BCA Nationals 8 Ball - Fargo Discrepancy

[mikepage]

Was that supposed to say "CSI did it", or did you really mean "I did it". If it is the second, none of your previous comments in this thread make any sense.

In any event, whoever made the decision, I really wish they would explain it - what was the reasoning, what record are they talking about, why was he rated 625 to start with, etc. I support what FargoRate is trying to do, and think CSI is a good organization, but this was the first real test of the system and people have raised legitimate questions that should be answered. For the system to be accepted, it has not only BE fair, but it also has to APPEAR to be fair.

Gideon, I'm going to try again. There really is nothing to see here.

First, here is the old system. Players were rated by CSI leisure, open, advanced, master, grand master and put into divisions. There were certain automatic triggers to advance, like finishing above a certain place the year before. There was also subjective judgment on lowering a division after a review. I note the guy in question played in the open three years ago and did not make the final 32.

Think of the role of the CSI office not as setting starter ratings, but merely as continuing the old system like they have always done, categorizing players as open, advanced, etc.

Then FargoRate takes those categories and uses the information in as sensible a way as we can for players with fewer than 200 games. That's it.

What people are talking about here is the old system, CSI doing what it has always done. This is what we are working VERY hard to replace. But it is not yet completely gone. CSI has 5000+ players to place for this event, and it has a lot of inquiries and reviews and conversations with league operators. This has happened every year for forever.

We are working hard to get beyond any subjective judgments. So for people in this forum to make a big deal on the Monday morning after about the subjective judgments that remain just feels kinda blah....

They are doing the best they can with the subjective judgments and they are diving head-first into a MAJOR effort to make those judgments unnecessary.

 

[banditgrrr]

Gideon, I'm going to try again. There really is nothing to see here.

First, here is the old system. Players were rated by CSI leisure, open, advanced, master, grand master and put into divisions. There were certain automatic triggers to advance, like finishing above a certain place the year before. There was also subjective judgment on lowering a division after a review. I note the guy in question played in the open three years ago and did not make the final 32.

Think of the role of the CSI office not as setting starter ratings, but merely as continuing the old system like they have always done, categorizing players as open, advanced, etc.

Then FargoRate takes those categories and uses the information in as sensible a way as we can for players with fewer than 200 games. That's it.

What people are talking about here is the old system, CSI doing what it has always done. This is what we are working VERY hard to replace. But it is not yet completely gone. CSI has 5000+ players to place for this event, and it has a lot of inquiries and reviews and conversations with league operators. This has happened every year for forever.

We are working hard to get beyond any subjective judgments. So for people in this forum to make a big deal on the Monday morning after about the subjective judgments that remain just feels kinda blah....

They are doing the best they can with the subjective judgments and they are diving head-first into a MAJOR effort to make those judgments unnecessary.

Lyn,

There's your justification for asking to be moved down a division next year. Tell Mark you want to be classified using the previous system.

 

[GideonF]

Gideon, I'm going to try again. There really is nothing to see here.

First, here is the old system. Players were rated by CSI leisure, open, advanced, master, grand master and put into divisions. There were certain automatic triggers to advance, like finishing above a certain place the year before. There was also subjective judgment on lowering a division after a review. I note the guy in question played in the open three years ago and did not make the final 32.

Think of the role of the CSI office not as setting starter ratings, but merely as continuing the old system like they have always done, categorizing players as open, advanced, etc.

Then FargoRate takes those categories and uses the information in as sensible a way as we can for players with fewer than 200 games. That's it.

What people are talking about here is the old system, CSI doing what it has always done. This is what we are working VERY hard to replace. But it is not yet completely gone. CSI has 5000+ players to place for this event, and it has a lot of inquiries and reviews and conversations with league operators. This has happened every year for forever.

We are working hard to get beyond any subjective judgments. So for people in this forum to make a big deal on the Monday morning after about the subjective judgments that remain just feels kinda blah....

They are doing the best they can with the subjective judgments and they are diving head-first into a MAJOR effort to make those judgments unnecessary.

