Don't feel bad. I looked at the BCAPL Nationala site multiple times and didn't scroll down far enough to see the event parameters. Are you sure you want to grow really old?
Lyn
FargoRate for BCA Nationals?
- Thread starter jojopiff
- Start date
Don't feel bad. I looked at the BCAPL Nationala site multiple times and didn't scroll down far enough to see the event parameters. Are you sure you want to grow really old?
Lyn
well said!But I just finished reading something else that caught my attention I will post in the other Fargo thread.
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=417158&page=7
Couple questions that have been brought up by some players...
1. Do the "core players" have to start?
2. If a core player isn't playing, can you bring him in for another core player?
2B. If so, do the rankings matter? Cause as was stated you can bring a core player back in for a sub without regard to their individual rankings (team ranking still can't be over the max obviously) but didn't know if this was the case for subbing core player for core player.
To be clear, I'm really not trying to be a jerk or tear down the system. I want the players in my league to fully understand this so I'm getting the information out early and encouraging them to ask questions so I can get them the correct answers. Thanks for the time in answering thus far and moving forward CSI.
1. Do the "core players" have to start?
2. If a core player isn't playing, can you bring him in for another core player?
2B. If so, do the rankings matter? Cause as was stated you can bring a core player back in for a sub without regard to their individual rankings (team ranking still can't be over the max obviously) but didn't know if this was the case for subbing core player for core player.
To be clear, I'm really not trying to be a jerk or tear down the system. I want the players in my league to fully understand this so I'm getting the information out early and encouraging them to ask questions so I can get them the correct answers. Thanks for the time in answering thus far and moving forward CSI.
Simple question do that many teams bring extra players. I wouldn't and I don't of anyone that would
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Yes! My small local area doesn't field very many players that can afford the trip to Vegas, or want to go.
Most of the time it is just 3 teams of 6 to 7 players each. We tend to mix and match players from our league when we go to Vegas.
I'm sure you are going to ask the question, "Why don't you all just play on the same team during league that you plan to take to Vegas?"
Because we enjoy playing against each other as well.
Also, there are very good reasons to bring extra players; Some one has to cancel at the last minute, most of us plan and book the travel 4 months ahead of time, some one gets sick during the tournament, some one just happens to be playing the worst pool they have ever played in their entire life, plus many more.
During Nationals, every year, it seems we run into a team who only booked 5 players to go and for some reason, they are one player short and having to forfeit a game per round.
With all due respect, while I believe that the FragoRate concept is a good one, it does not seem nearly ready for prime time. I looked up many players I know, and the FargoRate scores for them seem to have little bearing on reality. Some people that play pro speed are rated lower than some B+ players lol. There seems to not be nearly enough info on enough people to make it a fair comparison. It would be a shame if people get punished for playing in leagues that record their data. I see guys that have like 400 "robustness" and are rated sky high, and people rated 50 points below them that only have 150 robustness, but would be overjoyed to destroy them giving them the 6 ball.
I wonder how that gets worked out. At this point, it does not seem like it is ready. I think bringing this into play before it is ready is a sure way to turn (some) people off to the concept.
I would really love to see it work!
KMRUNOUT
I wonder how that gets worked out. At this point, it does not seem like it is ready. I think bringing this into play before it is ready is a sure way to turn (some) people off to the concept.
I would really love to see it work!
KMRUNOUT
Your post sums up the feelings of the people locally that I've talked to regarding this years BCA National tournament. They wished it was put in place next year when some numbers leveled out to a more realistic number. I think it will be better down the road a bit but may turn off some people this year.
They're using the division you would have been in (casual, open, advanced, etc.) as the starting point for your rating if they don't have much data on you, so I think their position will be that it's at least as good as it would have been without Fargo ratings, but no worse, and will hopefully correct some problems.
There will always be the same situation when new people are added
I have seen many times where people have complained about a rating, I think Johnny Archer was one, where Mike listed his recorded matches over the last couple of years. Not until you see all the match scores do realize how effective it is. Unfortunately people only remember some games and have excuses for every loss.
Have you watched every match these players have played?
Take me for example. I am a 525. There are a lot of players rated much higher than myself that will say there is no way you are only a 525. I play great against them. They don't get to see how many times I have lost to people that are 400ish. Their perception isn't reality. I am not consistent.
What has been mentioned many times 150 games is not enough
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I have seen many times where people have complained about a rating, I think Johnny Archer was one, where Mike listed his recorded matches over the last couple of years. Not until you see all the match scores do realize how effective it is. Unfortunately people only remember some games and have excuses for every loss.
Have you watched every match these players have played?
Take me for example. I am a 525. There are a lot of players rated much higher than myself that will say there is no way you are only a 525. I play great against them. They don't get to see how many times I have lost to people that are 400ish. Their perception isn't reality. I am not consistent.
What has been mentioned many times 150 games is not enough
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If you think you have a better idea of someone's skill level, then you must think that you either have a better evaluation algorithm, or more data. If you have more data than you should pass it on to FargoRates. (If you have a better algorithm; let's hear it!)
