Fargo Rating? Valley vs Diamond
- Thread starter Belford
- Start date
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 betterSo, maybe its best if we don't understand things better :grin::grin:
I agree with the point being actual trial certainly beats theory and supposition.
Sadly, I cannot go and play on 7' Diamonds without driving over two hours, if that place is even still open. I am basing my simple little point based on my experience playing on them, and how very much different they are than playing on the 9' Brunswicks that we play on frequently.
And I'm merely talking about 8-ball, certainly not 14.1. I have no practical experience with 14.1, beyond a few games learning the basics, so I cannot comment in a meaningful way.
I am merely pointing out that someone in the lower skill level, like myself, will see a different level of difficulty with the 7' Diamond. Not 7' Valleys, but the Diamond. And again, 8-ball, not 9-ball nor 14.1. I'm not certain that my experience will be any help in the discussion, but I felt that I would add how it affected me. That's all.
Fun discussion.
Fortunately, most questions like this are answered through a decent sample size, not a single handicapped tournament
That makes little sense.
If your game goes up, so does theirs. UNLESS, you are a BB specialist and your game is much better on a BB than theirs is.
The only thing I have close to this is that in the pool hall I'd play in there is a main matching up table in the front, and one kind of secluded in the back. The front table is a GC, the back is a Diamond. I don't play good one pocket on the Diamond, but play good banks on it. So for matching up in 1p I use the front GC.
If your game goes up, so does theirs. UNLESS, you are a BB specialist and your game is much better on a BB than theirs is.
The only thing I have close to this is that in the pool hall I'd play in there is a main matching up table in the front, and one kind of secluded in the back. The front table is a GC, the back is a Diamond. I don't play good one pocket on the Diamond, but play good banks on it. So for matching up in 1p I use the front GC.
I feel like you're just not understanding what I feel is an issue. when I beat that same person in both races, my time will be different. If I only run where there is headwind and my ranking is based on my times with headwind, when I go to a national championship and race people with no headwind it will not only seem easier but I will not be evenly matched because my race times were judged under tougher conditions. Oh, you run slow times so you'll be in this group... But you run under much tougher conditions than the rest in that group so you'll be the clear favorite.
Yeah I suppose that's the problem - ball spots vs games in the wire. Yes my entire life ball spots have been used 10 to 1 at least if not 20 to 1 over games on the wire. I personally think balk spots are a much better way of matching up more accurately . Think of the guy that needs 10-5 playing one pocket. If they play even but the dog gets 3 games or whatever that poor guy might NEVER win a game lol. Maybe not to the same extent but the same thing could be said about rotation too?
I think the ball spot issue is a distraction to the basic issue here though: Do weaker players have a better chance for an upset on a 7-footer than a 9-footer, and should Fargo ratings take that into account?
Here in the Rocky Mountains it’s common for endurance sports (running, swimming) to have time subtracted for us. It’s harder because there’s less oxygen here, so if you run a certain distance in 60 minutes here, it’s considered to be (say) 58 minutes in a lower elevation. Otherwise our times would be underestimates of our true speed at national races.
What I’m not sure about is whether Fargo ratings do take this into account. I think it’s possible that the connections in the ratings will adjust automatically for this, because enough of the other 7-foot players will have lost to the 9-foot players in the past, lowering the 7-foot players’ scores.
I'm glad you followed up with this analogy, because it gets to the heart of the issue. The whole point is that FargoRate--or the running-race equivalent of FargoRate never, ever looks at the times, whether there is a headwind or tailwind or neither. It is completely agnostic to the times.
It never judges your times under any circumstance. And that is the crux of the issue here.
Getting rated with a headwind and then going to the national championships with no headwind would be no problem. You would be rated properly and would not have an advantage.
I agree 100%, my initial question was same as yours. I'm only replying to the ball spot thing because that was basically what Mike had offered up in response to my initial question.
Ball spots in one pocket and straight pool are more like games-on-the-wire spots. Ball sports in rotation games are a different animal.
Ball spots in rotation games are good for gamblers who understand them better that the fish they are playing and want to keep the fish on the line a little longer by offering something that sounds better than it is.
For the most part, they are the Carny games of pool.
I think the sensible way to offer spots is this:
9-ball and 10-ball: games on the wire
8-ball: games on the wire
straight-pool: balls, i.e., different "race to" numbers
one-pocket: balls, i.e., different "race to" numbers within a game
That still don't solve the problem we are speaking of. I put forth if both players had the exact amount of time on all types of tables playing the exact same type of game the weaker player would still have a higher probability of winning on a bar box. How exactly this works into Fargo's formula I couldn't say. But I believe it to be a real thing that could have drastic effects on overall ratings.
Your database of facts must be enormous....or you have the world's best way to search for the content to back up things you have seen and know.
I am not sure that I have ever seen you post a single where I felt the least little tingle to dispute.
Although, my forgetfullness is probably on par with your recollection and so I probably tried a time or two.
This is actually a third issue. Yes weaker players do, and Fargo ratings doesn't need to take it into account. It is fine as it is; this is what we call the run length issue.
Well, it's clear you feel that way.
How I feel plays no role here.
Yes, and Fargo Ratings don't need to take it into account.
Here's why.
Rory H, my house pro, and I both have about 6,000 games in the system, including hundreds against each other on both 7' and 9' tables.
We are 102 points apart, so he is supposed to win games over me in a 2 to 1 ratio, and he does. In fact he's 2 to 1 over me on 9-foot tables, 2 to 1 over me on 7' tables, 2-to-1 over me in rotation games, 2-to 1 over me in 8-ball. We've also played plenty of straight pool, and--you guessed it--he's 2-to-1 over me.
If we play an even-up race to 7 in a tournament, he is a strong favorite over me.
I am way more likely to beat him in a race to 7 on a 7-foot table than on a 9-foot table. You may say, then aren't I closer to him in Fargo Rating on a 7-foot table than a 9-foot table? It may seem that way, but the answer is no. We are still 100 points apart.
So what's going on?
The easier table, where I might run 2 racks out of 7 and he might run 4 racks out of 7, makes a race to 7 effectively a shorter race. So it statistically acts more like a race to 5 does on a 9-foot table, where I'm more likely to catch a fluctuation and win the set.
An extreme example of this is straight pool. Bob Jewett recently beat Shane Van Boening in a race to 125. I am confident if they raced to 10,000, Bob would not reach 5,000; that is I am confident Bob is more than 100 points below Shane. Yet he won a race to 125. Could you imagine Bob winning a 9-ball race to 125? I didn't think so. The difference is a race to 125 in straight pool is fewer innings, fewer changes in control. It is probably more like a race to 7 or 9 in 9-ball.
I think table sizes and pockets matter less the higher the players rating. 600 thru pro might not matter at all. Their skill level and knowledge is so high. But if you are a 500 and only played on small tables with big pockets. You might play like a 400 on a tougher table.
However I think Fargo ratings are the best. No rating system can be perfect.
However I think Fargo ratings are the best. No rating system can be perfect.
So you might recommend that when playing on a 7-footer, people should take the closer of the possible spots that Fargo recommends?