Fargo rating

[Bob Jewett]

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.

Further, it might affect him in the opposite way. No one knows. It might not be consistent. If someone makes an argument about such a situation based on "psychology", I don't believe it until I see useful data. I suppose some people still believe in "momentum" at sports.

 

[Welder84]

Further, it might affect him in the opposite way. No one knows. It might not be consistent. If someone makes an argument about such a situation based on "psychology", I don't believe it until I see useful data. I suppose some people still believe in "momentum" at sport

Further, it might affect him in the opposite way. No one knows. It might not be consistent. If someone makes an argument about such a situation based on "psychology", I don't believe it until I see useful data. I suppose some people still believe in "momentum" at sports.

Further, it might affect him in the opposite way. No one knows. It might not be consistent. If someone makes an argument about such a situation based on "psychology", I don't believe it until I see useful data. I suppose some people still believe in "momentum" at sports.

Statistical analysis is very interesting. I am learning...

 

[The_JV]

What alternate breaks does is make the score lines closer in a match because the value of the points are effectively changed.

How are the points effectively changed...? If I as a 685 beat a 700 by 7-5 my fargo rate is adjusted by 'x'. If I beat that same player by 7-1 my fargo will be adjusted by 'xx'. The difference is the breaking format. The likely hood of that 700 player dropping that many games in which he breaks (alternate format) is small. In winner break, I could in theory prevent him from the opportunity to match my performance.

So unless I'm confused about the fargo math. The difference in wins, and the current ratings of the players are the key elements. Unless fargo weights matches differently based on break format, I fail to understand how it's not a variable.

 

[sixpack]

How are the points effectively changed...? If I as a 685 beat a 700 by 7-5 my fargo rate is adjusted by 'x'. If I beat that same player by 7-1 my fargo will be adjusted by 'xx'. The difference is the breaking format. The likely hood of that 700 player dropping that many games in which he breaks (alternate format) is small. In winner break, I could in theory prevent him from the opportunity to match my performance.

So unless I'm confused about the fargo math. The difference in wins, and the current ratings of the players are the key elements. Unless fargo weights matches differently based on break format, I fail to understand how it's not a variable.

I *think* but not positive that Fargo records who broke for each game as part of the formula.

 

[Bob Jewett]

I *think* but not positive that Fargo records who broke for each game as part of the formula.

I'm pretty sure that breaker is not included. It appears nowhere in the formulas I've seen.

 

[Poolplaya9]

How are the points effectively changed...? If I as a 685 beat a 700 by 7-5 my fargo rate is adjusted by 'x'. If I beat that same player by 7-1 my fargo will be adjusted by 'xx'. The difference is the breaking format. The likely hood of that 700 player dropping that many games in which he breaks (alternate format) is small. In winner break, I could in theory prevent him from the opportunity to match my performance.

So unless I'm confused about the fargo math. The difference in wins, and the current ratings of the players are the key elements. Unless fargo weights matches differently based on break format, I fail to understand how it's not a variable.

What we were discussing that you quoted, which was whether or not a weaker player has an increased chance of beating a stronger player with alternate breaks vs winner breaks formats (they don't), has zero to do with FargoRate so totally forget about Fargo for a moment.

My post explained why alternate breaks doesn't increase your odds of beating a better player, and the basketball example helps to comprehend the concept. Here is another way of explaining the same thing though. There is a certain disparity/spread difference between the amount of points per inning you and your opponent score under the winner breaks format. For example you may average .3 points per inning and he may average .6 points per inning under winner breaks. But there is a different (lower) spread/disparity difference between the amount of points per inning you score on average vs your opponent under the alternate breaks format though. For example, under alternate breaks you may only average .15 points per inning and he averages .3 points per inning (that fact that you don't automatically maintain possession of the table after a point is scored lowers it for both of you). The lower points per inning disparity spreads between you and your opponent under alternate breaks results in smaller disparities/lower spreads in the final score, and bigger point spreads between you and opponent's points per inning averages under winner breaks format results in bigger spreads in the final scores, so it is not unlike how making baskets worth more or less points in basketball will change how many points of separation there are in the final score (but does not change who wins and how often).

Where people tend to really go wrong is that they forget that what applies to them with the format change is also applying to their opponent as well. So yes, you may be scoring more or less points per inning based on whether it is winner or alternate break format, but so is your opponent, and because the increase or decrease is proportional for you both (it isn't necessarily linear but it is still proportional), it never changes your odds for winning, it only changes how tight the final score line is, just like making the baskets worth only half as many points doesn't change which basketball team wins and how often, it only changes how tight the final score for the match will look.

