Fargo Breakdown - Singles @ BCAPL Nationals

[sbpoolleague]

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.

I think CSI will eventually move to more statically Fargo-defined divisions once a greater proportion of players have established ratings. Please don't forget that this is the first year of Fargo in the Nationals and like all new things there is a learning curve.

Personally, I would refrain from setting exact division boundaries because that would give the nefarious sandbagger something to shoot for.

The more we chitchat about this the quicker Ozzy or Mark will tune in and give us their reasoning about the split. You can always call them if you really want to know.

 

[robsnotes4u]

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

I am a 531 and I play Mike K, a 614 every time I make it to Fargo. We play races to 5 and do not take a spot. A fair race is getting two on the wire to 5.

I do win sets, but if you look at the overall games won the ratio will hold true. That is as long as we stay at the same ratings.

Looking at the short term here is real world from Sunday

Mike K and I played a set before the Sunday handicapped tourney. Same race to 5. No spot. He was up 4-0 then the tournament started. Have I come back from that yes, but the odds are not in my favor (pretty good for a C+ player that Watchez rates 525s as)

The second round of the tourney we have to play. It is handicapped, I get two games on the wire. It ends with me winning the match 3-3.

I will only win 18.9% in the long run in the race to 5, but it just might be at the right time.

Just goofing around while doing this I grabbed a nickel a flipped it. The nickel came up heads 7 times before it was a tails. How can that happen


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jojopiff]

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

This isn't an answer. Essentially, he knows what he's doing and everything is perfect and just take his word for it.

I have no issue with FargoRate and I imagine it will be (or maybe already is) very good handicapping tool. But, I become INCREASINGLY skeptical when someone won't even consider the fact a small piece isn't perfect. My red flag goes up, and I call BS. So, in the billions of games/sets/matches of data every 785 has won exactly the same amount of games (much less races to 5, alternating break, barbox 8ball sets) over a 700 as has the 535 over the 450? I would highly doubt this to be true, maybe I'm wrong.

The thing is, this isn't even FargoRates issue, it's CSI putting these players in and now Mr. Page is here attempting to defend his rating which really isn't the issue at hand. It's how CSI grouped the players.

 

[robsnotes4u]

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.

Lightbulb!! Equal playing fields based on skill.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[watchez]

I am a 531 and I play Mike K, a 614 every time I make it to Fargo. We play races to 5 and do not take a spot. A fair race is getting two on the wire to 5.

2 games on the wire going to 5. So you have to win 3 games to your opponents 4 to win. That is 42.8%. He has to win 5 games to your 2. That is 71.4%.

Now we are learning about math. The 44/56 never comes into play. The higher ranked player doesn't win by simply winning 56% of the games. He wins by getting 71%. This shows that the higher ranked player has to play well over his FargoRate average to win, which he can against a weaker player of your level. But SVB vs Shuff, super tough for him to win 71% of the games.

 

[robsnotes4u]

Mike can correct me. I think you are confusing Mike and FargoRate with CSI and their split of groups.

FargoRate is being used by CSI. CSI is determining the split


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[watchez]

Mike can correct me. I think you are confusing Mike and FargoRate with CSI and their split of groups.

FargoRate is being used by CSI. CSI is determining the split


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am using Mike's words from earlier today. Nothing more, nothing less.
He stated 51% fit into the word approximate when compared to 35%. I would disagree.

I know who is who.

 

[robsnotes4u]

2 games on the wire going to 5. So you have to win 3 games to your opponents 4 to win. That is 42.8%. He has to win 5 games to your 2. That is 71.4%.



Now we are learning about math. The 44/56 never comes into play. The higher ranked player doesn't win by simply winning 56% of the games. He wins by getting 71%. This shows that the higher ranked player has to play well over his FargoRate average to win, which he can against a weaker player of your level. But SVB vs Shuff, super tough for him to win 71% of the games.

Coin flip 3-5
49.1% to 50.9%




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[watchez]

Coin flip 3-5
49.1% to 50.9%




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You seem like a good guy and I respect your loyalty to the guy that lives in your hometown Mike and FargoRate. Like I said, I believe FargoRate has merit and is a good thing. But it is not so linear (sorry Cleary stole your ideology) as you and him think.

