BCA Nationals 8 Ball - Fargo Discrepancy

There's both a Manuel Perez and a Manny Perez from Kansas on FargoRate. Manny has 400+ games and Manuel has 0 games.

At the Texas state bca tourney a guy used a fargo rating of a guy with the same name.The guy had a lower rating and because of this he got games and stole the tournament.It happens..I know i played Manny in minia at the bca and had to spot him games on the wire.
 
Here is the scoop.

Russell's rating (including where it is now after BCAPL, which you don't see yet) has varied over the last year and a half 16 points in both directions from 633--a total of 32 point range. The drop that sent him down to 617 was after four tournaments (13 matches at Western BCA and Chinook Winds). So basically he was either going to be high in gold or low in platinum.

Bottom line is for him to do what he did last week required he pull things together and keep things together, what we all hope to achieve at tournaments like this. Let's just congratulate him!

The question is about Joe Pierce not Russell Cearley. Congrats Russ. So who mistyped 603 on Joe's entry form and what steps will be taken to catch such errors in the future?
 
The system needs to compensate for time off of playing. The score needs to degrade over time. If you play bad in a few tournaments and drop your rating, its better for you then not playing at all for a year. Even though you would be technically worse by not playing.

I've played several years in Vegas and Reno, my Fargo Rate is 656 and I never made it to any final board in the old open division. My starter rating is N/A, robustness of 206.

This year I felt I wasn't able to compete with the Semi-pro division, and I didn't know what the cut off would be for the Platinum division before I signed up. But of course CSI made a decision to place Advanced players at 625 starting, and open players at 525. So they made the cut off at 624 for Gold...

I wonder how much my score would swing if I was given a 525 starting score instead of N/A.
 
The system needs to compensate for time off of playing. The score needs to degrade over time. If you play bad in a few tournaments and drop your rating, its better for you then not playing at all for a year. Even though you would be technically worse by not playing.

I've played several years in Vegas and Reno, my Fargo Rate is 656 and I never made it to any final board in the old open division. My starter rating is N/A, robustness of 206.

This year I felt I wasn't able to compete with the Semi-pro division, and I didn't know what the cut off would be for the Platinum division before I signed up. But of course CSI made a decision to place Advanced players at 625 starting, and open players at 525. So they made the cut off at 624 for Gold...

I wonder how much my score would swing if I was given a 525 starting score instead of N/A.

Nothing at all would be different for you if you had a starter rating of 525 or even 200. Starter ratings are ignored for players with more than 200 games in.

To your first point, your rating itself doesn't degrade with time off. but the volatility of your rating does. So with new play after a gap your rating will adjust more quickly to the "new you" after a gap.
 
Thank you for that info Mike, looking forward to seeing what the "new me" will be after getting drilled in the Platinum division.

Any news on when the new FargoRate App will be available?
 
Thank you for that info Mike, looking forward to seeing what the "new me" will be after getting drilled in the Platinum division.
[...]

Well, you played four matches in platinum and played several mini tournaments: you went up to 659.
 
Mike,

My original question was regarding Joe Pierce II being in the gold division finals and being a 650+. Did he have a big point swing of 25 that allowed him to be placed in gold?

I am not sure why this has not been answered considering it was the original question, but I am interested in why Joe Pierce was allowed to play in the Gold division being rated 650+ in Fargo.
 
I am not sure why this has not been answered considering it was the original question, but I am interested in why Joe Pierce was allowed to play in the Gold division being rated 650+ in Fargo.

He actually had a starter rating of 525 and not 625 in the CSI Database.
 
I don't know him/them, but there's a Joe Pierce and a Joe Pierce II, both from TX, in the database.
 
He actually had a starter rating of 525 and not 625 in the CSI Database.

I call BS. Joe Pierce II was the name shown on the stream and is also the name on the CTS Ondemand site for the brackets. He is currently on the Fargo system as a 651 with a starter rating of 625 and robustness of 104. There's only a couple possible answers:

1. He was allowed to play in the gold division as a 651, or
2. CSI had his name wrong in the brackets as well as the stream and he is Joe Pierce rather than Joe Pierce II....perhaps he's both.


Which is it?
 
I call BS. Joe Pierce II was the name shown on the stream and is also the name on the CTS Ondemand site for the brackets. He is currently on the Fargo system as a 651 with a starter rating of 625 and robustness of 104. There's only a couple possible answers:

1. He was allowed to play in the gold division as a 651, or
2. CSI had his name wrong in the brackets as well as the stream and he is Joe Pierce rather than Joe Pierce II....perhaps he's both.


Which is it?



Doesn't sound like a FargoRate issue. It sounds like a CSI question

Before everyone gets all bent out of shape ask yourself if you have ever made a mistake. It looks like it could have been an honest mistake


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
As I said, Joe Pierce II is showing as a 651. Either he was allowed to play in gold as a 651 or CSI had a huge case of mistaken identity. You said he had a starter rating of 525 in the "BCA Database." Isn't that the same as the public website that shows a starter rating of 625, not 525?
 
