Dr. Dave’s VNEA Vegas Experience

[mikepage]

This is something I’ve never understood about FargoRate.

I’m not trying to knock it but how can the ratings be the same for guys playing on different equipment? I see this at the DCC every year — guys flumexed by the tight Diamond tables. You can just tell they’re use to loose GCs or maybe their easy home room tables. And they miss — a lot — because they’re not used to the tougher equipment. They might be stars on the soft stuff but really have no chance on the tighter tables.

There are two issues worth separating. Call them skill and familiarity. When the guy with your FR who is thoroughly accustomed to 5" buckets walks into your room with tougher equipment, yes I understand you feel you will have an advantage. But if you--thoroughly accustomed to tight pockets--walk into his room with 5" pockets, it is he who will have an advantage. This is not a skill issue but a familiarity issue.

We are constantly making risk tradeoff decisions when we play. Let's say having the cueball follow the line you really want for the next shot puts you uncomfortably close to a possible obstructing ball. On a tighter table if may be wise to assume that risk because it is a little more important you come in on the right line and get closer to the next object ball to make the next shot easier. With bigger pockets you might accept a little longer shot on the next ball shifting focus to making sure the cueball is in the clear. On familiar equipment we have these risk balance decisions well tuned.

If you have the same Fargo Rating, then after 50 or 100 hours of play either for you on the 5" pockets or for the other guy on your Diamonds, you will play close to even. It doesn't matter in what environment you established your rating. Think of a Fargo Rating measuring a core skill that is very hard to change and changes only very slowly when it does change. That rating is a measure of your performance playing the game you are accustomed to playing on the equipment you are accustomed to playing.

Imagine two players, Click and Clack, who are both rated 650 and who both play half the time in events on 5" pockets and half the time in events on 4.25" pockets. So Click and Clack play the same and are accustomed to both environments. But for some reason only Click's 5" tournaments go into FargoRate and Clack has only 4.25" matches making up his rating. It won't matter. They will be rated the same. This is hard for people to grasp because by any absolute measure, the 4.25" equipment is harder. You run out fewer tables, make fewer spot shots, miss ball in hand more often, etc. But FargoRate has no absolute measures baked in.

It helps, I think, to think about who your opponents are. People in general are more likely to be playing the game and equipment they are most accustomed to. And that goes for your opponents. So when you play a lot of bar box 8-Ball, the people you are meeting up with in later stages of those midwest barbox events are people who have that risk/balance stuff optimized playing barbox 8-Ball.

 

[lfigueroa]

There are two issues worth separating. Call them skill and familiarity. When the guy with your FR who is thoroughly accustomed to 5" buckets walks into your room with tougher equipment, yes I understand you feel you will have an advantage. But if you--thoroughly accustomed to tight pockets--walk into his room with 5" pockets, it is he who will have an advantage. This is not a skill issue but a familiarity issue.

We are constantly making risk tradeoff decisions when we play. Let's say having the cueball follow the line you really want for the next shot puts you uncomfortably close to a possible obstructing ball. On a tighter table if may be wise to assume that risk because it is a little more important you come in on the right line and get closer to the next object ball to make the next shot easier. With bigger pockets you might accept a little longer shot on the next ball shifting focus to making sure the cueball is in the clear. On familiar equipment we have these risk balance decisions well tuned.

If you have the same Fargo Rating, then after 50 or 100 hours of play either for you on the 5" pockets or for the other guy on your Diamonds, you will play close to even. It doesn't matter in what environment you established your rating. Think of a Fargo Rating measuring a core skill that is very hard to change and changes only very slowly when it does change. That rating is a measure of your performance playing the game you are accustomed to playing on the equipment you are accustomed to playing.

Imagine two players, Click and Clack, who are both rated 650 and who both play half the time in events on 5" pockets and half the time in events on 4.25" pockets. So Click and Clack play the same and are accustomed to both environments. But for some reason only Click's 5" tournaments go into FargoRate and Clack has only 4.25" matches making up his rating. It won't matter. They will be rated the same. This is hard for people to grasp because by any absolute measure, the 4.25" equipment is harder. You run out fewer tables, make fewer spot shots, miss ball in hand more often, etc. But FargoRate has no absolute measures baked in.

It helps, I think, to think about who your opponents are. People in general are more likely to be playing the game and equipment they are most accustomed to. And that goes for your opponents. So when you play a lot of bar box 8-Ball, the people you are meeting up with in later stages of those midwest barbox events are people who have that risk/balance stuff optimized playing barbox 8-Ball.