Mike,

Thank you for your explanation. This makes sense and I see that the issue is a legacy issue that will slowly disappear as more people become rated.

Based on this, the answer seems to be that what CSI did was in accordance with their past practice. I guess I would still like someone from CSI to explain why they did it. Even under the old system, I would think it would raise some questions if they lowered someone into the open division and the person then won the division (or took second).

 

[GideonF]

Lyn,

There's your justification for asking to be moved down a division next year. Tell Mark you want to be classified using the previous system.

If the Lyn you are referring to the Cardiac Kid, then so long as they retain FargoRate that would not work - he has many games in the system and is therefore rated. The issue Mike raised was about the starter rating being changed, which only has an impact on non-established players.

 

[SWRLE]

I did it., because of his record in the BCA before.

There is your answer


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are you referring to his 2013 Open tournament where he rolled over 9 opponents (including a 702, a 687 and a 630) with an average rating of 600? How do we get 525 from that?

 

[watchez]

Gideon, I'm going to try again. There really is nothing to see here.

First, here is the old system. Players were rated by CSI leisure, open, advanced, master, grand master and put into divisions. There were certain automatic triggers to advance, like finishing above a certain place the year before. There was also subjective judgment on lowering a division after a review. I note the guy in question played in the open three years ago and did not make the final 32.

Think of the role of the CSI office not as setting starter ratings, but merely as continuing the old system like they have always done, categorizing players as open, advanced, etc.

Then FargoRate takes those categories and uses the information in as sensible a way as we can for players with fewer than 200 games. That's it.

What people are talking about here is the old system, CSI doing what it has always done. This is what we are working VERY hard to replace. But it is not yet completely gone. CSI has 5000+ players to place for this event, and it has a lot of inquiries and reviews and conversations with league operators. This has happened every year for forever.

We are working hard to get beyond any subjective judgments. So for people in this forum to make a big deal on the Monday morning after about the subjective judgments that remain just feels kinda blah....

They are doing the best they can with the subjective judgments and they are diving head-first into a MAJOR effort to make those judgments unnecessary.

How many games did Joe Pierce II have prior to the BCAPL Nationals -- when he was rated a 651? (because I see now he is a 686 with 252 games - so am I correct he had 158 games in your system prior?)

as a side question - is FargoRate going to only put the single matches in the system or all team matches as well?

 

[sbpoolleague]

as a side question - is FargoRate going to only put the single matches in the system or all team matches as well?

We turned in all of our team score sheets this year because they said they were entering team results into Fargo.

 

[watchez]

We turned in all of our team score sheets this year because they said they were entering team results into Fargo.

Ok well somehow my rating went up and I went 2-2 in the singles, winning 15 games and losing 17. I beat a 603 my first match but he was obviously way overrated (I would say he was the worst of the 4 players I played) and he went 2 and out in the singles. I did terrible in 9 ball teams and did about the same for my winning % in 8 ball teams? Just curious which data has been used.

 

[nine_ball6970]

How many games did Joe Pierce II have prior to the BCAPL Nationals -- when he was rated a 651? (because I see now he is a 686 with 252 games - so am I correct he had 158 games in your system prior?)

as a side question - is FargoRate going to only put the single matches in the system or all team matches as well?

What is Cearley rated now?

 

[watchez]

What is Cearley rated now?

656 --- 806 games in the system

 

[mikepage]

How many games did Joe Pierce II have prior to the BCAPL Nationals -- when he was rated a 651? (because I see now he is a 686 with 252 games - so am I correct he had 158 games in your system prior?)

as a side question - is FargoRate going to only put the single matches in the system or all team matches as well?

I think he had 102 games in prior.

He also has new games from the Gold 9-Ball event. He finished 17-34 in that, losing to a player now rated 568 and another now rated 608.

We will eventually get team games in, but that will be a while and I can't say when.

 

[mikepage]

what is cearley rated now?

656 ...........

 

[gutshot]

Someone can improve quite a bit in 3 yrs. It's hard to say if they played at that speed, better or worse 3 yrs ago.

Are you referring to his 2013 Open tournament where he rolled over 9 opponents (including a 702, a 687 and a 630) with an average rating of 600? How do we get 525 from that?

