winning an even race to 6 against a 700. Why would he ever enter the same event?

I'm arguing that we are already handicapping the tournament by making different divisions (platinum, gold, etc.) but the playing ability within each division is still too far away from each other. Example, a 710 vs 625: in a race to 6 the 625 has a 16% chance to win. Another example, a 624 vs 525 in a race to 5 the 525 has a 14.7% chance to win.

PoppaSaun
08-10-2017, 12:24 PM
When you cash at a certain level you move up a division. If you continually fail (say for 2/3 years) to cash you move down.

This is such a stupid idea, and it seems to always pop up.

I have seen this in action, at my local foosball tourney scene. There was a guy who won ~half of the tourneys he entered as a 'B' in our A/B/C format. He was the best 'B' player in any of the tourneys, not by a ton, but he definitely had an edge on everyone else in that group.

So, a bunch of whiners complained and put the 'win and move up' rule into effect. This guy never went more than three matches (double-elimination) in when playing as an 'A'. After a bunch of these tourneys they moved him back to a 'B' and he won again, so they moved him back to an 'A'...and he quit playing.

As an aside, during that time there were 'B' players who legitimately improved and leap-frogged this guy. He had been playing for 25 years and just wasn't ever going to get better.

I always had the attitude that there is a 'best' of any skill group. That doesn't mean that the guy belongs in the next skill group, just like the worst pro is still a pro, the best amateur is still an amateur.

mikepage
08-10-2017, 12:27 PM
First off, after 200 tournament games logged why would anyone throw that much money away to sandbag one tournament? I'm talking established (200+ games) players only.
If you put those ratings in the FargoRate game matcher, you will see that the 525 has a 2.3% chance of winning an even race to 6 against a 700. Why would he ever enter the same event?

I'm arguing that we are already handicapping the tournament by making different divisions (platinum, gold, etc.) but the playing ability within each division is still too far away from each other. Example, a 710 vs 625: in a race to 6 the 625 has a 16% chance to win. Another example, a 624 vs 525 in a race to 5 the 525 has a 14.7% chance to win.

We have to put a rating range of 100 points or so within a tournament in context. Most tournaments have more like a 300-point range

When a tournament has players between, say 500 and 600 evenly distributed, it is true that the weakest player is 100 points away from the strongest player.

But it is also true that when you do the draw, the average gap between the players is more like 30 points.

JC
08-10-2017, 12:37 PM
We have to put a rating range of 100 points or so within a tournament in context. Most tournaments have more like a 300-point range

When a tournament has players between, say 500 and 600 evenly distributed, it is true that the weakest player is 100 points away from the strongest player.

But it is also true that when you do the draw, the average gap between the players is more like 30 points.

IMO the single biggest thing holding back Fargorate is the shortcomings of LMS.

Until that is addressed and is available for BCAPL league use everywhere there will be serious discrepancies between players ratings and their actual ability. This is especially true in the sub 600 crowd that isn't out playing tournaments every weekend.

You simply cannot exclude 90% of the eligible games being played out there from the system and expect accurate results any time soon.

Fix and finish LMS and behold the true beauty of Fargorate unfold.

JC

jojopiff
08-10-2017, 01:12 PM
We have to put a rating range of 100 points or so within a tournament in context. Most tournaments have more like a 300-point range

When a tournament has players between, say 500 and 600 evenly distributed, it is true that the weakest player is 100 points away from the strongest player.

But it is also true that when you do the draw, the average gap between the players is more like 30 points.

Disregard. I mis-read your statement.

FastManners
08-10-2017, 04:22 PM
This is such a stupid idea, and it seems to always pop up.

I have seen this in action, at my local foosball tourney scene. There was a guy who won ~half of the tourneys he entered as a 'B' in our A/B/C format. He was the best 'B' player in any of the tourneys, not by a ton, but he definitely had an edge on everyone else in that group.

So, a bunch of whiners complained and put the 'win and move up' rule into effect. This guy never went more than three matches (double-elimination) in when playing as an 'A'. After a bunch of these tourneys they moved him back to a 'B' and he won again, so they moved him back to an 'A'...and he quit playing.

As an aside, during that time there were 'B' players who legitimately improved and leap-frogged this guy. He had been playing for 25 years and just wasn't ever going to get better.

