Play good one day, bad another? It's just science.

And I can guarantee you this. A well rounded 550 will smoke a 550 with holes in their game any day of the week. They’ll look like a 600 against a 500. But they’re only gonna be a 550 when they play a 650 cause a 650 knows more. I’ll prove it too. Any 600 wants to play? I’m a 600 and can beat most of you easily. The only reason I’m around a 600 and not a 650 is because I’m still missing easy shots sometimes. I’ll keep up with most 650’s right now too.
 
Yes I get it. Everybody misses! Don’t let it get you down. I was trying to help some out here. And I will now. To break it down. A typical 550 has around a 600-650 offense and probably a 450-500 defense. Typically. Because most 550 are usually offense oriented. A 700 has probably something around a 675 and 725 offense and defense or defense and offense. Less variance and better rounded. So therefore. How is a 700 going to end up without a narrower curve. Any well rounded player will have a narrower curve because the differences in their complete game is less. That’s the variable that science doesn’t consider. It just bases everything on a well rounded player. Most the higher rated ones are the lower are sometimes.
In general a player APPROXIMATELY 550 is favorite to get out with 6 balls on the table and ball in hand, which is hardly 600 level offense. APPROXIMATE 600 level offense generally is 7 balls with BIH, which is a lot harder to do than 6 balls.

A 550 with 650 offense? Its just not true, if they had 650 offense all they would need to do is work on their kicking and safeties for a week and they would be a 650 in no time. Then to become a 700 all they would need to do is a marginal improvement of their offense, which is obviously not the case to go from the favorite with 6 balls BIH to 9 balls BIH.

The narrower curve is due to less day to day variance as their skill level increases and their fundamentals become more consistent from day to day, it has nothing to do with their offense vs defense.

Anyways, there really is no 550 level this and 650 level that and 700 level there. A player plays at their level of play. Sure there might be a player here and there that play at the same level and have the players number for whatever reason and they cant beat them. But this is just one player and Fargo doesn't rate your performance vs one player, it is against ALL the other players in the system.

There are defense oriented 550s that beat offense oriented 550s; and offense oriented 550s that beat defense oriented 550s; and offense oriented 550s that lose to defense oriented 550s; and defense oriented 550s that lose to offense oriented 550s; and there are 550s with similar offensive/defensive skillsets where one gets the best of the other all the time; and there are 550s with similar skillsets that play even. When all of this is put in the system it averages out to their level of play vs all all the other players in the system. If there are enough 'outliers' where one 550 seems to beat up on other 550s too much then their fargo rate goes up. It is self correcting.
 
Last edited:
A 550 with 650 offense? Its just not true, if they had 650 offense all they would need to do is work on their kicking and safeties for a week and they would be a 650 in no time. Then to become a 700 all they would need to do is a marginal improvement of their offense, which is obviously not the case to go from the favorite with 6 balls BIH to 9 balls BIH. A 550 is favorite to get out with 6 balls on the table and ball in hand, which is hardly 600 level offense. 600 level offense is 7 balls with BIH, which is a lot harder to do than 6 balls.

The narrower curve is due to less day to day variance as their skill level increases and their fundamentals become more consistent from day to day, it has nothing to do with their offense vs defense.
Haha I was a 650 without barely ever safetying. Mostly offense. If you can run 3-4-5 racks in a row why safety?I would have been a 700 with safeties. That’s why I’ll apex 700 this time….how good was my offense- I almost never missed a makeable regular shot and was like 80% on my total banks. My position game wasn’t the best. Who cares when you make everything? I used to just play for banks. Of course I also played my first 10 years without using any side English only draw and follow. So…10 years of not worrying a lot about perfect position. Against most players I looked like a 650. Against good players I didn’t unless I threw some safes out there. See different game when you get to higher ranks.

