Fargo Caps = The dumbing down of pool

Definitely not bagging and congrats on a good win like that.


I think his point is the inconsistency with what gets reported to Fargo and what doesnt. I mentioned early that the Expo Amateur Open (probably one of, if not the, largest and most prestigious amateur tournaments in the world) only reported to Fargo once, maybe twice.

2019, I cashed in it. It reported to Fargo that year.
2020, Covid
2021, Covid
2022, I cashed again. It did not report to Fargo that year.
2023, (see my disclaimer in my signature)

Going 5 matches in a tournament like that is probably going to be one of the most accurate representation of someone's skill. Sure they are short races, but it is a best off 3 sets. It is also single elimination, so you arent going to get someone dumping to go up the B side.

If a tournament uses Fargo to leverage who can play in it and who can't (which the tournament 9BallKY snapped off did and which thte expo does to keep pro caliber players out), then it should report to Fargo as well... especially if it a larger and more prestigious event where players are going to be trying to play their best.
Exactly there are lots of tournaments around here that use Fargo for the cutoff but don’t report to Fargo. I could care less about my Fargo. I was denied entry into a tournament about 3 years even though my Fargo at the time was 20 points below the cutoff. If they don’t want me to play I’ll just stay home.
 
There is no answer making this thread quite silly. It doesn't matter where you set the cap someone will be just below it and someone else just above it. There is no answer.
I think his point was that most TDs are setting the cap at 599 which gives the same players the advantage all the time. Where if the they changed the cutoff at say 544 for one tournament and the next one at 561 different players would have the advantage instead of the same players having the advantage all the time
 
What do you mean by "rating creep"?
There is a tendency for the top ratings to increase over time. They will continue to increase as more people's ratings go up. I mean, you don't really think that the top 10 players have gotten 40-50 points better than they were several years ago do you? Mike will deny it, but it's been pretty obvious that people's ratings have creeped upwards without noticable gains in ability or dominance.

Now, it is possible that in time, it will equalize but the tendency has been what I refer to as rating creep.

Jaden
 
There is no answer making this thread quite silly. It doesn't matter where you set the cap someone will be just below it and someone else just above it. There is no answer.
Agree. That's why it makes sense to randomize the cap. That's my biggest point.
 
Agree. That's why it makes sense to randomize the cap. That's my biggest point.
Your point is so obviously correct that it can't be argued against. So why are most of the capped events set with the limit they are?
1. Tourney Director plays in the event.
2. Tourney Director's buddies play in the event.
3. Just trying to maximize participation.

In my area is looks more like 1 and 2 than 3.
 
Your point is so obviously correct that it can't be argued against. So why are most of the capped events set with the limit they are?
1. Tourney Director plays in the event.
2. Tourney Director's buddies play in the event.
3. Just trying to maximize participation.

In my area is looks more like 1 and 2 than 3.
Or laziness to try another number.
 
Well I thought I would chime in on Handicapping Systems, be it the Old Arizona Rating System, Fargo, or Local System they are all designed to do one thing, try and handicap Pool Players fairly. Maybe we could design the Santa Claus Rating system, but someone would find fault with that. Truth is Pool is like life, little is fair in life to the point of making everyone happy.

First fault with both Fargo & Old Arizona Rating Systems is how can you give a proper Handicap to a Pool Player? If the local Pool Player is given Handicapped, say playing in 8 Ball tournaments only, on a Bar Box.? How is that Handicap number a true measure of the Players ability or skill if they are playing on a 4.5’ x 9.0’, playing 14/1, One Pocket, 8, 9, 10 Ball? Or 9, or 10 Ball on a Bar Box? They have never competed in?

Players receiving a new Handicap Rating are only being judged at one game 8 Ball on Bar Box. If they don’t play the other games, or on different size tables. They are stuck with being Handicapped at 8 Ball Bar Box . The Handicap number follows them what ever game they are playing, be it on a Bar Box, or Full Size Table.

Back when the Arizona Rating System was used in most of Arizona Tournaments. Most of the Tournaments were mostly 7’s, and Under, a few 8 ’s and Under. Working hard, raising your Pool rating to a “9“, was end of Tournament opportunities.

Meaning the Better Players, or Short Stop Speed Players, who had Rating of 9, 10, 10-1, or 10-2 had FEW Tournament they were allowed to play in, except mostly OPEN Tournaments.

Think this was because most on the Arizona Rating Committee moving people up or down in Arizona Rating system were Room, or Bar Owners, with few Player Members as part of rating committee. The more you won, better you got at Pool, or placed, the high in Tournaments your Rating Number rose. Closing more Tournament opportunities to you.

