Justin Bergman
- Thread starter Rhea
- Start date
I think the pecking order is fairly clear.
On a 9ft
1. Bergman
2. Hall
3. Skyler
On a bar table.. coin flip for all three of them.
I've supported Mark but if he is that foolish this will and should be his last year as captain.
I'm confident that Hall, Bergman and Dechaine will place high in the US Open, but I'm not so sure about Scott Frost or Rodney Morris. This is their last chance to possibly get the points needed to be included. Hopefully Corey Deuel will have a good showing at the Open, I'd love to see him back again at the Cup this year.
I'd like to see McMinn get a look.
Top 24 US players by performance:
Shane Van Boening USA 824
Mike Dechaine USA 798
Justin Bergman USA 787
Johnny Archer USA 784
Rodney Morris USA 783
Shawn Putnam USA 771
Earl Strickland USA 770
Shane McMinn USA 766 <--- #8
Dennis Hatch USA 766
Skyler Woodward USA 765
Johnathan Pinegar USA 763
Corey Deuel USA 762
Billy J Thorpe USA 761
Larry Nevel Jr USA 760
Oscar Dominguez USA 760
Charlie Williams USA 759
Jason Kirkwood USA 757
Billy Lee Bailey USA 757
John Fields USA 756
Charlie Bryant USA 755
Shane Winters USA 755
Jeremy Sossei USA 754
Josh Roberts USA 754
Justin Hall USA 753 <---- #24
I played him in Olathe in one of the Midwest 9 ball tournaments. He is a very good player. He ended up getting 2nd in that event that had some pros in it. I lost 9-3 but felt pretty good about the score as I missed about 3 balls that would have made it much closer (being nervous due to never playing in these types of tournaments). I was 2 out of the money in that tournament after winning a few matches on the back side doh!
He ran out a rack, then ran six racks and out to win almost 21k, against Alex P. Glad thats just ok. Id like to hear you describe something amazing.
Yea I agree I don't think Scott should be pick but I guess we will see I'd just really like it to be at least Shane Mike and Justin think that's a strong 3 other 2 will be coin toss like to see hall and sky
Performance for what ?
http://www.fargorate.com/
Fargo ratings. While not absolutely perfect (and no rating system ever could be) it is actually a very good system that will get even better as more and more matches get added to the database. It tracks everyone's win/loss records and match scores against their opponents in tournaments or challenge matches (where they can get access to the info) and it then can compare you against everyone else. It uses match results from the last ten years (the more recent match results count more and carry more weight than older match results). If curious for more detail about how it works there are more detailed explanations on the website and even more details in various threads on here if you do a main forum search for "fargo".
Also btw just so you don't feel left out Chris, you are currently #25.
When Justin played you in September 2013 he had just finished a 4 year break from pool. I was betting on Justin from how I remembered he played before the break. It didn't take him but maybe 6 months to get back to where he used to be and he kept improving from there. Gene & I lost $735 a piece on that bet. You played great.
The problem with that system is you don't know where the info comes from or how recent it is ,,
1
You must be a special kind of person, aren't you? The info comes from your wins and losses in tournaments and/or challenge matches just as PoolPlaya has explained. Fargo rate doesn't just make stuff up and create numbers out of thin air, they are actually calculated and there's a method to the madness. Unlike the WPA, oh you placed 10th at the US Open? Here's 10 points, have a good day, with no consideration to how many games your opponent won from you, or how close the match was, all it cares about is if you won or lost.
Last edited:
Every rating system will have some problems, it is just a matter or how big they are, and how many there are. In the case of the Fargo ratings I believe they are just about as few and small as could ever be possible and I am sure that if he discovers a way to tweak it to make it even slightly better in the future he would do so although it was exceptionally well thought out and done from the get go and they may be little if anything to ever improve on that doesn't come with a worse trade off. If you believe a better system can be designed, I think you should do it, or at least give your specific inputs along with the solutions in one of the recent threads specifically addressing the details of the system. I am certain that Mike Page is open to all good ideas if they would actually be an improvement with all things considered.
As far as where the info comes from, some educated deduction says that that much of it came straight from CSI, and he probably has arrangements with some other promoters and streamers to provide the statistics as well. He may even use a few trusted people such as AtLarge who track tournament and/or challenge match statistics independently. Are you insinuating that he is making up the match information in his system database and that it isn't legitimate?
As far as how recent his information is, we do know that in the sense that his rating formula takes that into consideration and adjusts for it. New information (recent matches) count the most heavily towards the player rating and the older the matches are the less weight they carry and the less effect they have on your rating. We know that he uses matches from today all the way back to ten years ago. Not sure what else you need to know because the formula takes care of accounting for the "age of the info".
You can't use only the most recent matches for a player for several reasons, but primarily it is just too small of a sample size in many cases. What if a player was in a slump the last few months. It is temporary and they will come out of it at any moment but their rating is going to show them being much worse than they actually are because of it if since you weren't also taking into consideration how they truely played for years just prior to this temporary slump. Plus, many players don't play a billion matches every year like say SVB. If you only play a tournament or two a year, your rating based on say just the last year won't at all be accurate if it just so happened you had an off day in both those tournaments or had people running sets out on you to put you two and out etc. He went for the best compromise and all around most accurate way to do it which was to count all of your matches (that he was able to get the results for) from the last ten years but the recent ones affect your rating a whole lot more than the oldest ones.
And remember, this system was designed to be the all around best when you have to rate everyone in the world, including the nobodies like you and I, and not just the pros that are actively playing professional events. This is another reason you can't just use say only the most recent year or some short period of time. Most people just don't play enough big tournament matches a year for the rating to have much meaning (small sample size). But on the flip side, obviously how you are playing this year does have more meaning than how you were playing say 8 years ago. And that is why Fargo takes it all into consideration for the best of both worlds, using all available matches up to ten years old, to give a bigger more meaningful sample size, but at the same time gearing it to be a more accurate reflection of your current play by having your more recent matches count much more towards your rating.