I’ve never had an assigned fargorate but if I was beating all the 600’s in a race to 5 without a spot to them and losing to all the 700’s that would probably make me a 650? I think that’s how it works out anyway. Or maybe I was closer to a 700 with holes in my game…..like a 550 defense
 
Last edited:
Haha I was a 650 without barely ever safetying. Mostly offense. If you can run 3-4-5 racks in a row why safety?I would have been a 700 with safeties. That’s why I’ll apex 700 this time….how good was my offense- I almost never missed a makeable regular shot and was like 80% on my total banks. My position game wasn’t the best. Who cares when you make everything? I used to just play for banks. Of course I also played my first 10 years without using any side English only draw and follow. So…10 years of not worrying a lot about perfect position. Against most players I looked like a 650. Against good players I didn’t unless I threw some safes out there. See different game when you get to higher ranks.

I’ve never had an assigned fargorate but if I was beating all the 600’s in a race to 5 without a spot to them and losing to all the 700’s that would probably make me a 650? I think that’s how it works out anyway. Or maybe I was closer to a 700 with holes in my game…..like a 550 defense
In a nutshell it sounds like your cue ball control was not up to par for 700 level. The fact that you had to shoot a lot of bank shots is a dead giveaway.

What you are describing is a typical 650, able to beat most players at a lower level than them without good strategic play but against better players they must play good strategically or they get annihilated. So you were about 650 level, not 700 level with no safeties, if you were 700 level you would have played even with the 700s after making a simple adjustment to your strategy: there are no excuses.

For example, if you were really 700 level it would have been trivial to perform good safeties and play at their level. But, as you said, you had weak cue ball control: a typical thing for many 650 and below players which keeps them from playing good safeties all the time. Consistently good safeties require consistently good cueball control. Weak cueball control is something a 700 generally doesn't have and hence they had no problem locking you up and preventing you from running out.

I know all this stuff as a player at about roughly the 650 level. I experience the same results you said above for the exact same reason with the main difference in your player description is that my position is good enough that I rarely have to set up for a bank shot but other than that I still don't consider my position play 'good' because the better players around here (who are about 700 level and above) all play much better position than me and all I need to do is watch them play for 10 minutes and its obvious. That better position is ability what's holding my offense and safeties back because I have no problem making easy, medium and tough shots, including bank shots. I also kick at about a normal level for a 650: consistently able to hit most 1 rail kicks, able to hit 2 rails kicks with consistency but not as much as 1 rail kicks, and able to hit 3 rail kicks but not near as consistent as the 1 or 2 rail kicks. And I don't ever jump because jump cues are banned at all the rooms around here.
 
Last edited:
In a nutshell it sounds like your cue ball control was not up to par for 700 level. The fact that you had to shoot a lot of bank shots is a dead giveaway.

What you are describing is a typical 650, able to beat most players at a lower level than them without good strategic play but against better players they must play good strategically or they get annihilated. So you were about 650 level, not 700 level with no safeties, if you were 700 level you would have played even with the 700s after making a simple adjustment to your strategy: there are no excuses.

For example, if you were really 700 level it would have been trivial to perform good safeties and play at their level. But, as you said, you had weak cue ball control: a typical thing for many 650 and below players which keeps them from playing good safeties all the time. Consistently good safeties require consistently good cueball control. Weak cueball control is something a 700 generally doesn't have and hence they had no problem locking you up and preventing you from running out.

I know all this stuff as a player at about roughly the 650 level. I experience the same results you said above for the exact same reason with the main difference in your player description is that my position is good enough that I rarely have to set up for a bank shot but other than that I still don't consider my position play 'good' because the better players around here (who are about 700 level and above) all play much better position than me and all I need to do is watch them play for 10 minutes and its obvious. That better position is ability what's holding my offense and safeties back because I have no problem making easy, medium and tough shots, including bank shots. I also kick at about a normal level for a 650: consistently able to hit most 1 rail kicks, able to hit 2 rails kicks with consistency but not as much as 1 rail kicks, and able to hit 3 rail kicks but not near as consistent as the 1 or 2 rail kicks. And I don't ever jump because jump cues are banned at all the rooms around here.
I think we are kind of on the same page here. I’ll leave it at that until I toast a pro to get some street cred. Summer 2022 if all goes as planned….never had a formal lesson, never cared!
 
This is why most people think they're under rated. I hear it all the time, "I'm only a 525 but I play like a 600". People like to think their level of play is their best game. It's not...
 
