Fargo Rating? Valley vs Diamond
- Thread starter Belford
- Start date
Should we be working with unique numbers instead of names? John Barton, Jon Barton, Jack Barton.....
And please please enable the functionality to search players by state.
Probably over 50% of the people on this forum haven't played pool this calendar year.
Thank you for beginning to actually explain your system. You've said more in this post than I've seen in any other post from you about the system.
What I'm not understanding is when I asked you what the difference would be if we had played on a 7' table instead of a 9' table, you said "none". But then you said this earlier...
I honestly think that a universal handicapping system is needed and has merit, I'm just skeptical about how it can be done without factoring in table size, pocket size etc.
I've done a fair amount of statistical/factor modeling in my job, and people are always asking me to add "this" variable or "that" variable.
Whenever I consider adding variables to a model, I first ask:
1) does the variable enhance the outcomes of the model?
2) does the variable degrade the outcomes of the model?
3) how would I collect and incorporate the data of the new variable?
But first we have to define the purpose of the model. If the purpose of the Fargo model is handicapping, I don't see any enhancement to the outcomes by including table size. As has been mentioned before, both players are on the same table so there's only winner, loser and score.
Actually table size is a wild card (i.e. beyond any of the player's control) and modelers need to avoid wild cards at all cost. I can almost guarantee that you'd get all kinds of questionable results if you included table size.
Lastly, how would you collect useful data? Sure, it's easy to get the table size of a match, but how do you rate each of the players' "table ability"? That's a subjective judgement that would cause all kinds of arguments.
Whenever I consider adding variables to a model, I first ask:
1) does the variable enhance the outcomes of the model?
2) does the variable degrade the outcomes of the model?
3) how would I collect and incorporate the data of the new variable?
But first we have to define the purpose of the model. If the purpose of the Fargo model is handicapping, I don't see any enhancement to the outcomes by including table size. As has been mentioned before, both players are on the same table so there's only winner, loser and score.
Actually table size is a wild card (i.e. beyond any of the player's control) and modelers need to avoid wild cards at all cost. I can almost guarantee that you'd get all kinds of questionable results if you included table size.
Lastly, how would you collect useful data? Sure, it's easy to get the table size of a match, but how do you rate each of the players' "table ability"? That's a subjective judgement that would cause all kinds of arguments.
This is a key point. If the rating system was based on any measure of absolute performance, then knowing about the equipment would be critical. For example, if you tell me your straight-pool high run is 40, it makes a difference to me whether that was on a Gold Crown with generous pockets or a pro-cut Diamond. Or if you told me you did such and such against the ghost, it is critical to know what table you're on. Are you on a 7' table with easy pockets and where you make two balls on the break?
But what we do has no component of absolute performance. None, nada, zilch....
Instead you might be saying you win one out of three games against Tony Robles--10 out of 30, 33 out of 100, etc.
To achieve this (33% against Tony), you likely are decent at running tables on a 7-foot diamond. But you run far fewer tables on a tight 9' table. Either way, you get to your one out of three against Tony, and that is your speed--one out of three against Tony.
In other words, it's rating you against your opponent who is playing on the same equipment thereby nullifying any advantage to a 5" pocket or a 4.25" pocket on a ten foot table.
Same table difficulty for both players.
That's right. And that's not to say there don't exist subtle differences in weighting of skills that might change the ratio a little, but that is a way smaller effect than the equipment differences themselves, and our experience is it is smaller than most people think it is.
Mike, I'm sure that's true over time (you would obviously know) - but I think people are saying that at any POINT IN TIME Fargo ratings might not reflect someone's true skill.
e.g. - I play 3 events on a tight 9' table (and practice on that type of table a lot to prep). I then go to a tournament on a big pocket 7'. I'm going to do a lot better than my Fargo rate suggests I should do, almost guaranteed. So I might be a 560 but I show at that event playing like a 630. My opponent has only been playing events/league/etc on a big pocket 7'. He's a 560. I will probably beat up on him.
I don't think Fargo ratings can solve this, and obviously it's better to have ANY number than none, or just rumors that "that guy over there plays good" or "A/B/C/D" categories....but I think that's the scenario people think of that makes them not trust someone's Fargo rating at an event due to changing playing conditions.
Bad_hit,
That would possibly make sense in a world where everybody only played on bar tables or big tables but that's not the case. There are a lot of players that play on both types of tables and have a rating that accounts for this.
I think many of us amateurs are overconfident when it comes to our bar table games and this makes it hard to accept these numbers.
To me, these numbers are looking more and more accurate every time I look at them. If you take a player like Kenny Brisbon, who is sitting right around 700 and picture a game between him and anybody who's right around 600 -- I see that game playing out about the same every time -- regardless of the table size. He's going to win 9-4 or 9-5.
That would possibly make sense in a world where everybody only played on bar tables or big tables but that's not the case. There are a lot of players that play on both types of tables and have a rating that accounts for this.
