Mike, how does the length of the races effect your rating system. If a player plays most to races to 5 or less, is that rating going to be on par with a player playing races to 11 mostly or longer?
World Fargo Rating list --place changes from the US Open
- Thread starter mikepage
- Start date
Mike, how does the length of the races effect your rating system. If a player plays most to races to 5 or less, is that rating going to be on par with a player playing races to 11 mostly or longer?
So Shane would maintain his same rating if he started play in race to 2 weekly bar tournament's
You got it
No' just in Tunica, I don't think Landon has played in the DDC.
After playing you and Rory what would my Fargo rating be
Did you play 200 games? I read somewhere it takes about 200 games to start getting a rating:thumbup:
So youre saying
I think I understand it this way. Skill level testing to get the top 64 for Pro Status and those that dont make it go to the farm leagues that also has levels so at least those levels as well as the top are organized and tours are present and now your skill level rating is done. Now individual play among the players is fargorated which shows how well they compete against other players, ie who has the best kicking, safety, bank games etc. In other words Fargorate measures all of the skill levels that involve play between two players not at all similar to the skill level testing for that qualify for Pro Status.
So if you are skill level testing then that opens up the field of possible players to every room in every corner of the world and even unknowns can be in the top 64, the amateur etc. But for the purposes of gambling/matching up/giving odds then Fargorate is there to be consulted as what kind of odds are given providing the action.
So an unknown to the Fargo rating would at least have a skill level test if he qualifies for the top 64 that would indicate where he would likely fall in the Fargorate which would create speculation as to how to bet on him based on how other players who are performing near that level creating drama, excitement and the chance to make a good or bad game because of the unknown status.
Even if Fargorate were used for both kinds of assessments, one a complete different animal set up for individual achievement against a ghost it would still be an entirely different number being used for entry into events and it would have no bearing whatsoever on the skill level test which should be a very simple yet accurate result of the players unrated skill.
I don't see that either one system of rating could possibly replace the other or work across the board for all applications. This is a time when two separate vehicles for ratings are needed. One for including as many people as possible for potential entry. The other for gauging the action and proving the competitive nature of the players.
So youre saying anyone who takes a test can qualify for the top 64. Then you start working on Fargorating them. How many games would they have to play in order to get a good baseline on their level?
Once a world championship tournament is over, the Pros stay in the top 64 Pro status for the following 11 months, until a new cut off date has been reached to reshuffle the players so to speak.
There'll be quite a few repeat players, but I can assure you....There'll be some new ones too in each following world championship tournament. THERE'S YOUR PROS FOR A PRO TOUR, and there's the Pros for fargorate' to figure out how to rate and match up for a year.
And no one needs to worry about what if they don't make the cut to the Pros, there's always the Semi Pros, the advanced amateur, and the intermediate amature players waiting to be grouped together, regional elimination tournament's ran to help cut down the large field of players working their way to the world amature championships....with the HELP of about 1,000 pool rooms around the world
I think I understand it this way. Skill level testing to get the top 64 for Pro Status and those that dont make it go to the farm leagues that also has levels so at least those levels as well as the top are organized and tours are present and now your skill level rating is done. Now individual play among the players is fargorated which shows how well they compete against other players, ie who has the best kicking, safety, bank games etc. In other words Fargorate measures all of the skill levels that involve play between two players not at all similar to the skill level testing for that qualify for Pro Status.
So if you are skill level testing then that opens up the field of possible players to every room in every corner of the world and even unknowns can be in the top 64, the amateur etc. But for the purposes of gambling/matching up/giving odds then Fargorate is there to be consulted as what kind of odds are given providing the action.
So an unknown to the Fargo rating would at least have a skill level test if he qualifies for the top 64 that would indicate where he would likely fall in the Fargorate which would create speculation as to how to bet on him based on how other players who are performing near that level creating drama, excitement and the chance to make a good or bad game because of the unknown status.
Even if Fargorate were used for both kinds of assessments, one a complete different animal set up for individual achievement against a ghost it would still be an entirely different number being used for entry into events and it would have no bearing whatsoever on the skill level test which should be a very simple yet accurate result of the players unrated skill.
I don't see that either one system of rating could possibly replace the other or work across the board for all applications. This is a time when two separate vehicles for ratings are needed. One for including as many people as possible for potential entry. The other for gauging the action and proving the competitive nature of the players.
So youre saying anyone who takes a test can qualify for the top 64. Then you start working on Fargorating them. How many games would they have to play in order to get a good baseline on their level?
