Vegas BCAPL 2016, fargorate problems
- Thread starter poolscholar
- Start date
Mebbe. So you say.
I know pretty much all the players on Mike's list, and have played a number of Big Truck's events.
Last I heard.. Barbox 8 ball is not exactly that big in Texas. You guys like barbox and big table 9 ball.
If you have so many phenomenal barbox 8 ball players there, then by all means.. Get your undercover champions and come on out to Vegas and snap it off.
It's all nice to call out the champions you have in the state, but you are talking about all the "under the radar" guys. I am sure they'll be quite competitive at the BCA Open... As long as they are breaking and running over 40% in barbox 8 ball...Short Bus Russ - C Player
Mebbe. So you say.
I know pretty much all the players on Mike's list, and have played a number of Big Truck's events.
Last I heard.. Barbox 8 ball is not exactly that big in Texas. You guys like barbox and big table 9 ball.
If you have so many phenomenal barbox 8 ball players there, then by all means.. Get your undercover champions and come on out to Vegas and snap it off.
Short Bus Russ - C Player
We have 8 diamond bar boxes at Skinny Bob's with several nights of barbox 8 ball. We aren't clueless.
By the way, the teams which finished first and second at Nationals in the Open Division in 2015 were both from Texas. Several players on those teams still have a 525 ranking with zero games in Fargo....
I am not calling out the undercover guys here as I do not think that is right. If they can still get in, then it is what it is.
Well I think Mike Page might need to look into that, eh?
Either way... Yeah.. Some good players in Texas, but by no means do I believe there are enough undercover agents to just rob the national championship....
We'll be making another run this year, I assume. CO had 3 teams in the final 32 bracket, out of something like 5 that started, I think... Good luck to both CO and TX.
Short Bus Russ
Last edited:
This is a huge problem in all ratings systems I've seen. No individual ratings because people will only play teams. They never get a rating. They tried to fix this in the past with "team masters" and such...
Well I think Mike Page might need to look into that, eh?
Either way... Yeah.. Some good players in Texas, but by no means do I believe there are enough undercover agents to just rob the national championship....
We'll be making another run this year, I assume. CO had 3 teams in the final 32 bracket, out of something like 5 that started, I think... Good luck to both CO and TX.
Short Bus Russ
Well we were talking about a combination of both. If there was a team with James Davis Sr, James Davis Jr, and three players I choose that are unrated, then that team would be extremely competitive at Nationals.
Good luck to every team who is playing this year. It is fun being in Vegas anyway no matter how the pool tournaments go.
Previously - if your team got in the top 5% (or whatever it was) of the Open Teams, all the players on the team moved up to Advanced level. This is what, AT MINIMUM, should be happening to these players from last year. If Fargo isn't doing that from last year, it has failed. And it should be doing so rapidly cause people are making plans to go to Vega$.
Not Quite........
Please note this is what the 2016 Texas BCA flyer actually states:
"There is a 10-point per player cushion if the team is eligible when they register but one or more members' ratings move up before the tournament to push them over the team limit. If the team's rating moves BEYOND THE CUSHION, they will have the following options:
*Play and accept a 1-game penalty for every 40 points over THE CUSHION.
*Replace one or more players to get within the team rating limit."
I have an interesting practical example. Weekly I've been checking our Team's Ratings since the day we registered for the Open Team event:
Team Rating 2/24 (Date of Registration): 2,992
Team Rating 2/29: 3,019
Team Rating 3/8: 3,007
Team Rating 3/21: 3,018
Team Rating 3/28: 3,026
So based on what the flyer says we should not be assessed any penalty when we play in Temple next week as long as we don't go over 3,042 (2,992 (Rating on Day of Registration) + 50 (Cushion)).
Maybe Mike Page can analyze my logic and let me know if I have it right?
Please note this is what the 2016 Texas BCA flyer actually states:
"There is a 10-point per player cushion if the team is eligible when they register but one or more members' ratings move up before the tournament to push them over the team limit. If the team's rating moves BEYOND THE CUSHION, they will have the following options:
*Play and accept a 1-game penalty for every 40 points over THE CUSHION.
