New Rating System

[gregcantrall]

A question re; Fargo Rate

I have just looked up my rating on the Fargo Rate web site. Kind of an ego boost and I do feel a drive to get my rating even higher.

My question is, does the quality of my opponents factor in to the rating? Say if I am a 600 and win 10 games against a 300 vs winning 10 games against a 700.

 

[mikepage]

I have just looked up my rating on the Fargo Rate web site. Kind of an ego boost and I do feel a drive to get my rating even higher.

My question is, does the quality of my opponents factor in to the rating? Say if I am a 600 and win 10 games against a 300 vs winning 10 games against a 700.

Yes, absolutely Greg. When you (say as a 600) play a 700 you are expected to win one third of the games. When you play a 300, you are expected to win 87.5% of your games. So if you play 30 games against a 700 and win 10 (10 to 20), your rating stays the same. For your rating to stay the same against the 300, you need to win about 26 of the games (26 to 4).

In either case if you exceed or fall short of the expectation your rating will go up or go down.

 

[gregcantrall]

Good Job

Yes, absolutely Greg. When you (say as a 600) play a 700 you are expected to win one third of the games. When you play a 300, you are expected to win 87.5% of your games. So if you play 30 games against a 700 and win 10 (10 to 20), your rating stays the same. For your rating to stay the same against the 300, you need to win about 26 of the games (26 to 4).

In either case if you exceed or fall short of the expectation your rating will go up or go down.

Thanks for the quick reply. I have done some searching of the players I am familiar with and the ratings seem to match my expectations, with one exception. I assume his rating is a little low due to a lower robustness number. Is there a way to search by state or region? As in bring up all players in Washington or Oregon.


Looks like the best system I have seen to date.:thumbup:

Ps; I like my chances of getting 11-19 against a 700 over 27-3 against a 300.:wink: Either way it is going to take some good playing to move that number up.

 

[JB Cases]

Mike can you give us some more insight as to what types of events are even counted? And is there any way for us to look at what events were used?

I understand it's a huge undertaking to enter all the data but what prevents data from being entered erroneously? Is there some sort of way to double check it?

And how do events get submitted?

 

[Paul Schofield]

Fargo Rating refers to an absolute level of performance

It no longer matters that the ratings are not DEFINED by absolute performance

Please clarify. Is the object of absolute performance a changing target? I am trying to get my head around this thing and I find it very confusing.

 

[iusedtoberich]

I think this thread has gone way off track. The OP was asking what happens if xyz rating system becomes super duper great, and everyone uses it, and its free.

And then, the company that came up with it, starts charging the players $20 or another high amount to use the system.

Since the Fargo people have been responding to this thread, do you have any plans to charge the players? I'm in full support of the system you are working on, but you all have been extremely resistant to addressing any monetizing questions asked for months now. I'd personally want you to make lots of money, but by keeping the system completely free for players and tournament directors, and then selling ads to make the money. The moment you charge to use your system, either to players or tournament directors, that's the end of the system, imo.

 

[JB Cases]

I think this thread has gone way off track. The OP was asking what happens if xyz rating system becomes super duper great, and everyone uses it, and its free.

And then, the company that came up with it, starts charging the players $20 or another high amount to use the system.

Since the Fargo people have been responding to this thread, do you have any plans to charge the players? I'm in full support of the system you are working on, but you all have been extremely resistant to addressing any monetizing questions asked for months now. I'd personally want you to make lots of money, but by keeping the system completely free for players and tournament directors, and then selling ads to make the money. The moment you charge to use your system, either to players or tournament directors, that's the end of the system, imo.

Why? You don't see any benefit to having a worldwide system that accurately rates all players?

I wouldn't mind paying a few bucks a year toward that. I already pay hundreds to leagues and tournaments for fees and dues anyway.

 

[iusedtoberich]

Why? You don't see any benefit to having a worldwide system that accurately rates all players?

I wouldn't mind paying a few bucks a year toward that. I already pay hundreds to leagues and tournaments for fees and dues anyway.

