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

[Willowbrook Wolfy]

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.

I get it. I tend to over analyze things sometimes but this is the type of situation that my game is in right now. And that’s why this post gets me going. I started to look at games in a different mindset. I have the mindset that I can still play at 650 to 700 level. I have the mindset of when I was at that level , But I’ve been out for like 20 years so I’m probably like 580 right now. Because I keep missing shots that I shouldn’t miss. If you put me up against a 580 right now I probably have a 60% chance or better of winning because I’ve been better, but
put me against a 650 I’m gonna lose and I know it. I can keep them at bay but I’m not gonna win. Because of the specific reason that I can’t give them a crappy safe then be OK . and it just seems to me like the game is played different at the higher levels after relearning my shot. And the rating thing and I’ll be like a 580 right now it would be averaging players around 580. As in the probability of me having a good shot or a bad shot. Now I’m just not in the mindset anymore of only making balls. I’m focusing on being well-rounded and I’m around a 580, but I don’t think a 580 would win 2 of 3 sets on me. It’s weird and hard to explain but it’s pretty much that I can make the shots that somebody who is the 580 is going to give me. Going to make me look better but I’m no better than a 580. It’s like a peak at 580 it drops straight down for me to win probability wise to anyone over that.

 

[Fatboy]

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.

I understand it’s a zero sum system and it’s baked in, but…….


respectfully,
fatboy

 

[Willowbrook Wolfy]

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 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.

All right guys so I figured this out what I’ve been trying to say this whole time was there are guys averaging 550 who make other guys who are averaging the same look like 500’s all day. It doesn’t have anything to do with play. It’s more a psychological thing. Maybe it doesn’t happen in league much, but I think Fatboy gets it.

Let’s say it’s a money game. There are some 550’s that will get into the others psyche. Like slowing down hard when their opponent is an upbeat player. Or not even playing safe but intentionally missing so the other guy will miss because they know it’s a hard run out. It doesn’t mean they aren’t a 550. Their shot is still a 550. How can a miss be considered a good safe? It’s not. That’s them playing worse and winning doing it . They can just make the 550 shoot like a 500. It’s more about the experience of the players. So now you have a 550 shooting against a 500 because they have broken the other player.


I used the initial reference of 500’s because those are typically players with less experience and on their way to getting better. Some players don’t care to get better and just know other ways how to win. But as ranks get higher not as much of the bs works for the experienced 550 so they lose because they can maybe bring down a 600 to or below their 550 level, but can’t bring the 625-650 down enough to win a lot of times and have to hope they shoot real good that day instead.

 

[Poolplaya9]

All right guys so I figured this out what I’ve been trying to say this whole time was there are guys averaging 550 who make other guys who are averaging the same look like 500’s all day. It doesn’t have anything to do with play. It’s more a psychological thing. Maybe it doesn’t happen in league much, but I think Fatboy gets it.

Let’s say it’s a money game. There are some 550’s that will get into the others psyche. Like slowing down hard when their opponent is an upbeat player. Or not even playing safe but intentionally missing so the other guy will miss because they know it’s a hard run out. It doesn’t mean they aren’t a 550. Their shot is still a 550. How can a miss be considered a good safe? It’s not. That’s them playing worse and winning doing it . They can just make the 550 shoot like a 500. It’s more about the experience of the players. So now you have a 550 shooting against a 500 because they have broken the other player.


I used the initial reference of 500’s because those are typically players with less experience and on their way to getting better. Some players don’t care to get better and just know other ways how to win. But as ranks get higher not as much of the bs works for the experienced 550 so they lose because they can maybe bring down a 600 to or below their 550 level, but can’t bring the 625-650 down enough to win a lot of times and have to hope they shoot real good that day instead.

You clearly don't even begin to understand how FargoRate works and need to do more researching on it before making much commentary on it. The first thing you have to understand is that it is not an estimation of speed based on any subjective judgment of certain criteria like how straight you shoot, how good you play position, how psychologically strong you are, etc, yet you are trying to think of it in that way since those are among the things you use when you are trying to estimate people's speeds.