That said, a logical question for somebody to now ask would be "well since FargoRate doesn't just use who won the match in their formula, but also uses the point spread that a match was won by as part of their rating consideration, doesn't the fact that matches of both winner and alternate break type formats being used by FargoRate skew their ratings?"

And the answer to that is yes, no, and not really. Technically it would, but not actually all that much/as much as you might guess. But then you have the fact that it all gets averaged together (winner and alternate break results) for each person, so it gets more or less negated. Then you have the fact that the Fargo global optimization process, the same one that ensures that a 604 player in Kalmazoo is the same speed as a 604 player in Boise, also helps to negate any differences by adjusting everyone against everyone else. Then you have the fact that additional data is better, and on net you come out with more accuracy by having twice as much data by including both alternate and winner break formats than you would be only including one. The bottom line is that it all kind of comes out in the wash and evens out and having both ends up being far more of a benefit than any detriment. Mike Page will likely come along to explain that aspect in a more detail although it may already be addressed in a video on the FargoRate web page or his youtube channel. For that matter it is a very similar answer/discussion as the 7ft vs 9ft table discussion as it pertains to FargoRate, so you can always just view that video and just replace the tables with the break formats in your mind as you watch to get much of the answer for why having both alternate and winner breaks formats is a benefit and not a negative.

 

[Welder84]

What we were discussing that you quoted, which was whether or not a weaker player has an increased chance of beating a stronger player with alternate breaks vs winner breaks formats (they don't), has zero to do with FargoRate so totally forget about Fargo for a moment.

My post explained why alternate breaks doesn't increase your odds of beating a better player, and the basketball example helps to comprehend the concept. Here is another way of explaining the same thing though. There is a certain disparity/spread difference between the amount of points per inning you and your opponent score under the winner breaks format. For example you may average .3 points per inning and he may average .6 points per inning under winner breaks. But there is a different (lower) spread/disparity difference between the amount of points per inning you score on average vs your opponent under the alternate breaks format though. For example, under alternate breaks you may only average .15 points per inning and he averages .3 points per inning (that fact that you don't automatically maintain possession of the table after a point is scored lowers it for both of you). The lower points per inning disparity spreads between you and your opponent under alternate breaks results in smaller disparities/lower spreads in the final score, and bigger point spreads between you and opponent's points per inning averages under winner breaks format results in bigger spreads in the final scores, so it is not unlike how making baskets worth more or less points in basketball will change how many points of separation there are in the final score (but does not change who wins and how often).

Where people tend to really go wrong is that they forget that what applies to them with the format change is also applying to their opponent as well. So yes, you may be scoring more or less points per inning based on whether it is winner or alternate break format, but so is your opponent, and because the increase or decrease is proportional for you both (it isn't necessarily linear but it is still proportional), it never changes your odds for winning, it only changes how tight the final score line is, just like making the baskets worth only half as many points doesn't change which basketball team wins and how often, it only changes how tight the final score for the match will look.

That said, a logical question for somebody to now ask would be "well since FargoRate doesn't just use who won the match in their formula, but also uses the point spread that a match was won by as part of their rating consideration, doesn't the fact that matches of both winner and alternate break type formats being used by FargoRate skew their ratings?"

And the answer to that is yes, no, and not really. Technically it would, but not actually all that much/as much as you might guess. But then you have the fact that it all gets averaged together (winner and alternate break results) for each person, so it gets more or less negated. Then you have the fact that the Fargo global optimization process, the same one that ensures that a 604 player in Kalmazoo is the same speed as a 604 player in Boise, also helps to negate any differences by adjusting everyone against everyone else. Then you have the fact that additional data is better, and on net you come out with more accuracy by having twice as much data by including both alternate and winner break formats than you would be only including one. The bottom line is that it all kind of comes out in the wash and evens out and having both ends up being far more of a benefit than any detriment. Mike Page will likely come along to explain that aspect in a more detail although it may already be addressed in a video on the FargoRate web page or his youtube channel. For that matter it is a very similar answer/discussion as the 7ft vs 9ft table discussion as it pertains to FargoRate, so you can always just view that video and just replace the tables with the break formats in your mind as you watch to get much of the answer for why having both alternate and winner breaks formats is a benefit and not a negative.

