My vote for Best After Match Post in the thread!
Siming Chen vs Donny Mills
- Thread starter Joe_Jaguar
- Start date
My vote for Best After Match Post in the thread!
Yes, but she lined it up that way 6 or 7 separate times and spent nearly 1½ min. on the shot, so it must have been quite tight. However, watching it live, I was thinking she could just gently tap it in without the CB going as far as it did, giving her an easier cut on the 6-ball than she got. It was quite a B&R.
Yes, that is exactly the issue. Women in pool, women playing high level pool, is delayed, just like women's participation in lots of areas in society has been delayed. That's why we celebrate every achievement that brings the two genders closer in performance in the areas where physicality isn't the barrier.
Yes, sure, just like they did with Balukas, and Loree Jon, and Dorothy Wise.....again when you're seeing someone do something at a high enough level and that someone is so different than what you commonly know then it tends to stick out more. So when Allison Fisher who CAN EASILY beat 99% of the men playing pool on the Earth, comes to town then of course she will impressive. And OF course most of those spectators will overestimate her abilities in comparison to the pros they HEARD ABOUT or saw infrequently. And the key word here is estimate.
Um you need to check your records. Some of the ladies did win some matches and other matches were close. The average skill level of the ladies was considerably lower than it is now. If you want proof take out all of the Chinese and Taiwanese players from the current list and average the Fargo Ratings and ad 50 points to be really generous and then you might have what the average skill level was then for the ladies.
But the absolute fact is that the best male players then are still the best male players now. But the best females now were barely into their double digits when the IPT was going.
No actually the men are not better. The best then are still the best now, they have switched positions a bit but they are all there with only a few new young players at the top.
I would interested to see what the IPT fargo rate performances were. That said there were a handful of women against well over a hundred men. The best male players ended up on top as they always do.....no male who is currently a fargo 600 speed did better than the top woman I am sure of that. So yes the IPT was certainly a chance for men and women to compete under the same conditions. But the odds were stacked against them even if they had had a higher average skill level. Still the best women pros held their own even if they lost.
But now the top women by FargoRating are a threat to go deep in any tournament they enter - just as much of a threat as any other player their speed.
If Kelly Fisher fargo 740 shows up in a town she will cash in most and win a lot of the tournaments she plays in. That's because most towns in America don't support many 700+ speed players. If she did that then people would be amazed!!!! The good players will be quite clear that she can play and they will match up accordingly.
The fact is that a player is a player is a player. Santa Claus doesn't exist because we can't track him......but pool players we can track and clock accurately now.
Would you have said an 800 is an 800 is an 800 4 days after FargoRate went public? Would you have said it 4 weeks later? 4 years later (I think that is where we are today). 40 years later?
In each of those cases as more time goes by, there is much more confidence that an 800 is an 800 is an 800. That is the crux of the matter. You can't blindly say an 800 is an 800 is an 800 without "some" degree of uncertainty.
So where did you personally draw the line? 4 days, 4 weeks, 4 months, 1 year, 2 years, 4 years?
And that is on a macro level. What if you only look at one specific player? Then where do you draw the line? 50 robustness? 200 robustness? 500 robustness? 1000 robustness? Mike used to use 200 robustness as "established". I believe now he switched it to 300. I personally don't trust it unless its closer to 1000.
I'll give you a specific example: Ko Ping Chung. 2 or 3 years ago his robustness was about 600 (from memory), and he was moving up and down the fargo list like a see-saw. One week he was ahead of his brother, the next behind him, and the next ahead of him again. And I'm not talking about 1 point, it was more like a 10 total point swing. IDK if Mike was putting in a bunch of outstanding datat during that time, but it was really weird how much of a large amount he was moving in a very short time.
10 points is not a "large" amount, given the scale. Barely moves the expected outcome in a race to 11, if at all.
And "time", is also not a factor. Number of games input into the system is. And the system has many hundreds of thousands of games in it, at this point.
If I had to guess, the Fargorate database probably has close to the amount of games in it as the U.S. Chess Federation (USCF) database, due to the fact that pool games get played much faster, and players play more games against each other in a match.