I see a great benefit, yes. I see nothing but problems if it has a fee associated with it.

In our small pool world, we get 2000 simultaneous viewers for a free stream the level of Turning Stone. And 100 viewers for a PPV TAR match (I'm estimating).

Outside the pool world, Facebook is free. Google is free. Yahoo mail is free. Etc. If those companies charged the end user for their service, I feel they would have never made it. Now, all those companies make a sh1t ton of money, of course. But the consumer does not directly pay any fees.

 

[robsnotes4u]

I see a great benefit, yes. I see nothing but problems if it has a fee associated with it.

In our small pool world, we get 2000 simultaneous viewers for a free stream the level of Turning Stone. And 100 viewers for a PPV TAR match (I'm estimating).

Outside the pool world, Facebook is free. Google is free. Yahoo mail is free. Etc. If those companies charged the end user for their service, I feel they would have never made it. Now, all those companies make a sh1t ton of money, of course. But the consumer does not directly pay any fees.

Incorrect on Facebook. To effectively advertise with Facebook you need to pay.

Facebook started as a free service as they built up their base.

My statements in no way suggest what Fargo Rate is or is not going to do, as I don't know.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BRussell]

Outside the pool world, Facebook is free. Google is free. Yahoo mail is free. Etc. If those companies charged the end user for their service, I feel they would have never made it. Now, all those companies make a sh1t ton of money, of course. But the consumer does not directly pay any fees.

Please no. I hate the way our economy has gone - into tricking people to make money rather than just offering a product that people are willing to pay for.

My guess is that their money arrangments will be with the likes of CSI, who will then provide it to their league members as a way of differentiating from other leagues. Then if you're not a member of a league that uses it, you can buy or subscribe to the app. Or maybe they'll just charge a flat rate, say, $5 for everyone, to buy the app.

And I think I remember something about creating league or tournament management software that would feed the data directly into their database. I assume they would charge a fee for using the software.

 

[JB Cases]

I see a great benefit, yes. I see nothing but problems if it has a fee associated with it.

In our small pool world, we get 2000 simultaneous viewers for a free stream the level of Turning Stone. And 100 viewers for a PPV TAR match (I'm estimating).

Outside the pool world, Facebook is free. Google is free. Yahoo mail is free. Etc. If those companies charged the end user for their service, I feel they would have never made it. Now, all those companies make a sh1t ton of money, of course. But the consumer does not directly pay any fees.

Yes I understand your point. But none of those services are actually free. They may be free for you in terms of not exchanging money but you give up your information for them to use as they wish to. Some people feel that this cost is actually too high.

They then sell access to this information for money which is how they are able to give you the tools they provide.

FargoRate will be no different IMO unless it's somehow made to be open access where a volunteer group runs the data input and hosting is paid for by contributions.

That said I don't think it's in the plan to try and extract money from individuals for FargoRate. But I certainly hope that they do have a plan to insure it can continue long into the future and not be just another thing someone came up that died because of lack of resources and motivation.

 

[Paul Schofield]

Consider some absolute measures of performance in pool...

---what fraction of games do you win against the 9-ball ghost?
---what is you straight-pool high-run after 10 attempts?
---what fraction of 8-ball games do you run out?
---what is your pot percentage on a spot shot?

and so forth...

Now contrast this to relative performance: John wins two thirds of the games against Joe, so John is 100 points above Joe.

At this point, John and Joe could be 800 and 700, or 600 and 400, or 300 and 200. We don't know, and we have no reference for either player to the absolute measures above.

John and Joe's ratings can shift up and down by any amount and still represent the data that John wins two thirds of the games against Joe.

Now add in Bill and George and Sue and Mary and Bob and Sergio and Mohammed and Xiaofeng.

What happens is the formerly arbitrary become more entrenched and resistant
to shifting. We can fix the scale in any way we want. Suppose we say the average of the ratings of the top 100 players in the world does not change.

A consequence of this is every absolute measure mentioned above has a fixed one-to-one correspondence with a rating...

