I feel as though we are talking past one another.
You say it is harder to run fast against a headwind, thinking there is somebody who disagrees.
I say the person you beat in a race with no headwind you also beat with a headwind.
Fargo Rating? Valley vs Diamond
- Thread starter Belford
- Start date
I feel as though we are talking past one another.
You say it is harder to run fast against a headwind, thinking there is somebody who disagrees.
I say the person you beat in a race with no headwind you also beat with a headwind.
And the ratio in which it lifts the lesser players game is not the same as the better player - all who gamble KNOW this.
Could you pleasemail address why when two players play on a big table and the lesser player gets the 6 ball, then move to the bar box gets the 7 ball? Don't say that's not how it is cause we ALL know better. Not knocking your system but I understand this is a very tricky variable ( no idea how to inumeriate it ) but it's there none the less and I haven't heard you address this specifically.
Trying to make FargoRate too complex
While some changes may or may not have merit there is a point where the data collection and subsequent algorithm would be to complex.
For instance Champions where I play have 9' Brunswick's as well as 9' Gabriel's. Diamond Billiards in Midlothian has 9' Brunswick's and 9' Diamond's. Pocket size between tables varies. Various types of cloth and balls differ from room to room and 7' Diamonds vs 7' Valley's differ greatly.
FargoRate seems to be fine in my opinion and I am sure Mike will make minor tweaks as necessary.
Wedge
While some changes may or may not have merit there is a point where the data collection and subsequent algorithm would be to complex.
For instance Champions where I play have 9' Brunswick's as well as 9' Gabriel's. Diamond Billiards in Midlothian has 9' Brunswick's and 9' Diamond's. Pocket size between tables varies. Various types of cloth and balls differ from room to room and 7' Diamonds vs 7' Valley's differ greatly.
FargoRate seems to be fine in my opinion and I am sure Mike will make minor tweaks as necessary.
Wedge
Yes, this is no problem. First, let us agree that a particular ball spot is a bigger spot for weak players than for strong players. This is easy to see if you imagine two absolute beginners who take 3 innings per shot. The person getting the 8-ball always wins.
Now when any two players move to harder equipment, it is like they are both becoming weaker players.
This has nothing to do with Fargo ratings though
There is a lot more clutter on a smaller table, which is why the run out %'s are about the same +/- a couple % going both ways.
You are ignoring probably the biggest determining factors in how hard a table plays: the pocket and shelf sizes. I only see you talking about table size not being a factor, yet you can have 2 9' tables the exact same except the shelf and pocket size and one plays much harder than the other. For that matter, you can have a 7' table with harder shelf and pocket sizes than a 9' and it will play even harder because you have the added clutter to have to deal with as well.
I think this is the biggest myth in pool. Try playing 50 innings of 14.1 (the game with the MOST clutter) on a 7' diamond, and 50 innings on a 9 foot diamond (both with the same pockets). I'd eat my hat if you do not run significantly more balls on the 7' Diamond. Maybe if the table was 3' long instead of 7' long, it would reduce the runs.
I have personally done this with more than 50 innings per table, and its not even close. The people that have said this for years, I don't think have ever actually tested their theory.
That's what we do in pool. We all talk, but almost never actually test any theories to prove or disprove them.
I do not agree nor fully understand your example. From my experience; when talking about a beginner getting weight, the beginner almost always loses. If you are saying that if a decent player is getting the 7 then most likely he will run out anyway I get that to a point but that's not exactly what I'm saying. Yes moving to tougher equipment is tougher on each player but I'm saying the difference is disproportionate . This applies to Fargo as I see it because you are including data from both bar boxes and full sizes.
In a small sample it would make a difference, but as the sample size becomes larger and larger the difference would diminish to a point where it is so small it would become insignificant, wouldn't you agree?
It is disproportionate for ball spots in a way that it isn't for games on the wire spots because ball spots are affected by absolute values of run lengths and games on the wire spots are affected only by relative run lengths.
The two are very different moving between equipment.
Just recently John Schmidt told me he had run 170-something on a 7' Diamond.
Yes, and I'd imagine he played 14.1 on one just a day or two in his life.
