Seeing FARGORATE stuff makes me wonder
- Thread starter Pete
- Start date
There are plenty of 7s that I know.....are no better than a 5....but their area is watered down. That’s not good for players imop
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
No, it's not based on Accu-stats or purely on win loss ratios and innings.
Win/Loss is an ingredient in the formula. Fargo premise is its going to be more accurate predictor for two players, who never matched up but played many people in common.
This is what many people here fail to get, and can make themselves look stupid when posting things like SiMing Chen, being a woman must have a different way of scoring FargoRate.
You can read more here, along with many past threads with answers from Mike Page.
http://www.fargorate.com/#faq
Win/Loss is an ingredient in the formula. Fargo premise is its going to be more accurate predictor for two players, who never matched up but played many people in common.
This is what many people here fail to get, and can make themselves look stupid when posting things like SiMing Chen, being a woman must have a different way of scoring FargoRate.
You can read more here, along with many past threads with answers from Mike Page.
http://www.fargorate.com/#faq
Based on my experience currently playing in leagues that use both systems I would say they are nothing alike.
One major difference is that apa does not take into consideration the level of you opponent.
Another difference is I can take a few weeks off and my Fargo rate will fluctuate based on how previous opponents are currently playing.
But in the case of someone who doesn't compete with people who compete with others like with women who only play in the women's events how can they have an accurate point value?
I'll use Ronda Roushy for an example. In her weight class until her first loss she ran through all the women she fought. But she couldn't win against even strong armature make fighters at her weight. They would have destroyed her.
So even though she was the best, it was in a limited field of low end competition.
So that is why I don't get how FARGO works.
Then you need to read more about it. All of this has already been explained fairly clearly several times. You also need to visit Mike Page's YouTube channel where he explains exactly the points you are wondering about.
Neither do I!!! If Fargo is so accurate, why are there still separate events for men and women? There should be one, POSSIBLY divided up by age, instead of multiple events for both with the prize money divided up so every winner gets less. When there is ONE event, I'll believe Fargo works. Talking about amateur events of course. JMHO.
Lyn
I don't see what the Fargo ratings, or any handicap system has to do with women playing with men, they just don't. They know there is not much chance of winning there, so they play with players in their level, or their level in theory, since really only a few of the women have a chance to win events. There is a reason Karen and Alison win 80% of the time when they had a good women's tour.
Most real tournaments are not handicapped so handicap ratings are useless there, and women just don't enter open events outside of a few exceptions. If promoters did not offer a women's event, I think only a small % would try their hand in the open side even if they were grouped by skill like league tournaments.
The issue is automatically assuming that women need to be separated because they are worse. It should be separated by skill. I find it funny when tournaments just put a blanket statement like Women race to 5, Men to 7, or Women entry is $20, Men $30. May as well separate entry fee by race as well, Asians are good at pool, so they pay $40, white guys pay $30. It's all silliness unless you go by skill. It's not like you are separating 175 lb 5'8" women basketball players from the 6' 8' 250 lb men players, size in billiards is only a bit more useful than it would be in chess.
Last edited:
JC
Coos Cues
Fargo rate is based on math and as such it has no choice but to be accurate. If you are 100 points higher than someone you are expected to win 2 games to each of their 1.
The reason this is accurate is because it's a real time closed loop feedback system.
It's not just that the 100 points higher is expected to win 2-1 but that they have actually done so within the system. As the results vary from this, adjustments are continually being made so as if they vary from what is expected someone's rating either goes up or down to keep a balance at all times.
This is why gender plays no role in it whatsoever. They system is pronoun blind.
This system has many doubters mostly folks who lack the ability to understand intermediate level mathematics.
IMO Fargorate is right now in it's adolescence. Mostly due to too many players without adequate games logged in the system. As it continues to mature it will fully blossom and doubters will see the light.
It can't predict every single match but it will illustrate the big picture of skill sets amazingly accurately. It works because it has to work. Just like an algebraic equation. In fact it's pretty damned slick. Kudos to Mike and Steve for bringing it.
JC
The reason this is accurate is because it's a real time closed loop feedback system.
It's not just that the 100 points higher is expected to win 2-1 but that they have actually done so within the system. As the results vary from this, adjustments are continually being made so as if they vary from what is expected someone's rating either goes up or down to keep a balance at all times.
This is why gender plays no role in it whatsoever. They system is pronoun blind.
This system has many doubters mostly folks who lack the ability to understand intermediate level mathematics.
IMO Fargorate is right now in it's adolescence. Mostly due to too many players without adequate games logged in the system. As it continues to mature it will fully blossom and doubters will see the light.
It can't predict every single match but it will illustrate the big picture of skill sets amazingly accurately. It works because it has to work. Just like an algebraic equation. In fact it's pretty damned slick. Kudos to Mike and Steve for bringing it.
