Fargo Breakdown - Singles @ BCAPL Nationals

watchez said:
This was posted late last night and you have already talked to all of your players this morning. You must have a hell of network.
Click to expand...

We are a Tuesday night league, and I get to see most of the teams on league night. I also maintain our (world's best) website and Facebook page. Everyone in our league knew the breakdown by yesterday evening. Everyone is excited to go to Vegas. I have heard no complaints from any of my players, including the one woman who got bumped up to Gold. She is stoked to have a race to 5 instead of a race to 4.
 
mikepage said:
You are not understanding the way Fargo Ratings work. This is incorrect.

The core of Fargo Ratings is a one-to-one correspondence between RATING DIFFERENCE and GAME WIN RATIO.

So a rating difference of 100 points is always associated with a game win ratio of 2-to-1. This is true whether it is a 700 playing an 800 or a 300 playing a 400.

And a rating difference of 85 points is always associated with a 1.8-to-1 game win ratio, whether it is Brandon and Shane or you and your 646 buddy. And these game win ratios translate directly into the number of sets each player is expected to win.

It may be true that the 85 point gap at the high end is comprised of apparently small and subtle differences in skills and the 85 point gap near the lower end is comprised of larger and readily apparent differences in fundamentals; that is a separate issue.
Click to expand...

I'm glad you think this system is perfect. If anything, you're confident.
 
cleary said:
I'm glad you think this system is perfect. If anything, you're confident.
Click to expand...

The Fargo rating system is perfect in the way that your and Yomaylin's scotch doubles outfits two years ago were perfect. Both were awesome, yet there are always some whiny nitpickers out there who are hellbent on criticism.
 
sbpoolleague said:
I have a hard-nosed woman on my team who if she heard me complain like this would say "Shut up....You are whining like a little beyotch".

C'mon. Is it really THAT big a deal?? For all we know 80% of the 525's are actually 450's. All of my players that are in the Gold division are happy. They are happy to have more players in the bracket. Happy to have a race to 6 instead of a race to 5. Happy that they will be driving to Vegas in a little over a week.

Relax. It's all good. I'll buy you a drink if I see you there.
Click to expand...

You sound kind of like Hillary Clinton. What does it matter anyway?

Things are even worse if 80% of the unrated 525's are actually 450s. They would have a chance of competing in the Silver division but will get massacred in the gold division.

I gather all of your players have Fargo ratings so saying they are happy about being in the Gold Division doesn't mean much.
 
sbpoolleague said:
The Fargo rating system is perfect in the way that your and Yomaylin's scotch doubles outfits two years ago were perfect. Both were awesome, yet there are always some whiny nitpickers out there who are hellbent on criticism.
Click to expand...

Uhhhh, the BCAPL made Yomaylin change her outfit saying it wasn't appropriate because she didn't have a collar on her dress.
 
watchez said:
Uhhhh, the BCAPL made Yomaylin change her outfit saying it wasn't appropriate because she didn't have a collar on her dress.
Click to expand...

Yes I was playing them when it happened. It shouldn't have happened. The only reason it did happen was because some players who don't like change complained to the ref, and the ref didn't have the good judgement to say that their outfit was good for the tournament as a whole.

A good analogy to Fargo ratings, the singles split, and people on this forum.
 
mikepage said:
You are not understanding the way Fargo Ratings work. This is incorrect.

The core of Fargo Ratings is a one-to-one correspondence between RATING DIFFERENCE and GAME WIN RATIO.

So a rating difference of 100 points is always associated with a game win ratio of 2-to-1. This is true whether it is a 700 playing an 800 or a 300 playing a 400.

And a rating difference of 85 points is always associated with a 1.8-to-1 game win ratio, whether it is Brandon and Shane or you and your 646 buddy. And these game win ratios translate directly into the number of sets each player is expected to win.

It may be true that the 85 point gap at the high end is comprised of apparently small and subtle differences in skills and the 85 point gap near the lower end is comprised of larger and readily apparent differences in fundamentals; that is a separate issue.
Click to expand...

I can't possibly imagine that a 535 is going to lose to a 450 as often as a 785 is going to lose to a 700. A 785 can lose the flip and break dry and very possibly be down 3-0 in a race to 5 alternate break, barbox 8ball without having shot. If we were talking winner breaks then I could maybe see your statement having merit as 785's can run the set on you.

Maybe in a couple years I'll have a full plate of crowsh*t to eat but I simply can't see how you are making this stance.
 
watchez said:
Give me the list of all players that are 525 --- I'll let you know in a day which ones shouldn't be.



Simply put, don't post something on your website on the Main Page for your tournament if it is not what you mean. There is no word approximately on that page. I apologize in advance if I am blind and not seeing it.
Click to expand...



Sorry, you don't understand FargoRate, proven by your posts, so you wouldn't be the person to distinguish if a person is a 525 or not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
jojopiff- it's really the other way around: The scores are based completely on their win-loss records against other players. They're set so that a player who wins 2-1 against a 685 is given a score of 785.
 
watchez said:
Correct -- don't know if the percentages are that but it would be something like that.

C couldn't be correct cause that would make it 50/50 which it wouldn't be.

More like

A 80%
B 70%
C 65%

Figure they play a race to 5, alternate break -- SVB would beat Shuff between 6 out of 10 and 7 out of 10. Seems about right.

