Fargo Rating? Valley vs Diamond

[GideonF]

To my point, league players who get out regular with 5 balls on the table but struggle with 6 on a 7' table go to Vegas to play in the BCAPL. They play someone with the exact same Fargo rating who also gets out regular with 5 balls and struggles with 6, but plays their league on a 9' table. The 9' player has the advantage. I think the success of the NYC female players in that tournament has a lot to do with the fact that we play on big tables in NYC, they go there and beat people up because the tables seem easy.

Assuming that the 9 foot player is also used to bar boxes, maybe. I almost never play on them and played on some diamond boxes recently and I was consistently over-running position or making tactical mistakes because I was not used to the tables.

But more fundamentally, the test of 5 ball runs is not what Fargo is measuring. It is wins - and the 5 ball runner's opponents are getting the same advantages and disadvantages.

That said, while I'm not sure that a bar box 500 is weaker than a 9' 500, I do think the 9' 500 is favoured on a 9'. But all other things being equal I think the reverse is true too.

Gideon

 

[mikepage]

I don't really think that is the factor here. What seems to be going on here is that you have a player who "specializes" in one type of table. They go play on a different type and do badly. While I agree the Fargorate shouldn't be affected, there is an obvious difference in projected performance. "Familiarity" is the most important "table condition". Playing on a difficult table that you are used to may well result in better performance than playing on an "easy" but unfamiliar table. Saying the conditions are the same for your opponent is a profound oversimplification. If I'm used to playing on a tight gold crown 9 footer, and I have to suddenly play on a 7' Valley with giant buckets, it is going to impact my game WAY more than a guy who plays on those Valleys every day. The table is most certainly NOT equal for both of us, because we are not computer controlled robots. We are people with varying levels of confidence and abilities to adjust to different circumstances.

There is a guy around me that used to insist on using the regular sized but super heavy bar cue ball. He played unbelievable with that ball. Yet you stick a regular cue ball in there and he barely notices the difference, and seems to play just as well. For me I could never make that adjustment. They are night and day different for me. If we matched up with one ball or the other, it would have an impact on the outcome for sure, even though we are both playing the same equipment.

Make sense?

KMRUNOUT

I do understand this point, and it makes sense. Here is my perspective.

Our Fargo Rating is determined mostly by how we perform under the conditions we experience most--whether it is 8-ball, buckets, fast cloth, 9-foot tables, tight pockets, valleys, diamonds, slow cloth, and so forth.

So imagine my Fargo rating is 550, and I play nearly exclusively 8-ball on valleys with slow cloth. This means my true speed is 550--true speed that reflects my knowledge, experience, ball-making, patterns, and other skills. This true speed has been developed over thousands of hours of experience, and improving it is not easy. It is based on and is a reflection of my core competencies.

Now I show up at a 9-ball tournament on 9' tables. I never play on 9' tables, so I don't respect just how important it is for the cueball to be on the correct side of the shot line; I misjudge whether I can get out on a certain table and go for the out when I shouldn't. For a number of reasons, my "speed" on that day playing that game on that table is more like 520 than 550.

So you might be tempted to say I have two ratings, 550 and 520, appropriate for two different conditions. But I think that is an unreasonable way to look at it. The 550 is a true speed that is hard to improve upon. The 520 is a condition-specific performance rating that can change quickly. If I continue to play 9-ball on the 9' table, that 520 will increase quickly (with maybe 10 to 100 hours of play) to the vicinity of 550, and it will stall there, because that is my true speed.

Skylar Woodward plays at 774 speed. And maybe he has never really played straight pool, and maybe if he entered a straight-pool tournament tomorrow he likely wouldn't fare as well as other 774-speed players. But does anybody doubt that if Skylar had Thorsten as a house guest for three weeks, and they played five hours of straight pool per night for that time (100 hours total) that Skylar wouldn't be right up there playing commensurate with his 774-speed?

 

[nine_ball6970]

Skylar Woodward plays at 774 speed. And maybe he has never really played straight pool, and maybe if he entered a straight-pool tournament tomorrow he likely wouldn't fare as well as other 774-speed players. But does anybody doubt that if Skylar had Thorsten as a house guest for three weeks, and they played five hours of straight pool per night for that time (100 hours total) that Skylar wouldn't be right up there playing commensurate with his 774-speed?

What about the reverse of this? What is John Schmidt's rating? Do you believe that is an accurate representation of how he does playing straight pool vs rotation games? I feel like players who are 800+ are not the favorite to beat him in straight pool. You can't say if he spent 100 hours with Shane that he would play rotation games as well as he plays straight pool.

I have said before that there is a range of skill for players playing different games at an amateur level. Most pros will play all of the games at about the same speed because they have relatively few weaknesses.

I might be a much stronger 8 ball player than 9 ball player due to the fact that it is more strategic and you don't have to run out as often to win as you do in 9 ball. You can be a decent shot maker and still win lots of 8 ball matches. This is really not true in 9 ball.

I know a player who plays about 700 speed playing 9 ball or 10 ball on a 9 footer who plays at about 550 speed barbox 8 ball. He has no clue about the strategy of 8 ball but can run out from anywhere when he knows which ball to shoot next.