Then you had cases in Arizona were some stranger with good story, was good at hiding Pool speed went and got an Arizona Rating Card with a 5- 6 rating, from some person “qualified” to issue a card. Next move was to hit 3 or 4 Tournaments locally, clean house, win everything, pack up leave town before word got out, normally a road player laughing at system that failed, they beat by hiding true speed.

What Room & Bar Owner knew as rule of thumb was most of the 8’s and under were recreation players. This group of recreational players spent more money on Bar Food, and Alcohol. Those recreational players were the ones payed the Bars & Rooms bills. Table Time by the Hour, or money into the Bar Box per game was not big revenue stream. Many of the Bar Table were 25-50 Cent a Game back then. So directly or indirectly the Bar & Room owner were protecting their revenue stream, that came most from the recreational player spending money.

Today in Arizona everything is mostly Fargo Rated Tournaments, and the same as in the day of old system. The stronger, short stop speed players have few tournament to play in.

Long ago way back in time before Handicapped Tournament were all OPEN, think most of the recreational player did not do tournament because they got tire of contributing to a price fund, doing more racking then playing. Plus they had zero chance of winning or placing to get some money they paid in back.

Thus people at some point came up with Rating, or Handicap System to attract the Pool players of lessor Pool ability, looking for a opportunity to play in a tournament they had a chance of winning or placing in, made up of people with similar skill levels. All this was done just for fun, maybe have a few adult beverage drinks, or some bar food. Idea apparently worked, is still working.

Good News is for all you Pool Player who believes your great, the Derby City Classic in a few month is the opportunity to show how good or great you really are is at Derby. Competition should be great as some of the Best Pool Players on the plant will be there for you to beat. I am sure the winners of the Derby City Event will be from the same group of Pro players that seem to dominate the tournament even year. But for those “better” player complaining about no tournament to play in, the DDC is a unique opportunity.

I always enjoy watch some unknown player from middle of no where getting beat by someone like Varner, Magician, T-Rax, Dango, Alex, or one of the top pros. Always say self did that Player actually think they had a chance of winning anything? Maybe they enjoy bragging right to say they played, and got run over by some top Pro. Not my personal cup of tea, will be home in warm Arizona, on my patio every morning, enjoying my Black Coffee, and a good hand rolled Cigar.

JMHO
 
Well I thought I would chime in on Handicapping Systems, be it the Old Arizona Rating System, Fargo, or Local System they are all designed to do one thing, try and handicap Pool Players fairly. Maybe we could design the Santa Claus Rating system, but someone would find fault with that. Truth is Pool is like life, little is fair in life to the point of making everyone happy.

First fault with both Fargo & Old Arizona Rating Systems is how can you give a proper Handicap to a Pool Player? If the local Pool Player is given Handicapped, say playing in 8 Ball tournaments only, on a Bar Box.? How is that Handicap number a true measure of the Players ability or skill if they are playing on a 4.5’ x 9.0’, playing 14/1, One Pocket, 8, 9, 10 Ball? Or 9, or 10 Ball on a Bar Box? They have never competed in?

Players receiving a new Handicap Rating are only being judged at one game 8 Ball on Bar Box. If they don’t play the other games, or on different size tables. They are stuck with being Handicapped at 8 Ball Bar Box . The Handicap number follows them what ever game they are playing, be it on a Bar Box, or Full Size Table.

Back when the Arizona Rating System was used in most of Arizona Tournaments. Most of the Tournaments were mostly 7’s, and Under, a few 8 ’s and Under. Working hard, raising your Pool rating to a “9“, was end of Tournament opportunities.

Meaning the Better Players, or Short Stop Speed Players, who had Rating of 9, 10, 10-1, or 10-2 had FEW Tournament they were allowed to play in, except mostly OPEN Tournaments.

Think this was because most on the Arizona Rating Committee moving people up or down in Arizona Rating system were Room, or Bar Owners, with few Player Members as part of rating committee. The more you won, better you got at Pool, or placed, the high in Tournaments your Rating Number rose. Closing more Tournament opportunities to you.

Then you had cases in Arizona were some stranger with good story, was good at hiding Pool speed went and got an Arizona Rating Card with a 5- 6 rating, from some person “qualified” to issue a card. Next move was to hit 3 or 4 Tournaments locally, clean house, win everything, pack up leave town before word got out, normally a road player laughing at system that failed, they beat by hiding true speed.

What Room & Bar Owner knew as rule of thumb was most of the 8’s and under were recreation players. This group of recreational players spent more money on Bar Food, and Alcohol. Those recreational players were the ones payed the Bars & Rooms bills. Table Time by the Hour, or money into the Bar Box per game was not big revenue stream. Many of the Bar Table were 25-50 Cent a Game back then. So directly or indirectly the Bar & Room owner were protecting their revenue stream, that came most from the recreational player spending money.

