My Fargorate progression

I think this is the common "excuse". No offense because it's mine too. I've always thought differences between levels was found more in cueing/shot making than position play. Maybe it's because the potting differences just jump out at you.
I'm actually in the opposite camp. Shot making 'can' bail out bad position play, but eventually that loose CB won't provide a clean look for the sharpshooter to drop.

There's too many contributing factors in the growth of a player's skill to nail a dart in the middle of one aspect. The progression I normally see usually plays like this:
  1. Shot making
  2. Look how far I can make the CB go backwards
  3. Rudimentary pattern play involving lots of backspin
  4. Revert back to shot making
  5. CB control enough to crash into problems and hope
  6. Proficiency at shot making
  7. Moderate pattern play
  8. Rudimentary moves
  9. The realization that even though it doesn't look as cool. Rolling through shots is easier.
  10. Pattern play goes to shit. Moves go to shit
  11. Back to shot making
  12. Slowly pulls it all together...
The cool hard truth is CB matters more than shot making. There's a paradigm shift some players make when they both realize and of course execute the transition from being consistent difficult shot makers, to strong CB artists that typically never have a difficult shot. I know, some will point at someone like Filler who can drop difficult shots. However the norm in the pro game is making a move while faced with that difficult offensive shot. Rather than risking the likely blunder and not cashing.

The best played pool looks boring and obvious.
 
I personally consider shotmaking and CB the same thing. We are not talking about a banger just pocketing balls who has no clue about a CB. We are talking about a player attempting shot xyz and to put the CB "here". That whole thing is the "shot". If the shot goes, so will the CB land on the right spot, for an experienced player.

Pattern play (and/or picking the best position routes if you prefer that terminology) is definitely a separate skill IMO.

For me, I could work on a single runout marked with donuts, and try all different pattern plays, to find the most optimal one through trial and error. OR, copy the pattern play of a top pro for their runout, marking it on my table with donuts. So that takes pattern play out of the equation, takes thinking out of the equation, and only leaves the "shot" making. I could do the same runout for a week straight, and at the end of the week, my success percentage won't really be higher than at the start of the week.

The limiting factor is I miss the balls.
 
I personally consider shotmaking and CB the same thing. We are not talking about a banger just pocketing balls who has no clue about a CB.
You can, but there is a distinctive difference between strong potters that rely on it to compensate with low % plays, and those with CB control that don't need extreme level potting and get out easier.

You can group those aspects into a single classification (shot making) but that doesn't change the fact that both aspects generally develop at different times. Trying to do both concurrently will probably slow development.
 
I don't want to go too far into this because I've expressed my view on it multiple times on here and I realize I'm in the minority and gasp -- I could even be wrong about it. Plus it's iusedtoberich's thread...

But here's the thing -- if I had a room full of players and I had to separate them by skill level and the only information I got came from observing them all shoot one shot of my choice, what shot would I choose? I wouldn't pick an intricate positional route, instead I'd probably just lineup a long straight in shot and tell them to draw it back into the corner pocket. How they cued it would tell me all I needed to know.

What shot would be most telling?
 
Same boat as thread started. Haven't been a player for 20 years. I've only played 4 or 5 tournament matches since then. I'm under 500 but would still gamble with a 600
 
Shot-making definitely has something to do with fundamentals. A strong mental game may help you stay focused enough to stay near your peak capability, or it may give you enough clarity to know your limitations, which doesn't always help your pocketing. It's almost like blind optimism is better. Lastly and most importantly, pattern play has little to do with whether or not you make the FIRST difficult shot after an early safety exchange. This is where differences between potting skills show up the most drastically.
I play with my brother in law about 1/month and he has better potting skills than me so he consistently beat me... I joined a league and learned something about defense and now I think I win more even though he is still better at potting.
 
