BCA Nationals 8 Ball - Fargo Discrepancy

[jojopiff]

My first Fargo number at the start of the year was 676. Was dropped to 618 then raised back to 662 when Mike PM'ed me to tell me some data they used was invalid. Asked him if he was sure all the data was valid. Now at 655 after nationals. A player at 719 won the event. He was highest. Lowest Fargo was 606 in the Senior Platinum event. Exactly in the middle according to Fargo.

So you are 64 points lower than the top and 49 better than the bottom. Do you not realize that if you were dropped into the lower division those people (except not one person but hundreds) would have the same feeling you do that they have no chance? So, it seems as if you're not opposed to the tournament being unfair as long as you're the one benefitting.

Sorry, didn't realize I was owed something. Actually I am owed something. Equal opportunity! Paid my league sanction fee every year. The guy who won the senior division I played in was a CSI associate member. In other words, he joined just to play nationals. No league late nights. No weekly league dues. No table fees. Just show up in Vegas and sorry for this but stole the event. 719 in an amateur event? A guy who is known nationally as a pro player / gambler? Look at the list of winners of the BCA pool league Open division and you'll find his name there as well. What happened to known ability?

Same point as above, the people in the division you want to be moved down into are also owed EQUAL OPPORTUNITY to win and if you're moved down it's no different than the guy who was evidently wrongly placed into your division, and appears to have simply stole the cash. They would point to your good finishes along the way and your 665 Fargo and say you had no business in their division.

Why isn't BCAPL not trying to have near 100% retention? What makes BCAPL different from other leagues? Right now it's the best league out there for better players. They should be doing everything possible to keep the players they've won over. Would you agree with that? Don't think CSI gives a rats ass whether I play or not. It is the 200/500/1000 players leaving the national tournament I wonder about.

You're not understanding my point, which is that BCAPL would rather lose 1-2 people such as yourself stuck in the middle with not a lot of chance to cash as opposed to losing 20-50-100 people they would lose by throwing you a bone and placing you into a division you don't belong in. Not that there only 1-2 people in this/your situation, but that for every 1-2 people in your situation there's probably 20-50-100 people (I don't know, making an assumption) who would be getting screwed by you being in the lower division.

So what is BCAPL to do in a no-win situation? Because as I see it, it's a no win situation. They either piss you and people of your ilk off, or they piss off the larger group of people whom have these much better players moving into their division. They, obviously, would choose the lesser of two evils and piss off the fewer people (you) and not move you down and risk losing you.

Haven't figured that one out yet. My best guess is most players going to Vegas do dream about, if not winning an event, at least cashing. No different than those slot players who think they will win the jackpot. Odds are even they will win neither! Yep, I dream of winning tons of cash. Just hasn't happened yet! Incidentally, smaller divisions mean smaller payouts.

Lyn

I didn't word my original point well. It is, you seem to want smaller divisions. You haven't necessarily said that but that's really the only way you're going to get what you're after. A reasonable chance to win but not in the lower division where you're stealing. That's really only possible if you have a total gap of 50 points (50 points is an assumption and open for discussion/debate as to wether or not it's the correct number) or so? Well, obviously, the smaller the division the smaller the cash in each division. But, you've made note several times that you've only ever once made money.

So, how is BCAPL to accommodate both things? Make the divisions smaller so that you feel you have a reasonable chance, and still have enough cash in it for you to be able to profit? This isn't rhetorical, provide an answer to how they're supposed to do both of these things for you.

 

[cardiac kid]

Mike,

Conratulations to Rory for a great finish in a tough tournament. His achievement is one for the books. Also agree he would have been a favorite in the division I played in. Perhaps even against Ron Wiseman and Gil Hernandez.

Frankly, I appreciate what you are trying to do. I'm sure in the future the benefits will far outway the few problems it generates. My fellow posters seem to feel my question has no validity. I bow to the forum. Guess I'll have to join some others and vote with my pocket book. Have a long time to make a decision.