I always had the attitude that there is a 'best' of any skill group. That doesn't mean that the guy belongs in the next skill group, just like the worst pro is still a pro, the best amateur is still an amateur.
Eloquent respone. ;)

It was actually a method that worked well for many many years. Failing would not be winning the tournament that would be insane in a field of 1,000+. It would be failing to win a match after a few years and then only moved down by request. There is no perfect format, but the current set up is so much worse than the how it used to be run.

skeeterpro
08-10-2017, 04:25 PM
My event experience

I played platinum singles and platinum teams. Finished 49th in singles and 5th in teams..

I thank the BCA and all those involved for putting on an event that I am sue has more moving parts than most of us can imagine. That said I think some things could be better especially with Fargo Ratings.

No handicapping system is perfect but if your going to use it then use it 100%. That and hold people accountable. If I was rated 525 by mistake instead of the 666 I went in with i would know its wrong and i should say something. There were a few people there that knowing should have questioned things but did not. I hope they are held accountable.

Singles-
This is a very tough division for me as I play one day per week and feel I am a bit over rated. I dont understand why my league matches were not counted and I had a large change in rating a few months before the event. I am just in a weird position that I can not regularly play with the player levels that beat me.
First loss was to Chris Calabrese who represented his country of Australia in the World Cup of Pool. The one where we send guys like SvB. Nice guy but he was rated 20 points or so lower than me and now is rated 20 points higher. I then lost out one spot from the money to Brian Begay. Strong player that is now a 699. Our first 5 games consisted of him having 3 BnRs on his breaks and me breaking dry and him running out on his. He and Chris were both nice guys but I think it will be tough for me to cash (not win) in a tournament where I am going to run into these guys regularly.

Teams we finished 5th after a disappointing set against a team from Australia. We might have been a bit tight after being told they were all underrated. We knew Chris and his brother Vinnie Calabrese. Vinnie played on the pro snooker tournament and we had watched as he and his well underrated partner robbed a scotch doubles event. Vinnie was a 691 which surprised me and a friend that knows him and his team. He is now a 736

All of heir team went up and one player on there team Danny Stone really impressed me. Even with his ratings increase he is still under where he plays. good player.
The team was the nicest team we played and they all seemed like really good guys. i just think somewhere in there the ratings were off. not sure if the new ratings put them over the limit or if a 736 can play or not.

They had a ton of robustness so I am not sure how that works.

Our team came in at the limit exactly. 3250 .. I felt we had 4 over rated and one under rated by a little bit but not really sure how much. What surprises me is that our league matches are not entered and our robustness doesnt seem to match actual playing. One of our guys didnt move and still shows 0 robustness after playing two years with us in Vegas plus league.

The scotch doubles with Vinnie and Joey Tohme perplexed me a lot. Vinnie was a 691 and she played as a 400 with no robustness. She now is listed with a starter rating of 500 after it said 400. She is 527 and Vinnie is now 736. That is a huge difference. we watched the finals that last about 20 minutes where they won 4-0.

Joey had a great week and Vinnie went on to finish 5th in the US Open 8 Ball. Actually most of their platinum 8 ball team had good events at the Us Open 8ball. They ran into each other a few times.

Nothing is perfect but I left vegas feeling like I would not be back s I just do not play enough and or well enough to compete with correctly rated players and those that slip in. Now that I am back and decompressed I really would like a couple matches back and think I would play singles or teams again. However in teams I would want to play on a gold team.

i do not know if money is added to events or not but I was surprised when I saw out of the $500 entry for teams that $300 goes to the event. Entry for singles was $160 and I think it was $115 that goes to the event but i am not sure.

I would like to see Fargo ratings succeed and I wonder what has to be done to get more games turned in. Why wasn't league matches for a year turned in or rather were they taken out?

I know nothing about the two teams in the platinum finals but they must have been strong teams. I am going to see if I can watch the matches if they were streamed.

I played in the Scotch event with Vinnie and Joey, they rolled right through the tournament with very few games lost. It was brought to the attention of the tourn director by quite a few teams that this team was clearly under rated but guess what, even under a watchful eye they were allowed to play and took home 1st place cash. It may be unfair for many players that only play once a week and the tournament would probably suffer but IMO, all players should have an established Fargo Rating before they are eligible to play in the national tournament. Too many players are slipping through the cracks and taking home big payouts before it's discovered that they're playing at a much higher level than indicated. Joey Tohme comes into the event with a 400 rating with ZERO games in the system and leaves the tournament with a 527 WTF??? She blew through the silver singles division with hardly a single game lost in the entire event. Her well under rated Fargo rating enabled her to take home 1st place in the scotch doubles and 1st place in the silver singles 8-ball. I didn't bother to look at how she did in any other events but I'm sure she didn't suck.