But here's the thing -- if I had a room full of players and I had to separate them by skill level and the only information I got came from observing them all shoot one shot of my choice, what shot would I choose? I wouldn't pick an intricate positional route, instead I'd probably just lineup a long straight in shot and tell them to draw it back into the corner pocket. How they cued it would tell me all I needed to know.
Maybe what we're tripping over is the skill range we're attempting to gauge with either potting or CB control. While I would agree that <625 is probably a good range to use pure potting. >650 the potting % for nearly everyone is extremely high, but doing so with consistent CB is a different matter.

That said, even your test shot above contains some pretty heavy CB control. Not easy to hit a long straight shot squarely enough to draw +4ft into a 4.5 window.

Speaking solely about the region I live in. There's countless players that can run with my potting ability (679). However none of them either have stroke comparable or a fargo north of 650. Most are closer to 600. These players run and gun, and will give most above their pay grade a good game. However you can nearly bank on them rolling themselves into trouble at some point. Not missing a shot, but missing position. Patterns for these players is rudimentary at best and choose routes that have unnecessary hazards. Why..?.., because they have grown accustomed to shooting themselves out of trouble. Some of these players have what would normally be deemed as 'good' strokes, some don't.

Now, I have yet to see a shot a player <750 can do that I cannot. However yet again, their patterns are better and they put real time into being consistent on game day. They kick safe better. They play safes in a manner to force kicking lanes that develop the rack in their favour. They have stronger table IQ. ...etc. None of the fore mentioned is something I would look at or expect to see in a <650 player.
 
Maybe what we're tripping over is the skill range we're attempting to gauge with either potting or CB control. While I would agree that <625 is probably a good range to use pure potting. >650 the potting % for nearly everyone is extremely high, but doing so with consistent CB is a different matter.
I think you're overstating the potting abilities of at least the 650-700 crowd.
That said, even your test shot above contains some pretty heavy CB control. Not easy to hit a long straight shot squarely enough to draw +4ft into a 4.5 window.
That's true and it takes exceptional arm talent to do so.
Speaking solely about the region I live in. There's countless players that can run with my potting ability (679). However none of them either have stroke comparable or a fargo north of 650. Most are closer to 600. These players run and gun, and will give most above their pay grade a good game. However you can nearly bank on them rolling themselves into trouble at some point. Not missing a shot, but missing position. Patterns for these players is rudimentary at best and choose routes that have unnecessary hazards. Why..?.., because they have grown accustomed to shooting themselves out of trouble. Some of these players have what would normally be deemed as 'good' strokes, some don't.

Now, I have yet to see a shot a player <750 can do that I cannot. However yet again, their patterns are better and they put real time into being consistent on game day. They kick safe better. They play safes in a manner to force kicking lanes that develop the rack in their favour. They have stronger table IQ. ...etc. None of the fore mentioned is something I would look at or expect to see in a <650 player.
You're being very selective with what you choose to see around you. 600 players that can pot well enough to play run out pool on a Diamond 9 footer are rare and of course you can do the shots of a 750 AT TIMES. I would be very impressed if you could do them consistently as well as they do.

Obviously it's worthwhile to have a good cue ball and improving it can help you win games, therefore increasing your Fargo. But there's a hierarchy at play in my view. In this view, it's your arm talent that determines your maximum capability. Can your arm perform X? This maximum capability more clearly shows up in difficult shot making drills than simpler cue ball control ones. Working diligently on your patterns, safety, and kicking games will help you squeeze every once of juice out of your existing capability. However, cracking the code and extending your maximum capability is a different deal. That's where you have to tinker around with your technique and possibly even do things with your fitness (e.g. weight training, coordination exercises, etc) to see dramatic improvement.

My goal in the next couple of years is to crack the 700 level and then I'd like to share how I got there being a super part-time player. I might fall short or just not have the time to pursue it. Guess time will tell.
 
