Weber
Registered
Key performance indicatorsOk, first... What's a "kpi"...?
Second, I agree it's the best system we have. However I feel as though it's far more accurate then any of the other systems I have been expose to and/or read of.
Key performance indicatorsOk, first... What's a "kpi"...?
Second, I agree it's the best system we have. However I feel as though it's far more accurate then any of the other systems I have been expose to and/or read of.
I agree but most are not playing outside of their league and then returning.
In my example earlier, that area 9’ tables didn’t exist. There was only one Diamond in the area and it was a smaller one that was not used for league play.
I think it’s the best system we have but it’s still very inaccurate, just like the rest of the handicap systems.
I think it could be better if it evaluated more kpi’s of a match.
Key performance indicators
Then it might be possible you are underperforming in tournaments. I am currently a 598 Fargo (218 robustness) and wouldn't bet on me beating the ghost on a big table. Also many factors come in to play with Fargo. If a tournament is alternating breaks a lesser ranked player could upset better players more often. I have won several matches against 650-675 Fargo rated players. Again most were either alternating break or on a 7' footer.My rating is 589 which is close to 604 and I can beat the 9 ball ghost about 50% of the time on my 9ft Diamond.
Ah... then I'd rather not see them included with fargo. You're introducing opinion into the equation.Key performance indicators
KPI’s are not opinion they are performance. Break and run, run outs, 9 on break, 8 on break, innings, items like that tell the story of the match not just wins and loses.Ah... then I'd rather not see them included with fargo. You're introducing opinion into the equation.
I'm kind a with you on the BnR's but how things like 9/8 on the break a measure of your performance...? I guess you could say that the opposing player shouldn't be penalized in fargo for a game lost due to a 9 off the break, but honestly how is that any different than losing a game where the guy your playing breaks and runs...? You still don't get to the table...KPI’s are not opinion they are performance. Break and run, run outs, 9 on break, 8 on break, innings, items like that tell the story of the match not just wins and loses.
I’m not disagreeing with you, just saying there is more to evaluating ones skill level then just wins and loses.I'm kind a with you on the BnR's but how things like 9/8 on the break a measure of your performance...? I guess you could say that the opposing player shouldn't be penalized in fargo for a game lost due to a 9 off the break, but honestly how is that any different than losing a game where the guy your playing breaks and runs...? You still don't get to the table...
Innings can be stretched with minimal effort, and is a common method used to skew APA rankings.
Obviously we disagree, but it seems like needless complication. In the end, a win is a win. Doesn't really matter how you got it.
When I was competing in tournaments here in Colorado I would get bounced between a high AA and a low AAA.I’m a 578 and a AAA in Colorado if that helps....
![]()
I am almost exactly a 604 rating, but with less than 100 games in the system. I routinely beat a guy I know that is a 625. The last local tournament I beat him 5-1. This thread is very interesting to me, because that is my rating. Many have said that a 604 is a strong B player. That may be so. However, in my state they have raised me to an A player for the State Tournament.
My understanding is that our state uses something around a 540 cutoff to go from a B player to an A player. Also, our state will also raise your letter rating if you were in the top 10-15 players in the last tournament. I didn't have a Fargo Rating before last year's state tournament and took 5/6th. So they moved me to an A for the 2021 tournament. If I place in the top 10-15 as an A, I will get raised to a AA. So the state raising you based on your tournament finish AND based on your Fargo Rating seems like not too good of an idea to me. Because it totally confuses someone's Fargo Rating (which is a very accurate rating of someone's skill) with the letter rating (that they simply use for the state tournament purposes).
Just because someone did good in one tournament doesn't seem to me to be adequate justification to raise their letter rating. To me it should only be raised based on a person's Fargo Rating. I also think that making anyone over a 540 an A is too low. It should be at least a 600 rating cutoff in my opinion.
KPI’s are not opinion they are performance. Break and run, run outs, 9 on break, 8 on break, innings, items like that tell the story of the match not just wins and loses.
I think 630-650 is about AAA in Colorado based on the Fargo rating of players I know who still live there. Over that is AAA+When I was competing in tournaments here in Colorado I would get bounced between a high AA and a low AAA.
I just accepted what ever they decided in handicap tournaments.
I have no Fargo rating.