FargoRate uses something substantially better than all that when comparing and rating people, and it is the one and only thing it uses, and the one and only thing that matters at the end of the day. Results. What percentage of games do you win against what level of players is all it looks at and it adjusts your rating accordingly based solely on results.

Which do you think does a better job of judging how often somebody will win, looking at their history of results, or trying to use any other criteria on earth? Nothing better predicts the chances for winning or by how much better than looking at their history of results. We as humans only use all that other stuff because we don't have enough result data to "look" at and so we have to use other indicators to help us guess a person's level such as how straight we think they shoot combined with how good we think they play position combined with how good we think their patterns and strategies and choices are etc, but all these subjective judgments are just indicators of a person's general level as compared to looking at a long history of that person's actual results which is much more concrete and precise.

So when you say things like "there are 550's who will beat all other 550's and play even with 600's" it is laughably ludicrous and impossible based on how the system works. John is a 550 because he beats the lesser players by about the same amounts as the other 550's do, plays about even with the other 550's, and loses to the better players by about the same amounts as the other 550's do. His results and nothing but his results are what makes him a 550. If he was averaging playing like a 600 and getting the results of a 600 then FargoRate would have changed his rating to a 600 as that is exactly how the system works, it goes only by results and moves your rating to properly reflect the results you are getting on average. So you can't say "well FargoRate only has him rated as a 550 but he gets the results of a 600". No, he doesn't. He gets the results of a 550, which is why FargoRate has him rated as a 550, because FargoRate only looks at and cares about results.

FargoRate doesn't care about the mind games you reference, or the level of your safety play, or how well you bank, or any of the other similar stuff you mentioned. It cares about one thing and one thing only, the results of how often you win or lose, by what amounts, and against what levels of players.

 

[Datto]

I’ll stop on this. The back and forth is pointless. Just like when I try to explain the fact to you all an LD shaft isn’t as accurate on long shots as a regular shaft and hurts a beginners game more than helps it.

Wrong on that on too.

 

[Willowbrook Wolfy]

You clearly don't even begin to understand how FargoRate works and need to do more researching on it before making much commentary on it. The first thing you have to understand is that it is not an estimation of speed based on any subjective judgment of certain criteria like how straight you shoot, how good you play position, how psychologically strong you are, etc, yet you are trying to think of it in that way since those are among the things you use when you are trying to estimate people's speeds.

FargoRate uses something substantially better than all that when comparing and rating people, and it is the one and only thing it uses, and the one and only thing that matters at the end of the day. Results. What percentage of games do you win against what level of players is all it looks at and it adjusts your rating accordingly based solely on results.

Which do you think does a better job of judging how often somebody will win, looking at their history of results, or trying to use any other criteria on earth? Nothing better predicts the chances for winning or by how much better than looking at their history of results. We as humans only use all that other stuff because we don't have enough result data to "look" at and so we have to use other indicators to help us guess a person's level such as how straight we think they shoot combined with how good we think they play position combined with how good we think their patterns and strategies and choices are etc, but all these subjective judgments are just indicators of a person's general level as compared to looking at a long history of that person's actual results which is much more concrete and precise.

So when you say things like "there are 550's who will beat all other 550's and play even with 600's" it is laughably ludicrous and impossible based on how the system works. John is a 550 because he beats the lesser players by about the same amounts as the other 550's do, plays about even with the other 550's, and loses to the better players by about the same amounts as the other 550's do. His results and nothing but his results are what makes him a 550. If he was averaging playing like a 600 and getting the results of a 600 then FargoRate would have changed his rating to a 600 as that is exactly how the system works, it goes only by results and moves your rating to properly reflect the results you are getting on average. So you can't say "well FargoRate only has him rated as a 550 but he gets the results of a 600". No, he doesn't. He gets the results of a 550, which is why FargoRate has him rated as a 550, because FargoRate only looks at and cares about results.

FargoRate doesn't care about the mind games you reference, or the level of your safety play, or how well you bank, or any of the other similar stuff you mentioned. It cares about one thing and one thing only, the results of how often you win or lose, by what amounts, and against what levels of players.