I think you're overstating the potting abilities of at least the 650-700 crowd.
Nope... not really. Perception is subjective, so you either trust my evaluation or not. All I can tell you is I have no delusions regarding my own ability and how I stack up against the talent vs fargo around me.
You're being very selective with what you choose to see around you. 600 players that can pot well enough to play run out pool on a Diamond 9 footer are rare and...<snip>
Define 'run out pool'. Is there a success % that quantifies that for you..? ....and when did 'run out pool' become apart of the discussion..? I thought we were discussing the approach of using shot making ability to be the overall best gauge of skill..?
</snip>....of course you can do the shots of a 750 AT TIMES. I would be very impressed if you could do them consistently as well as they do.
There's exactly where my stance on CB comes from. Making a pot is one thing. It goes in the hole or not. Excluding props shots that players practice exclusively to pry a few bucks from someone's pockets. I've never seen a "pot" that I could not make anymore consistently then anyone else. Yes, clearly there's limits to that, but generally speaking it's typical reality. What separates skill levels (for sake of this discussion) is what happens to the CB afterward. That's CB control... ...and exactly why I believe it's the divider of skill levels and the best way to gauge talent.

Common ground ;)

Obviously it's worthwhile to have a good cue ball and improving it can help you win games, therefore increasing your Fargo. But there's a hierarchy at play in my view. In this view, it's your arm talent that determines your maximum capability. Can your arm perform X? This maximum capability more clearly shows up in difficult shot making drills than simpler cue ball control ones.
This is what you're stuck on... You deem CB control simplier but it is what determines the difficulty of the next shot, AND the difficulty of the shot at hand. Don't get me wrong. Having the ability to drop a difficult pot is a great weapon. However I'd trade low % potting ability for never being out of line in a heart beat. An easy 90% of the racks I'm involved in and lose, isn't due to missing a shot. The root cause is bad position. Whether it be CB short comings or a weak pattern that weighed too greatly on an augment CB path.
Working diligently on your patterns, safety, and kicking games will help you squeeze every once of juice out of your existing capability. However, cracking the code and extending your maximum capability is a different deal. That's where you have to tinker around with your technique and possibly even do things with your fitness (e.g. weight training, coordination exercises, etc) to see dramatic improvement.
Don't agree... At least with the notion of obtaining you maximum ability via shot making. I win far more racks these days leaning against my table IQ and CB control then back when I was a dead nuts potter. I'm sure any older player who's eyes are failing would agree with me. I also think the concept of a pool player benefiting at real notable level because they have an athletic physique wrong. Take a look at the top 13 in world. None of them have anything resembling an "athlete's" body. I stopped at 13 because I believe Albin does make honest effort to train.
My goal in the next couple of years is to crack the 700 level and then I'd like to share how I got there being a super part-time player. I might fall short or just not have the time to pursue it. Guess time will tell.
I have/had the some goal. I fancied myself a mid 680 player at the least, and with real effort I could crack the 700 barrier. Problem for me is that effort. I simply don't have the faith in my game when it matters. I lose sets I shouldn't, and don't have the time to regain the confidence I once had.

I wish you all the luck in the world. 700 is totally obtainable for those willing to put the time in.
 
Nope... not really. Perception is subjective, so you either trust my evaluation or not. All I can tell you is I have no delusions regarding my own ability and how I stack up against the talent vs fargo around me.

Define 'run out pool'. Is there a success % that quantifies that for you..? ....and when did 'run out pool' become apart of the discussion..? I thought we were discussing the approach of using shot making ability to be the overall best gauge of skill..?

There's exactly where my stance on CB comes from. Making a pot is one thing. It goes in the hole or not. Excluding props shots that players practice exclusively to pry a few bucks from someone's pockets. I've never seen a "pot" that I could not make anymore consistently then anyone else. Yes, clearly there's limits to that, but generally speaking it's typical reality. What separates skill levels (for sake of this discussion) is what happens to the CB afterward. That's CB control... ...and exactly why I believe it's the divider of skill levels and the best way to gauge talent.

Common ground ;)


This is what you're stuck on... You deem CB control simplier but it is what determines the difficulty of the next shot, AND the difficulty of the shot at hand. Don't get me wrong. Having the ability to drop a difficult pot is a great weapon. However I'd trade low % potting ability for never being out of line in a heart beat. An easy 90% of the racks I'm involved in and lose, isn't due to missing a shot. The root cause is bad position. Whether it be CB short comings or a weak pattern that weighed too greatly on an augment CB path.

