..and there is an interesting thing. A 7 vs 2 match up is terrifying for the 'weak to average' 7 handicap player. That set is a race to 5 with 3 on the wire for the weaker player. A single win for the 2 gives their team a point for reaching the hill. ...and a single mistake can easily cost the 7 the match.
well I'll definitely differ to your knowledge regarding the intent of fargo....
...and thanks by the way. I think you're efforts are outstanding.
Playing fargo rated tournaments I have played 6-1 races against C players. A decent 6 should be able to give a 2, 3 on the wire to 5. A 2 is real bad...and there is an interesting thing. A 7 vs 2 match up is terrifying for the 'weak to average' 7 handicap player. That set is a race to 5 with 3 on the wire for the weaker player. A single win for the 2 gives their team a point for reaching the hill. ...and a single mistake can easily cost the 7 the match.
All is fun in love and pool though...
ya, a 2 in APA is real bad generally. (no offence intended to those 2s reading)
From what I have seen people with 1000+ games in Apa are around 50% win/ loss, strong 7 notwithstanding.
Now we're getting somewhere. Math is math, and math is deterministic, but math alone does not get the answer right all of the time. We're dealing with people, which throws a monkey wrench into any mathematical equation. So does alcohol - how do you model that with math? Other factors affect performance, and the more you know about those other factors the better you get at correcting the math.
..and there is an interesting thing. A 7 vs 2 match up is terrifying for the 'weak to average' 7 handicap player. That set is a race to 5 with 3 on the wire for the weaker player. A single win for the 2 gives their team a point for reaching the hill. ...and a single mistake can easily cost the 7 the match.
All is fun in love and pool though...
Not in the CPA(APA) league I played in. No race went beyond 5. I did google the match chart, and it does confirm what you have said.
I am fairly certain all APA (CPA) leagues use the same handicap system. you can look at the races for skill levels here: https://poolplayers.com/equalizer/
You've touched on my main beef with the APA's system of setting races. Not with measuring ability, but once you've done the measurement you can line all the players up in order of ability and it's possible that two players can be right next to each other in line (essentially identical ability) and one has to spot the other a game. That's a flaw, I've pointed it out to APA numerous times, but they (understandably) won't change it because it's a big change that risks breaking other things that have taken a long time to put in place. There are some anti-sandbagging measures as well as some that are not that could set them back several years. That's as far as I'm willing to go with it, and I only mention it here because someone else brought it up first. Otherwise I would risk breaching my franchise with APA.
Except that it's possible to shoot 7 speed every match and lose every match, in which case you would only be underrated in Fargo. In APA you would still be a 7, and not necessarily even the lowest-rated 7. What you say is true of any competitive rating system. You only get relative accuracy outside your pond when the ponds connect. The APA has ways of resolving those differences, and there's no evidence that their way doesn't work just as good or bad as other systems. I've noticed that you're arguing both sides of the coin here. On one hand you argue the point that your rating should be based on your competition, and on the other you argue that that is a flaw. So we're clear, I'm arguing that neither is best by itself. You need some of both. The interesting debate, to me, is how much of each and where it is in the system.
Well feel free to consider me a liar then...lol. Played two seasons of regular CPA(APA) league, and while doing so I never once played a race to 7.
7 speed compared to what exactly...? Other 7s...? If that was the case then you wouldn't be losing every match. 7 speed compared to 6s sure, not compared to the other 7s you can't ever beat. That just doesn't make any sense. Sure dropping a set happens to even the best, but that's wildly different then never winning. Using you stance, a player at no point should ever go down in skill level. That's just wrong imo...
No I'm arguing that your rating should only be based on your competition. APA is full of little ecosystems (thats the flaw), whereas Fargo's method is potentially one large swimming pool. Again, it's really not a fair comparison, as APA needed to sort out the best way to run a league. Fargo just needed to sort the best way to comparibly rank player's ability against one another.
Give ya credit... you made me look...lol. Here is a screen shot from my APA dashboard match history...:
If I could just get you to convince a LO this is fair. If you can’t beat a 7, then how in hell can you BE a 7!!! Saw where someone posted this question earlier.
I was pretty much told the same from APA headquarters in St. Louis. This is the only reason I would stay a 7, even when my ability has dropped pretty substantially.
I'm no expert, nor am I a top tier player. I do have over 10 years experience playing in APA. The one time my team went to Vegas, we played 6 matches I believe, before losing. Maybe 7 matches. I didnt see anyone we played against that was out of line, Skill Level-wise. There may have been one or two players that could have been ranked one level higher, but they weren't killers, and not put of the norm for any group of players.
If you beat the the 6's, how can you be a 6?