Twice I saw John shooting on 7' Diamonds at the BCA Expo. Within three tries both times he ran 180. There was a lot of congestion but all the combos, kicks and caroms were easy. And John ducks in and around the balls pretty well.
It does seem that if it was so much simpler on a 7' table he would try to break 400.
Lets play tomorrow
Again, you must be in an area for which ball spots are common, as in "I'll give you the 7 on the bar box or the 6-out on the big table."
This, once again, points to a fundamental difference between game spots and ball spots:
Game spots depend on relative run lengths between you and your opponent, and these both scale up or down the same moving between equipment.
Ball spots are a different animal. When I am giving you the "last 4," that "4" is an absolute number that means something different on a hard table and an easy table and means something different when offered by a strong player vs a weak player.
Think of it like this. Let's take three pairs of players, an A and A-, a C and C-, and a Beginner, Beginner-. Here they are with their Fargo Ratings
A (700) vs A- (650)
C (450) vs C- (400)
E (250) vs E- (200)
All three matchups share some things. All are 50 points apart. All are even with 2 games on the wire going to 7. All can do this on a 9' or 7' table with the same spot.
Now let's change the game from 9-ball to straight pool, and we will try to apply the same spot across the board. The spot is 3-no-count: the stronger player records his points only when he has run at least 3 balls.
A vs A- : The A player wins most of the time
C vs C- : The C player loses most of the time
E vs E- : The E player has absolutely no chance and will lose every game.
This illustrates the basic difference. Now you have to see two things
(1) ball spots in rotation games have a component of absolute runlength, like our straight-pool example, i.e., "I'll give you the last 3."
(2) The same two players, like the A and the A- above, moving to harder equipment, is just like they have become weaker players without moving tables.
I disagree. I'm nothing but a hack of a player, but an experienced hack...
I'm confident that I would have an easier time playing 8-ball on the 9' brunswicks at one of our local halls, with the generous pockets, than on the 7' diamonds we have played on in another part of the state (at state tournaments).
How that applies to better players is beyond my scope. I do believe it to be true in my case, and many of the players in my skill range that I play with/against.
I don't play BCA, nor any tournaments where Fargo will ever be a function of my world, but I've been very interested in following this. I'm pretty sure that this is easily the best rating system that has been created for pool, and I'm sure it will only get better with time (and data).
As I pointed out above, John Schmidt seems to find smaller tables easier for straight pool. I think it does require you to master a wider range of position plays and "tricky" shots.
I disagree. I'm nothing but a hack of a player, but an experienced hack...
I'm confident that I would have an easier time playing 8-ball on the 9' brunswicks at one of our local halls, with the generous pockets, than on the 7' diamonds we have played on in another part of the state (at state tournaments).
How that applies to better players is beyond my scope. I do believe it to be true in my case, and many of the players in my skill range that I play with/against.
I don't play BCA, nor any tournaments where Fargo will ever be a function of my world, but I've been very interested in following this. I'm pretty sure that this is easily the best rating system that has been created for pool, and I'm sure it will only get better with time (and data).
Here is my data and thread on the topic from 3 years ago if you are interested:
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=344551
Really, the only way to have an informed opinion is to actually try it (or to piggy back on someone else's experiments). And if multiple people do the experiments, and they all trend the same way, then we have science. I'm not picking on you, but all of us in general sit back and say xyz theory when it comes to pool, but don't actually put the time in to test a theory out.
In the 14.1 thread I link above comparing 7' to 9' tables, to extend the scientific method, others would have to duplicate my experiment and then we can see if the results I obtained was specific to me, or broad reaching. But no one does anything like this. Its just too much work I think. That's also why I think very few people participate in Dr Dave's threads. Its just a pain in the ass, and its more fun to just hit balls.
Alas, all of us having our own opinions that are not tested thoroughly, is why we end up matching up! I suppose if the differences in player skill and equipment affect on different players was more fully understood and tested with actual data, then everyone would think the same thing. That difference of opinion is why we end up gambling with each other. Each of us thinks our opinion is better
So, maybe its best if we don't understand things better :grin::grin: