FargoRate Alex Pagulayan

[one stroke]

Things like this happening occasionally have pretty small influence. What we capture is an averaged performance over lots of games/matches. Suppose in a small fraction of your matches you give up or were drunk or didn't care or had something else on your mind. Consider this: In ALL those other matches, the rest of them, you sometimes benefited from playing an opponent who gave up or was drunk or didn't care or had something else on his mind. I'm not saying these things don't happen. It's just that their impact tends tends to be small.





There is no catch fail. A player can dump and have his or her rating influenced by it.

One of the benefits of having done this in my area for almost 7 years now is I can go back and look at the players who in the early going raised the same concerns you are raising now. And there were plenty in the beginning. People talking about hiding in the weeds, people talking about dumping or otherwise finding a way to manipulate the system and so forth. And when I look at those players now, 6 years later, I can ask myself a couple different questions. (1) Are they still talking like that? talking about manipulating the system or accusing others of doing it or having others accusing them of doing it? Answer: No. (2) When we analyze statistically the data for those players (who were going to blow off league to keep their rating low or whatever), do we find irregularities? Is their rating considering only league data or only the low-entry-fee weekly tournament different from their rating considering bigger events? Answer: No.

The last thing you mention is someone who is at 600 doing something to get to 599, or someone who is at 599 doing something to avoid getting the 600. This, I think, is a valid concern if we do something to create SPECIAL ratings. This is the reason we discourage, for example, having a big national event for "under 600." It is fine to have a 540 and under tournament, or a 620 and under tournament, of an under 400 tournament. That is happening more and more as regions are benefiting from getting players established. But these tournaments need to be mixed up. 520 and under this month, 570 and under next month, and so forth.

I think one exception to this caution might be defining an elite level, like having a rating above which a player may not enter an amateur competition like the SBE event. If you said nobody over 720 or 710 or 700 or (or nobody over the level of the US #100 player), then it is only a few players right near each bubble who even conceivably might be in a position to slip under. I say so what. Live with it. I think there probably will be none of it going on, though.

If I could show you my email inbox and show you every email I have gotten from shortstop and pro-level players, you might be amazed that in every single case the concern is why isn't their rating higher. "Do you have that time I double-dipped Sylver Ochoa?"

Most real competitors want to be the highest number they can be ,, I once went down from a 7 to a 6 told my team I felt like cutting off my arm it upset me so much

However to keep teams together theres often dumping or players being put up in matches they can't possibly win ,, certainly this represents a small number in the grand scheme of things , but certainly it does happen and it's more prevalent among better teams then the lessor ,,

I would expect if the rankings gets used in handicapped tourneys more you will see more manipulating of the system

1

 

[alphadog]

Most real competitors want to be the highest number they can be ,, I once went down from a 7 to a 6 told my team I felt like cutting off my arm it upset me so much

However to keep teams together theres often dumping or players being put up in matches they can't possibly win ,, certainly this represents a small number in the grand scheme of things , but certainly it does happen and it's more prevalent among better teams then the lessor ,,

I would expect if the rankings gets used in handicapped tourneys more you will see more manipulating of the system

1

Mike has addressed this. Poor performance to stay low,has to go on for a long time to really make a big diff.
You cant win if you are always losing!:wink:

 

[jasonlaus]

Most real competitors want to be the highest number they can be ,, I once went down from a 7 to a 6 told my team I felt like cutting off my arm it upset me so much

However to keep teams together theres often dumping or players being put up in matches they can't possibly win ,, certainly this represents a small number in the grand scheme of things , but certainly it does happen and it's more prevalent among better teams then the lessor ,,

I would expect if the rankings gets used in handicapped tourneys more you will see more manipulating of the system

1

How do you lose and win? So confused:shrug:

 

[one stroke]

Mike has addressed this. Poor performance to stay low,has to go on for a long time to really make a big diff.
You cant win if you are always losing!:wink:

Iv seen players do it for yrs on teams that continued to win ,,it's not that hard


1

 

[jasonlaus]

Iv seen players do it for yrs on teams that continued to win ,,it's not that hard


1

Because that whole system is flawed - innings and whatnot. With Fargorate you either win or you don't, so unless you keep losing your rating will show your speed. So once again, it's impossible to drive your rating down without losing and we all know you can't win if you lose

 

[one stroke]

Because that whole system is flawed - innings and whatnot. With Fargorate you either win or you don't, so unless you keep losing your rating will show your speed. So once again, it's impossible to drive your rating down without losing and we all know you can't win if you lose

Wrong again you can keep a player losing and then let him win the team needs it ,, it's not rocket science ,, in fact just using wins and losses by game counts is easier to manipulate not harder ,,
And once you have a lot of matches in the books couple wins are not changing your ranking much ,,

1

 

[jasonlaus]

Wrong again you can keep a player losing and then let him win the team needs it ,, it's not rocket science ,, in fact just using wins and losses by game counts is easier to manipulate not harder ,,
And once you have a lot of matches in the books couple wins are not changing your ranking much ,,

1

It is Rocket science! And you are not a rocket scientists.

You state in your own post once you have a lot of matches a few wins are not changing much, but you think a few losses will

I could play as a 4 and run my innings up by playing safes disquised as misses and win every week and never go up in rating. But you would rather lose every week to accomplish the same thing - yeah, that seems easier

So who on your team is gonna win to get to the playoffs? Obviously(maybe not to you) somebody has to win, and there's no guarantee your (picked) winners will win, therefore your loser(you do realise you are cheating) would have to win and foil your(loser in life) plans to cheat.

Not saying you do this, merely directing this at the "teams/people" you describe in your scenario.

 

[tatcat2000]

More data makes us better, always.

I agree 100%, and like what I see so far. Question, though...

Massive amounts of data, I presume the vast majority of it input manually, virtually guarantees that there will be the occasional error in the database. With huge amounts of data the error may well be insignificant. But then again it might not be, particularly in the case of less robustness for the player involved in the error.

I think that it is reasonable for any player to be able to have access to the data that makes up their rating, particularly when tournament placement depends on that rating. Not all of the data maybe, since a report including thousands of matches would be unwieldy, and the oldest data might be statistically insignificant depending on robustness. But certainly at least the most recent data should be available. Maybe the last 6 months, last 100 matches, or whatever recent amount seems reasonable.

Are there any plans to make data available in the future? After pulling up a rating, a function in the app to show recent history would be fantastic.

Buddy

Edit -

Sorry - I missed post 40 before writing the above. It answers some questions, but also still begs the answer to

"Do you have that time I double-dipped Sylver Ochoa?"

It would be nice if that type of question could be answered without e-mailing someone...say, by a list of data available to the player.

Thanks!

B

 

[jasonlaus]

I agree 100%, and like what I see so far. Question, though...

Massive amounts of data, I presume the vast majority of it input manually, virtually guarantees that there will be the occasional error in the database. With huge amounts of data the error may well be insignificant. But then again it might not be, particularly in the case of less robustness for the player involved in the error.

I think that it is reasonable for any player to be able to have access to the data that makes up their rating, particularly when tournament placement depends on that rating. Not all of the data maybe, since a report including thousands of matches would be unwieldy, and the oldest data might be statistically insignificant depending on robustness. But certainly at least the most recent data should be available. Maybe the last 6 months, last 100 matches, or whatever recent amount seems reasonable.

Are there any plans to make data available in the future? After pulling up a rating, a function in the app to show recent history would be fantastic.

Buddy

Edit -

Sorry - I missed post 40 before writing the above. It answers some questions, but also still begs the answer to



It would be nice if that type of question could be answered without e-mailing someone...say, by a list of data available to the player.

Thanks!

B

Great idea to be able to view your "history" and dispute, given both parties in the match agree with "corrected" score.
Jason

 

[robsnotes4u]

Wrong again you can keep a player losing and then let him win the team needs it ,, it's not rocket science ,, in fact just using wins and losses by game counts is easier to manipulate not harder ,,
And once you have a lot of matches in the books couple wins are not changing your ranking much ,,

1

You fail to realize a very important aspect. It isn't only your games that change your rating

You can control yourself but not ALL the others

 

[one stroke]

It is Rocket science! And you are not a rocket scientists.

You state in your own post once you have a lot of matches a few wins are not changing much, but you think a few losses will

I could play as a 4 and run my innings up by playing safes disquised as misses and win every week and never go up in rating. But you would rather lose every week to accomplish the same thing - yeah, that seems easier

So who on your team is gonna win to get to the playoffs? Obviously(maybe not to you) somebody has to win, and there's no guarantee your (picked) winners will win, therefore your loser(you do realise you are cheating) would have to win and foil your(loser in life) plans to cheat.

Not saying you do this, merely directing this at the "teams/people" you describe in your scenario.