Today in Arizona everything is mostly Fargo Rated Tournaments, and the same as in the day of old system. The stronger, short stop speed players have few tournament to play in.

Long ago way back in time before Handicapped Tournament were all OPEN, think most of the recreational player did not do tournament because they got tire of contributing to a price fund, doing more racking then playing. Plus they had zero chance of winning or placing to get some money they paid in back.

Thus people at some point came up with Rating, or Handicap System to attract the Pool players of lessor Pool ability, looking for a opportunity to play in a tournament they had a chance of winning or placing in, made up of people with similar skill levels. All this was done just for fun, maybe have a few adult beverage drinks, or some bar food. Idea apparently worked, is still working.

Good News is for all you Pool Player who believes your great, the Derby City Classic in a few month is the opportunity to show how good or great you really are is at Derby. Competition should be great as some of the Best Pool Players on the plant will be there for you to beat. I am sure the winners of the Derby City Event will be from the same group of Pro players that seem to dominate the tournament even year. But for those “better” player complaining about no tournament to play in, the DDC is a unique opportunity.

I always enjoy watch some unknown player from middle of no where getting beat by someone like Varner, Magician, T-Rax, Dango, Alex, or one of the top pros. Always say self did that Player actually think they had a chance of winning anything? Maybe they enjoy bragging right to say they played, and got run over by some top Pro. Not my personal cup of tea, will be home in warm Arizona, on my patio every morning, enjoying my Black Coffee, and a good hand rolled Cigar.

JMHO

Something seems amiss. This is very twilight zone like.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
naw, coco has someone putting his thoughts into words. he is getting old now so give him some slack.

now we have coco back with also a lot of substance. keep it up pal.

you are appreciated.
 
naw, coco has someone putting his thoughts into words. he is getting old now so give him some slack.

now we have coco back with also a lot of substance. keep it up pal.

you are appreciated.
Oh yes of course. Just sayin - whatever that copout means... lol
 
What about the time I won the 700 and under with a 630 rating. The tournament wasn’t reported to Fargo. A year later my rating has went up a whole 3 points. Is that sandbagging.
Over performing isn't sandbagging. Unless you're claiming everyone else in the event was dumping to drop their ratings...?

Was the event meant to be reported but then they opted not to as a means to protect you 630 rating...? That wouldn't be by definition sandbagging, but deceitful none the less.

As always there's the aspect of robustness that will effect you rate of change, and the rest of the performance of those of higher ratings that you beat.
 
I think his point was that most TDs are setting the cap at 599 which gives the same players the advantage all the time. Where if the they changed the cutoff at say 544 for one tournament and the next one at 561 different players would have the advantage instead of the same players having the advantage all the time
That's a business decision though, and has absolutely no bearing on fargo. TDs can do the same with the old eye test garbage systems.

Rather than the event being capped at 599, it becomes "<AA+B-C" or some other crap.

Once again, TDs are going to organize what provides the best turn out. If the current complaint is 599. Wait until the OP is waiting on something that's <700. The frustration is way worse when you see events capped at numbers that are obviously chosen to include 2 or 3 very strong players (buddies) but exclude the 1 that will crush them. You would think <700 would be a good benchmark, but it always ends up as <716 or 725 max...lol
 
Over performing isn't sandbagging. Unless you're claiming everyone else in the event was dumping to drop their ratings...?

Was the event meant to be reported but then they opted not to as a means to protect you 630 rating...? That wouldn't be by definition sandbagging, but deceitful none the less.

As always there's the aspect of robustness that will effect you rate of change, and the rest of the performance of those of higher ratings that you beat.
I didn’t really include a lot of info in my post. I’ve won 3 or 4 tournaments at this particular place and none of the results have been reported. However some results where I didn’t play my best has been reported. I have no idea why they report some results and some they don’t. I understand that over time everything should work out but with a very low robustness this does make a difference in people’s rating.
 
That's a business decision though, and has absolutely no bearing on fargo. TDs can do the same with the old eye test garbage systems.

Rather than the event being capped at 599, it becomes "<AA+B-C" or some other crap.

Once again, TDs are going to organize what provides the best turn out. If the current complaint is 599. Wait until the OP is waiting on something that's <700. The frustration is way worse when you see events capped at numbers that are obviously chosen to include 2 or 3 very strong players (buddies) but exclude the 1 that will crush them. You would think <700 would be a good benchmark, but it always ends up as <716 or 725 max...lol
You are absolutely correct it happens all the time. I know of a tournament where the TD set the cutoff 5 points above his Fargo. It was done intentionally to keep a couple players out of the tournament
 
Back
Top