Don't agree... At least with the notion of obtaining you maximum ability via shot making. I win far more racks these days leaning against my table IQ and CB control then back when I was a dead nuts potter. I'm sure any older player who's eyes are failing would agree with me. I also think the concept of a pool player benefiting at real notable level because they have an athletic physique wrong. Take a look at the top 13 in world. None of them have anything resembling an "athlete's" body. I stopped at 13 because I believe Albin does make honest effort to train.

I have/had the some goal. I fancied myself a mid 680 player at the least, and with real effort I could crack the 700 barrier. Problem for me is that effort. I simply don't have the faith in my game when it matters. I lose sets I shouldn't, and don't have the time to regain the confidence I once had.

I wish you all the luck in the world. 700 is totally obtainable for those willing to put the time in.
Great post. We see it differently and have discussed this before and I know I'm in the minority. I suspect both of our views are somewhat skewed by our own journeys. You've presented your view in a compelling fashion so not much I can argue. I'll just leave it there.
 
1707269750282.png


Two new updates this post.

1) I joined a league! I only played a league once in 1998 or so, and swore I never would again. Never say never! I joined this league specifically because it's a Fargo league. It's handicapped using the fargorate app handicap matrix, and the scores are reported using the BCAPL app. It's an 8 man team, and each week 5 players from each team play a single race. The teams all have fargo caps. We have 4 "good" players on my team, ranging from 545 to 610. The rest of our players are in the 2-300's.

The league was a good time. We all had "fun", and I made a couple new gal friends:) The pool definitely seemed secondary. About half of the overall league were D players that did not have a CB at all. On my team and the team we played, about 5 of the 10 people had only about 10 robustness. Looking around the room I'd say the same. So the ratings were all guess starter ratings by the league director, and they will work themselves out over time. The opponent I played was a 575 starter rating, and we played an even race to 4. I won easily 4-1. He only had a robustness of 15 or so when we played. I just checked his rating now, and I guess the match with me pulled him down. His rating in the fargo app now says 568P, 21 robustness, 575 starter rating.

The BCAPL scores went into the fargo app almost instantly. A huge contrast to the typical week it takes when I enter weekly tournaments. Unfortunately, in the set I won 4-1, it had 5 entries. Entry of "1-0" for games I won, and "0-1" for the single game I lost. I hated this. It is ruining all my match history in the fargo app. Now I will end up with dozens and dozens of rinky dink 1-0 and 0-1 entries, that will pollute my actual set history. I hated it enough to almost quit the league.

The league was really good for the room. It was packed. I haven't seen this many people in this room in 25 years. I was very happy about that.

2) I played my first Salotto match. I've been wanting to do this for months. A buddy of mine I used to gamble with in the late 90s/early 2000's called me up and wanted to play in the app. He has zero robustness. He wants to get the 200 robustness, just like I did, to play in the monthly type xxx and under events. When we used to gamble, I'd give him the 7, or the split 7/8. I haven't played him in 20 years. We were not gambling. I told him to play hard, and we both were. We played two races to 10, 9 ball, GC3. The first set I won 10-4.

The table was horrible. By far the worse GC I've ever played on. Its rails were all DEAD. Holly molly. I wonder if this was the batch of GC3's with the dead rails. Funny, there was a GC1 right next to it with a couple on a date. The balls were bouncing perfectly on that table, I made it a point to watch their play. After that couple left, I went and rolled some balls on it, and it was perfect. It was triple shimmed to boot. I wondered if it was the original Monarch cushions. It must have been the one pocket action table when the room had a different layout. Now, it was in the back, banger section. To add, there was a group of 10 next to us with a bunch of little kids.