And I sure as sh*t don't see people arguing about the validity of the USCF ratings.
This is purely about the amount of chauvinism in pool versus chess, and nothing more. I've met some highly intelligent people in pool that I thought much more highly of before this topic came up.
It is unfortunate, but many male players have never even SEEN a live female player with a Fargorate over 650, so they have an inherent bias against the idea that a woman could approach global elite levels of play.
Siming Chen has proven herself by playing well enough against a 740 Fargorate player to make him dog his brains out.
AND SHE DIDN'T EVEN PLAY 100% of her game!!
And she definitely could stand a lot of improvement on her kicking and safety play. I'll say it right here and now.. If someone like Efren decided to take Siming under their wing for about two months, and then give her another 6 months to practice what she learned back in China, then all this bullshit superiority complex shit will get tossed right out the window on her next visit back to the states.
She'd learn all the Filipino methodologies of safety play, but she'd also learn a lot about adjusting to different table conditions. All of which she did not require to beat a 740 Fargo player three big sets.
I become more and more disappointed in my fellow man the longer this conversation goes on. Especially you, sir.
The number is listed on the FargoRate home page. It is over 10,000,000 at this point.
Ah, thanks for that. I did a quick google and thought I saw that the USCF database had something like 900,000 games in 2016, which means that, if one assumes that the rating calculation algorithms are roughly equivalent, that Fargorate is FAR more accurate and predicitive than a USCF rating.
Given what I know of chess, and the immediate return on studying tactics, I would say that yes, on average, Fargorate is much more accurate for anyone under 800.
I wish I'd caught it on camera but I missed a lot of racks in the 2nd set.
But I know just the one he's talking about, I tried to diagram it earlier.
It's the bottom shot here: https://i.imgur.com/l5sPX6N.jpg
Without going back to the video I can't say just how frozen she was to the end rail,
or just how far she stunned it, but I remember she had to elevate,
and that the scratch in the side was totally possible.
And I remember thinking it was so straight I'd worry about getting the cue ball off the rail,
but iirc she got it to stun more than halfway across the table.
It was a sick shot and came at a crucial point where Donny was up and she just finally
started fighting back.
8 ball was on the other end of the table(opposite end from 9 ball) IIRC. But yeah, she moved the rock that far after making the 8. Cueball was probably 2 inches or so from the end rail.
Jason
It was in Game 31 with Chen leading 17-13. Her win in that game made it 18-13. She broke and ran the next game, taking it to 19-13. Mills won the next 7 games to go ahead 20-19; Chen won the last 2 game for the 21-20 match win.
I think your pic is pretty accurate. As for proximity to the rail, I'd say she was about1.5" off...bit I didn't have the best perspective to see that.
Damn tough shot at a damn crucial point.
Damn tough shot at a damn crucial point.
Agree. Excellent shotmaker like her mentor Wu.
Misquote
Not sure if my attachment worked but for the record, in post 817 I said Chen is better not Chen plays MUCH better.
Not sure if my attachment worked but for the record, in post 817 I said Chen is better not Chen plays MUCH better.
Attachments
I draw the line at hundreds of games in the system as Mike Page has pointed out. If a person after 200 games is considered to have a reliable rating so much much so that it is the actual criteria to be established in the Fargo Ratings system, then I feel that 500 games is more accurate and 1500 even more, and 10,000 enough to be incredibly sure that it is as accurate as it can be.
When it comes to the professionals I would think Mike probably has the most public data and if so would expect that the coupling between men and women is more than sufficient to get accurate ratings on professional players.
Thus, while I believe FargoRatings are very accurate now, with more than 10,000,000 games and over 100,000 players, in four years it will be even more accurate. And the pros will have even more games in the system.
Now, can an 800 play like an 820? or like a 780? Yes of course. So any given day six 800s can all play above or below the 800 line. The span of performance is in fact what produces the 800 rating.