No one can be punished by having more data recorded. As more data means their rating has smaller error bars. If the concern is that someone with low robustness and a low rating is sandbagging, then the solution is for rated players to play them in rated games, and fix that, so they won't be able to do that to other people.
Thank you kindly.
I don't have any algorithm. My data is personal observation of local players. How would you suggest to fix this scenario:
Player A is a low level pro player. He has beaten world champions on various occasions. Doesn't play a ton of big tourneys, just the local pro ones. Doesn't play in any leagues. Probably won't even go to Vegas to play BCA so possibly a moot point. He is rated 643. He has about 170 robustness. Player B plays USAPL. He is an "A+" player. Wins some local small amateur events. A good player for sure. He is rated 683 with like 400 robustness. In reality, people would unload their bank accounts betting on player A playing player B and giving up some serious weight. Player B probably will play some events at the BCA in Vegas. Suppose player A decided to take a shot. What happens then?
Trust me, I *like* the idea of FargoRate. I would just like to know how it addresses situations with new players to the system. How much robustness is needed to get an accurate rating? The point is, one of these two players is rated incorrectly. If the system is expected to work, then we better hope that it is Player A that is incorrect. While writing this post, I just found another example of someone rated higher than Player A, who is an underdog getting 3 games to 9 from Player A. This player has a similarly high robustness rating to Player B. He is ranked about 30 points lower than player B, but probably plays a little stronger. These guys are probably not too far off though.
Anyway, I just want more info.
Thanks,
KMRUNOUT
Interesting edit: Player A is suddenly 40 points higher after not playing a single event since last I posted
While I haven't investigated the system (it does interest me) I expect the rated people that Player A has beaten have gone up, affecting his rating accordingly.
And everyone else in that spiderweb of players has adjusted one way or another also.
The system isn't stagnant.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Again. 200 is the games in the system. Have you taken the time to watch the videos on the website? They are a very good explanation on how things work.
And look up Mike Page's post on here
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sure you do. You give it below.
The solution is simple. Get player A to play some games, and submit them to FargoRates. [Or as you have seen, get people who have played him to submit data of other games to FargoRates, and his rating will become more accurate.]
It is relative. How accurate do you need? Even if everyone's skill level was completely static, the ratings can only reflect past performance. And only reflect data that is actually entered. More data is more accurate; basically forever. If the metric for 'accurate' is that no one will ever complain about other people's rating; I fear the answer is "never."; that is a sociology problem not a math problem.
Thank you kindly.
I've tried a few times reaching out to CSi via their regular channels (email) to no avail. So I'll go public with it
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi –
Perhaps you are misunderstanding our particular scenario. Let me try to explain it a little better
Every year the Sacramento BCA league brings one team to play in the Master’s division which has always been a 4-man team. The league we use to qualify our members takes place in the summer. For example, we held a summer session during July/Aug of 2015 to qualify for the BCA nationals this year in 2016. At this time, we were under the impression that we’d bring 4 players to compete in the Master’s division like every year prior.
Fast forward to two weeks ago where CSI announced the new FargoRate system (which I think is great BTW). Under this new format, the team size increased from 4 players to 5. We are now stuck in a predicament because no other qualified players from our league is a.) interested in going to BCA nationals, and b.) not up to the skill level to successfully compete. Had we known of this change last July/Aug we could have ensured a 5th player was qualified.
Based on your response, you are basically throwing us in the mixed platinum team division based on a format change that was just recently communicated.
Regards,
Phil
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So the problem here is the timing of the announcement. Had we known about this change with more notice, we could have ensured we qualified enough players. The problem in our area is only 6-10 players actually attend any BCA events all year long. The league voted and it was heavily favored that the BCA membership fee be excluded because there was really no benefit for the majority of the players. In order to qualify the handful of people that do attend BCA events, we hold a summer session with paid BCA membership fees.
I would think that this type of change would have at least contained some sort of transition plan. Can you comment on what can be done to address these types of situations?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi –
Perhaps you are misunderstanding our particular scenario. Let me try to explain it a little better
Every year the Sacramento BCA league brings one team to play in the Master’s division which has always been a 4-man team. The league we use to qualify our members takes place in the summer. For example, we held a summer session during July/Aug of 2015 to qualify for the BCA nationals this year in 2016. At this time, we were under the impression that we’d bring 4 players to compete in the Master’s division like every year prior.
Fast forward to two weeks ago where CSI announced the new FargoRate system (which I think is great BTW). Under this new format, the team size increased from 4 players to 5. We are now stuck in a predicament because no other qualified players from our league is a.) interested in going to BCA nationals, and b.) not up to the skill level to successfully compete. Had we known of this change last July/Aug we could have ensured a 5th player was qualified.
Based on your response, you are basically throwing us in the mixed platinum team division based on a format change that was just recently communicated.
Regards,
Phil
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So the problem here is the timing of the announcement. Had we known about this change with more notice, we could have ensured we qualified enough players. The problem in our area is only 6-10 players actually attend any BCA events all year long. The league voted and it was heavily favored that the BCA membership fee be excluded because there was really no benefit for the majority of the players. In order to qualify the handful of people that do attend BCA events, we hold a summer session with paid BCA membership fees.
