Shaft jumping is the limit of what I can do now. I really don't see the issue. Was that common among you guys?

After a 9 hour battle playing 5 aheads on the bar table with a guy and me never being ahead at any point. He was 4 ahead and 1 set ahead. We agreed to play til someone was 2 sets ahead. Me and my partner had every dollar to our names bet....

My opponent played a nasty safety on the 6 ball leaving me with the most awkward angle I've ever had that I can remember. I had to masse kick cross table and cut the 6 in the side. The table was playing a little springy and wet. I massed just short of the point of the side, cut the 6 backwards into the side, cueball runs 3 rails around almost back to where it was. I shaft jumped in the 7(leather tips back then) and ran out. He was crushing me all night and couldn't make a ball after that. I won the money in short order.

Both Lucky and good, best combo.

Fore Rail said:

CSI even has a 10 point individual rating cushion in place for their tournaments.

Click to expand...

They are very strict, though. If they have a cap then you have to be at or under the cap when you register. The cushion is only if your score changes after registration.

Any tournament other than an open one will have to in some way draw a line in the sand and it will let someone in who is hardly different from someone it excludes, or at least treats unfairly. Even ranges can be annoying. I play in some "40-pts per game" tournaments, and it is somewhat annoying to be 39 points below someone and have to play them even. I'd rather just play open than handicapped sometimes.

dreamache said:

Fusioncue already does automatic stats tracking. For every drill and game.

Click to expand...

what about live stats tracking on a pro pool match?

Crazy match between Eklent Kaci and AJ Manas.

Both were making incredible shots but also some kind of inexplicable errors. Eklent was able to finish it up in the end.

skip100 said:

Shane is still playing great for someone at this point in his career.

Click to expand...

I agree but I think he gets overly frustrated with himself for not being able to steamroll a bunch of people in their prime each tournament

GideonF said:

You don’t need the app to set the race. You can just say a Fargo gap of 40 or 50 (or whatever) is a one game spot, 80 is two etc. The bracket should have the Fargo on it so the player just says “I’m a 550, I’m playing a 605, I get one game)”.

The tiered approach causes the same problem of incentives for marginal players. A 605 still has an incentive to drop to 599. Also, strict tiers can lead to a 605 spotting a 595, yet a 550 gets no spot from a 599. You can slightly fix the first problem by having fixed tiers and a rule that there is no spot if the players are within a certain Fargo gap (eg 20 points) so a 595 gets no spot from a 605. But still this is not as good as a pure Fargo gap spot.

Click to expand...

That's an even better solution...

Chili Palmer said:

As a 617 player I agree with all of these posts. I see tournaments posted all the time that I can't enter but, and I may be an outlier here, I would rather be able to enter with the requirement to give weight.

Personally, I think if you're going to use a cap based on FR then you should absolutely use the FR system to setup the races. The issue with that is, with short races someone is going to have an edge. I think the simple solution is to set the race based on your rating. This doesn't mean use the FR app to set the race, but rather set a scale something like 600-650 has to go to 5, 550 to 599 goes to 4, 500 to 549 goes to 3, etc. I have seen this before but it would/could give players an edge, depending on what side of the scale they are on. In the end, unless you have the time to have a few long races, someone is going to get the short end of the stick.

Click to expand...

You don’t need the app to set the race. You can just say a Fargo gap of 40 or 50 (or whatever) is a one game spot, 80 is two etc. The bracket should have the Fargo on it so the player just says “I’m a 550, I’m playing a 605, I get one game)”.

The tiered approach causes the same problem of incentives for marginal players. A 605 still has an incentive to drop to 599. Also, strict tiers can lead to a 605 spotting a 595, yet a 550 gets no spot from a 599. You can slightly fix the first problem by having fixed tiers and a rule that there is no spot if the players are within a certain Fargo gap (eg 20 points) so a 595 gets no spot from a 605. But still this is not as good as a pure Fargo gap spot.

GideonF said:

I agree with this. Although part of the problem is that Fargo is being used in a way Fargo Rate didn’t intend. “600 and under” (or any Fargo and under) is what causes most of these problems.

As I understand the ratings and handicapping, it’s designed to determine fair handicapped races, so players of materially different skill levels can compete on fairly even terms.

There is no material difference between a 605 and a 599, yet one can play and one can’t. So naturally this is going to incentivize a 605 to underperform in some matches so they drop below the arbitrary number. When used correctly, those few rating points are usually meaningless, so the incentive is not there.

Click to expand...

maha said:

yes and this is not fargo's fault or intent. it is just a way some tournament officials do their picking of entrants and it is all on them .

if you want to use ratings then use them to also give correct spots to lesser players as they almost never play a true fair game to a higher rated player.

of course as always the better players complain and say it isnt right that the game is fair as they should have an advantage.

tournaments of skill are decided before they start unless they are made fair.

Click to expand...

Fore Rail said:

What you said here is of the utmost importance. There is a point where there is no difference between two players in skill level - for example the difference of 6 points like what is stated above.

Many tournament directors at their discretion have a "fudge factor" built into their events that allow players slightly over the cap to participate. Add a players meeting to that to decide whether or not to allow participants slightly over the cap & you have no problems.

There should be no incentive at all for a 605 to purposely drop to under 600 if the td is doing his/her job correctly.

CSI even has a 10 point individual rating cushion in place for their tournaments.

Click to expand...

As a 617 player I agree with all of these posts. I see tournaments posted all the time that I can't enter but, and I may be an outlier here, I would rather be able to enter with the requirement to give weight.

Personally, I think if you're going to use a cap based on FR then you should absolutely use the FR system to setup the races. The issue with that is, with short races someone is going to have an edge. I think the simple solution is to set the race based on your rating. This doesn't mean use the FR app to set the race, but rather set a scale something like 600-650 has to go to 5, 550 to 599 goes to 4, 500 to 549 goes to 3, etc. I have seen this before but it would/could give players an edge, depending on what side of the scale they are on. In the end, unless you have the time to have a few long races, someone is going to get the short end of the stick.

VR glasses yet?

yea but let the 605 player play a 595 and see how much better he does than the 599 one.

it does make a difference.