So perhaps beating the 9-Ball ghost on a standard gold crown is a Fargo rating of 687.

Perhaps running out 20% of the 8-Ball racks on a Valley is a Fargo Rating of 617.

It no longer matters that the ratings are not DEFINED by absolute performance; what matters id the ratings can ASSOCIATED with absolute performance--and that, importantly, means a 630 in Erie PA is a 630 in Fargo ND.

Dear Mr. JB Cases. You commented "Makes perfect sense". Would you please use your own words to describe this thing. I just don't get it.

 

[robsnotes4u]

Sat with Steve at Fargo Billiards tonight discussing how many more games and people that were added today., unbelievable. The more I visit with Mike or Steve the more intrigued I get.

A lot of hard work, and time. Yes Steve was working on it until the ball dropped for New Years.

I personally know these guys are doing something wonderful and deserve to get paid. I would pay a higher BCA sanction fee, app fee, or any other usage fee. They have earned it


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[JB Cases]

Dear Mr. JB Cases. You commented "Makes perfect sense". Would you please use your own words to describe this thing. I just don't get it.

I will try.

In you pool room you might have all of your regular players rated perfectly so that they can always match up fairly.

Let's say that your ratings go in 100 increments. Bill is a 400 and Joe is a 600.

Joe could be a pro speed player or a apa speed and no one knows outside your room because the ratings are only relevant to your room and each players rating is assigned by you based on your own criteria.

How Joe and bill play even and the outcome is known to you and everyone else. Regardless if a 400 in your room is an apa 2 the outcome is nearly always the same for these two players. Now,


If Joe and bill decide to mess with everyone they can let bill win their match ups for a few weeks and joes rating goes down and bills goes up if you think bill has gotten better since you assign the ratings.

When a new person, Jodie walks in, you don't know how to rate her. She is an apa 5 in Peoria but an apa 3 in denver.....so you either guess or you rate her high and wait.


Now, what if though all your players were rated by everyone they ever played in competition. In other words bill and Joe aren't rated by just how they play each other but also how they do against everyone else? Now bill and joes match ups against each other have less weight while all the people they ever played together determines their rating. Now the rating becomes not only super hard to manipulate but it also becomes more accurate because of the literal thousands of cross references between all the players bill and Joe and Jodie have played and who they played.

So now when Jodie walks in and says she is a 500 then she will match up with Joe accurately because a 500 in your room is the same relative skill level in Denver and Peoria. Jodie is no longer a big fish in a little Peoria pond and a little fish in a big denver pond...she is exactly the same everywhere.

She can literally do nothing to manipulate her ranking because it would be far too labor intensive and expensive to sandbag into a low rating which would only shoot up after she beat some good players who were themselves tied to everyone else.

Mass makes class essentially. Because everyone is tracked and games not sets are recorded the sheer amount of interconnected data makes it pretty bulletproof.

Bad data entry and not enough individual data about the only ways to see an inaccurate rating. The latter takes care of itself over time.







Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

 

[robsnotes4u]

I will try.

In you pool room you might have all of your regular players rated perfectly so that they can always match up fairly.

Let's say that your ratings go in 100 increments. Bill is a 400 and Joe is a 600.

Joe could be a pro speed player or a apa speed and no one knows outside your room because the ratings are only relevant to your room and each players rating is assigned by you based on your own criteria.

How Joe and bill play even and the outcome is known to you and everyone else. Regardless if a 400 in your room is an apa 2 the outcome is nearly always the same for these two players. Now,


If Joe and bill decide to mess with everyone they can let bill win their match ups for a few weeks and joes rating goes down and bills goes up if you think bill has gotten better since you assign the ratings.

When a new person, Jodie walks in, you don't know how to rate her. She is an apa 5 in Peoria but an apa 3 in denver.....so you either guess or you rate her high and wait.