Doesn't sound like a FargoRate issue. It sounds like a CSI question

Before everyone gets all bent out of shape ask yourself if you have ever made a mistake. It looks like it could have been an honest mistake


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Completely agree and understand that mistakes can happen. Especially with something new. But again, I thought going to Fargo was going to have some level of transparency. I didn't realize that the public FargoRate and the CSI FargoRate were completely different things.
 
Completely agree and understand that mistakes can happen. Especially with something new. But again, I thought going to Fargo was going to have some level of transparency. I didn't realize that the public FargoRate and the CSI FargoRate were completely different things.



I think you are missing the point. FargoRate doesn't write the match cards etc. they are only a system that rates the player.

If a person, not FargoRate, grabs the wrong information that is on the person

As for a different rating for CSI and The FargoRate app rating I can only guess. FargoRate is a LIVE rating, where CSI might have been locked at a cutoff time. Just my logical guess

I am sure Mike will clarify


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Completely agree and understand that mistakes can happen. Especially with something new. But again, I thought going to Fargo was going to have some level of transparency. I didn't realize that the public FargoRate and the CSI FargoRate were completely different things.

They are not completely different things. But they are separate. What that means is there is a syncing that goes on, and CSI is the "master" for starter ratings. That syncing and our ratings were FROZEN during the event. So anything that happened in the CSI database once things were frozen did not get pushed out to us.

I have no idea what happened here and I haven't had a conversation with anybody about it. It is possible his starter rating was lowered from 625 to 525 [the equivalent of in the old days being lowered from Advanced to Open].

The only tournament history we have for him is in the Open division from 3 years ago--and he finished 33-48. So I don't know--maybe there was a review with his league operator. I just don't know.

I wouldn't even respond after your "I call BS" comment. I have no idea what I might have done in the 15 years I've been posting on pool forums to get that. But other people are reading this, and that is why I responded.
 
They are not completely different things. But they are separate. What that means is there is a syncing that goes on, and CSI is the "master" for starter ratings. That syncing and our ratings were FROZEN during the event. So anything that happened in the CSI database once things were frozen did not get pushed out to us.

I have no idea what happened here and I haven't had a conversation with anybody about it. It is possible his starter rating was lowered from 625 to 525 [the equivalent of in the old days being lowered from Advanced to Open].

The only tournament history we have for him is in the Open division from 3 years ago--and he finished 33-48. So I don't know--maybe there was a review with his league operator. I just don't know.

I wouldn't even respond after your "I call BS" comment. I have no idea what I might have done in the 15 years I've been posting on pool forums to get that. But other people are reading this, and that is why I responded.

I noticed the same thing that there was a joe pierce and a joe peirce ll and it appeared the one playing in the finals and on the gold bracket was the guy with the 651 rating. I think that's what folks are asking to be cleared up. I wouldn't call BS but it is a bit weird and needs some clarification. Was this guy in the wrong bracket? If so what happened? If not, what's up with Fargorate? One guy's from Texas and the other Kentucky. Who in fact was the player in the tournament? You would expect it was the ll guy since the brackets were formed from entry forms that he filled out himself. It looks to me like a CSI mistake if anything.
 
I noticed the same thing that there was a joe pierce and a joe peirce ll and it appeared the one playing in the finals and on the gold bracket was the guy with the 651 rating. I think that's what folks are asking to be cleared up. I wouldn't call BS but it is a bit weird and needs some clarification. Was this guy in the wrong bracket? If so what happened? If not, what's up with Fargorate? One guy's from Texas and the other Kentucky. Who in fact was the player in the tournament? You would expect it was the ll guy since the brackets were formed from entry forms that he filled out himself. It looks to me like a CSI mistake if anything.

What I am saying is that if the starter rating was 525 instead of 625, then his official rating would be about 600 rather about 650. So if in fact his starter rating was changed--what appears to have happened, then he was placed in the correct division and there was no error at all
 
They are not completely different things. But they are separate. What that means is there is a syncing that goes on, and CSI is the "master" for starter ratings. That syncing and our ratings were FROZEN during the event. So anything that happened in the CSI database once things were frozen did not get pushed out to us.

I have no idea what happened here and I haven't had a conversation with anybody about it. It is possible his starter rating was lowered from 625 to 525 [the equivalent of in the old days being lowered from Advanced to Open].

The only tournament history we have for him is in the Open division from 3 years ago--and he finished 33-48. So I don't know--maybe there was a review with his league operator. I just don't know.

I wouldn't even respond after your "I call BS" comment. I have no idea what I might have done in the 15 years I've been posting on pool forums to get that. But other people are reading this, and that is why I responded.

Mike,thanks for continuing to endure the abuse. Many of us appreiciate all you do.
 
Perhaps I completely misunderstood when Mark and Ozzy announced they would be using Fargo. I had thought that meant someone could go to the Fargo website and look up someone's rating and it was public knowledge. I guess I didn't realize that perhaps CSI is using different numbers than what is shown on the website. I guess in the scheme of things it's really not important. It just seems to the casual observer that there was a breakdown somewhere.
 
Back
Top