Well I did stay at a holiday inn last night
Actually the APA won't tell players their system for ranking it's possible to lose and go up and it's possible to win and go down ,, the reason why its secret is because more sandbagging would go on ,, because as long as you have a ranking system in place with a prize involved you will have cheaters often that prize is a one time shot like a national title and anyone who has been to Vegas has seen teams or players DQ happens all the time and I would say you would have to be pretty clueless to believe that they catch the majority , I'd say if it's anything it's a fraction

1

 

[jasonlaus]

Well I did stay at a holiday inn last night
Actually the APA won't tell players their system for ranking it's possible to lose and go up and it's possible to win and go down ,, the reason why its secret is because more sandbagging would go on ,, because as long as you have a ranking system in place with a prize involved you will have cheaters often that prize is a one time shot like a national title and anyone who has been to Vegas has seen teams or players DQ happens all the time and I would say you would have to be pretty clueless to believe that they catch the majority , I'd say if it's anything it's a fraction

1

Pretty sure I just said it's fairly easy to game the other systems, Fargo doesn't seem to have that problem

 

[pt109]

You know what's slower than one-pocket?....
...two sandbaggers trying to lose to each other.....:boring2:

 

[one stroke]

Pretty sure I just said it's fairly easy to game the other systems, Fargo doesn't seem to have that problem

You do realize the thread is here because of Alex's Fargo rating being under rated and it's been said he just needs one good tourney to crack that top 10 ,,
humm well what if that turney had brackets and that 5 points kept him in the 2 bracket instead of with the top 10 where we all know he belongs ,,
He goes on to win his bracket every player he beat was by a narrow margin and had a lower ranking and after that he leaves there and goes to a one pocket turney and smokes Dennis Shane and Scott picks up another big payday , then onto team French challenge match where he loses pics up another big payday all this while his ranking goes unchanged ,, sweeeeet

1

 

[jasonlaus]

You do realize the thread is here because of Alex's Fargo rating being under rated and it's been said he just needs one good tourney to crack that top 10 ,,
humm well what if that turney had brackets and that 5 points kept him in the 2 bracket instead of with the top 10 where we all know he belongs ,,
He goes on to win his bracket every player he beat was by a narrow margin and had a lower ranking and after that he leaves there and goes to a one pocket turney and smokes Dennis Shane and Scott picks up another big payday , then onto team French challenge match where he loses pics up another big payday all this while his ranking goes unchanged ,, sweeeeet

1

Stretch too far and things snap

 

[Poolplaya9]

You do realize the thread is here because of Alex's Fargo rating being under rated and it's been said he just needs one good tourney to crack that top 10 ,,
humm well what if that turney had brackets and that 5 points kept him in the 2 bracket instead of with the top 10 where we all know he belongs ,,
He goes on to win his bracket every player he beat was by a narrow margin and had a lower ranking and after that he leaves there and goes to a one pocket turney and smokes Dennis Shane and Scott picks up another big payday , then onto team French challenge match where he loses pics up another big payday all this while his ranking goes unchanged ,, sweeeeet

1

A lot of people want to complain about FargoRate not being perfect but no rating, ranking, or handicap system can ever be truly perfect as no matter how you design it there will always be a drawback or something that it can't take into consideration. FargoRate admits as much.

Fargorate is miles better than anything similar that has ever been attempted before (including in any other sport or game) and it is in fact as good as you can possibly get. Sorry it is only 99.99999% perfect instead of that impossible 100%. Yes we get it, it has that .00001 imperfection. So what. Get over it. It truly cannot be made any better, which can't be said for any other similar system out there, and most importantly it is actually extremely good, will get even better as more and more people contribute data, and it actually has a lot of useful purpose because of the fact that it has been done so well.

If you were really so worried about FargoRate and it being the best thing possible your time would be so much better spent contacting every single tournament director, league operator and tour director you could think of and asking them to contribute all their match statistics to FargoRate for inclusion because aside from that there isn't any other way to improve on its usefulness and accuracy. Have you bothered to do that?

 

[jasonlaus]

A lot of people want to complain about FargoRate not being perfect but no rating, ranking, or handicap system can ever be truly perfect as no matter how you design it there will always be a drawback or something that it can't take into consideration. FargoRate admits as much.