Interesting. Here is the Fargo 7' vs 9' link https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...BMAJ6BAgmEAg&usg=AOvVaw0luzAs4PuwPOJFclEHnnCD. I agree with that.

 

[MattPoland]

This is what we are adopting in Michigan as a conversion. It matches up pretty good with some data analysis I did on how Statewide Billiards ABCD ratings matched up with FargoRate.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[The_JV]

What we were discussing that you quoted, which was whether or not a weaker player has an increased chance of beating a stronger player with alternate breaks vs winner breaks formats (they don't), has zero to do with FargoRate so totally forget about Fargo for a moment.

My post explained why alternate breaks doesn't increase your odds of beating a better player, and the basketball example helps to comprehend the concept. Here is another way of explaining the same thing though. There is a certain disparity/spread difference between the amount of points per inning you and your opponent score under the winner breaks format. For example you may average .3 points per inning and he may average .6 points per inning under winner breaks. But there is a different (lower) spread/disparity difference between the amount of points per inning you score on average vs your opponent under the alternate breaks format though. For example, under alternate breaks you may only average .15 points per inning and he averages .3 points per inning (that fact that you don't automatically maintain possession of the table after a point is scored lowers it for both of you). The lower points per inning disparity spreads between you and your opponent under alternate breaks results in smaller disparities/lower spreads in the final score, and bigger point spreads between you and opponent's points per inning averages under winner breaks format results in bigger spreads in the final scores, so it is not unlike how making baskets worth more or less points in basketball will change how many points of separation there are in the final score (but does not change who wins and how often).

Where people tend to really go wrong is that they forget that what applies to them with the format change is also applying to their opponent as well. So yes, you may be scoring more or less points per inning based on whether it is winner or alternate break format, but so is your opponent, and because the increase or decrease is proportional for you both (it isn't necessarily linear but it is still proportional), it never changes your odds for winning, it only changes how tight the final score line is, just like making the baskets worth only half as many points doesn't change which basketball team wins and how often, it only changes how tight the final score for the match will look.

That said, a logical question for somebody to now ask would be "well since FargoRate doesn't just use who won the match in their formula, but also uses the point spread that a match was won by as part of their rating consideration, doesn't the fact that matches of both winner and alternate break type formats being used by FargoRate skew their ratings?"

And the answer to that is yes, no, and not really. Technically it would, but not actually all that much/as much as you might guess. But then you have the fact that it all gets averaged together (winner and alternate break results) for each person, so it gets more or less negated. Then you have the fact that the Fargo global optimization process, the same one that ensures that a 604 player in Kalmazoo is the same speed as a 604 player in Boise, also helps to negate any differences by adjusting everyone against everyone else. Then you have the fact that additional data is better, and on net you come out with more accuracy by having twice as much data by including both alternate and winner break formats than you would be only including one. The bottom line is that it all kind of comes out in the wash and evens out and having both ends up being far more of a benefit than any detriment. Mike Page will likely come along to explain that aspect in a more detail although it may already be addressed in a video on the FargoRate web page or his youtube channel. For that matter it is a very similar answer/discussion as the 7ft vs 9ft table discussion as it pertains to FargoRate, so you can always just view that video and just replace the tables with the break formats in your mind as you watch to get much of the answer for why having both alternate and winner breaks formats is a benefit and not a negative.

Apologies... I commented even earlier in the thread about fargo rates being skewed by break format. I noted your post about break format not being a factor (wrong factor) and found it confusing.

I'll give the alternate break format credit for at least one of my wins and decent scores in my two loses, in the only fargo reported tournament I've played. The results against those players will most likely never "even out" as I travelled to that tournament, and they only host alternate break anyways. So I have to think my fargo rate, (which to be fair isn't valid yet due to lack of games) has been skewed by alternate break.

 

[The_JV]

This is what we are adopting in Michigan as a conversion. It matches up pretty good with some data analysis I did on how Statewide Billiards ABCD ratings matched up with FargoRate.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

There's a lot of players that are widely accepted as 'pros' that don't make that 751 cut off...