I think many of us amateurs are overconfident when it comes to our bar table games and this makes it hard to accept these numbers.
To me, these numbers are looking more and more accurate every time I look at them. If you take a player like Kenny Brisbon, who is sitting right around 700 and picture a game between him and anybody who's right around 600 -- I see that game playing out about the same every time -- regardless of the table size. He's going to win 9-4 or 9-5.
And what I'm saying is that 33% might be true for a big table but would be a bit higher on a little table. That's why I think it's an important variable and should be accounted for. It's your system, it's fine if you disagree... Do your thing, just don't be butt hurt if people think it's flawed. It's probably close though, so congrats on that. Still wondering how you only have three random tournaments for me lol.
This is spot on. And yes, certain regions people only play on certain types of tables. Around here it's almost all 9' tables for any kind of serious play. Our pool rooms don't even have 7' tables. When I get a chance to play on one, I feel like Efren. Probably don't look like him but I feel like it lol.
Last year at SBE (one of the few times a year I play on small tables) I played a guy from Michigan. Don't remember his name but he was a super strong player. Mars told me he used to give Kirkwood the 8 for a reference. I beat him in an alt break race to 5. I would never beat him on a big table. Never. On a little table, if things go right, I CAN get there. That's the difference and imo pretty big.
This is pretty much what James Davis Jr said after beating SVB for the hot seat at White Diamonds. It is possible sometimes playing on a valley bar table. Not going to happen playing on a 9 footer. One reason calcuttas are so big there is because it is on valley bar tables and lots of players have a shot of winning the whole thing if playing well.
Do you realize you are arguing there is an effect in the opposite direction to what others are saying?
Others are saying
(1) establish rating under familiar conditions
(2) show up for tournament with unfamiliar conditions
(3) underperform compared to expectation
You are arguing
(3) overperform compared to expectation
Possibly because some of us with balls don't do league BUT DO GAMBLE and undoubtedly this Fargo stuff is going to spill over and may effect us.
I think I'm apt to agree with Cleary - here's why: if anyone can explain this to me in numerical terms that would be great . The way it is, the way it always has been is when matching up ( for the cash ) the spot between the same players is ALWAYS less on the bar box than the fullsize. Period. This is a variable that I have not heard explained in a way that I can get down with. Maybe I don't understand it, make me understand. Thanks.
I just don't think I they get it bmore. They just don't get it.
I think the data is there to show what Mike is saying. They thoroughly check these things all the time.
Playing on a little table is easier in every aspect other than speed control, which can be adjusted.
People for years have been saying X, Y, Z table factor is a bigger advantage for the better player in a head to head contest. Other people say that same X, Y, Z is a bigger advantage for the weaker player.
I personally think its all bs. Table size, table pocket, 9 ball vs 10 ball, alt vs winner break. Even the game does not matter (as long as the player plays it once in a while). 14.1, 9 ball, one pocket, banks, 3 cushion.
In 20 years of playing pool and gambling, I've RARELY seen a player that has an edge over another player, lose that edge when any of the above are changed. The better player wins on ANY equipment, and in ANY game. Yes, it happens, but it is RARE. Enough that I think its not even worth discussing.
Shane is going to crush Oscar on 5.5" buckets, or Ernesto's 4" california pockets. On a local level, the same happens.
Cleary is going to crush me on a bar table, or a 10' Diamond table, unless he sleeps through the match
Everyone has their opinion, this is mine!
I personally think its all bs. Table size, table pocket, 9 ball vs 10 ball, alt vs winner break. Even the game does not matter (as long as the player plays it once in a while). 14.1, 9 ball, one pocket, banks, 3 cushion.
In 20 years of playing pool and gambling, I've RARELY seen a player that has an edge over another player, lose that edge when any of the above are changed. The better player wins on ANY equipment, and in ANY game. Yes, it happens, but it is RARE. Enough that I think its not even worth discussing.
Shane is going to crush Oscar on 5.5" buckets, or Ernesto's 4" california pockets. On a local level, the same happens.
Cleary is going to crush me on a bar table, or a 10' Diamond table, unless he sleeps through the match
Everyone has their opinion, this is mine!
I tend to agree with this. There are a lot of league players who've never even seen a 9' table in person. However, it's an empirical question, and lots of stuff people believe turns out not to be true. Mike a couple of pages ago said they do have the data on this, so they'll be able to look at it. If there's a big effect, maybe they can try to account for it, or maybe it's there but small enough not to worry about.
But I wonder if the ratings do take this problem into account indirectly. If you're a bar-box player who rarely plays 9-foot players, your rating probably will be lower, because although you may be beating good bar-box players, at least some of those bar-box players have played 9-foot players, so there's the connection. If we're right that bar-box only players aren't as good as 9-foot players, the bar-box players will have lower ratings.
It's also likely that people who play on 7-footers all the time don't suddenly play on 9-footers, so our hypothetical situation just won't come up very often.
Just some devil's advocate thoughts.