I think we are kind of on the same page here. I’ll leave it at that until I toast a pro to get some street cred. Summer 2022 if all goes as planned….never had a formal lesson, never cared!
Konrad: The only reason I’m around a 600 and not a 650 is because I’m still missing easy shots sometimes.

ummm, not knocking you, but missing easy shots still, so toasting a pro is most likely not in your future plans ;) You should make 100% of the easy shots, no excuses. 100% minimum. They should be automatic but without treating them like that.
 
And I can guarantee you this. A well rounded 550 will smoke a 550 with holes in their game any day of the week. They’ll look like a 600 against a 500. But they’re only gonna be a 550 when they play a 650 cause a 650 knows more. I’ll prove it too. Any 600 wants to play? I’m a 600 and can beat most of you easily. The only reason I’m around a 600 and not a 650 is because I’m still missing easy shots sometimes. I’ll keep up with most 650’s right now too.

If a 550 is beating another 550 then that 550 is not a 550 but higher. I mean just read the line again. I don't think you understand Fargo too well yet, it's the same thing that people were talking about when they thought the women should be ranked lower than the men. Someone is a 550 because they play even against other 550s. There is no 550 that will "smoke" another 550 because then that 550 would actually be a 600 or higher simply due to the fact they are beating other 550 ranked players. 550 is a 550 is a 550. If whoever you think is a 550 with "holes" in their game, then they would be a 500, or a 510. So either it's a 550 playing a 510, or it's a 550 playing a 580 or 600, or whatever, but it's not two 550s if one is always beating the other.

I mean it's pretty much the opposite of the point of the original post I did, and all the replies. You are trying to inject your own logic into a statistical rating. Saying someone is not this rank "just because" of something is like saying Napoleon would have ruled the world if he did not take that left into Russia in winter. He did, he's not. If someone is playing at a certain level, that is the level they are playing at, there are no 600 players that should be 650 due to a single thing, they are 600 players because they don't have the skill to play even with the 650 players, period. Why does not matter. They may just be nervous all the time and lose, or they hate blue and always miss the 2 ball, or mechanics are off, it does not matter. Once someone accumulates enough games against various opponents, they are what they are (barring cheating of course).
 
Last edited:
If a 550 is beating another 550 then that 550 is not a 550 but higher. ....
Mike Page has pointed out the possibility of a rock-paper-scissors situation among three players. Player A can't get out of B's safeties, B's safeties are not strong enough against C's kicks, and A just runs the balls better than C, or something like that. So far as I know, no such group of players has ever been documented.

But if such a situation did exist, two players of the same rating might be mismatched. I'd bet the edge would be small which means it would be more or less impossible to see in a match shorter that a race to 100 or so.
 
Mike Page has pointed out the possibility of a rock-paper-scissors situation among three players. Player A can't get out of B's safeties, B's safeties are not strong enough against C's kicks, and A just runs the balls better than C, or something like that. So far as I know, no such group of players has ever been documented.

But if such a situation did exist, two players of the same rating might be mismatched. I'd bet the edge would be small which means it would be more or less impossible to see in a match shorter that a race to 100 or so.

I have seen where people have a mental issue with beating someone. A kid I was teaching said he did not want to play me because he would be too nervous, so in theory if he was beating the same players I was, he could be losing to me due to just a mental block and under-mining himself. But statistically over time that won't matter in a 1 to 1 situation since we know Fargo was not setup that way. My reply to him was "you should actually be more relaxed playing me than many other players since we hang out often, I help you with your game, just play me as a friend that you played many times and you will be more relaxed than you think. There is no pressure to beat me, just follow your game, it's harder to play vs someone you really want to beat".
 
This is exactly I ain’t ever buying putting a number on someone’s game.

Old experienced guys will out move younger guys 8 days a week.

Post up the $ and count it after then you have a rating system with numbers.

