A Questoin For FargoRate

[Dockter]

Just like the PGA World Ranking --- they don't leave out scores.

So the PGA would include in it's rankings if two PGA buddies decided to go out and shoot a few rounds for some cash?

No system will ever be able to take in to account every single game played and there will always be a margin of error but so far Fargo is the best system I've seen.

 

[watchez]

No doubt Mr. Page will be very grateful for your offer to put a kiosk/terminal/laptop in every pool room in the country. :thumbup:

Fargo Ratings are what they are, given the limited amount of resources that can be justified being spent on it. Hey, maybe we could get the government to underwrite it...then we can see how more money can actually screw it up.

Golf courses have it or you go online and enter it yourself. The course spends the money on it. If it was viable enough to be worthwhile, the pool room would get it. Or maybe when Mike's app is done, it will have it.

To railbird - read this and get back to me. http://www.golfsoftware.com/hsd/golf-handicap-formula.html

Beyond that - to say Fargo Ratings are what they are -- Mark G is saying this will change pool. If that is the case, then it shouldn't be a 'what they are' acceptance.

 

[watchez]

So the PGA would include in it's rankings if two PGA buddies decided to go out and shoot a few rounds for some cash?

No system will ever be able to take in to account every single game played and there will always be a margin of error but so far Fargo is the best system I've seen.

No pay attention --- and get back to me

 

[railbird99]

By the way - to give some of my background to those here and to Mike Page -- I run a successful Golden Tee tour. The Golden Tee machine gives a fallible handicap rating that is practically useless. We came up with a power rating, based on some of the principles Mike uses such as what player won or lost to what player. And we did it long before anyone heard of FargoRate. I can tell you our rating is very accurate and how is it done beyond the calculation formula - EVERY match is recorded.

Just like the PGA World Ranking --- they don't leave out scores.

What you mean is every match on the Golden Tee tour is recorded, so according to your logic, how is it accurate if it doesn't include ALL matches outside of the tour? Not only that, but you are seeing infinitely less of the whole picture, since it's limited to a very small group.

 

[mikepage]

It's based on games... not events, or even matches. How many games do you suspect he played in 7 events?

Johnny Archer has 594 games played in 2015.

 

[robsnotes4u]

1.6 million games in Fargo Rate with 39,000 players is a lot of data.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AtLarge]

... Here is my thought on it -- there will be a pro event sometime, somewhere and it will be seeded based on FargoRate. Johnny Archer will get a bye in the first round cause of his high rating based on data from 1998 and ...

Mike Page has said: "there is an exponential decay in time with a half-life of 3 years. So a 3-year-old game is worth half of one today, and a 6-year-old game is worth one fourth."

So Johnny's real old games, if they are even in the system, are no longer having a great effect on the rating.

Maybe you were just exaggerating for effect.

 

[mikepage]

Mike Page has said: "there is an exponential decay in time with a half-life of 3 years. So a 3-year-old game is worth half of one today, and a 6-year-old game is worth one fourth."

So Johnny's real old games, if they are even in the system, are no longer having a great effect on the rating.

Maybe you were just exaggerating for effect.

Johnny's old games barely affect his rating at all. In fact a while ago I remember computing his rating based only on the most recent two years and it was basically the same.

It is important to keep them in the system though, because although they are not an important component of Johnny's rating, they may be significant for some of his opponents who maybe haven't been playing as much recently.

 

[watchez]

Johnny Archer has 594 games played in 2015.

Or 1.6 games a day. I still don't call that active.

 

[jasonlaus]

By the way - to give some of my background to those here and to Mike Page -- I run a successful Golden Tee tour. The Golden Tee machine gives a fallible handicap rating that is practically useless. We came up with a power rating, based on some of the principles Mike uses such as what player won or lost to what player. And we did it long before anyone heard of FargoRate. I can tell you our rating is very accurate and how is it done beyond the calculation formula - EVERY match is recorded.

Just like the PGA World Ranking --- they don't leave out scores.

Perhaps you'd be more comfortable in the computer pool games section......oh wait, we don't have that.

 

[iusedtoberich]

Johnny Archer has 594 games played in 2015.

Or 1.6 games a day. I still don't call that active.

For the top end comparison, how many does Shane have in 2015? He is probably the most active pro around.