 

[straightline]

It actually depends on how the tournament does the ratings, the straight up ratings are based on your ability not who else you play with. An A can make certain shots and run so many balls on average, that is what the rating is. The tournaments totally confuse this by putting in their own random skill rankings using the ABCD rating scale. D = barely knows about position, can run 1-2 balls on average before a miss in 9 ball. C = starting to know cue ball control but gets out of shape and misses often, does not know more advanced shots, can run 3-4 balls without missing. B = has more knowledge of shots and safety play, often runs 5-6 balls or 7 on average. A = strong player that lacks consistency and the hard shot skills to be an Open, more often leaves the table on a safety than a mistake.

What tournaments and people that don't understand this rating scale do is just make things up, but it's really not that hard. You have D through A, if A is great and D is almost a beginner then it's not hard to figure out how a C or a B would play. Clearly a C would not be running out a rack often or playing good position a lot if D is a new player and C is just one level over that. Yet I see a lot of people say they are C players when clearly they are Bs. I personally witnessed one guy say he was a C after he finished top 8 in an open tournament and almost beat a 650 Fargo even in 10 ball. This either shows he has no idea how the rating works or that he was outright lying to get a low handicap in other events. Both things are bad.

One thing thing I will say about those letter ratings, other than A spots B spots C etc... I have not seen word one on the subject. No qualifications, nothing.

 

[Get_A_Grip]

There's a lot of players that are widely accepted as 'pros' that don't make that 751 cut off...

I agree with you. This chart seems to be off. My own perception is that a 700 rating is the beginning of pro level skills. 700 as a low-level pro, 750 as a mid-level pro, and 800 as an elite-level pro.


_______

 

[hang-the-9]

Apologies... I commented even earlier in the thread about fargo rates being skewed by break format. I noted your post about break format not being a factor (wrong factor) and found it confusing.

I'll give the alternate break format credit for at least one of my wins and decent scores in my two loses, in the only fargo reported tournament I've played. The results against those players will most likely never "even out" as I travelled to that tournament, and they only host alternate break anyways. So I have to think my fargo rate, (which to be fair isn't valid yet due to lack of games) has been skewed by alternate break.

Yes except for the fact it takes 200 games to actually have an established rating, and over time the alternate break format will still go towards the better player. If you cook a soup and only add onions in the first 10 minutes, someone tasting the soup then will think you suck at cooking because it's all onion. 30 minutes later with carrots, chicken, other things added, it actually tastes like soup. Your Fargo with one tournament is no-where near cooked yet.

 

[hang-the-9]

One thing thing I will say about those letter ratings, other than A spots B spots C etc... I have not seen word one on the subject. No qualifications, nothing.

Not sure what you mean, there are several descriptions of what ABCD players are and what they can do at that skill level. Even if you make up your own, using logic you can sort out what they should be. D is just over a beginner they are still working on their stance and don't really get the angles and position thing, A is a good player that can run out a open rack of 9 ball without much difficulty. C and B is in the middle so just think what they would have to play like to be better than a D but worse than an A. If a D player can make 1-2 balls and has poor position that means a C can play better position and make more balls. But we have a B there so a C can't run 7 since that would make no room for B level. And since an A can run 9 that means a B can't, which leaves us with an average of 3-4-5 balls in a row made in 9 ball for C players and 5-6-7 balls made for B players with the corresponding safety ability and position play skills.

There are some subtle difference in those ranks so they also have the - and +. If there is a player that can beat another A but he loses to a better player, that player can be said to be and A+ and the better player is a A++ or maybe an Open depending on how you think the A rank should go. A D player that can run on the high end of his scale and is getting to understand what position is would be now a C-.

The issue I see that a lot of players and tournaments fall for is giving C and B players too good of a skill rating. A C can't be "good" since they are just one rung over an almost beginner. You don't go from a training wheel bike to racing BMX on dirt and hills as one step. Too many places rank a player that can run out well as a C, then the B players end up being what should be an A and their A- players are like A+ players. All those "he's a very good C" really means that player should be in the B level and is just friends with the tournament director to keep him lower for handicaps.

There is also the issue of league sandbagging that also skews what players think of skill rating, a lot of the league players are one or more levels too low for their skill. I'm sure we all personally know a half dozen players or more that are cheating to keep their handicap low. Which is where the issue of closed systems like APA and TAP come into play, those players can go play in some tournament, beat players they lose to in league, then go back to league play without any changes in their level there. With Fargo used in leagues, as long as those tournaments report into the system, what they do outside league affects their league score.