I agree to a point. However, I think what is great about FR is that it cuts through the bs and measures who wins. Lots of people have a crappy stroke, can’t run out, and can’t break for crap and yet frustrate the heck out of players who have great strokes and practice drills all the time but don’t have a good sense of the game. We used to have players that everyone would swear couldn’t play a lick yet they win or cash every week because they had a good sense of how to stumble around and mess up balls for their opponents etc. A purely skill-based system or subjective system would never move them up. Lifetime B players.KPI’s are not opinion they are performance. Break and run, run outs, 9 on break, 8 on break, innings, items like that tell the story of the match not just wins and loses.
This is just simply not true although it sure seems intuitive on the surface so lots of people understandably believe it.Also many factors come in to play with Fargo. If a tournament is alternating breaks a lesser ranked player could upset better players more often.
The majority of Fargo ranked players are now just league players.
It used to be more select groups and tournament players, but now with BCA and other leagues reporting in, the majority of these players never play outside of their league.
Then there are equipment differences. I played up north in a competitive league, but all matches were played on valley bar boxes. The league I play in down south is on 9’ diamonds. A 600 on a bar box is not the same as a 600 on a 9’ Diamond
Correct. Most people I consider a true A player would be North of 625. The differenceI am almost exactly a 604 rating, but with less than 100 games in the system. I routinely beat a guy I know that is a 625. The last local tournament I beat him 5-1. This thread is very interesting to me, because that is my rating. Many have said that a 604 is a strong B player. That may be so. However, in my state they have raised me to an A player for the State Tournament.
My understanding is that our state uses something around a 540 cutoff to go from a B player to an A player. Also, our state will also raise your letter rating if you were in the top 10-15 players in the last tournament. I didn't have a Fargo Rating before last year's state tournament and took 5/6th. So they moved me to an A for the 2021 tournament. If I place in the top 10-15 as an A, I will get raised to a AA. So the state raising you based on your tournament finish AND based on your Fargo Rating seems like not too good of an idea to me. Because it totally confuses someone's Fargo Rating (which is a very accurate rating of someone's skill) with the letter rating (that they simply use for the state tournament purposes).
Just because someone did good in one tournament doesn't seem to me to be adequate justification to raise their letter rating. To me it should only be raised based on a person's Fargo Rating. I also think that making anyone over a 540 an A is too low. It should be at least a 600 rating cutoff in my opinion.
Interesting. But wouldn't a closer score put more pressure on your opponent (possibly creating an upset opportunity?This is just simply not true although it sure seems intuitive on the surface so lots of people understandably believe it.
What alternate breaks does is make the score lines closer in a match because the value of the points are effectively changed. If in races to 9 against John Smith you lose with an average score line of 9-5 with winner breaks over time, you might lose by an average score line of 9-7 instead over time if only playing alternate breaks. Alternate breaks brings the score lines closer together.
It sure seems intuitive and obvious that if you seemingly get closer to winning (based on the score lines) under alternate breaks that it must mean that alternate breaks is also increasing your chances of winning the match and that you will therefore increase your winning percentage. But it isn't true, and I will explain why in a moment. It doesn't change how often you lose to John Smith at all. If over time you lose to John Smith 68.37% of the time under winner breaks, you are going to lose to him 68.37% of the time under alternate breaks over time as well.
All the breaking format essentially does is change how many points each of your innings at the table is worth, your "innings/games (points)" won ratio, and by extension that effectively changes how much points are worth/what they mean and this brings the score lines closer together or further apart. But what you have to remember is that the format difference is doing the exact same thing for your opponent too, effectively making his points worth more or less in the same proportions as well so you never gain any advantage or change your odds for beating John, you are only changing how tight the score lines are by changing the effective value of the points for both of you.
Here is an example that will make it make more sense to those that have a hard time understanding the concept. Lets say the ABC basketball team wins over the XYZ basketball team 62.42% of the time and by an average of 6 points over time. Now lets change the game so that the points are now only worth half as much as they were before, so regular baskets are only worth 1 point now instead of 2, and "3 pointers" are now worth 1.5 points, and free throws are worth .5 points etc. So now under the new format the ABC team will beat the XYZ team by 3 points on average. Did this increase the chances for the XYZ team to win? Of course not. Under the new format ABC team is still going to win 62.42% of the time, it is just that now the score lines get tighter and they only win by an average of 3 points now instead of 6.
Possibly, but this isn't the format directly making any difference because it didn't and doesn't. This would be the opponent letting a psychological factor affect him that he had no reason to let affect him, no different than if he were to let any other non-factor get in his head.Interesting. But wouldn't a closer score put more pressure on your opponent (possibly creating an upset opportunity?