I still believe the ratings are moving a bit too slowly.
For discussion's sake let say a player is rated 750.
Just on randomness, he's probably going to have short periods where his RESULTS (key word "results") indicate he's playing 700 pool, 800 pool or even in a wider range even if he's still playing at a 750 level. That's just the random break results, leaves, layouts, great/bad shots etc... that occur over short periods that contribute to results. So we know his rating has to reflect a longer period than just a few tournaments. But there are times when you can clearly see a player is playing below or above his Fargo Rating for a period of time and the rating is hardly budging. It trails results that ARE reflective of an actual change in performance.
If you watch chess ratings you see the ratings reflect long term results, but you also see players move up and down the rankings to better reflect their recent play.
I'm not informed enough or perhaps even smart enough to suggest the appropriate change, but I still think the ratings move a little too slowly.
If it was easy to wager on pool, I felt confident no one would be dumping, and the odds were set entirely based on Fargo ratings, I feel confident I would find many inefficient odds and be able to win because Fargo didn't move fast enough.
One other suggestion I would have (granted sample size would be an issue), is that it probably makes some sense to also have seperate ratings for each game, We know some players are a little better at some games than others and their own overall rating could reflect the tournament type they have been playing.