After the first set I went up to the counter and said we need another table, that the rails were dead. The counter lady didn't know anything about pool, but the security guard, who used to be a top Philly player, pointed me to the good tables. So we moved to a triple shimmed GC3 one hole table in the "player's" section, with new cloth, and tons of room around it. This played excellent. I won this set 10-7. (The "player's section" was all packed when we arrived).

Total combined set score of 20-11. This data from salotto went into the fargo app almost instantly. I forget if the same night, or the next day. It affected the robustness in two stages. The first stage it only showed a robustness of 14, for both me and my opponent. The second or third day it got the full 31 games robustness, for both me and my opponent. The opponents rating is now 458P, 31 robustness, starter rating 0. This completely matches a 50/50 probability using my rating of 545. He is wholly tethered to me until he gets more games with someone else.

It was his birthday yesterday, and I texted him: "Happy Birthday. You got the 31 robustness as a present."
 
Last edited:
View attachment 741903

Two new updates this post.

1) I joined a league! I only played a league once in 1998 or so, and swore I never would again. Never say never! I joined this league specifically because it's a Fargo league. It's handicapped using the fargorate app handicap matrix, and the scores are reported using the BCAPL app. It's an 8 man team, and each week 5 players from each team play a single race. The teams all have fargo caps. We have 4 "good" players on my team, ranging from 545 to 610. The rest of our players are in the 2-300's.

The league was a good time. We all had "fun", and I made a couple new gal friends:) The pool definitely seemed secondary. About half of the overall league were D players that did not have a CB at all. On my team and the team we played, about 5 of the 10 people had only about 10 robustness. Looking around the room I'd say the same. So the ratings were all guess starter ratings by the league director, and they will work themselves out over time. The opponent I played was a 575 starter rating, and we played an even race to 4. I won easily 4-1. He only had a robustness of 15 or so when we played. I just checked his rating now, and I guess the match with me pulled him down. His rating in the fargo app now says 568P, 21 robustness, 575 starter rating.

The BCAPL scores went into the fargo app almost instantly. A huge contrast to the typical week it takes when I enter weekly tournaments. Unfortunately, in the set I won 4-1, it had 5 entries. Entry of "1-0" for games I won, and "0-1" for the single game I lost. I hated this. It is ruining all my match history in the fargo app. Now I will end up with dozens and dozens of rinky dink 1-0 and 0-1 entries, that will pollute my actual set history. I hated it enough to almost quit the league.

The league was really good for the room. It was packed. I haven't seen this many people in this room in 25 years. I was very happy about that.

2) I played my first Salotto match. I've been wanting to do this for months. A buddy of mine I used to gamble with in the late 90s/early 2000's called me up and wanted to play in the app. He has zero robustness. He wants to get the 200 robustness, just like I did, to play in the monthly type xxx and under events. When we used to gamble, I'd give him the 7, or the split 7/8. I haven't played him in 20 years. We were not gambling. I told him to play hard, and we both were. We played two races to 10, 9 ball, GC3. The first set I won 10-4.

The table was horrible. By far the worse GC I've ever played on. Its rails were all DEAD. Holly molly. I wonder if this was the batch of GC3's with the dead rails. Funny, there was a GC1 right next to it with a couple on a date. The balls were bouncing perfectly on that table, I made it a point to watch their play. After that couple left, I went and rolled some balls on it, and it was perfect. It was triple shimmed to boot. I wondered if it was the original Monarch cushions. It must have been the one pocket action table when the room had a different layout. Now, it was in the back, banger section. To add, there was a group of 10 next to us with a bunch of little kids.

After the first set I went up to the counter and said we need another table, that the rails were dead. The counter lady didn't know anything about pool, but the security guard, who used to be a top Philly player, pointed me to the good tables. So we moved to a triple shimmed GC3 one hole table in the "player's" section, with new cloth, and tons of room around it. This played excellent. I won this set 10-7. (The "player's section" was all packed when we arrived).

