Here's a couple of pics of my Gold Crown IV in Apple Green. The standard Simonis Green is just too dark for me.

Plus I am about to have Apple Green put on my new Diamond Professional.

Rocket354 said:

Interestingly, I think this analysis might show the sets format gives the weaker player a better chance (depending on assumptions).
...

Click to expand...

I modified my Fargo match odds calculator to display the likely number of racks played in a match:


For a race to 9, Fargo difference of 50, the odds of the stronger player winning are 76.52 percent, and the average match length is 14.23 racks.

Compare to a Predator best-of-3-sets match, the odds of the stronger player winning are 76.12 percent, and the average match length is 13.93 racks.

So there's basically no difference in it. The formats might as well be the same from the perspective of either player.

I've been watching that channel for like 2 years, I think. I haven't dealt with Eddie P. directly, but he seems pretty honest showing any issues with cues and whatnot.

Monti said:

Last match capito vs shaw had the soft breaking controversy. Obviously not a thing in 10 ball generally but wonder if there remains a bit of needle !

Click to expand...

seems likely.

i haven't watched capito yet in this event. i don't particularly like watching him. but i note that in the entire tournament he's lost just 1 set. he seems to be playing very strong.

skogstokig said:

it feels like the odds of a 650 beating a 600 is different than of joshua filler (864) beating aleksa pecelj (814). kledio, pijus, chang yu lung are also in that 50 point lower than filler range.

the gap between 600 and 650 i know from experience is huge. but from what i have observed in watching the pro scene, i wouldn't say it's an identical difference. doesn't mean those odds are wrong, though i think they may be, but that they wouldn't be the same.

(i would fire at pecelj 18.74% / 5.3)

Click to expand...

From my understanding, they should be the same. An x-point difference is meant to correspond to a y-percent chance, regardless of where on the scale folks are.

This aligns with my experiences, both playing at my very modest ability, and watching top pros. There's a lot (over 70) of 800+ players now, but it's still quite disproportionately the handful of 830+ guys who are taking down the titles.

Great channel. Hide your wallet from yourself before you watch anymore of his videos

skogstokig said:

it feels like the odds of a 650 beating a 600 is different than of joshua filler (864) beating aleksa pecelj (814). kledio, pijus, chang yu lung are also in that 50 point lower than filler range.

the gap between 600 and 650 i know from experience is huge. but from what i have observed in watching the pro scene, i wouldn't say it's an identical difference. doesn't mean those odds are wrong, though i think they may be, but that they wouldn't be the same.

(i would fire at pecelj 18.74% / 5.3)

Click to expand...

Mathematically, the way Fargo ratings are calculated, the difference is the same.

I think the difference you're seeing is that, at very high ratings, both players have high likelihood of a clearance. So the difference for any given rack is harder to notice. You probably have to zoom out to the match level to see the same difference that you see for lower-rated players. But, ultimately, the difference is the same.

Interestingly, I think this analysis might show the sets format gives the weaker player a better chance (depending on assumptions).

With three sets being equivalent to a single race to 9, if we count the shootout as one rack (consistent with the original assumptions), then the three-sets format has a maximum rack total of 21, whereas a race to 9 is capped at 17.

Similarly, a five-set match has a 35-game max, and a race to 14 has a 27-game max.

In general, a weaker player has a better chance with fewer racks played. Therefore, for any given number of maximum racks, the weaker player should prefer sets. A race to 11 (21 racks max) is "harder" than three races to 4 (also 21 racks max), which is only the same difficulty as a race to 9.

The only caveat is the probability of any given race length. A straight race to 11 is more likely to go 21 racks than the three sets, if for no other reason than a 4-0, 4-1, or 4-2 start means the sets match can't go the maximum number of racks.

I'm guessing Predator knows all this. I think the sets format is designed to keep probabilities close, and expected time close (so, three sets the same as a race to 9 by both measures) while making drama/interest higher than in a straight race. Every rack seems more important to the viewer in sets, and the periodic reset to 0-0 seems to keep the trailing player in the match more.

it feels like the odds of a 650 beating a 600 is different than of joshua filler (864) beating aleksa pecelj (814). kledio, pijus, chang yu lung are also in that 50 point lower than filler range.

the gap between 600 and 650 i know from experience is huge. but from what i have observed in watching the pro scene, i wouldn't say it's an identical difference. doesn't mean those odds are wrong, though i think they may be, but that they wouldn't be the same.

(i would fire at pecelj 18.74% / 5.3)

All that said, we've had so many years of tournament blue now, that I'd welcome green simply for some variety. Especially if you are changing cloth every year, what's the difference? Its not like its a horrible color like red or black. Either install it, or sell it and buy another color. Sitting on it does no one any good.