Now, what if though all your players were rated by everyone they ever played in competition. In other words bill and Joe aren't rated by just how they play each other but also how they do against everyone else? Now bill and joes match ups against each other have less weight while all the people they ever played together determines their rating. Now the rating becomes not only super hard to manipulate but it also becomes more accurate because of the literal thousands of cross references between all the players bill and Joe and Jodie have played and who they played.

So now when Jodie walks in and says she is a 500 then she will match up with Joe accurately because a 500 in your room is the same relative skill level in Denver and Peoria. Jodie is no longer a big fish in a little Peoria pond and a little fish in a big denver pond...she is exactly the same everywhere.

She can literally do nothing to manipulate her ranking because it would be far too labor intensive and expensive to sandbag into a low rating which would only shoot up after she beat some good players who were themselves tied to everyone else.

Mass makes class essentially. Because everyone is tracked and games not sets are recorded the sheer amount of interconnected data makes it pretty bulletproof.

Bad data entry and not enough individual data about the only ways to see an inaccurate rating. The latter takes care of itself over time.







Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using Tapatalk

Good explanation


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Paul Schofield]

.

She is an apa 5 in Peoria but an apa 3 in denver......

I am confused. I thought stats for APA players are actual measurable stats that measured performance against the game and not against another player. If this is the case, it would seem to me that her rating would be the same everywhere because her rating was not based on who she beat in a closed pool.

 

[Paul Schofield]

In you pool room you might have all of your regular players rated perfectly so that they can always match up fairly.

Let's say that your ratings go in 100 increments. Bill is a 400 and Joe is a 600.

I have not run a point-spread handicaped eight or nine-ball tournament since the early 80s. I have been running leagues with point-spread handicaps for years. All experience I have tells me that the concept is detrimental to the game in every way. Handicapping should be left to players that like to match-up. I want rid of it in the worst way.

Can someone tell me the difference between a 300, 500, and 700 player? What is the point spread between these players in different match-ups?

 

[JB Cases]

I am confused. I thought stats for APA players are actual measurable stats that measured performance against the game and not against another player. If this is the case, it would seem to me that her rating would be the same everywhere because her rating was not based on who she beat in a closed pool.

I can only speak from experience with the APA and my ex-wife as one of the people assigned to observe and recommend ratings adjustments at APA Nationals.

APA players get rated differently in different areas based on the strength of the competition and how the innings are tallied.

But let's not miss the point,

Take APA out of it and assign any arbitrary rating. Say she is considered an A player in Peoria and a C player in Denver. Either way she is still the SAME person and is the same speed. But when she shows up at your place, A in Peoria and C in Denver are rather meaningless to your local ratings.

If she is then a 500 in Fargo ratings then she will be extremely evenly matched with anyone in your pool room who also has an accurate 500 Fargorate. It doesn't matter if they have ever played, that 500 rating predicts that they will be nearly dead even and likely to split sets most of the time.

If you have no fargo ratings but for whatever reason had your own 100's ratings then in your system a 500 could just as easily be the equivalent of a AAA player in Denver.

-------------------------

Now I should back up and try to explain one more thing Mike pointed out.

Say you DO use whatever equation that FargoRating does to rate the players in your room. You get them all rated and some are 500 - some 600, 700, 800 etc....

UNTIL your players are connected to other players outside of your room your ratings don't correlate to any other fargo rating anywhere else because your pool in insulated from everyone else.

Your 600 might not really be the same as a 600 elsewhere. Because of the limited data a 600 in your room might actually be a 900 when the data from your room is mixed with the data elsewhere. So the ratio for example of how a 500 is predicted to play against a 600 would hold true even if they were really 800 vs. 900 when finally connected to the worldwide database.

 

[Paul Schofield]

APA players get rated differently in different areas based on the strength of the competition and how the innings are tallied.

Thank you for the clarification. I did not realize that.

 

[Mark Griffin]

New ratings system

Another major point. Many 'ratings' in different leagues is based on number of inning, misses, safeties etc. Very subjective and often inaccurate. Fargo eliminated all this score keeping. The only data tracked is how many games that are won by each player.

That's it!

Much more accurate and far easier to track.

Mark Griffin