*Replace one or more players to get within the team rating limit."
I have an interesting practical example. Weekly I've been checking our Team's Ratings since the day we registered for the Open Team event:
Team Rating 2/24 (Date of Registration): 2,992
Team Rating 2/29: 3,019
Team Rating 3/8: 3,007
Team Rating 3/21: 3,018
Team Rating 3/28: 3,026
So based on what the flyer says we should not be assessed any penalty when we play in Temple next week as long as we don't go over 3,042 (2,992 (Rating on Day of Registration) + 50 (Cushion)).
Maybe Mike Page can analyze my logic and let me know if I have it right?
BCAPL Team Results Reported To FargoRate
I am pretty sure I heard in one of the recent CSI podcasts that the score sheets for teams will be modified so that they can be turned in to allow the individual games to be entered into the Fargo ratings.
This would not be hard to do. The score sheet would have to be adjusted to allow entry of the BCAID and/or FargoID in the first round. Captains would have to be aware that every time they use a sub, they must re-enter the player ID on that line.
POOLSCHOLAR - You have a point that with every extra "unknown" player that exists on a team, the greater the chance that a team could be full of stealth ringers. However, and I repeat, without Fargo ratings, that same team would STILL be playing in the Open event. And to insist that a rating system be so perfect that it guarantees NO stacked teams is pure fantasy. Give Fargo ratings a year or two and you will see the overall number of "unknowns" decrease dramatically.
I am pretty sure I heard in one of the recent CSI podcasts that the score sheets for teams will be modified so that they can be turned in to allow the individual games to be entered into the Fargo ratings.
This would not be hard to do. The score sheet would have to be adjusted to allow entry of the BCAID and/or FargoID in the first round. Captains would have to be aware that every time they use a sub, they must re-enter the player ID on that line.
POOLSCHOLAR - You have a point that with every extra "unknown" player that exists on a team, the greater the chance that a team could be full of stealth ringers. However, and I repeat, without Fargo ratings, that same team would STILL be playing in the Open event. And to insist that a rating system be so perfect that it guarantees NO stacked teams is pure fantasy. Give Fargo ratings a year or two and you will see the overall number of "unknowns" decrease dramatically.
How is your team rating adjusting on a weekly basis? Do you play in a league which enters the scores from matches every week?
Fargo ratings are recalculated daily, so even if you have no more new games in the system, it is possible to see your rating go up or down because your past opponents have been entering games into the system.
I really don't know.....
You know I'm really not sure how or why these ratings are changing. For instance for myself I have looked at my rating since around our registration date and I've never changed. Nor have my games number of '152' changed at all. I asked my Houston League Operator and he said our specific league does not send in our results to be input in the computer. For our 5 core players this is what my analysis shows for the 5 Rating samplings I did:
Player 1 - Fluctuated between 621 and 618
Player 2 - Fluctuated between 618 and 615
Player 3 - Fluctuated between 605 and 629
Player 4 - Fluctuated between 581 and 598
Player 5 - Constant 567
I'm pretty sure my team mates on this team do not play in any other leagues. Maybe Mike Page can enlighten us about what he thinks might be transpiring here?
You know I'm really not sure how or why these ratings are changing. For instance for myself I have looked at my rating since around our registration date and I've never changed. Nor have my games number of '152' changed at all. I asked my Houston League Operator and he said our specific league does not send in our results to be input in the computer. For our 5 core players this is what my analysis shows for the 5 Rating samplings I did:
Player 1 - Fluctuated between 621 and 618
Player 2 - Fluctuated between 618 and 615
Player 3 - Fluctuated between 605 and 629
Player 4 - Fluctuated between 581 and 598
Player 5 - Constant 567
I'm pretty sure my team mates on this team do not play in any other leagues. Maybe Mike Page can enlighten us about what he thinks might be transpiring here?
I would assume this is the effect of having previous results being inputted at the FargoRate HQs..
