Fargo rant
- Thread starter optician
- Start date
I'm fairly sure that league player Fargo rates vary from region to region quite a bit. I'm from Alberta and in both Edmonton and Calgary there are a decent number of league players ranging from the high-600s to the 730 range.
The few players around here that are rated that high dont play in amy league.
Our league has a handful of players in the 650-700 range.
There’s only 33 players in all of Canada over 700. Perhaps people aren’t being accurate regarding actual Fargo Rating unless you see them in this list...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
But read the fine print on the criteria for inclusion in that chart. It's very possible that there are lots more unestablished league players in the 700s.
Is that the real topic not being discussed? How much stock should tournament directors put in unestablished ratings? FargoRating does tell you the robustness.
I wonder if Mike Page can comment on the prevalence of unestablished ratings getting that high. I assumed it would take a while to climb to 700s from a starter rating no matter who you played.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There’s only 33 players in all of Canada over 700. Perhaps people aren’t being accurate regarding actual Fargo Rating unless you see them in this list...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yup, the people you see in the list from Alberta are exactly who I was talking about. In particular: Stephen Holem, Ben Francis, Erik Vargas, Russ Whittle, Rob Phillips, Joe Spence, Brian Butler, Carlos Barbosa, Sean McKay, Garry Hauck, Jerry Young....and that's just the first column. The players in the 2nd column are also mostly league players in Alberta. My rating is currently 674 but I don't have enough matches in to be on that list as well.
Fargo LMFAO
Better than any other way to rate players out there. As long as results are actually added to the system I'd trust it over anything else if I have not seen the player play before. Most league rankings are not worth anything and 50% of the tour ratings are the same way. The only way to have players ranked properly is statistics over several tournaments that are not handicapped.
I agree with this. I am an APA SL6/7 in my area and there is not one SL7 in the division I play in.
IMO, I feel as though I wouldn't stand a chance of beating APA players my own skill level that are from different regions of the country.
Over the many years I have played in the APA, I have seen enough scoresheet abuse/manipulation to realize that there are a LOT of players not rated correctly. I've even had players admit to me that they have sandbagged or have had the LO "adjust" their handicap for them.
Fargo isn't perfect, but it's probably the best system in place until something better comes along.
Maniac
Don't forget to quote. (Especially in longer threads)
Do you mean you would lose to Matt Krah about 13-5?
I think fargorate is a good system, probably the best there is. However like I said in another thread a while back, if your not a top pro and traveling all the time or a league player who get games entered every week you will be lucky to get enough games in the system to be established in 30 years. For example I know a player who has finished top 10 in DCC 9 ball who still doesn't have an established rating.
I believe they're working on software to run tournaments and get the data entered into FargoRatings automatically. It shouldn't take long to get established if you're playing in tournaments that enter the system.
If you do decently in a good-sized tournament, you're playing, say, 6 matches. If it's a race to 7, you're playing about 12 games per match, 12x6 = 72. So play in three like that and you're established.
All you need to be to get a good Fargo rating is to be honest about your ability. If you play with a bunch of players, or even one, that has a solid Fargo rating, and you see what they can do, compare it to what you can do. Then say "I'm same speed as that guy". Issue is that there are maybe 10 honest pool players in the country, especially in leagues. Last tournament I played one of the players asked "Why would you want to have a higher rating?" like it was a bad thing to play good and actually have it be known that you can play good. That is what handicapping does to many players, instead of them trying to play good, they just want to play good enough to beat someone, fair game or not.
I think too many players play for the wrong reason, to win. I don't play to win, I play to play my best. If I happen to beat other players doing that, yay for me.
This ^^
I used to play chess online and never understood the guys who would use their computer to select moves. I know my computer can beat you at chess, what's the fun in watching it beat you?
To me one ought to play to improve.
Yep, I never got the team/player celebrating wins because the other person messed up either. There was one match I remember that the player won because the other player scratched twice when making the 8 ball and was giving up a bunch of games to boot. So basically the guy stood there on the side watching the opponent run out and won anyway. After the match him and the team was hooting and jumping around like they won $100,000 on a lotto ticket.
I'd be embarrassed to win like that and would say "sorry about that win" to the other guy. I mean not only are you getting a spot, you won without really making any shots, who would be happy about that?