So then the next question would be what do the point differences REALLY mean? I mean if Big Ko is 10 points higher or lower than Little Ko (is the third Ko monster now going to be call Littler Ko?) then what does that really mean? Everyone's rating is moving every day to some tiny degree. So unless you have the ability to track the movement - which we don't without some effort - coupled with the ability to track the connections that led to the rating - and ways to analyze that - then you would be again guessing based on your feeling and some "memory" of movement without actual data to check that memory you don't really understand what a ten point difference means on the granular level. You can ONLY understand it though the tools we have been given to compare what the expected outcome which is literally the previously recorded outcome of tens of thousands of games between players at the queried ratings. More than that you don't know. So who is better? Big Ko or LIttle Ko? 10 points could be the difference between what they had for lunch today. It is certainly not so big that anyone on earth can be certain of the winner when they play based on the ratings. The important thing is that nearly everyone agrees that they are very close in skill and that that skill level is very high. And Fargo had that right from the beginning.
Regarding blindly saying 800 is 800....no not at all blindly, but by putting my own money up and giving opponents whatever Fargo says they get and recording all of the games and then using the single performance tool to check my performance in those games to see if I was playing around my average. And this was real money I was playing for. Beyond that I have matched up for thousands using fargo and to this day I have not played in a money match with someone who turned out to be way underrated or way overrated. Of course it stings when a 550 runs three racks like they are a 750...but that is compensated for when they blow six racks like they are a 500. And in the end when you track the performance in tournaments or in gambling you find that for real the guy who just ran three racks in fact only runs three racks a few times a year. I have had 500 speeds SWEAR TO ME that they were 550 or 580 and they cannot believe it when I offer them the weight Fargo says and beat them...early on I couldn't believe it either but I was willing to bet $50 or a $100 just to try it.
Now is is possible that a 500 actually becomes a 550-580 and fargo doesn't know it? ABSOLUTELY. Fargo measures past performance only. So if you go full Bruce Lee and go to the basement and start training like a demon it will take fargo a while to catch up. BUT when you get to the upper levels I believe it gets harder and harder to improve significantly in my opinion. Thus it's doubtful that we will see a lot of 750s turning into 820s
But we might see a lot of 500-600s turning into 580-650s - especially if we figure out how have incentives to get better.
So in conclusion, an 800 is an 800 is an 800. and.....I will give you whatever Fargo says you should get to make it close to 50% are at SBE for up to $500 on the barbox race to 21. You get whatever spot on that day that is accordance with your fargo. If you think you can and you want to sandbag then it doesn't matter i will still give you whatever weight your rating is at the day we play as long as you are established. Then we can see how it works out. Let me me know if we have a game and for how much please.
To Barton, thanks for the response.
Regarding my rating, I have zero games in the system. I’m really sad about that. I played at the DCC I think 5 times now and no data. I despise leagues and would never play in them ever again if you paid me a million dollars. I was just in Philly visiting home (I live in Atlanta now) and played at my home room Drexeline billiards on their 40 entry monthly scratch tournament. I found out later the tournament used to submit to Fargo, but no longer does. I feel like Fargo is missing a serious (but sucky) player like me who hates leagues and the main national tournament I go to is stuck in the stone ages.
Regarding my rating, I have zero games in the system. I’m really sad about that. I played at the DCC I think 5 times now and no data. I despise leagues and would never play in them ever again if you paid me a million dollars. I was just in Philly visiting home (I live in Atlanta now) and played at my home room Drexeline billiards on their 40 entry monthly scratch tournament. I found out later the tournament used to submit to Fargo, but no longer does. I feel like Fargo is missing a serious (but sucky) player like me who hates leagues and the main national tournament I go to is stuck in the stone ages.
Do you have games won/lost log wirh the player's names of all those matches at DCC? Maybe submit all those scores to Mike and ask him if he would give you a score base on that info .
No. I don’t even remember their names. On the scratch tournament I played in I played a 600 player that had 600 or so robustness. He travels all over the country on his motorcycle and plays pool. He beat me 6-3. I put that in Fargo and that one set made me a 482 I believe (I did the numbers a week ago and might be off slightly). I wanted to cry. I’ve gambled with him a few times over the years and think the 6 in 9 ball is about fair for us.