Incidentally, did you do me the honor of checking the figures you quoted to me about the number of matches I played last month. You said Fargo shows eleven. My memory says seven with four byes or forfeits. Three wins, four losses. If you can research this I would appreciate an answer. You quoted the number of "wins" I had to show my rating was correct. Thanks.

Lyn

 

[cardiac kid]

Jojo,

I'll ask you just one more question. What if the Fargo number I was given for a while this Spring of 618 was really the correct number? By next year, I might have played in the Gold event. Would only have had to drop another ten or twelve points to get there. Would that have made you and some other posters happy? As I have no way to check how Fargo determines my number, I'm (we're) at their mercy. I've done a bit of winning and a lot of losing over the past few years. Just like eveyone else on this forum.

Thanks for your input. I really do appreciate your view as I do others here. Hope I'm wrong on my outlook.

Lyn

 

[mikepage]

[...]

Incidentally, did you do me the honor of checking the figures you quoted to me about the number of matches I played last month. You said Fargo shows eleven. My memory says seven with four byes or forfeits. Three wins, four losses. If you can research this I would appreciate an answer. You quoted the number of "wins" I had to show my rating was correct. Thanks.

Lyn

You are correct Lyn. I don't know what I was looking at. Here are the most recent matches we have for you. I count 32 wins and 32 losses. Does this look right to you?

 

[jojopiff]

Jojo,

I'll ask you just one more question. What if the Fargo number I was given for a while this Spring of 618 was really the correct number? By next year, I might have played in the Gold event. Would only have had to drop another ten or twelve points to get there. Would that have made you and some other posters happy? As I have no way to check how Fargo determines my number, I'm (we're) at their mercy. I've done a bit of winning and a lot of losing over the past few years. Just like eveyone else on this forum.

Thanks for your input. I really do appreciate your view as I do others here. Hope I'm wrong on my outlook.

Lyn

Well, what if turtles had wings? I mean if you're of the opinion your Fargo isn't correct then I simply cannot argue that. If you are, in fact, actually a 608 and you are on the cut line and you ended up in the lower bracket then so be it. I'm for a person being in the correct bracket.

I've been of the opinion that Fargo might be great but don't want it used at BCA and its use and my not knowing what bracket I would be in is the sole reason I didn't attend this year. I wasn't gonna play teams anyways but had planned to go for singles.

 

[mikepage]

Jojo,

I'll ask you just one more question. What if the Fargo number I was given for a while this Spring of 618 was really the correct number? [...]

I know YOU know this because I sent you a private message about it in April. But for the sake of others, you rating was never really 618. We imported a large number of league games from Leaguesys, which included many different formats and divisions. Doing this we inadvertently imported a scotch doubles (nonsense for Fargo) division that you played in. We corrected it and I sent you a message about it. It was the bogus scotch doubles division that temporarily dropped your rating to 618. As soon as we removed the offending data, your rating was back where it belongs

 

[cardiac kid]

I know YOU know this because I sent you a private message about it in April. But for the sake of others, you rating was never really 618. We imported a large number of league games from Leaguesys, which included many different formats and divisions. Doing this we inadvertently imported a scotch doubles (nonsense for Fargo) division that you played in. We corrected it and I sent you a message about it. It was the bogus scotch doubles division that temporarily dropped your rating to 618. As soon as we removed the offending data, your rating was back where it belongs

Mike,

As I asked jojo, what if my number was really 618. I have no way to double check Fargo. Frankly I don't want to double check anyone. I asked a hypothetical question. Received an answer. Done.

Lyn

 

[cardiac kid]

You are correct Lyn. I don't know what I was looking at. Here are the most recent matches we have for you. I count 32 wins and 32 losses. Does this look right to you?

Mike,

Really don't remember playing Tom Cronin but the rest of the info appears to be correct. Remember playing Nick, Think it was in the finals of that event. Jingle something. Thanks for the effort. Really appreciate it.

Might you do me another favor? Could you show me another player of my rating and how my last sixty four games compares with them? As age evidentally doesn't matter, just pick any player around 660.

Thanks again for your efforts and your patience.