Fargorate is miles better than anything similar that has ever been attempted before (including in any other sport or game) and it is in fact as good as you can possibly get. Sorry it is only 99.99999% perfect instead of that impossible 100%. Yes we get it, it has that .00001 imperfection. So what. Get over it. It truly cannot be made any better, which can't be said for any other similar system out there, and most importantly it is actually extremely good, will get even better as more and more people contribute data, and it actually has a lot of useful purpose because of the fact that it has been done so well.

If you were really so worried about FargoRate and it being the best thing possible your time would be so much better spent contacting every single tournament director, league operator and tour director you could think of and asking them to contribute all their match statistics to FargoRate for inclusion because aside from that there isn't any other way to improve on its usefulness and accuracy. Have you bothered to do that?

Great post!

 

[robsnotes4u]

A lot of people want to complain about FargoRate not being perfect but no rating, ranking, or handicap system can ever be truly perfect as no matter how you design it there will always be a drawback or something that it can't take into consideration. FargoRate admits as much.



Fargorate is miles better than anything similar that has ever been attempted before (including in any other sport or game) and it is in fact as good as you can possibly get. Sorry it is only 99.99999% perfect instead of that impossible 100%. Yes we get it, it has that .00001 imperfection. So what. Get over it. It truly cannot be made any better, which can't be said for any other similar system out there, and most importantly it is actually extremely good, will get even better as more and more people contribute data, and it actually has a lot of useful purpose because of the fact that it has been done so well.



If you were really so worried about FargoRate and it being the best thing possible your time would be so much better spent contacting every single tournament director, league operator and tour director you could think of and asking them to contribute all their match statistics to FargoRate for inclusion because aside from that there isn't any other way to improve on its usefulness and accuracy. Have you bothered to do that?

We have a winner!!!

 

[one stroke]

A lot of people want to complain about FargoRate not being perfect but no rating, ranking, or handicap system can ever be truly perfect as no matter how you design it there will always be a drawback or something that it can't take into consideration. FargoRate admits as much.

Fargorate is miles better than anything similar that has ever been attempted before (including in any other sport or game) and it is in fact as good as you can possibly get. Sorry it is only 99.99999% perfect instead of that impossible 100%. Yes we get it, it has that .00001 imperfection. So what. Get over it. It truly cannot be made any better, which can't be said for any other similar system out there, and most importantly it is actually extremely good, will get even better as more and more people contribute data, and it actually has a lot of useful purpose because of the fact that it has been done so well.

If you were really so worried about FargoRate and it being the best thing possible your time would be so much better spent contacting every single tournament director, league operator and tour director you could think of and asking them to contribute all their match statistics to FargoRate for inclusion because aside from that there isn't any other way to improve on its usefulness and accuracy. Have you bothered to do that?

Lmfao 999.9999 ,get a grip it's not even remotely close to that ,,and just where do you think this ranking system outside thier partner BCA will be used ,, WPA rankings like many tours are rankings based on percipients you get points for events entered they could care less on skill level they give points based on finishes in thier tourneys , same with Joss , Mezz ,APT and so on , yes you might get a A player who wins a event and they lose a whopping 30 dollars or so god forbid but he goes up after that , problem solved ,,
It's a great talking piece though so I guess it's got great value there



1

 

[plane_o]

Excellent question. Take this match from the Omega Tour for instance. Robert needed to go to 8, and Ian needed to go to 6. Ian won the match, even though Robert won more games. We actually don't care about this. We don't care what they needed to get to to win, and we don't care who won the match. The information we use from here is the following:

Robert and Ian played 13 games, with Robert winning 7 and Ian winning 6.

So handicapped tournaments are not a problem for us provided

(1) we are not including "games on the wire." In other words we need actual game results.

(2) There are no ball-spots (like wild 8 and the breaks). That makes the game useless to us.

Here is another advantage of what we do over the usual ELO-type schemes. What happens when we recognize we have bad data? (e.g., a forfeited match was recorded as 7 - 0 win, or we now realize a tournament we included earlier used ball spots, or games were assigned to a wrong person). In the other approaches, those problems permeate through the whole system and there is no way to undo their effects other than to include more good data and overwhelm their influence. For us, with the optimization, the next day it is like the data was never there.

In this particular example, Robert was also spotting Ian the "8" ball along with 2 games on the wire..... Using the Omega Tour handicap system. Assume an "8 handicap" is playing a "6 handicap", the "8" handicap is spotting the "6" handicap 2 games on the wire and the 8 ball. If an 8 handicap is playing a 5 handicap, the 8 handicap is spotting the 5 handicap 3 games on the wire and the 7 ball.