For the bottom end comparison, how many games does Nevel have in 2015. He's probably one of the least active pro's today (and the subject of a recent thread).

 

[watchez]

For the top end comparison, how many does Shane have in 2015? He is probably the most active pro around.

For the bottom end comparison, how many games does Nevel have in 2015. He's probably one of the least active pro's today (and the subject of a recent thread).

You don't want to know the answer to that question. :grin:

Then add in the races to 100 by Bergman, Woodward, Dominguez played this year? Josh?

 

[robsnotes4u]

You don't want to know the answer to that question. :grin:



Then add in the races to 100 by Bergman, Woodward, Dominguez played this year? Josh?

What are you really looking for?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Alex Kanapilly]

Or an app perhaps?

I think they know what they are doing and more data will make the ratings more robust... as they (Mike, and the rest of the folks close to this) have been saying over and over again.

 

[BasementDweller]

watchez is no longer the teacher.

Needs to be the student.

 

[(((Satori)))]

watchez is no longer the teacher.

Needs to be the student.

Watches is right though.


I get that people want Fargo ratings to succeed but you still have to be honest on its weaknesses.

Sampling will never be as accurate as the complete picture and when you sample then ratings are going to be off.

On top of that, nothing in the system that rates people on how well they play, factors in how well they played. That alone will cause more innacuracies. Losing 7 to 0 against a guy that put a 7 pack on you is not the same as losing 7 to 0 when you made 3 mistakes.



If you want to use the system to make handicaps for amatuer tournaments then it is better than nothing I guess. But if you want to rate the best players in the world then to be accurate you need to keep something like accustats on all of the wpa events.

 

[BJTyler747]

Watches is right though.


I get that people want Fargo ratings to succeed but you still have to be honest on its weaknesses.

Sampling will never be as accurate as the complete picture and when you sample then ratings are going to be off.

On top of that, nothing in the system that rates people on how well they play, factors in how well they played. That alone will cause more innacuracies. Losing 7 to 0 against a guy that put a 7 pack on you is not the same as losing 7 to 0 when you made 3 mistakes.



If you want to use the system to make handicaps for amatuer tournaments then it is better than nothing I guess. But if you want to rate the best players in the world then to be accurate you need to keep something like accustats on all of the wpa events.

Obviously more data is always preferred to less, but people sometimes forget the marginal cost of collecting data. This is why they do political surveys with thousands of respondents and not millions.

Pool barely has the resources to enlist referees and rackboys at events let alone the staff trained to perform accustats ratings.

A Fargo rating is just what it is... a statistic, a mathematical function, a tool. There is nothing inherently good or bad about it, only in what you choose to do with it.

 

[(((Satori)))]

Obviously more data is always preferred to less, but people sometimes forget the marginal cost of collecting data. This is why they do political surveys with thousands of respondents and not millions.

Pool barely has the resources to enlist referees and rackboys at events let alone the staff trained to perform accustats ratings.

I realize that. But that is what would make for an accurate system.


Maybe one day pool will have the recourses to be accurate but until then we have to just add up games.


But there is no reason to pretend like we have the perfect system either just because that is all that we can do right now.

 

[railbird99]

Watches is right though.


I get that people want Fargo ratings to succeed but you still have to be honest on its weaknesses.

Sampling will never be as accurate as the complete picture and when you sample then ratings are going to be off.

On top of that, nothing in the system that rates people on how well they play, factors in how well they played. That alone will cause more innacuracies. Losing 7 to 0 against a guy that put a 7 pack on you is not the same as losing 7 to 0 when you made 3 mistakes.



If you want to use the system to make handicaps for amatuer tournaments then it is better than nothing I guess. But if you want to rate the best players in the world then to be accurate you need to keep something like accustats on all of the wpa events.

For the love of god I hope everyone ignores this post in its entirety.

It's as if you purposely didn't read any of what was said in addressing all of the above ignorant points previously in this very thread.

This is borderline trolling at this point.

 

[BJTyler747]

I realize that. But that is what would make for an accurate system.


Maybe one day pool will have the recourses to be accurate but until then we have to just add up games.


But there is no reason to pretend like we have the perfect system either just because that is all that we can do right now.

Define "accurate" and define "perfect system"

Then tell me who is pretending that this is either.