Short Bus Russ - C player
You have a good point, one that I thought was being addressed. I just checked all the players on last years Men's Open champion team (G.N. Hitmen from the Dallas/Fort Worth Pool League), and there are three players (Ross Romero, Douglas Forgason, and Jesus Hernandez) that have no games in the Fargo system and all three have a 525 starter rating. I would have hoped to see these men placed in last year's Advanced Player list, which should have upped their starter rating to 625.
BTW I would not say that Fargo ratings have failed. Fargo ratings are AWESOME. But like any other new system, there are bugs to be worked out. And if we as a pool community address these bugs properly, they will be fixed. Mike Page has answered all of my questions and concerns promptly and professionally. Rather than scream at him in a chat room, contact him directly.
I just added up the Fargo ratings of my team, we are at 3184.
We will be playing in the upper division and crossing our fingers.
My personal rating is 658 with robustness of (475). I don't have any problem with my rating as I have competed and cashed in many Vegas tournies and local tournies.
Like Lyn has pointed out, it's the unrated players that I worry about. Fargo is a relatively new system in some areas of the States. There are many players with "starter" ratings that may be a little low. Will these players be in Vegas for Nationals? Who knows.....but I'm sure there will be some that show up.
I have my plane ticket and hotel paid for, I plan on playing in just the team event this year. I'm hoping to get a few of my team mates to play in the 9 ball teams for a lil warm up before the 8 ball.
I really like the Fargo system, .......BUT! .. I wish they would have waited one more year before using it for Nationals. I would have liked to get more data in the system so more people had established ratings.
Anyhoo, I love playing pool and will continue to go to Nationals. This year may have some grumbling from some but that's nothing new. I think it will only get better as time and data get into the system.
We will be playing in the upper division and crossing our fingers.
My personal rating is 658 with robustness of (475). I don't have any problem with my rating as I have competed and cashed in many Vegas tournies and local tournies.
Like Lyn has pointed out, it's the unrated players that I worry about. Fargo is a relatively new system in some areas of the States. There are many players with "starter" ratings that may be a little low. Will these players be in Vegas for Nationals? Who knows.....but I'm sure there will be some that show up.
I have my plane ticket and hotel paid for, I plan on playing in just the team event this year. I'm hoping to get a few of my team mates to play in the 9 ball teams for a lil warm up before the 8 ball.
I really like the Fargo system, .......BUT! .. I wish they would have waited one more year before using it for Nationals. I would have liked to get more data in the system so more people had established ratings.
Anyhoo, I love playing pool and will continue to go to Nationals. This year may have some grumbling from some but that's nothing new. I think it will only get better as time and data get into the system.
If I might put this comment in perspective, the following 8 players were on either the first or second place teams from last year (both from TX as you said). Yes there are a couple for whom we have no information. But people should not think that is the norm.
Sonny Bosshamer, 634 (251 games)
Brent Thomas, 667 (456 games)
Billy Sharp, 686 (64 games)
Leon Contreras, 634 (49 games)
Brent Forster, 641 (81 games)
Coy Nicholson, 666 (52 games)
Juan Parra, 596 (717 games)
Greg Sandifer, 651 (894 games)
I have told CSI/BCAPL for 3 years I would be the auditor/comptroller for their league. It is not that hard --- start from the TOP if you are crunched for time.
So you could pick almost any of these 3 players from TX (at least the top 2 players), put them with "there are three players (Ross Romero, Douglas Forgason, and Jesus Hernandez) that have no games in the Fargo system and all three have a 525 starter rating" and have a first place team again.
And Mike Page -- when are Fargo Ratings going to be locked in (if they aren't already --- so I assume these and many other players that walked away with the cash last year are 525 rated)? Cause it is now just about April and people are going to be buying flights to go out to Vega$. You can't look at things 45 days from now and say that Jesus Hernandez is now a 625 if he and his 4 teammates have paid for their trip.
I checked the next several teams, and I found many rated players, including 712, 687, 684, 670, 675, 670... and so forth. I also noticed those who were unrated tended to have "starter ratings" of 625. So maybe a couple of those TX players fell through the cracks on the database sync-ups. I will check on that.