Nuff said,
Fatboy
 
It doesn't work! That is the worst strategy ever. All it does is sabotage performance, growth, and improvement, all while forming a habit of being miserable at the pool table. Building a habit of misery doesn't lead to future joy! Nor does self abuse lead to optimal performance. Much better to form a habit of enjoying the current level of performance. Oh, I already know the argument, "I need to catch myself doing something wrong, and I need to motivate myself to improve, otherwise I'll never get better". That is the ego throwing a fit because it doesn't like to have it's role diminished. I just put in an 8 hour practice session yesterday, 6 hours of the hardest stuff I've ever worked on consecutively, and I did it with the fuel of enthusiasm and passion, and celebration of each small success (not criticism of each small failure). I had the best day ever yesterday. I think I played pretty well too but I wasn't even paying attention to results so I guess I'm not sure. It can be done. It's a habit. In short, consistency is impossible and self abuse until you achieve an impossible goal is a great way to ruin the most amazing game of all time.

This is a pretty good summary of the "Pleasures of Small Motions" book theory--except I think you explained it better and more accurately!
 
If a 550 is beating another 550 then that 550 is not a 550 but higher. I mean just read the line again. I don't think you understand Fargo too well yet, it's the same thing that people were talking about when they thought the women should be ranked lower than the men. Someone is a 550 because they play even against other 550s. There is no 550 that will "smoke" another 550 because then that 550 would actually be a 600 or higher simply due to the fact they are beating other 550 ranked players. 550 is a 550 is a 550. If whoever you think is a 550 with "holes" in their game, then they would be a 500, or a 510. So either it's a 550 playing a 510, or it's a 550 playing a 580 or 600, or whatever, but it's not two 550s if one is always beating the other.

I mean it's pretty much the opposite of the point of the original post I did, and all the replies. You are trying to inject your own logic into a statistical rating. Saying someone is not this rank "just because" of something is like saying Napoleon would have ruled the world if he did not take that left into Russia in winter. He did, he's not. If someone is playing at a certain level, that is the level they are playing at, there are no 600 players that should be 650 due to a single thing, they are 600 players because they don't have the skill to play even with the 650 players, period. Why does not matter. They may just be nervous all the time and lose, or they hate blue and always miss the 2 ball, or mechanics are off, it does not matter. Once someone accumulates enough games against various opponents, they are what they are (barring cheating of course).
Nope there are 550’s that can smoke all 550’s but not 600’s. The point is 550’s normally have outright weaknesses you can play to while as the ranks get higher it’s harder to identify them. You don’t have to be better at shooting or safetying to beat someone of the same skill level. So even though it makes more sense to you it doesn’t. I get it now anyways. SVB on a good day shoots as an 890….makes perfect sense.
 
Last edited:
I’m sorry guys after my last post stating maybe the one 550 is a 570 I looked more into it and came across the fargorate explained with a race to 9 would give 570 9 games to 550’s 8. The system must have changed because I thought they would either both go to 5 or both go to 6 with the example stated. Do all matches go to 9 now? And the most interesting part of that is a world pro is 8 times better than a 500. If that is correct and they are exponentially better they can’t have even close to the same variance in play. They would actually have a lot more variance according to that reasoning. Because the system states every 100 points means twice as good. From 500-800 is 300. So that’s 2x2x2=8. An 800 is 8 times better than a 500!

They can only have somewhere around a 1/4 of the 500’s 100 variance or a 25 point variance to have the same range of bad to good because each point is worth up to 8 times as much range as a 500’s . And my point is now proven. The higher ups curves are narrower. So to all you haters. Haters gonna hate. And yes there is another 2 or 1/2 division/multiplier that I left out. I don’t want to confuse you all who can’t see it in real life situations like some of us do or mathematically like some will now any further.
 
Last edited:
This is exactly I ain’t ever buying putting a number on someone’s game.

Old experienced guys will out move younger guys 8 days a week.

Post up the $ and count it after then you have a rating system with numbers.
[...]

I'm not trying to convince you to suddenly be a numbers guy. But Fargo Ratings are actually more like your third line here, more like ignoring the details and counting the $$ at the end.

Let's take the old experienced guys versus the young guns. FargoRate doesn't care who shoots straighter. Neither does it care who moves better. What FargoRate determines is whether you move ENOUGH better to overcome your opponent's superior shotmaking. If the answer is yes, you get the $$ AND have a higher Fargo Rating. In other words the things you are talking about are baked in.
 