 

[mikepage]

What about the reverse of this? What is John Schmidt's rating? Do you believe that is an accurate representation of how he does playing straight pool vs rotation games? I feel like players who are 800+ are not the favorite to beat him in straight pool. [...]

If you asked me for a counter example, it would have been John Schmidt. I feel as though I don't understand him.

 

[BasementDweller]

I think it's easy to understand John Schmidt. For the most part, pro level players aren't that interested in straight pool. So the few of them that are -- tend to stand out and they are the ones that compile all the high practice runs since they are the only ones playing the game. It has been proven over and over again, that if you are a world class rotation player you can very easily run 100's at 14.1.

So I think Fargo ratings would hold up just fine if ALL players returned to playing 14.1 in their tournaments. It would take very little time for them to get up to speed in 14.1, provided they didn't get too bored first.

 

[cleary]

But more fundamentally, the test of 5 ball runs is not what Fargo is measuring. It is wins - and the 5 ball runner's opponents are getting the same advantages and disadvantages.

The 5 ball run was an example of the players speed.

That said, while I'm not sure that a bar box 500 is weaker than a 9' 500, I do think the 9' 500 is favoured on a 9'. But all other things being equal I think the reverse is true too.

The game gets incredibly easier on a bar box. In my example, I can promise you the big table player is stealing on a little table in that situation. The bar box player will be pocketing balls at the same percentage as always while the big table player, his pocketing percentage will increase on the bar table yet according to Fargo, they play the exact same speed because they did the same things on different tables.

And that's the major flaw with Fargo Rate. You don't have to agree or even understand but that doesn't change facts.

 

[gregcantrall]

I could be mistaken but........

It seems I remember a story about Johnny Archer winning a straight pool tournament 6 weeks after being introduced to the game. Back when he was tearing up the 9 ball tour.

 

[nine_ball6970]

I think it's easy to understand John Schmidt. For the most part, pro level players aren't that interested in straight pool. So the few of them that are -- tend to stand out and they are the ones that compile all the high practice runs since they are the only ones playing the game. It has been proven over and over again, that if you are a world class rotation player you can very easily run 100's at 14.1.

So I think Fargo ratings would hold up just fine if ALL players returned to playing 14.1 in their tournaments. It would take very little time for them to get up to speed in 14.1, provided they didn't get too bored first.

I guess we just disagree. Nobody said what his fargo rating is but I would imagine around 750. I cannot believe Shane would be almost a 2-1 favorite over John if he played straight pool more often.

There are quite a few US players who have a higher rating. I do not believe all of them would be a favorite over John even if they played straight pool regularly.

John consistently does well in straight pool tournaments when he is playing pool. It isn't like he just posts high runs in practice sometimes.

 

[mikepage]

The 5 ball run was an example of the players speed.




The game gets incredibly easier on a bar box. In my example, I can promise you the big table player is stealing on a little table in that situation. The bar box player will be pocketing balls at the same percentage as always while the big table player, his pocketing percentage will increase on the bar table yet according to Fargo, they play the exact same speed because they did the same things on different tables.

And that's the major flaw with Fargo Rate. You don't have to agree or even understand but that doesn't change facts.

Cleary, you are misunderstanding Fargo Ratings. A player who consistently runs 5 balls on a 7' table might be rated 510. A different player who consistently runs 5 balls on a 9' table might be rated 540.

Your statement, "according to Fargo, they play the exact same speed because they did the same things on different tables" is not accurate.

 

[Bob Jewett]

... The game gets incredibly easier on a bar box. In my example, I can promise you the big table player is stealing on a little table in that situation. The bar box player will be pocketing balls at the same percentage as always while the big table player, his pocketing percentage will increase on the bar table yet according to Fargo, they play the exact same speed because they did the same things on different tables.

And that's the major flaw with Fargo Rate. You don't have to agree or even understand but that doesn't change facts.

Well, no. FargoRate is not based on pocketing percentage. It is based on games won percentage between pairs of players.

There may be a small difference for any pair of players when their match is changed from one size of table to another, but it's not going to be huge and it's not clear which player will have the relative advantage on each size of table. Probably a player will do better than average on the size he plays on mostly.

 

[cleary]

Well, no. FargoRate is not based on pocketing percentage. It is based on games won percentage between pairs of players.

Probably doesn't take a scientist to figure out the player who is pocketing balls at a higher percentage will probably win more games.

 

[cleary]

Cleary, you are misunderstanding Fargo Ratings. A player who consistently runs 5 balls on a 7' table might be rated 510. A different player who consistently runs 5 balls on a 9' table might be rated 540.

Your statement, "according to Fargo, they play the exact same speed because they did the same things on different tables" is not accurate.

Since you've yet to (at least to my knowledge) show how these numbers are calculated, I'm sure a lot of people will continue to misunderstanding how your system works.

 

[lorider]

I agree with those that say playing on a type or size table that you are not used to will affect your game.

However over the long haul I dont think it will affect your Raton unless you are one of those types that cannot adjust to different conditions and environments.