I wasn’t clear: the issue I was trying to get to is how FR is being used to handicap matches and/or tournaments and if players are accustomed to different equipment, the guy use to the tougher equipment has the advantage, even though they have the same FR.

And I wasn’t talking about going back and forth to different pool halls. The scenario I was speaking to was about Click coming to Clack’s room, not about Click and Clack endlessly commuting between rooms. To me, it is self-evident the player with the better mechanics, honed from playing on tougher equipment, is always going to have the advantage. It takes much practice and work to refine your stroke and skills to perform on tougher equipment. It’s not a matter of just adjusting.

Even on the softer equipment it may take longer for the advantage to manifest itself but inevitably it will. And when is the last time you played a 5O or 100 hour session? Given a more likely session of six or eight hours it’s not going to even out.

It seems to me, given two guys with the same FR but accustomed to different equipment as previously outlined, Clack is going to have an advantage.

Lou Figueroa
and is goin’ home
wit da cheese

 

[mikepage]

[...]To me, it is self-evident the player with the better mechanics, honed from playing on tougher equipment, is always going to have the advantage. It takes much practice and work to refine your stroke and skills to perform on tougher equipment. It’s not a matter of just adjusting.

That's a different issue. The player you're talking about who has developed better mechanics will have a higher Fargo Rating.

 

[lfigueroa]

That's a different issue. The player you're talking about who has developed better mechanics will have a higher Fargo Rating.

How does he have a different FR if he’s playing a bunch of other guys on the same tough equipment and his record looks the same as the guy in another town playing guys on nothing but softer equipment?

Lou Figueroa

 

[Patrick Johnson]

How does he have a different FR if he’s playing a bunch of other guys on the same tough equipment and his record looks the same as the guy in another town playing guys on nothing but softer equipment?

Lou Figueroa

Isn't the FR based on who you beat (which, of course, happens on the same equipment)?

pj
chgo

 

[lfigueroa]

Isn't the FR based on who you beat (which, of course, happens on the same equipment)?

pj
chgo

I guess — my lack of knowledge about FR is why I’m asking.

What I’m wondering about is: given two separate environs, where the only difference is how tough the equipment is, it seems that a player from each place could emerge with the same FR. But given Click has been playing on 4.5” Diamonds and Clack has been playing on GC2s with 5” pockets they would not be at the same playing level though their FRs would say they are.

Lou Figueroa

 

[mikepage]

How does he have a different FR if he’s playing a bunch of other guys on the same tough equipment and his record looks the same as the guy in another town playing guys on nothing but softer equipment?

Lou Figueroa

This is the basic fundamental problem FargoRate solves. Let's say in town A, Studtown, they play on tough equipment, and the players with a certain success rate are rated 650. And for now, in town B, Softytown, the players with that same success rate are also rated 650. Here is what happens. Occasionally somebody moves from one town or the other and occasionally players from the two towns play common competition in town C. It doesn't have to be a lot of players. If because of better fundamentals, etc, the Studtown few outperform the Softytown few against common competition, ALL of Studtown will go up in rating and ALL of Softytown will go down.

 

[mikepage]

I guess — my lack of knowledge about FR is why I’m asking.

What I’m wondering about is: given two separate environs, where the only difference is how tough the equipment is, it seems that a player from each place could emerge with the same FR. But given Click has been playing on 4.5” Diamonds and Clack has been playing on GC2s with 5” pockets they would not be at the same playing level though their FRs would say they are.

Lou Figueroa

Those towns might LOOK like two different ponds. But they're not. We're all coupled together. So the better players will have a higher rating. Winning all the time in your small pond doesn't mean your rating is high. It just means it is higher that your opponents' ratings.

 

[lfigueroa]

Those towns might LOOK like two different ponds. But they're not. We're all coupled together. So the better players will have a higher rating. Winning all the time in your small pond doesn't mean your rating is high. It just means it is higher that your opponents' ratings.

OK but the formal Fargo ecosystem isn’t what I’ve been asking about — here’s what I said just a few posts ago:

#####
I wasn’t clear: the issue I was trying to get to is how FR is being used to handicap matches and/or tournaments and if players are accustomed to different equipment, the guy use to the tougher equipment has the advantage, even though they have the same FR.
#####

IOWs, matches or tournaments that never get reported into the Fargo system, my point being that there exists the potential for what looks like an even match up on paper but is not because of the equipment each of two guys might be used to.