Total combined set score of 20-11. This data from salotto went into the fargo app almost instantly. I forget if the same night, or the next day. It affected the robustness in two stages. The first stage it only showed a robustness of 14, for both me and my opponent. The second or third day it got the full 31 games robustness, for both me and my opponent. The opponents rating is now 458P, 31 robustness, starter rating 0. This completely matches a 50/50 probability using my rating of 545. He is wholly tethered to me until he gets more games with someone else.

It was his birthday yesterday, and I texted him: "Happy Birthday. You got the 31 robustness as a present."

I've had good experiences with both BCA and USA pool leagues. The same rule sets and Fargo based.

The tables notwithstanding, I think you'll have a good time.
 
The robustness is the key. Where I have played new players get an estimated tournament director starting number. A complete stranger starts at the top. Local players will usually get an accurate starting number.
With a robustness of 9 it has a huge range.
That's why I will never play tournaments when I travel, I'm a schlub who has to give away a spot like I'm SVB
 
View attachment 741903

Two new updates this post.

1) I joined a league! I only played a league once in 1998 or so, and swore I never would again. Never say never! I joined this league specifically because it's a Fargo league. It's handicapped using the fargorate app handicap matrix, and the scores are reported using the BCAPL app. It's an 8 man team, and each week 5 players from each team play a single race. The teams all have fargo caps. We have 4 "good" players on my team, ranging from 545 to 610. The rest of our players are in the 2-300's.

The league was a good time. We all had "fun", and I made a couple new gal friends:) The pool definitely seemed secondary. About half of the overall league were D players that did not have a CB at all. On my team and the team we played, about 5 of the 10 people had only about 10 robustness. Looking around the room I'd say the same. So the ratings were all guess starter ratings by the league director, and they will work themselves out over time. The opponent I played was a 575 starter rating, and we played an even race to 4. I won easily 4-1. He only had a robustness of 15 or so when we played. I just checked his rating now, and I guess the match with me pulled him down. His rating in the fargo app now says 568P, 21 robustness, 575 starter rating.

The BCAPL scores went into the fargo app almost instantly. A huge contrast to the typical week it takes when I enter weekly tournaments. Unfortunately, in the set I won 4-1, it had 5 entries. Entry of "1-0" for games I won, and "0-1" for the single game I lost. I hated this. It is ruining all my match history in the fargo app. Now I will end up with dozens and dozens of rinky dink 1-0 and 0-1 entries, that will pollute my actual set history. I hated it enough to almost quit the league.

The league was really good for the room. It was packed. I haven't seen this many people in this room in 25 years. I was very happy about that.

2) I played my first Salotto match. I've been wanting to do this for months. A buddy of mine I used to gamble with in the late 90s/early 2000's called me up and wanted to play in the app. He has zero robustness. He wants to get the 200 robustness, just like I did, to play in the monthly type xxx and under events. When we used to gamble, I'd give him the 7, or the split 7/8. I haven't played him in 20 years. We were not gambling. I told him to play hard, and we both were. We played two races to 10, 9 ball, GC3. The first set I won 10-4.

The table was horrible. By far the worse GC I've ever played on. Its rails were all DEAD. Holly molly. I wonder if this was the batch of GC3's with the dead rails. Funny, there was a GC1 right next to it with a couple on a date. The balls were bouncing perfectly on that table, I made it a point to watch their play. After that couple left, I went and rolled some balls on it, and it was perfect. It was triple shimmed to boot. I wondered if it was the original Monarch cushions. It must have been the one pocket action table when the room had a different layout. Now, it was in the back, banger section. To add, there was a group of 10 next to us with a bunch of little kids.

After the first set I went up to the counter and said we need another table, that the rails were dead. The counter lady didn't know anything about pool, but the security guard, who used to be a top Philly player, pointed me to the good tables. So we moved to a triple shimmed GC3 one hole table in the "player's" section, with new cloth, and tons of room around it. This played excellent. I won this set 10-7. (The "player's section" was all packed when we arrived).