Ok. I give up. you win.

 

[Willowbrook Wolfy]

Wrong on that on too.

Nope. The swerve to squirt ratio is closer to one on a regular shaft than on an LD making the impact closer to point of aim. LD helps closer hurts farther and helps if your stroke isn’t good too.

 

[Willowbrook Wolfy]

But ok if you are hitting a long English shot HARD it might help a little using LD

 

[Willowbrook Wolfy]

And it hurts a beginners game more because they don’t learn as accurate a stroke with the LD. When they are a bit off center the LD helps them. So this can cause them to not develope a “perfect” stroke until later

 

[Willowbrook Wolfy]

See I knew someone would get their panties in a bunch over it. It’s a fact on the long slow to medium English shots and an opinion on beginners using them.

 

[Willowbrook Wolfy]

Also you can back cut a ball farther with a regular shaft……only probably 1-4 degrees based on distance because of the squirt

 

[pw98]

Also you can back cut a ball farther with a regular shaft……only probably 1-4 degrees based on distance because of the squirt

No you cannot.

 

[Willowbrook Wolfy]

No you cannot.

You can actually hit more of the ball. It’s geometry and physics at work. I’m not trying to call you out here PW don’t take it the wrong way. I enjoy the discussions even when we all don’t agree. Should we all argue IQ’s next? You all probably got me on that one.

 

[pw98]

You can actually hit more of the ball. It’s geometry and physics at work. Should we all argue IQ’s next? You all probably got me on that one.

You can hit the same amount of the ball regardless of the shaft you just have to aim differently.

 

[Willowbrook Wolfy]

You can hit the same amount of the ball regardless of the shaft you just have to aim differently.

Nope with full left you can squirt the ball a smidge more to start it farther right and actually hit farther behind the ball than perpendicular than you can with LD. When you change your aim you change perpendicular point of contact. Even if only a fraction of a mm higher squirt off a point on ball gets farther back swerve permitting. Think about a masse. A masse essentially squirts the ball then swerves it into ball.

 

[pw98]

Nope with full left you can squirt the ball a smidge more to start it farther right and actually hit farther behind the ball than perpendicular than you can with LD. When you change your aim you change perpendicular point of contact. Even if only a fraction of a mm higher squirt off a point on ball gets farther back swerve permitting. Think about a masse. A masse essentially squirts the ball then swerves it into ball.

It doesn't matter. The deflection takes place at the time of contact and that means it just effectively changes your aim so all you need to do is aim differently.

 

[Willowbrook Wolfy]

If anyone would like to know where this line of thought came from to start with. I was watching a match with Efren playing. He had a full table shot and switched cues for it. Then either middle of nowhere or iusedtoberich(I can’t remember which) posted on another thread yesterday about Meucci cues and aim and I figured it out from there.

 

[Willowbrook Wolfy]

I’m done discussing cause squirt isn’t linear

 

[pw98]

I’m done discussing cause squirt isn’t linear

Of course squirt is linear.

 

[boogieman]

Nope with full left you can squirt the ball a smidge more to start it farther right and actually hit farther behind the ball than perpendicular than you can with LD. When you change your aim you change perpendicular point of contact. Even if only a fraction of a mm higher squirt off a point on ball gets farther back swerve permitting. Think about a masse. A masse essentially squirts the ball then swerves it into ball.

I feel exactly the same way. I'm not sure if it's scientifically accurate, and get crucified whenever I mention it. I think it's easier to do a "half masse" type shot or curve/swerve shot with a regular shaft. That swerve of the CB lets you get way out on the edge. LD is meant to deflect more to avoid swerve. It might be possible, but it's tougher for me at least to get these swerve shots with LD.

You can literally swerve around blockers and come back in to hit the OB with a dang near level stick.

People always say you can do these shots with a LD but it's a matter of aiming different. Maybe they are right, but I could never duplicate these type shots with the same precision even after 6 months of LD play. I went back to standard rock hard maple because it just did what I wanted it to.