I am a 561 (but I don't have 500 games so maybe I am too high, maybe too low). But if I play someone that is a 646, I may win 2 sets out of 10, possibly 3 out of 10, race to 5 alternate break.
Click to expand...

I am a 606 and recently played some races to 3 eight ball with a 671 for 20 bucks each. I figured the ultra short race would give me a better chance. I figured wrong.

I never won two games in any of the 5 sets before I quit.

I doubt a 561 will win any sets from a 646 even. Games yes, sets no. I think at higher levels there may be a better chance for the lesser player because they still get out when the table is open most of the time but at 561 there's some serious hitches in the finish that makes winning sets unlikely.

JC
 
sbpoolleague said:
The Fargo rating system is perfect in the way that your and Yomaylin's scotch doubles outfits two years ago were perfect. Both were awesome, yet there are always some whiny nitpickers out there who are hellbent on criticism.
Click to expand...

Yea it's strange her dress wasn't within the perfectly thought out dress code but your 7 year old grass cutting sneakers were fine.

Either way, it took us totally out of the match. Pretty sweet.
 
mikepage said:
So the cutoff is APPROXIMATELY at the ratings that divide up like 15/35/35/15.

.

(2) --this is I think what happened here--

There are a slew of essentially unrated players (other than having the old "open" designation) that have a default starter rating of 525. This naturally will include a number of players with skill level notably higher than 525. The 15/35/35/15 cutoff occurred just a point or two above 525. This means all these essentially unrated players would fall right at the top of a division of players with earned ratings below 525. There is a judgment call to be made here, and it appears CSI made the responsible call of moving the gap down couple points to 525. The fact moving the cutoff a couple points captures a lot of players doesn't alter the fact it is a small change--just a couple points.
Click to expand...

Going back to this -- surely CSI had records of what % of single entrees each year are from players that are unknown. This year is 10% or so. It shouldn't have been a surprise that there was going to be 129 unknown 525 players this year. That being said, IF CSI wanted to equal out the divisions and show responsibility, why just not do it from the get go when it was advertised.

Something like:

475 and below
476 - 524
525-575
576-649
650 and above

That would have made the competition in the brackets more fair. CSI, by the divisions they have now of 12.87%, 50.75%, 27.52% and 8.85% only shows that there is more consideration in their minds to attempting in having equal playing fields based on skill level then there is to having equal playing fields based on simply number of participants and potential payout for each division.
 
jojopiff said:
I can't possibly imagine that a 535 is going to lose to a 450 as often as a 785 is going to lose to a 700. A 785 can lose the flip and break dry and very possibly be down 3-0 in a race to 5 alternate break, barbox 8ball without having shot. If we were talking winner breaks then I could maybe see your statement having merit as 785's can run the set on you.



Maybe in a couple years I'll have a full plate of crowsh*t to eat but I simply can't see how you are making this stance.
Click to expand...



You guys just need to realize that with millions of games by all levels of players that data is there to prove it. Unfortunately, a very high percentage of you, including myself, do not understand the math behind this.

I doubt any of you have taken the time to research the backgrounds of Mike Page and Steve Ernst. With their backgrounds in science, math, computers, research and pool they would be considered experts by any judge in the court of law.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
jojopiff said:
I can't possibly imagine that a 535 is going to lose to a 450 as often as a 785 is going to lose to a 700. A 785 can lose the flip and break dry and very possibly be down 3-0 in a race to 5 alternate break, barbox 8ball without having shot. If we were talking winner breaks then I could maybe see your statement having merit as 785's can run the set on you.

Maybe in a couple years I'll have a full plate of crowsh*t to eat but I simply can't see how you are making this stance.
Click to expand...

The reason I am taking this stance is that this is the way the ratings are determined.

The 450 is expected to win 44% of the games against the 535
The 700 is expected to win 44% of the games against the 785

If in fact the percentage is different in either direction, the job of the optimization is to change the rating gap.

It's not that the scenarios people are talking about don't happen, it is that they are already baked into the rating gaps.
 
cleary said:
Yea it's strange her dress wasn't within the perfectly thought out dress code but your 7 year old grass cutting sneakers were fine.

Either way, it took us totally out of the match. Pretty sweet.
Click to expand...

BWAAAAHAHAHAHA

My wife will totally die laughing. I'm a self-admitted slob when it comes to dressing, but that fact that you remember my sneakers two years later is priceless.
 
mikepage said:
The reason I am taking this stance is that this is the way the ratings are determined.

The 450 is expected to win 44% of the games against the 535
The 700 is expected to win 44% of the games against the 785

If in fact the percentage is different in either direction, the job of the optimization is to change the rating gap.

It's not that the scenarios people are talking about don't happen, it is that they are already baked into the rating gaps.
Click to expand...


I'm over rated as a 561 but find a true 476 (and not the guy that said he would be an A player with a similar ranking) and they can have 3 games on the wire going to 9 for whatever you want to bet. That means they would have to win 6 games to my 8 to get the cheese. 6 out of 14 games is 42.85%. I have to win 9 out of 14 games to win or 64.28%. Way above your 56/44 line. (well in your mind 56% to 64.28% is approximate but I am talking about the rest of the world's perception)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top