And I understand there is an ELO rating in chess and it works. But chess is a mental game only. Pool is mental AND physical. When under pressure, and both break down, the weaker player breaks down faster. His decision making will fail him and his stroke, what little he has, will go even faster. And the weaker the player, the more he will break down. Brandon Shuff vs SVB will hold his own longer than I will playing a 645 player. Before long, I'll be playing like I was a 500 rating, not a 561.

Not sure if they have race tracks in Fargo but you should read a racing form or go to the track sometime. You can have a $5,000 claiming horse that can run and win a race of 6 furlongs in 1 minute 11 seconds. But put him in a $50,000 allowance race and guess what happens - he would be lucky to break 1 minute 15 seconds and he will finish dead last. Why? Because his physical ability breaks down under the pressure. Even a horse can sense it.

 

[Cornerman]

At my new player rating at 525, I'm glad I'm no longer playing the event. But, I think regardless of what was said, hoped for, etc. for breakdown, it feels right that the new player rating for this first year should be that 525 is a Gold.

But, I definitely see the concerns and questions popping up at this stage.

Freddie <~~~ new player

 

[robsnotes4u]

This isn't an answer. Essentially, he knows what he's doing and everything is perfect and just take his word for it.



I have no issue with FargoRate and I imagine it will be (or maybe already is) very good handicapping tool. But, I become INCREASINGLY skeptical when someone won't even consider the fact a small piece isn't perfect. My red flag goes up, and I call BS. So, in the billions of games/sets/matches of data every 785 has won exactly the same amount of games (much less races to 5, alternating break, barbox 8ball sets) over a 700 as has the 535 over the 450? I would highly doubt this to be true, maybe I'm wrong.



The thing is, this isn't even FargoRates issue, it's CSI putting these players in and now Mr. Page is here attempting to defend his rating which really isn't the issue at hand. It's how CSI grouped the players.

Your last statement is correct, CSI grouped the players

What is your Red Flag?

If I am reading correctly I answered it in my example. I can win a set against any rated player, just like flipping heads 7 times in a row. The world does have upsets. In the long run as long as our difference in rating holds true the numbers work. If Mike and I each go up 50 points or each go down 50 points the numbers are the same.

To say every 785 over a 700 in every race to isn't even using common sense. For example, does FargoRate give you an established rating after 1 game, 50, or even 100? They know it takes 200 games to solidify your rating.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[robsnotes4u]

You seem like a good guy and I respect your loyalty to the guy that lives in your hometown Mike and FargoRate. Like I said, I believe FargoRate has merit and is a good thing. But it is not so linear (sorry Cleary stole your ideology) as you and him think.



And I understand there is an ELO rating in chess and it works. But chess is a mental game only. Pool is mental AND physical. When under pressure, and both break down, the weaker player breaks down faster. His decision making will fail him and his stroke, what little he has, will go even faster. And the weaker the player, the more he will break down. Brandon Shuff vs SVB will hold his own longer than I will playing a 645 player. Before long, I'll be playing like I was a 500 rating, not a 561.



Not sure if they have race tracks in Fargo but you should read a racing form or go to the track sometime. You can have a $5,000 claiming horse that can run and win a race of 6 furlongs in 1 minute 11 seconds. But put him in a $50,000 allowance race and guess what happens - he would be lucky to break 1 minute 15 seconds and he will finish dead last. Why? Because his physical ability breaks down under the pressure. Even a horse can sense it.

My wife grew up racing horses, I will ask her, their trainer and her Dad.

What you are not getting is with the amount of data they have all this little nitpicking things you bring up are diminished to the point it doesn't really matter

FargoRate doesn't predict a winner it tells you what past performance was.

Yes I am loyal to Mike and Steve, not because they are friends or iplay in Fargo, but because I have watched games and matches for 5 years., tens of thousands of games. I have played thousands of games against all levels, using FargoRate. It just works.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sbpoolleague]

I grabbed a nickel a flipped it. The nickel came up heads 7 times before it was a tails. How can that happen

Our excellent analogies are being lost on ear-plugged ears.