Total combined set score of 20-11. This data from salotto went into the fargo app almost instantly. I forget if the same night, or the next day. It affected the robustness in two stages. The first stage it only showed a robustness of 14, for both me and my opponent. The second or third day it got the full 31 games robustness, for both me and my opponent. The opponents rating is now 458P, 31 robustness, starter rating 0. This completely matches a 50/50 probability using my rating of 545. He is wholly tethered to me until he gets more games with someone else.

It was his birthday yesterday, and I texted him: "Happy Birthday. You got the 31 robustness as a present."
Good on ya... My CCS LO was considering reporting to fargo at one point. Not that I think it weighed too heavily on his decision, but I told him I'd stop playing. I'm probably 1 of 2 or possibly 3 people in my local room that actually care about their rating. For me, league is meant to be fun. I don't want to grind every rack so I don't have to worry about it trashing my rating. I prefer it to be measured on my competitive game.
 
View attachment 741903

Two new updates this post.

1) I joined a league! [...]

2) I played my first Salotto match. [...]

The opponents rating is now 458P, 31 robustness, starter rating 0. This completely matches a 50/50 probability using my rating of 545. He is wholly tethered to me until he gets more games with someone else.

Nice update. Just a clarification. Your friend doesn't have a starter rating of "0." He doesn't have one at all. That means the preliminary rating he sees is totally based on the performance and is not tethered to a guess.
 
Good on ya... My CCS LO was considering reporting to fargo at one point. Not that I think it weighed too heavily on his decision, but I told him I'd stop playing. I'm probably 1 of 2 or possibly 3 people in my local room that actually care about their rating. For me, league is meant to be fun. I don't want to grind every rack so I don't have to worry about it trashing my rating. I prefer it to be measured on my competitive game.
I've argued this same thing. When I play in our local league we usually drill everybody but we try not to take it too seriously. There are several teams of "baby seals" that are there just to have fun. I can't believe this type of Fargo data is of the same value as tournament play.
 
I've argued this same thing. When I play in our local league we usually drill everybody but we try not to take it too seriously. There are several teams of "baby seals" that are there just to have fun. I can't believe this type of Fargo data is of the same value as tournament play.
Well I'm not going to fault fargo for not having a "league value" check box when entering those stats. Not saying you are, but what option does fargo have if the LO is willing to upload stats...?

My "issue" with the league and the use of fargo simply boils down to the point in partaking in a league in the first place. The LO just wants to provide the opportunity to casual players to obtain a rating with a viable robustness. Which is great. However I think most "players" would agree that league isn't meant to be the place where you bring your top gear every week. 99% of the league has drastically lower rating than myself. I can't imagine the win/loss record I would need to have come the end of the season, just to hold my rating. This is my problem entirely.
 
Well I'm not going to fault fargo for not having a "league value" check box when entering those stats. Not saying you are, but what option does fargo have if the LO is willing to upload stats...?

My "issue" with the league and the use of fargo simply boils down to the point in partaking in a league in the first place. The LO just wants to provide the opportunity to casual players to obtain a rating with a viable robustness. Which is great. However I think most "players" would agree that league isn't meant to be the place where you bring your top gear every week. 99% of the league has drastically lower rating than myself. I can't imagine the win/loss record I would need to have come the end of the season, just to hold my rating. This is my problem entirely.
I have a good buddy he’s a 588/959. We would gamble all the time 20 years ago, even. It was close but I recall winning more than losing.

We haven’t played in 20 years. He quit the big table pool halls and did leagues instead all those years.

I keep asking him to play even now, but we’ve only been able to play twice. Once for 50 a set 2 months ago, I won 5-2 first set, he won 5-3 second set on a 7’ Diamond. A month later we played a set for time (he didn’t want to bet) on a 9’ Diamond. I won 7-2.

The only thing I can figure is he’s been in this same league that originally started in DE for a year or two, and has a lot of games from that.

I’d swim through shit to play him a big set. I’m def not stealing, but feel it’s a fair game.

Either he’s way better than I think (40 some points higher than me), or he’s gotten a much higher rating than me from the leagues.
 
Back
Top