couldn't the winner be given 1 winning game and the loser one game loss? some data is better than no data....
World Fargo Rating list --place changes from the US Open
- Thread starter mikepage
- Start date
couldn't the winner be given 1 winning game and the loser one game loss? some data is better than no data....
Yes, that is a valid approach.
Does the list of matches with winners appear somewhere?
Hi Mile, sorry if you answered my question already but if you did I must have missed it. It was I regards to Fargo handicapping results from the open. As you and I discussed previously , Fargo uses games on the wire as opposed to a ball spot system. So taking that into consideration, how did all of the open ,at he's turn out? To be clear and only as an example with arbitrary #'s - so playa A was rated 794 in Fargo and playa B was a 735. I don't know exactly how it works but let's say that would have equated to playa B getting 3 games on the wire going to 11. So how did the Fargo handicapping actually turn out? IE; the spot for playa B was 3 games but actual result from the match was A wins 11-5. Do you see what I'm getting at? I know right now you're only using Fargo right now for say league handicapping ( although I'm sure you are trying to ultimately position yourself so it can and will be used to lay odds ) - which is really why I am interested in the results and asking the question. THANKS for any info!
I love your ideas.
I think your system and the Fargo go hand in hand, if wanted.
The Fargo seems like a great long-term ratings system and yours is great for picking out players for a quality tourney. Fargo is complimentary to yours and vice versa.
Perhaps the conversation here can go towards using each others ideas for both of their benefit?
Jeff Livingston
Can you name 3 or more TOP pros that say it's a good idea? Johnnyt
I can name more than that, but do yourself a favor....ask some YOU know and see what kind of answers YOU get!
ONE of my concerns about any kind of rating system on players to better match them up for the purpose of betting on them is....how do you prevent a player from working with a lesser rated player, whom according to the Fargo rating system....is NOT suppose to win....and therefore the players place a sizeable bet on the weaker player....he then wins by a game.....and they split the winnings
Thanks for work you put in , Mike .
Some questions :
I see number of old vets who are less active but still have high ratings . I think you mentioned before that old games are still included but they are deprecated over time. Is the rate of deprecation /depreciation high enough that current games are given more relevance than old games ?
Fu Jianbo- one of the mentally toughest player around., excellent shotmaker. Won ICOC, WCOP but I doubt he is top 10 now much higher than Li He Wen , Liu Haitao even though he has been very low profile and plays less past few years .
Ricky Yang- was a monster killer but rarely plays international tourneys these days so am surprised he is top 30
Shawn Putnam- ex US Open winner is higher than Corey , Oscar now ?
Jundel Mazon- was surprise winner in big WSOP tourney 5years but has been pretty quiet on international stage . I think he came to US last year but am surprised that he is ranked in top 30 much highly than many active Pinoys
Yang Fan - he is elite C8B player so I am assuming he is included cos he plays some 9B tourneys ? E8B elites like Mick Hill, Gareth Potts are excluded cos they do not play 9B,10B?
P.S
Naoyuki Oi should be JPN not TWN
Mike, I'm sure you thought of this and have an answer, but I at least have to ask the question. Let's say that during the next US Open 9 ball championship you have a situation that put two players against each other on the losers side of the double elimination format. Player A has a Fargo rating of 826, player B has a rating of 690. According to your rating system, the winner SHOULD be player A and anyone betting on the matches would see it the same way, after all, they're relying on your rating system to better inform them as to who the winner SHOULD be, right? But player A & B are real good friends and know one of them, who ever loses their match is going to be out of the event anyway, so they come up with a plan. They both bet all their money on player B to win because the odds are against player B from winning the match according to the ratings right? In their match, player B ends up winning 11/10 over player A so player A is then out of the tournament, player B continues on. Meanwhile they both collect on the bet they made that player B was going to win and split the money, cashing in on more than what the event pays anyway, even if one of them won it. What's to stop the players from dropping matches they're supposed to win, if they can make more money beating the bookie odds than they can earn by placing in the money of the event?