 

[Poolplaya9]

Ok well somehow my rating went up and I went 2-2 in the singles, winning 15 games and losing 17. I beat a 603 my first match but he was obviously way overrated (I would say he was the worst of the 4 players I played) and he went 2 and out in the singles. I did terrible in 9 ball teams and did about the same for my winning % in 8 ball teams? Just curious which data has been used.

I think you already know this, but just in case Fargo doesn't rate you by whether you won or loss against an opponent. It rates you based on how well you did against them versus how well you should have done based on your rating. So you can lose most or even all of your matches and still go up. For example, if you get to the hill against SVB in a race to 9 but lose, Fargo says "oh crap, watchez must be a better player than I thought he was. I thought he was only supposed to win 3 games against SVB (or whatever the actual number is), and he won a lot more than that and ended up hill hill with him. I better raise him up some because he is a better player than I realized".

Also as you probably already know your rating will move as they get more information on your past opponents, even if you don't have any new games going into the system yourself. So if the 603 you played was overrated, as his rating drops over time, your rating will subsequently drop as a result too. FargoRate will essentially say "oh crap, that guy that watchez beat turns out to not be nearly as good as I thought he was. I better lower watchez rating to reflect this".

 

[cleary]

I think Fargo is going to take many years (and hopefully with changes) before it's really that accurate. And unless there's is better transparency as to how each player became their rating, it's hard for people to trust.

As of now, it's wacky. The winner of the bronze and silver mixed 8ball both live in NYC. Both are much better players than me. Both lower ratings. Not sure how... Because I cannot see their history.

 

[watchez]

I think you already know this, but just in case Fargo doesn't rate you by whether you won or loss against an opponent. It rates you based on how well you did against them versus how well you should have done based on your rating. So you can lose most or even all of your matches and still go up. For example, if you get to the hill against SVB in a race to 9 but lose, Fargo says "oh crap, watchez must be a better player than I thought he was. I thought he was only supposed to win 3 games against SVB (or whatever the actual number is), and he won a lot more than that and ended up hill hill with him. I better raise him up some because he is a better player than I realized".

Also as you probably already know your rating will move as they get more information on your past opponents, even if you don't have any new games going into the system yourself. So if the 603 you played was overrated, as his rating drops over time, your rating will subsequently drop as a result too. FargoRate will essentially say "oh crap, that guy that watchez beat turns out to not be nearly as good as I thought he was. I better lower watchez rating to reflect this".

I guess so - I don't feel that Mike Page should tell us exactly how it works or someone will figure out a way to work the system, no matter how complex it is. I was just surprised I went up, that's all. I didn't play my best against the last two opponents (double days of 9 AM matches will do that to you but that is part of it) but I would have had to play fairly well for myself to beat them. The first guy that beat me got 33rd overall.

 

[mikepage]

[...] The winner of the bronze and silver mixed 8ball both live in NYC. Both are much better players than me. Both lower ratings. Not sure how... Because I cannot see their history.

Of course it is a work in progress. Here is Ron Mason's history (winner of bronze)

He won one out of the five matches he played in the three years he player Open singles. He did play in a couple bigger tournaments, but he went two and out both times (I believe he does brackets for some of the NYC events).

He had a good tournament and he won. Good for him. He did win 3 of his matches on the hill.

 

[mikepage]

[...] The winner of the bronze and silver mixed 8ball both live in NYC. Both are much better players than me. Both lower ratings. Not sure how... Because I cannot see their history.

And Noah V., winner of the Silver, played in the Leisure Division last year and did not cash; in fact he was three matches away from making the final bracket.

 

[Put_upor_shutup]

at what point are u not allowed to play in the bca events..I just went from a 663 to a 697 in the last 30 minutes .
700 is the cutoff correct?

 

[sbpoolleague]

at what point are u not allowed to play in the bca events..I just went from a 663 to a 697 in the last 30 minutes .
700 is the cutoff correct?

The cutoff is currently 720 for the division events, but anyone can play in the open events (8/9/10 ball Challenges).