Lyn

 

[watchez]

Just as it looks odd and I don't know the tournament - the Tri State Invitational was triple elimination or was it round robin with different races, as they went to 4, 5 and 6?

 

[mikepage]

Just as it looks odd and I don't know the tournament - the Tri State Invitational was triple elimination or was it round robin with different races, as they went to 4, 5 and 6?

It is Paul Schofield's baby (Gold Crown Billiards, Erie PA)--some sort of quadruple-elimination qualifying...

http://www.goldcrownbilliardseriepa.com/2016/05/04/corey-deuel-crowned-in-tri-state-invitational/

 

[cardiac kid]

Just as it looks odd and I don't know the tournament - the Tri State Invitational was triple elimination or was it round robin with different races, as they went to 4, 5 and 6?

Quadruple elimination. This is a very different format used by Paul Schofield for his events at Gold Crown Billiards in Erie, PA.. This was the once a year $5000 added "pro" event won by Corey Deuel. Played to support Paul. Way out of my league.

No early nine balls. Nine has to be the last ball to fall. No three fouls. Rack your own using Paul's rack system. Two balls past the center line. Don't have to make a ball on the break. As long as the breaker does not scratch or foul, they get first shot at the rack. As I mentioned, a very different format. Second straight "pro" event I didn't win a match. Doesn't matter. Paul's place is awesome with great food and COLD beer! Erie's only two and one half hours away and I get to see several top pro players for the $100 entry fee. Forgot to mention it's a one day event with 32 players!

Lyn.

 

[watchez]

Steve,

The problem lies in the fact entries have continued to drop year after year. Everyone has a theory. Some of it may be players tired of not having a chance. Forget about me. Think of the average player who spends well over $1000 to travel to nationals. Some continue to go. Some have given up. IMHO, placing players in a perpetual position of losing does not bode well for BCAPL. How many years will you go if you have no chance? CSI does not need me or you to succeed. They need fresh meat just like APA and TAP. How many young players does Teacher's have coming up through the ranks? How many did we lose to video games? Maybe I'm missing a point but I don't know which one!

Anyway, congratulations again on your teams finish. May be driving out to Vegas again this winter. If I do, perhaps we can meet up at Teacher's.

Lyn

Thanks again for the congratulations. I make sure I surround myself with players that play much better than me.

Teachers does allow under 21 but they do serve alcohol and have smoking so that probably inhibits the younger crowd. That being said, it is place where the Evans brothers - Nick and Ricky - junior national champions - practice and play out of.

If you come thru this winter, give me a heads up prior - I can probably get you a room at the casino and save you a few bucks. I know as a senior citizen, you are on a fixed income. But bring some money, Justin can spot you based on your FargoRating.

 

[cardiac kid]

Thanks again for the congratulations. I make sure I surround myself with players that play much better than me.

Teachers does allow under 21 but they do serve alcohol and have smoking so that probably inhibits the younger crowd. That being said, it is place where the Evans brothers - Nick and Ricky - junior national champions - practice and play out of.

If you come thru this winter, give me a heads up prior - I can probably get you a room at the casino and save you a few bucks. I know as a senior citizen, you are on a fixed income. But bring some money, Justin can spot you based on your FargoRating.

Steve,

Forgot to mention a "normal" event at Gold Crown is $500 added, races to four, three, two and two. They use the same rules as in my earlier post. Holds an event roughly every 90 days. Next one August 27th.

Lyn

 

[Perk]

How many years should an average player in their Fargo determined division play and lose before they quit playing BCAPL Nationals due to frustration?
Lyn

Is it really the "average" player that is worried about this?

To me higher level players are the ones concerned with the $$$. In your scenario you are a very good player with previous successes. So now that your not making the $$$ you would like to get lowered to get to beat up on the actual average players?

Its not a fargo issue, its just an issue with pool in general as handicapping provides folks a chance of entitlement to success without necessarily putting in the work to get better.