One-year-old games are worth about 80% of a game played today
1 year: 80%
3 years 50%
6 years 25%
10 years 10%
Think about it like this. Suppose you and I played three sets, one today and two yesterday.
today me 10 you 5
yesterday me 10 you 20
Most people (and FargoRate) would say the record is me 20, you 25. Best evidence is you are right now a little better player.
But what if instead it was
today me 10 you 5
three years ago me 10 you 20
Now most of us would say the three-year-old data is less relevant than current data, but how much less? To FargoRate, this case is a wash: 30 games from three years ago degraded by 50% carries the same weight as 15 games played today. So to FargoRate you and I are performing equally here.
Jianbo is an example of a player with just enough games to be included in the list. If we made the requirement more stringent, he'd be about the first to go.
Below is what we have from him over the last few years: it is a pretty stellar record; there's just not really a lot of it...
Again, not all that much recent information (see below). But one interesting thing Jianbo and Ricky have in common is they both beat Jiaqing Wu in recent years ;-)
Again, someone almost off the list for insufficient activity. But then (see below) a few months ago he beat Deuel 8-6, Dechaine 14-10, Thorpe 13-8, and Danny Smith 5-2
In US he played quite a bit and at a high level: Action Pool Tour, US Open, and Gotham City Tournament (see below)
Overall it may be true we are a little lethargic in allowing declining players to drop off. But I am not so sure. And it is a tradeoff. If we are more stringent there, we will less good at identifying up-and-comers emerging on the scene.
And please note, this discussion is all about WHO is and isn't on a performance/ranking list. It is easy to add to such lists any restrictions an organization chooses--must have played in X WPA events this year; must have played in Y Mosconi point events, etc...
Attachments
Can the favorite in a sporting match collude with the underdog to dump to the underdog because they and/or their cohorts have bet on the underdog?
Of course. There are many famous cases of this.
But this isn't about Fargo Ratings.
So, are you agreeing with me that situations like what I described can happen by the fact that with this Fargo rating system anyone following it for the purpose of betting on matches can be in fact....hustled by some players?
Lol give it a rest.
Oh, ok, I guess you're speaking for Mike and saying dumping matches to collect on betting can't.....or won't happen, right?
I see your line of reasoning here, Glen, but I don't think there could ever be a system designed or implemented that can GUARANTEE how any human being behaves or thinks or affects play throughout any competition.
Do you have a way to get past this one with your plans, sir?
K.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Of course it can happen.
It's happened for years before Fargo Rate was even an idea
Glenn -- you're fishing for something and I don't know what it is.
There is no system for rating or ranking participants for ANY activity based on ANY criteria in our UNIVERSE that can somehow prevent a participant from underperforming intentionally.
a golfer can golf worse
a batter can bat worse
a chess player can chess worse
spelling
boxing
badminton
A synchronized swimmer can choose to not smile
Asking if this is true for pool as well is like asking, "hey, does an apple fall down from your tree too?"
No as I already said to Mike, my system don't rate players or matches, as it only identifies a players skill level by the ability to pocket balls, not their abilities to match up against other players. For example, I know some one pocket players that can basically steal the cash from a one pocket tournament champion because they know how to grind down their opponent and get the cash, but couldn't win a tournament if their life depended on it.
Mike, I guess the question I'm wondering about, is how is the Fargo rating system going to impact pool in a positive way, how is it going to put any more prize money in the Pro players pockets that would help convince them to support it? What I mean is, if it's not being used to improve the sport, then what exactly is its purpose? I've heard all the it'll better match up the players explanations ok, but to exactly what purpose is why I'm asking.
The last thing we need in pool is another black eye because of a new rating system that gives all those that want to bet on matches....just another new way of getting screwed out of their money because of a few pool players taking advantage of a rating system....and a finger being pointed at the rating system as being responsible for setting the stage so it could happen.