 

[straightline]

Not sure what you mean, there are several descriptions of what ABCD players are and what they can do at that skill leve. Even if you make up your own, using logic you can sort out what they should be. D is just over a beginner, A is a good player that can run out a rack of 9 ball. C and B is in the middle so just think what they would have to play like to be better than a D but worse than an A. If a D player can make 1-2 balls and has poor position that means a C can play better position and make more balls. But we have a B there so a C can't run 7 since that would make no room for B level. And since an A can run 9 that means a B can't, which leaves us with an average of 3-4-5 balls in a row made in 9 ball for C players and 5-6-7 balls made for B players with the corresponding safety ability and position play skills.

There are some subtle difference in those ranks so they also have the - and +. If there is a player that can beat another A but he loses to a better player, that player can be said to be and A+ and the better player is a A++ or maybe an Open depending on how you think the A rank should go.

In the handicapped events I've been in, "A"s could stack 5 at a time and AAs were better by some mysterious factor. I played at a B rating and could only cash with a favorable draw. IOW I played only Cs. And srsly there were no criteria other than who spotted who, what.

 

[The_JV]

Yes except for the fact it takes 200 games to actually have an established rating, and over time the alternate break format will still go towards the better player. If you cook a soup and only add onions in the first 10 minutes, someone tasting the soup then will think you suck at cooking because it's all onion. 30 minutes later with carrots, chicken, other things added, it actually tastes like soup. Your Fargo with one tournament is no-where near cooked yet.

Highlighted the key point that I touched on in my post. I will most likely never play those opponents again, so the alternate break skewed results against them won't even out.

 

[MattPoland]

There's a lot of players that are widely accepted as 'pros' that don't make that 751 cut off...

That’s a fair point.

Honestly this table isn’t really about defining the boundary of amateur vs pro. It’s about handicapping amateur tournaments. The cutoffs either describe when you enter a new bracket or determine what you’re racing to within your bracket. The “Pro” category could have just as easily been called AAAA.

One thing they did well is that each grouping is of equal size. So you don’t end up with brackets too wide with some people playing so bad they are nothing but fodder and others playing so well that they are stealing.

Really FargoRate should replace all ABCD rating systems. Conversion tables like this only exist because there are players with well known ABCD ratings that don’t have an established FargoRate yet. So this really should only be a thing we use during this transition era in our industry.

 

[Woodshaft]

I actually would love to see fargorate expressed in 3 ratings, instead of one:
1) A rate for regular league/recreational games.
2) A rate for tournament games.
3) Overall combined rating.

I personally give much more weight to tournament rating/results for two reasons. One, the fact that a player's mindset is to perform at his/hers highest level simply due to the fact that tournaments are usually much more rewarding (larger prizes) than other games. And two, the competitors in tournaments are more likely to be from different regions, thus giving better data to the overall pool.

Just like in pro sports, there are regular season stats, and there are playoff stats. IMO, comparing these two stats gives a much better picture of a player's overall ability and talent.

It would help to expose sand-bagging too.

I feel the current rating is too vague because most of the data is strictly from "bar league" play.

Just my 2 cents

 

[Cameron Smith]

Highlighted the key point that I touched on in my post. I will most likely never play those opponents again, so the alternate break skewed results against them won't even out.

You don't need to play them again. Your rating will even out as you get more matches into the system. Let's assume you beat Shane 7-5, your rating would go up because of that. But if you subsequently lose 7-5 to a 680 player, then it adjusts based on the new information. Ultimately, if you have a few wins against top pros, but you are generally playing even with 680-720 players then your rating will reflect that since that is where most of your data is coming from. Fargo accuracy comes from a high volume of data which is why you need 200 games to get a rating and people are suggesting that it becomes accurate closer to 800-1000 games. At that point, a few matches won against top pros would be statistically insignificant in your rating, since that may only account for 30-40 games out of 1000.

 

[The_JV]

I actually would love to see fargorate expressed in 3 ratings, instead of one:
1) A rate for regular league/recreational games.
2) A rate for tournament games.
3) Overall combined rating.

It would help to expose sand-bagging too.

I think the only real upside to all that additional data management is simply that last line.... You would like the ability to compare what your local league player does on Wednesday night to how he performs when it matters more. I get it, but I don't see the value in league stats beyond the local district, but maybe thats the point...

I can tell you right now, that my fargo rates would be very different between the two designations. I play league for fun, and "hold my beer and watch this" moments. When I play tournaments I'll only touch a drink if a long wait is in my future. Does that mean I sandbag in league...?