Take me for example

I had played on nothing but valleys my entire life untill I won a regional qualifier shortly after joining apa. The qualifier was held at jobs in nashville which has diamonds. Up one arriving at regionals I went 2 and out. My cue ball control was horrible.
I bet my opponents or anyone watching was asking themselves bow in the hell did I ever qualify for this.

Fast forward to next year. I won the qualifier again. This time as a 5. Fcrgot to da the 1st time I w as a 4.

About a month before regional which again being held at jobs and had not played on a diamond since last time I decided I better get some playing time in on them or i was gonna go 2 and out again.

Well I got about 10 hours I. Over the month leading up to regionals.

This time I went undefeated all the way to the finals where I lost hill-hill

That is a helluva difference from the 1st time with only 10 hours playing time on diamonds.

Oh yea...how I lost. Shooting last ball before the 8 a d I rattled the pocket by hitting a lil firmer than i should have trying to vet position on the 8 which I got perfect on.

I could have made that shot 100 times in a row on a valley. Due to anxiety or stress or whatever you wanna call it I temporarily forgot I was on a diamond and not a valley.

That one shot cost me a trip to Vegas due to my opponent running out after I missed.

 

[gregcantrall]

Probably doesn't take a scientist to figure out the player who is pocketing balls at a higher percentage will probably win more games.

Not necessarily. I have outplayed many a player that I could not outshoot.

A big table player coming to a bar box is more likely to underestimate the difference, than a bar box player going to a big table. One factor is the size can change the paths around the table. What is a natural 3 rail shape on a 9' could end up a scratch on a 7'.

 

[JB Cases]

I could be mistaken but........

It seems I remember a story about Johnny Archer winning a straight pool tournament 6 weeks after being introduced to the game. Back when he was tearing up the 9 ball tour.

Yes it's true. Not only that he ran 150 and out in the finals and was encouraged to go on and ran 200 if I remember it correctly.

Today's top player all run hundreds when they start to bear down and learn the patterns.

People have this idea that 14.1 is some mystical game that only the ancients could master. It's not. 14.1 is a great game among many great games in pool.

Top players have the required physical skill to master any game invented.

 

[cleary]

If you play 99% of the time on 7' tables... going to a 9' table will feel like a snooker table. More than likely that player won't have the stroke to move the cueball around. They'll also realize they need to play better position than needed on the little table. Hard shots on the little table are okay, hard shots on the big table mean end of inning.


Flip it around, someone who plays 99% of the time on big tables, when they play on a 7' pocketing gets easier and position is far less important. Speed control becomes an issue but nothing they cannot adjust fairly quickly.


Same thing can be said for pocket size. If you play on tight pockets on the reg, when you switch to a bucket the game gets easier. You can cheat the pocket, pocket everything and get real loose. If you normally play on buckets and switch to tight joint, you're in for a nightmare.

 

[cleary]

Not necessarily. I have outplayed many a player that I could not outshoot.

A big table player coming to a bar box is more likely to underestimate the difference, than a bar box player going to a big table. One factor is the size can change the paths around the table. What is a natural 3 rail shape on a 9' could end up a scratch on a 7'.

lol someone had to be pocketing the balls.

 

[cardiac kid]

Yes it's true. Not only that he ran 150 and out in the finals and was encouraged to go on and ran 200 if I remember it correctly.

Today's top player all run hundreds when they start to bear down and learn the patterns.

People have this idea that 14.1 is some mystical game that only the ancients could master. It's not. 14.1 is a great game among many great games in pool.

Top players have the required physical skill to master any game invented.

John,

That was the Cleveland Open 14.1 event held at the downtown Holiday Inn. Don't remember the year. Middle nineties I think. Frank's Billiards was the promoter if I remember correctly. Johnny broke, Nick Varner played a poor safe and Johnny ran the 150 and out to win. The crowd cheered Johnny to keep going. Think he finished at 202. The event was held in conjunction with the Cleveland Open 9 ball.

Lyn

 

[Bob Jewett]

... Nobody said what his fargo rating is but I would imagine around 750. I cannot believe Shane would be almost a 2-1 favorite over John if he played straight pool more often. ...

Shane is currently rated 823. John Schmidt is 739. For a single game of nine ball Shane is something like a 64%/36% favorite. In a race to 11, Shane is a 91%/9% favorite.

As mentioned before, translating that to 14.1 is tricky even if the ratings are the same because the runs are much longer at 14.1. A race to 11 points at 14.1 would be almost 50-50 between those two as the first player to get a shot would probably win. A race to 11 racks (about 150 points) would favor the better player a lot more.

The extreme case of long runs is at straight rail billiards where top players are very likely to run 500 and out from the break. To make matches fair, the player who didn't break is allowed to have one "equalizing" turn and gets a chance to also run out from the break. Many matches have ended in 500-500 ties.

 

[nine_ball6970]

Here is an example of how amateurs are affected by table size.

My friend plays in the same league at two locations.

When playing on 9 footers, his match record is 36-38 or 49%.

When playing on 8 footers, his match record is 65-46 or 56%.

He definitely plays better on 8 footers than 9 footers.