 

[Perk]

Regarding lower numbers every year, so many factors go into it. I do not believe its the handicapping as the old "open" was as tough as it could get. Large fields, large $$$ up top, and chance to play tough competition, folks want to try it out.

Expenses are super high which impact everyone. Everyone from my area that goes to vegas for pool has normally tried/went through multiple leagues. The allure of those long weeks in vegas does wear off. There are so many more that have the "been there done that" mentality rather than those that want to go yearly.

Smaller fields do make it like a long distance mini tournament for the advanced and up players which is not enticing, but that was an issue pre-fargo too.

~Perk

 

[Baby Huey]

Any rating system is fine as long as it is kept up to date. I suspect data entry might be the problem in that it takes time to do that work properly. We are now trying to make pool skill ratings a science rather than just playing the game. This happened because sandbagging has become so prolific. Nothing feels worse when you played your heart out only to have to handicap someone you know plays your speed or better. This discourages players from continuing to support a system that is not played by the rules. Everyone thinks how smart someone is when they beat the "system" and that's just not right. It is incumbent on operators to keep the playing field fair and honest. Any tournament that has a rating system must make sure it is not rigged for the good players or else the rating system will be seen as flawed and in the end will result in unintended consequences, like low participation and threads on AZBilliards.......

 

[Pacecar]

Today, I noticed that the preliminary Fargo ratings for non-established players have changed (in some cases significantly). Associated with these changes are changed starter ratings that don't seem to relate anymore to a certain starter "class" of player, such as 525 beginner, or 625 master, or 685 grand master. Now, the starter ratings range all over (such as 534, 597, 589, 601, 547, 543, 605, 508, 516, 495..... get the picture!). Mike Page - can you explain the changes. Thank you.

 

[robsnotes4u]

Today, I noticed that the preliminary Fargo ratings for non-established players have changed (in some cases significantly). Associated with these changes are changed starter ratings that don't seem to relate anymore to a certain starter "class" of player, such as 525 beginner, or 625 master, or 685 grand master. Now, the starter ratings range all over (such as 534, 597, 589, 601, 547, 543, 605, 508, 516, 495..... get the picture!). Mike Page - can you explain the changes. Thank you.

Can you give one name as an example


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Pacecar]

For example:
Player (622978) now has robustness of 101, starter rating 585, preliminary Fargo 594.
Previously, this player had robustness of 101, starter rating 525, preliminary Fargo 564.
====
Player (654655) now has robustness of 27, starter rating 516, preliminary Fargo 513.
Previously, this player had robustness of 27, starter rating 525, preliminary Fargo 520.

 

[mikepage]

For example:
Player (622978) now has robustness of 101, starter rating 585, preliminary Fargo 594.
Previously, this player had robustness of 101, starter rating 525, preliminary Fargo 564.
====
Player (654655) now has robustness of 27, starter rating 516, preliminary Fargo 513.
Previously, this player had robustness of 27, starter rating 525, preliminary Fargo 520.

OK here's the scoop. The Starter Rating is a mechanism to help ease players who don't have an established rating into the system.

You can think of it as a best guess of how the players plays. That best guess could come from known ability, rating in some other system, limited evidence, etc.

Generally local knowledge is the best. So, for example, for the Omega Billiards Tour in Dallas, each of the old Omega Ratings, 5,6,7,8,9...was translated into a starter rating. Many Arizona ratings have been translated into starter ratings, as have ratings from various league systems. This is the mechanism for a new league manager to start players at a sensible place. Then of course once a player has 200 games those training wheels are forgotten.

Amongst the crudest of such assignments is the old CSI category of "Open" being 525. We all know some of those former opens actually play below 400 or in the high 600s.

Once people get some games in the system, we start to get some inkling of whether they are above 525 or below 525. In your first example, GJ, he has 100 games playing at 602 speed. So we don't move his starter rating all the way up to 602, but it's looking pretty clear he plays above 525 speed. In the second case the player has 28 games at 492 speed. Not much information but enough to nudge the starter rating down a bit. There is an algorithm that takes into account how far from the former starter is the performance and how many games are played.