If there’s a tournament at a room with 4.5” Diamonds, where the cut off to enter is 650 FR or below and most of the field usually plays on GC2s with 5” pockets and there’s one guy who plays on 4.5” Diamonds, he has an advantage, no?

Lou Figueroa

 

[alphadog]

Not a believer.

Guy with the same FR as me from the GC 5” pockets room walks into my room with 4.5” Diamonds — I’m happy to play all day.

Lou Figueroa
but that’s just me : -)

Sir you make a valid point. The problem is the information fargorate received is only accurate to a degree. The belief is the 650 player has enough games against players who play on tighter equipment that the table bias is lost in the big picture.

 

[mikepage]

[...]

If there’s a tournament at a room with 4.5” Diamonds, where the cut off to enter is 650 FR or below and most of the field usually plays on GC2s with 5” pockets and there’s one guy who plays on 4.5” Diamonds, he has an advantage, no?

I doubt it. Most people bounce around enough that they adjust pretty quickly. They'd likely be pretty even in the tournament.

 

[mikepage]

Sir you make a valid point. The problem is the information fargorate received is only accurate to a degree. The belief is the 650 player has enough games against players who play on tighter equipment that the table bias is lost in the big picture.

No the 650 player doesn’t need any games against opponents whi play on tighter equipment. That coupling can be far deeper in the ecosystem.

 

[lfigueroa]

I doubt it. Most people bounce around enough that they adjust pretty quickly. They'd likely be pretty even in the tournament.

Your point about what “most people” do is a very big, and in my experience, invalid assumption.

As to your tournament observation: after playing in 20+ DCCs I can assure you that is way off base. It takes a lot of time and work to hit those Diamond pockets with accuracy. No one is adjusting pretty quickly.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

Sir you make a valid point. The problem is the information fargorate received is only accurate to a degree. The belief is the 650 player has enough games against players who play on tighter equipment that the table bias is lost in the big picture.

IMO, table bias, as you put it, is a big deal whether it’s FR, matching up, or tournament play.

Going from Valleys to Diamonds is a big deal too. Are players going to the tougher equipment going to get incrementally better and adjust a bit after a couple of games? Maybe. But it took me from going from a home room with GCs to my current room with Diamonds to appreciate just how significant the shift is.

It’s a whole different kettle of fish to be able to execute precisely and consistently on tougher tables. You really have to retool your mechanics.

Lou Figueroa

 

[Jimmorrison]

Holy Christ on a crutch, talk about the patience of Job. Mike, you are the man.

 

[measureman]

Your point about what “most people” do is a very big, and in my experience, invalid assumption.

As to your tournament observation: after playing in 20+ DCCs I can assure you that is way off base. It takes a lot of time and work to hit those Diamond pockets with accuracy. No one is adjusting pretty quickly.

Lou Figueroa

I've been playing on Diamonds for years and yes it took a bit of adjustment from playing on Crowns.

 

[lfigueroa]

I've been playing on Diamonds for years and yes it took a bit of adjustment from playing on Crowns.

Right.

It takes more than a minor mid-flight adjustment. Maybe some lower level guys think that but anyone who can play knows better.

Lou Figueroa

 

[JPB2]

FargoRate v. Table Bias. Another golf comparison.

I am no math expert. Don't know Mike Page. Did appreciate his Minneapolis recommendation last week. I am new to FargoRate and am getting established. I have had a golf handicap for a while although I am not playing much. Had one in the old days before GHIN numbers and slope ratings. Math geniuses were behind that I think. Golf handicapping isn't perfect, but is really good. They used to talk about handicaps traveling well, and to some extent they probably still do. For those unfamiliar with it, a score at a given course with a course rating and slope gets converted into a differential and then an index. Then your index can be converted to a course handicap. So you play at Moderate Hills and have an index of 12.3. At your home course you are a say a 12. At Oakmont maybe you are a 14 or 15 or something. At Desert Flats you are a 10. So it converts pretty well. But the handicap is based on stroke play. Pool doesn't really have stroke play.

I think it would be interesting if there were something like pool stroke play combined with Dr. Dave's table difficulty factor, but there isn't. It could probably be done with straight pool or equal offense. Say a DCC straight pool challenge or equal offense tournament. But nobody would do it probably and no one probably wants to. And then we'd still get the arguments about 8 ball vs. rotation, etc... So how would you handicap a 9 ball match? I dunno. I bet you could have a really accurate straight pool handicap index for leagues. A chart could say a given index goes to 53 and the better opponent goes to 112. Won't happen.

