fastone371 said:

I think that is because at the outset everyone (most) is assigned a relatively low FR and it takes time to build up the ratings.

Click to expand...

skogstokig said:

it would still be just relative to their contemporaries.. so what's the point in speculating

Click to expand...

DieselPete said:

I think it is more accurate than you are giving it credit for being.

Fargo rates players within an ecosystem, based on wins and losses of games. It does not care if they can pocket balls, play safe or kick, or anything else. The only data is "who won."

Then, it builds from there on "who did THEY beat? And who did they lose to... and who did THEY beat, and who did they lose to..." on and on.

Fargo builds a pyramid. There will always be a point at the top.

In a year that a top player dominated the tournament scene, like Reyes, Strickland, Varner or Segal, they would have rated in the 800s because they were beating everyone, and the "everyone" they were beating were beating everyone else... and so on.

IF there is a case that the ecosystem was not as strong (there was less international play, for example, creating less "connectedness") the tip of the pyramid might be a few points lower (790, not 800) but not much more than that.

HOWEVER... do I think that yesterday's 780 would compete with today's 780? No. Today's 780 has achieved that rating against a tougher set of opponents (inarguably a deeper field).

Click to expand...

sjm said:

I agree that Fargo is extremely accurate.

Still, it wasn't that long ago that there were zero players in the world that had a Fargo of 800. I think Shane and Wu were the first two, and that was in 2010 or so.

Actually, I think the 780 of fifteen years ago, who would have been a top ten player in the world at the time, would have had no trouble staying with a 780 of today. The 780 of today, however, is about the 150th best player in the world and makes a very marginal income from competition.

Click to expand...

Fvalstounge said:

OMG... I've seen some garbage, but that's absurd.

Almost sold an 84-3 cue that I picked up. It has the straightest Originals shaft I've seen to date (including my own). Thank goodness it didn't pan out. The Kamui tip on mine delaminated while playing Friday night. Cleaned up the other one to use as a substitute last night and realized I'm gonna have to keep it. Just too damned straight and hits EXACTLY like my own. They all have a unique feel, even in the same model and series, IMO. Also realized I hate Kamui tips and I'm going back to a simple, cheap, medium Triangle tip. For me, my cues and my playing style, it's just a better option.

Click to expand...

iusedtoberich said:

Legit question. I've seen it missed a bunch of times over the years, even by mid to high 600's. I played this game about 4 hours last week, and my opponent and I both missed it once in that session. We are both mid 500's. I shot it a bit faster than pocket speed and slightly jacked up. We were on a 4 1/4" Diamond 9'. Was wondering if there is a more high percentage way to play it.

Click to expand...