A slightly different point of view on the consistency thing. In terms of absolute performance (something like the Billiard University exam, the European Playing Ability Test, or AccuStats TPA rating), an 800 FargoRate player is going to have a much narrower range of scores between his best and worst days than a 350 FargoRate player. On SVB’s worst day he might only be able to score a 180 on the BU exam and on his best day ace it with a 200. Whereas on the 350 player’s best day he might score a 70 but his worst day is only a 30. That would give Shane a 20 pt range and the 350 a 40pt range. Yes Shane is more consistent. But if he misses 1% more often than usual everyone will notice. If our 350 player misses 5% more often, would anybody even notice?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
A slightly different point of view on the consistency thing. In terms of absolute performance (something like the Billiard University exam, the European Playing Ability Test, or AccuStats TPA rating), an 800 FargoRate player is going to have a much narrower range of scores between his best and worst days than a 350 FargoRate player. On SVB’s worst day he might only be able to score a 180 on the BU exam and on his best day ace it with a 200. Whereas on the 350 player’s best day he might score a 70 but his worst day is only a 30. That would give Shane a 20 pt range and the 350 a 40pt range. Yes Shane is more consistent. But if he misses 1% more often than usual everyone will notice. If our 350 player misses 5% more often, would anybody even notice?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Thank you! The second posted video on here was trying to say a 350 has the same range good to bad as a 700-800. It’s not true, the pros is narrower and I am glad you posted that.
 
A slightly different point of view on the consistency thing. In terms of absolute performance (something like the Billiard University exam, the European Playing Ability Test, or AccuStats TPA rating), an 800 FargoRate player is going to have a much narrower range of scores between his best and worst days than a 350 FargoRate player. On SVB’s worst day he might only be able to score a 180 on the BU exam and on his best day ace it with a 200. Whereas on the 350 player’s best day he might score a 70 but his worst day is only a 30. That would give Shane a 20 pt range and the 350 a 40pt range. Yes Shane is more consistent. But if he misses 1% more often than usual everyone will notice. If our 350 player misses 5% more often, would anybody even notice?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I think this is right. We are not all plotting or thinking about the same thing on the sideways axis when we are thinking about this variance stuff and consistency.

If you look at the variance of where the object ball goes from where you intended it to go, then the better player has a lower variance and is in some sense more consistent.

But because he is EXPECTED to be more accurate, there is a bigger negative outcome when he is off by a certain amount. When you fold that outcome/impact in, the consistency of the stronger and weaker players look similar.

That's the empirical message from the consistency video. Whether you are a 500 or a 700, you are about equally likely to perform 50 points high or 50 points low. There is a practical sense in which the 700 is not generally more consistent.
 
I'm not trying to convince you to suddenly be a numbers guy. But Fargo Ratings are actually more like your third line here, more like ignoring the details and counting the $$ at the end.

Let's take the old experienced guys versus the young guns. FargoRate doesn't care who shoots straighter. Neither does it care who moves better. What FargoRate determines is whether you move ENOUGH better to overcome your opponent's superior shotmaking. If the answer is yes, you get the $$ AND have a higher Fargo Rating. In other words the things you are talking about are baked in.
But what I have been trying to say here Mike is this. So the old guy takes out all the 500’s at 5-2 or 6-3 most of the 550’s at a 5-4 or 5-3and loses bad to all the 600’s 6-1 or 6-2 or 6-3 because his game doesn’t work as well on them, what’s his rating? There’s some like that at every level. They beat everyone their same rating but avg out to that rating anyway. Sorry to keep editing. I’m just saying a long green tight cut might be a safety to a 500 but is it a safety against a 600?
 
Last edited:
But what I have been trying to say here Mike is this. So the old guy takes out all the 500’s at 5-2 or 6-3 most of the 550’s at a 5-4 or 5-3and loses bad to all the 600’s 6-1 or 6-2 or 6-3 because his game doesn’t work as well on them, what’s his rating? There’s some like that at every level. They beat everyone their same rating but avg out to that rating anyway
We just have not yet found a situation like this. Every time we've looked the person who takes out the 500s at 6-3 plays pretty even with the 600s.
 
Back
Top