Pool is match play. Golf match play is great, but the handicaps are established at stroke play. So it seems to me, not being a FargoRate expert, that a rating based on match play that takes as much data as possible comes up with a really good number with enough time in the system and is exactly how to handicap pool. I am starting to play pool again and read a little about FargoRate as it was new to me. And it didn't take long to see it was a tremendous thing for pool. I think revolutionary. If the handicap is reasonably accurate it will promote tournaments with more even match ups or decent handicaps. This is important because it will (and I think does) make it much more likely for players to play in higher entry fee tournaments and travel to do it. I have been checking out the MOB events in Las Vegas and may try to get to some in the future. CSI in Las Vegas was not on my radar screen. When I went down to watch the World Cup 3C a year ago I saw how many players there were. So Maybe a CSI individual event is in my future. Now I am dead money in general but if in a given tournament when you either are in a bracket where you can compete or get a handicap that gives you some shot, it is more pleasant to post an entry fee and play. Again, I don't have enough time in the system, but played a local mildly handicapped tournament. Won a couple matches. My second loss was to the eventual winner and he had to overcome the spot. With the handicap it went hill-hill. He had a bit of a challenge to overcome the spot, I had a chance. That makes for bigger fields with higher entry fees. And that, IMO is really good for pool.

There is also the objective number that measures improvement. That will help newer or lower rated players. So yeah, a golfer with a handicap who goes and plays a links course after playing parkland courses has to adjust. And I see the advantage of training on at least moderately difficult equipment. Part of the reason I brought it up is I have been debating my next table purchase which I expect in the next 12-18 months. But I am getting less hung up on it, even if I end up with something on the more difficult end of things. So I guess if you are concerned play and practice on the hard equipment. So when you travel with a Fargo Rate to a tournament you can see how it goes adjusting to the easier equipment rather than vice versa. But I just think FargoRate will improve amatuer pool a lot, which will help all of us who like the game and help the industry.

 

[mikepage]

FargoRate v. Table Bias. Another golf comparison.

Interesting. Thanks for this.
We tend to talk about absolute vs relative measures of performance, and stroke play vs match play in golf is the same dichotomy.

Stroke play is an absolute measure, and it is like in straight pool saying what are your average balls per inning and what is the distribution of balls per inning. That's going to depend on the size of the table and the size of the pockets and the shape of the pocket facings and the slickness (newness) of the rail cloth and maybe the stakes of the competition and maybe the volume of the music and the distractions in the environment.

If the data is analyzed correctly there ultimately is more information in a relative approach. Imagine in golf all you cared about was how many strokes you took on this hole compared to others who played it in your foursome or perhaps within a few hours on that day, with the same wind, ground hardness, length of grass in the fairway and rough, condition of the greens, wetness of the grass, location of the pin and tees, etc. If this is analyzed the way pool ratings are, with a maximum likelihood approach, it with enough data would be much better than the absolute measures with course and slope ratings that at best average over a number of these things.

 

[tomatoshooter]

Interesting. Thanks for this.
We tend to talk about absolute vs relative measures of performance, and stroke play vs match play in golf is the same dichotomy.

Stroke play is an absolute measure, and it is like in straight pool saying what are your average balls per inning and what is the distribution of balls per inning. That's going to depend on the size of the table and the size of the pockets and the shape of the pocket facings and the slickness (newness) of the rail cloth and maybe the stakes of the competition and maybe the volume of the music and the distractions in the environment.

If the data is analyzed correctly there ultimately is more information in a relative approach. Imagine in golf all you cared about was how many strokes you took on this hole compared to others who played it in your foursome or perhaps within a few hours on that day, with the same wind, ground hardness, length of grass in the fairway and rough, condition of the greens, wetness of the grass, location of the pin and tees, etc. If this is analyzed the way pool ratings are, with a maximum likelihood approach, it with enough data would be much better than the absolute measures with course and slope ratings that at best average over a number of these things.

Didn't you do a comparison and Fargo Ratings were consistent across different table sizes and different games? That would suggest, at least to me, that Fargo should work with different pocket sizes, too. And here's a question, does shot accuracy follow a standard distribution? If two players shoot the same shots, and they both shoot 75% on 4 1/4" pockets, will they both shoot 85% on 4 3/4" pockets? And if a player only shoots on the larger pockets and shoots 85%, would he still shoot 75% on the smaller pockets? If pool accuracy approximates standard distribution, then a certain percentage on one size pocket should usually translate to a different percentage on a smaller pocket, consistently across many players.