JC
So what you are really saying is Fargo is not accurate enough to differentiate between a 600 man and a 600 woman. If they are equal then there should only be ONE event with both participating. If they are NOT equal then separate events are required. Is a man's skill different than a woman's skill? Yes or no?
Lyn
JC
Coos Cues
There is no difference between a 600 man or woman. There can't be any more than 2 plus 2 equaling 5. If a 600 man consistently beats a 600 woman badly one of them will no longer be a 600. Continuous closed loop feedback.
We went gender blind at our last regional event here in the Western BCA and guess what? Prejudices lost and Fargo won. Things went as expected by Fargo, not by the haters.
JC
There is no difference in anyone of skill level 600, if an ostrich played pool and was a 600, it would be as good as a man at 600. Saying a 600 rated woman is not as good as a 600 rated man is like saying a blue hat would change colors if someone else was wearing it, it's the same skill no matter who has that skill.
The issue is that the average skill level of women is lower than men, so they don't like to play with the men, and to get people in the events, tournament promoters create a separate event for the women. As long as that is done, women will chose to play with the women, or tournaments will have to deal with less women playing. If I could play as a 600 rated woman vs a field of mostly 500 rated women or a field of 600-800 rated men, it's pretty clear why most of them pick the women's only events. Play vs people that miss several times a rack or vs people that miss several times a set.
One WPBA event that was streamed had a 450 Fargo playing a 550 Fargo. That is a "pro" women's event, a 450 is a C or C+ player, she would never cash even in our local weekly tournaments.
Last edited:
Your post does nothing but reinforce the difference between men and women pool players and Fargo Rate. A 600 player should be the same ability regardless of their sex. Otherwise we have nothing but the APA 7 from New York City and the APA 7 from East Podunk, South Dakota. They're the same ability correct? Incidentally, we are not talking about average ability. We are discussing two players with the same Fargo Rate but different sexes.
Lyn
Last edited:
Just curious, do you think Fargorate somehow prohibits this from happening? Fargorate has nothing to do with the question of tournaments being co-ed or not, it's a rating system.
If tournament directors/organizers decided to forgo the gender separation that currently exists (kind of like the 'scouts are doing I suppose), I think Fargorate would be a tool they could use to help them do that.
There is no difference between men and women and Fargo rating, same Fargo rating is same skill, not sure what you mean about my post. It's just facts. Women average skill is lower than men. The only reason that women don't play in Open events is because they don't want to. So not sure where the question is. It has nothing to do with Fargo or any other handicap method, it has to do with the fact that if there is a Women's event available, that is where most of them will go play in. That is the ONLY reason why they play there, same reason as anyone really. If it's not invitation only, anyone can play if they want. Easy vs hard, you test yourself and have a strong ego and will, or go easy way. In my year end league tournaments, often they are divided in low and high skill events, you can pick to play in the higher if you want. Not a lot do, even if they are at the limit of the ratings. Cut off at 500 Fargo, a 490 is most likely to stick to the low end. Unless they are not just after trying to win but to play their best and get better. Personally, if I was paying $50 to enter a low skill level or handicapped tournament vs one where you can run into A+ and up players, I'd pick the higher event to see how my game holds up against people that give me no chance to make mistakes. I'd rather get to 4 games in a race to 9 vs Strickland than win 9-0 vs some random C player.
Last edited:
I'm sorry, I've been out of pool for a few years and just started back.
After looking at the site and watching the YouTube videos I still don't understand what data is being collected.
That's why I was asking. After reading that someone was rated higher than some of the top pros I was wondering how the data added up.
If I was going to bet on a match between Mika or Cory vs any top WPBA member I would feel those two guys had the edge. Not that they couldn't loose but if there were going to be say ten races to say eleven I think they would not only win most of the matches but most of the overall games. Yet their FARGO RATING is lower than this amazing Asian player.
That is what made me want to learn more about FARGO RATING....
Thanks for you input sir...
It is wins and losses but it's compared against all the data, so it's intended to be completely unbiased as far as gender goes.
It could be that the player you're talking about is currently overrated (as many of you seem to think), but that will shake itself out in the long run and the numbers will change to reflect reality as more data is input.
I'm still willing to bet that no one rated under her can give her 50 games on the wire to 100 and win
It is wins and losses but it's compared against all the data, so it's intended to be completely unbiased as far as gender goes.
It could be that the player you're talking about is currently overrated (as many of you seem to think), but that will shake itself out in the long run and the numbers will change to reflect reality as more data is input.
I'm still willing to bet that no one rated under her can give her 50 games on the wire to 100 and win
Until she shows she can take getting hit with a 7 pack followed by a flurry of 4's and 5's and not only stay on her feet, but also hit back, I still like Chinahov winning 2 games to her 1 in a race to 100 winner break.
If they played the hypothetical match until either she wins even or he wins giving her 50 games, I'd hate to have to bet the farm on her...
I still think a player has to get up and prove it.