I would think that this type of change would have at least contained some sort of transition plan. Can you comment on what can be done to address these types of situations?
I know I cringe when I hear stories like yours because I know how much of the complicated issue of timing and transition depends on things on FargoRate's plate :-(
A transition like this has a lot of moving parts, and while I can't speak for CSI, I would like to say I hope people understand that many people at CSI and at FargoRate are working very hard and are balancing a number of different considerations. Though we passionately believe what we are doing is moving pool forward in a major way, we are aware the transition won't be seamless.
In your particular case, it appears the guidelines for a Platinum Division team allow you to add any BCAPL sanctioned player from the state of California. I know you four are accustomed to playing together as a four-member team. But perhaps one of you knows a player from elsewhere in the state who would enjoy joining your team?
I really hope people will go out there and work to get their leagues sanctioned with the BCAPL and then experience this event. There is a lot of very cool stuff coming. Sanctioned leagues will be the first to experience the new league management software with league data impacting your Fargo Rating on a daily basis!
Attachments
Phil (pip9ball)-
Sorry you didn't get a response but this is the first we heard of this email. But there is a solution. Hopefully this will help you out. BTW-all of this info is on the entry forms. (www.playcsipool.com)
The total of 5 players (in the platinum division) cannot exceed 3250 (650 average).
If a couple of your players are 'strong' and are upwards of 700, you would need a lower rated player to keep with the 3250 limit.
A 5 person team only needs 2 original players from the same league. The other 3 only have to be qualified, (8 weeks league play) BUT THE OTHER 3 CAN COME FROM ANY LEAGUE IN THE STATE.
That is important because now you can easily find someone of the required skill level and wanting to go.
Problem solved, I hope.
Mark Griffin, CSI
Sorry you didn't get a response but this is the first we heard of this email. But there is a solution. Hopefully this will help you out. BTW-all of this info is on the entry forms. (www.playcsipool.com)
The total of 5 players (in the platinum division) cannot exceed 3250 (650 average).
If a couple of your players are 'strong' and are upwards of 700, you would need a lower rated player to keep with the 3250 limit.
A 5 person team only needs 2 original players from the same league. The other 3 only have to be qualified, (8 weeks league play) BUT THE OTHER 3 CAN COME FROM ANY LEAGUE IN THE STATE.
That is important because now you can easily find someone of the required skill level and wanting to go.
Problem solved, I hope.
Mark Griffin, CSI
Fargo/Nationals
Mark G. In regards to Phil's comments earlier , here is a what took place. I am one of the 4 players and the league operator. Has it not been standard past practice to qualify your players or team the year prior to the Nationals? We again planned on playing in the Masters with 4 players and so qualified our 4 as usual. Now we fine out 2-3 weeks ago that Masters is gone, and all teams 5 players. There are 3 other guys that played on teams last year in Vegas and we could have picked one of them and been happy. But they did not play or qualify last summer as we did not see this coming. I called Bill S. about 10 days ago. Said call Amy at the office. After I explained to Her about 3 times the situation she just kind of laughed and said " you me to tell me that there is no one in your league you can get"? Well there might be if we didn't care and just wanted a random C player. It was a pretty bad response. I then wrote an email to Ozzie. He did not respond but just forward email to Amy who just said the same thing again. This prompted Phil to write a reply in an attempt to clarify the matter. There was no response to that email. I do believe the Fargo rating system will pan out well, but I also believe that it should have been announced this year for 2017. We also understand that at the Platinum level we can use anyone in our state but we would first have to find someone not already on a team and they also would have to be qualified etc. Our summer session does not start until June and we would not have 8 weeks in prior to Nationals in an attempt to get another player. One of our players has gone 32 straight years and its a shame that we are now faced with possibly not even going.
Mark S.
Mark G. In regards to Phil's comments earlier , here is a what took place. I am one of the 4 players and the league operator. Has it not been standard past practice to qualify your players or team the year prior to the Nationals? We again planned on playing in the Masters with 4 players and so qualified our 4 as usual. Now we fine out 2-3 weeks ago that Masters is gone, and all teams 5 players. There are 3 other guys that played on teams last year in Vegas and we could have picked one of them and been happy. But they did not play or qualify last summer as we did not see this coming. I called Bill S. about 10 days ago. Said call Amy at the office. After I explained to Her about 3 times the situation she just kind of laughed and said " you me to tell me that there is no one in your league you can get"? Well there might be if we didn't care and just wanted a random C player. It was a pretty bad response. I then wrote an email to Ozzie. He did not respond but just forward email to Amy who just said the same thing again. This prompted Phil to write a reply in an attempt to clarify the matter. There was no response to that email. I do believe the Fargo rating system will pan out well, but I also believe that it should have been announced this year for 2017. We also understand that at the Platinum level we can use anyone in our state but we would first have to find someone not already on a team and they also would have to be qualified etc. Our summer session does not start until June and we would not have 8 weeks in prior to Nationals in an attempt to get another player. One of our players has gone 32 straight years and its a shame that we are now faced with possibly not even going.
Mark S.