Hey Robin, think you're the first person to actually kind of look through the window at what my system of skill level testing performs. With my skill level testing I get to view the players ability to break balls, make balls on the break. I get to take a look at the players ability to concentrate and stay focused. The players ability to see patterns, pocket balls in rotation, and a players stamina. So in other words, my skill level testing separates those who can make balls at a high level of accuracy, control the cue ball, and control the table, all the skills required to perform well during the skill level testing. Only those who can pocket balls the best, are going to rise to the top of the charts. This kind of skill level testing when separated by points will identify the best in the world, yet identify who would be considered Semi-Pro....yet set a standard for them to strive towards for the following year of testing by pointing out the weak areas of their score. In the event of the world championship tournament, should a Pro player be unavailable to compete, the highest rated Semi-private would then be offered the Pro players position in the world tournament, so that the 64 player field has no byes and remains a full field. Below the Semi -Pros fall the Advanced player category, and below that comes the intermediate player category. There's more to this as play offs go, but the bottom line is for example, the world 10 ball championships would be held in four different categories. Pro, Semi-Pro, Advanced, and Intermediate. All qualifying regions of the world would be required to host elimination tournament's in order to narrow down the amount of amateur players in their area until there are 2 remaining finalists to represent their region at the world amature championships.
This is just a ruff explanation, I have it all worked out in finer detail but I'm once again, not posting it here.
This is just a ruff explanation, I have it all worked out in finer detail but I'm once again, not posting it here.
The series of DCC 10-Ball Challenge events started in 2009 with the "Fatboy" events, played on 9-foot tables. Those continued through the 2012 DCC event. In the summer of 2012, Greg Sullivan started a new multi-discipline event in Tunica called the Southern Classic, modeled directly on the DCC. The 10-Ball Challenge event was, for the first time, played on a 10-foot table and was renamed the Diamond Bigfoot 10-Ball Challenge. That is the event at which Landon Shuffett beat Earl Strickland 15-4 on a 10-footer.
Five more Bigfoot events have been held since that first one -- at each DCC since then (2013-2016) and at the 2013 Southern Classic (the 2nd and last of those events).
Landon has been in college the past 4 years, and I don't remember him playing in any of the Bigfoot events since that first one in Tunica in 2012.
Here's some information about each of the Fatboy and Bigfoot events: http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=387852
Hmmm--just speculating here, making an estimate based on what I saw, and I can only speak to your play against me.
We played 8 games of one pocket. You won 5 and I won 3. You are more experienced at the game and move better than I do. I am guessing if we played a rotation game things would look more even, and maybe even even. I am 630. So I will guess 630-640 for you. But again that's just a guess.
Skill level testing
Skill level testing is definitely a new concept. I can see doors being opened here and closed as well as with anything that is new. It would take some getting used to.
Skill level testing is definitely a new concept. I can see doors being opened here and closed as well as with anything that is new. It would take some getting used to.
Skill level testing is hardly a new concept.
Bob Jewett could speak to it better that I could.
But efforts to measure absolute skill by performance tests is the old tried and not so true. There are countless high-run charts over the years. The "take a bunch of shots at running balls" approach is probably best exemplified by Jerry Breiseth's Equal Offense. Then there's Allen Hopkins's Q-Skill, and my modification FARGO (the game). Then there's Bob Jewett's progressive drills (that I know he's used to get initial starts for the ELO-type approaches). Then there is IPAT (International Playing Ability Test).
And then probably the most carefully crafted to assess individual core competencies is Dave A's Billiard University (BU) Exams.
These are good to get you in the right ballpark. And I think the real strength of the BU exams, once there is a lot of data on others, is to identify individual strengths and weaknesses.
But for teasing out subtle differences in skill, they are not so good. Even forgetting whether you are measuring the correct skills in the right mix and whether you've properly accounted for differences in conditions, it takes many many hours of dedicated time to get statistically meaningful results....
Dr. Dave? Bob Jewett? Views here?
Mike,
I think the FargoRate approach is the best way to measure, track, and predict performance in competition.
Skills tests in non-competitive settings on a variety of equipment and conditions are not always good predictors of performance in competition on tough equipment in tournament conditions.
I truly hope the FargoRate system becomes a standard and is used by all league systems, tournaments, and ranking/handicapping systems in the future.
Best regards, and good luck,
Dave
I think the FargoRate approach is the best way to measure, track, and predict performance in competition.
Skills tests in non-competitive settings on a variety of equipment and conditions are not always good predictors of performance in competition on tough equipment in tournament conditions.
I truly hope the FargoRate system becomes a standard and is used by all league systems, tournaments, and ranking/handicapping systems in the future.
Best regards, and good luck,
Dave
Can you point out any pool tournament's that required some sort of skill level testing pryor to paying an entry fee to play in it, as a means of selecting the best players available to compete in the tournament?
If people want more info about the skill test systems Mike mentioned, here are the pertinent resource pages:
Equal Offense
Hopkins Q Skills
progressive practice
International Playing Ability Test (IPAT)
Billiard University (BU) playing-ability Exams
The "playing the ghost" rating drills are also good measures of basic offensive playing ability.
Enjoy,
Dave
The fact of the matter is, as long as a person is willing to support the prize fund by paying an entry fee to a pool tournament, that person's ability to perform as a player is meaningless. Take the US Open 9 ball championship for example, I could pay the $1,000 entry fee for my 6 year old grandson to play in it....and it would be acceptable, even though he's never even touched a pool table in his life.