 

[sbpoolleague]

I have no issue with FargoRate and I imagine it will be (or maybe already is) very good handicapping tool.

Good, then stop right there and go with the flow. Arguing ad nauseum about a topic that you know nothing about is a huge waste of time and it's confusing to all the others that know equally little.

 

[sbpoolleague]

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.

I upgraded my footwear

 

[cleary]

I upgraded my footwear

 

[mikepage]

[...] But, I become INCREASINGLY skeptical when someone won't even consider the fact a small piece isn't perfect. My red flag goes up, and I call BS. So, in the billions of games/sets/matches of data every 785 has won exactly the same amount of games (much less races to 5, alternating break, barbox 8ball sets) over a 700 as has the 535 over the 450? I would highly doubt this to be true, maybe I'm wrong. [...].

This is not a small piece; it is core to what we do.

I don't make claims about exact numbers. But within expected statistical fluctuations, yes.

85 points is 85 points

Below I show all matches we have between SVB and opponents around 85 points below him. I go up 7.5 points in both directions to get better statistics. There are 601 games, and Shane is supposed to win in a ratio of 1.80 to 1.

That ratio is Shane 386 games, opponents 215 games

The actual record is Shane 391, opponents 210

In other words, this group of players is performing at a level 85 points below Shane, as expected. And yes, we see this same kind of agreement when we look at 85 points for low-level league players. That is key to what we do.

The matches here are Shane's score, opponent's score

 

[fastone371]

For all of naysayers I think Mike understands and knows this system works ecause it is not as new as you guys think it is. We have been using a version of it in WI for 3-4 years now, it very accurately sets a fair race for each player. We used Fargo for the first time at our BCAPL state tournament. There were a few teams that everybody said had a lock on the lower divisions because of the people on those teams instead of taking the Fargo fairmatch int consideration. All of the people who knew Fargo was not going work or handicap matches evenly were wrong. There are 10 pages in this thread now of mainly a few insisting it will not work. How about giving it a chance first then complaining, I have a feeling there will not be many complaints when it is over. Fargo is not new, its just new to some of you, it works.

 

[Masseyman]

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.

I can agree with that.

 

[CSI Media]

Csi statement

CSI STATEMENT - The Rationale Behind Division Boundaries

Please allow us to explain the rationale for the division boundaries this year.

Deciding where the singles divisions should be split involves two main considerations that need to be balanced, a) the rating difference from top to bottom and b) the size of the fields. The goal is to balance these two aspects in the best possible way. However, this first year of using FargoRate has a third variable that must be considered – players with no data and only a starter rating. Many players have no data at all and come into the event with only a starter rating (i.e. 625, 525, 425, etc.) based on their previous classification. History has shown that these starter ratings are often lower than the person’s actual ability. Therefore, we did not want those players (many of whom may be underrated) to be at the very top of a particular division such as the Mixed 8-Ball Singles Silver Division. This would have placed other Silver Division players in an unfair position.

On the entry forms, the word “approximate” was used because it was impossible to know the ratings of all the players that would eventually register. Based on the ratings of players from 2015, those percentages were close approximations. This year is different than 2015 because more people now have data and more established ratings. Next year may be different again.

We are committed to providing the most balanced and fair divisions that any league organization has ever produced at its national championships. For this first year of this new method, that meant splitting the divisions in such a way that the unrated players were not at the very top of a particular division. In previous years at our events and currently at other organization’s national events, the disparity from top to bottom in any given division is astounding. We invite you to search the internet and look up the Fargo Ratings of the winners of other national events. Even in this first year while using imperfect starter ratings, that disparity will be reduced to an all-time low. Each year, more data will lead to more accurate ratings which will lead to more fair divisions.

Ric Jones, owner of BadBoys Billiard Productions, has been directing tournaments for years across the U.S. and Canada. After we split the singles divisions together he said, “This will be the most fair tournament I have ever directed.”

Thank you to everyone who is registered and we hope you have a terrific time at the 40th BCAPL National Championships!

PLEASE NOTE: This is a statement for the purpose of explaining the rationale behind the division boundaries. CSI will not be monitoring or commenting any further on this thread. If you would like to speak with us directly, please contact us at 866-USA-POOL. Thank you!