Fargo Caps = The dumbing down of pool
- Thread starter iusedtoberich
- Start date
To answer your question, probably not. But I thought a rating increase didn't necessarily mean you are playing better, but that you are winning more. If they are playing more dead money in tournaments and beating their brains in, then their ratings would go up. I'm not a mathematician, and the subject isn't really even interesting to me at all. But I guess I need to go read Mike's reasoning. He's pretty smart with this stuff.
Coos Cues
Coos Cues
I'm just fine with how it is. But I'm a 598
And pair this with the idiocy of league pool that shuns anyone who can play real pool.
Besides how can some APA7 strut around like a real player if there's guys in the room who beat him with the 3 and out?
League pool ruined everything. Used to be to be the best you had to beat the best. No handicaps and just work on your game until you get in the cash. That's how you learn, but people just found the easy way out by competing against housewives.
League pool ruined everything. Used to be to be the best you had to beat the best. No handicaps and just work on your game until you get in the cash. That's how you learn, but people just found the easy way out by competing against housewives.
Yeah, at 598 I bet you are LOLOLI'm just fine with how it is. But I'm a 598
Atlanta had several big pool rooms that had A B or B C tournaments and there were only three handicaps. I played B division and only won one of he big B C event. They split the brackets 32 on each side and the winner of each played with a 11 to 8 handicap finals. This worked for several years and I moved off in 1993 and when I moved back to Georgia in 2002 everything had changed. I could see a 600 and under and 601 and above working split brackets similar to the A B events that started it all working. Those were race to 7 or Race to 9 events at the Wagon Wheel. This made people in the lower division still bring good money in the auction as they knew one of them would get at least second place auction and another would split 3rd place auction money. Putting the final eight all together still eliminates the lower bracket final four most of the time. So I favor the old format of two bracket winners playing each other in the finals.
George the Greek
Well-known member
The tournaments here in Nova Scotia draw a decent amount of players. The main thing i see is the comradery with these people and how they support pool. They have a 10-ball break draw and the previous winner (lady) made 3 balls for $2505.00 and last weekend a guy made 2 for over $1500.00. The other is the top 3 FR"s 550 and under have a shot at winning some money in a draw. They do the same for 450"s and under. They have a Predator cue/case raffle and a 50/50 draw. It's a good way of giving back from what I see and brings out the players
Zerksies
Well-known member
I play chess and this is how i see things
I mean in chess you have a ton of tournaments that are rated. But it's usually under 1000, 1400 and under 1800 or they do a range 601-1000. Usually who wins is the higher ranks of each bracket.
I think pool is just screwing it up and fargo has screwed up the ratings.
The range is too tight in fargo you are talking from 300-850 is the active ratings In chess the elo ratings are going from 400-2800+
I think a ratings adjustment needs to be done making the ratings a wider range. Handicaps are droped in tournaments (no handicaps are in chess) and have tighter tournament brackets. In chess people are trying to get to the next level I don't really ever hear the words sandbagging as much as i do in pool.
Pool ratings have always been wack. I played the APA 20 years ago and was a 7/9. I really don't think i would have an even chance with SVB or Gorst who would have the same ratings
I mean in chess you have a ton of tournaments that are rated. But it's usually under 1000, 1400 and under 1800 or they do a range 601-1000. Usually who wins is the higher ranks of each bracket.
I think pool is just screwing it up and fargo has screwed up the ratings.
The range is too tight in fargo you are talking from 300-850 is the active ratings In chess the elo ratings are going from 400-2800+
I think a ratings adjustment needs to be done making the ratings a wider range. Handicaps are droped in tournaments (no handicaps are in chess) and have tighter tournament brackets. In chess people are trying to get to the next level I don't really ever hear the words sandbagging as much as i do in pool.
Pool ratings have always been wack. I played the APA 20 years ago and was a 7/9. I really don't think i would have an even chance with SVB or Gorst who would have the same ratings
Last edited:
The big difference here is that they would want you to be forced out of your current team to build your own, just like they would Gorst or SVB. The "equalizer" isn't about fair play. It the steroid for the virus.
I play league here in Germany... And the players range anywhere from rank beginners, to hundred ball runners in 14.1, who get pi55ed at themselves if they fail to run out a single rack in their race to 7 league 8 ball match, that they got a single shot in.
The problem is that in America, pool is dominated by league organizations out to make a profit, i.e. BCA, VNEA, APA.. In Europe for the most part... They are not. In Germany, literally ANYTHING you could possibly compete at.. Has an organized league system where you start out at a lower level, and then graduate to the next level, and so on and so on.. Until at the top you are playing for your country, against the very best from other countries.
This is system governed by the interests of the nation "as a whole". Which is to provide an organized system designed to encourage improvement. And not necessarily to make money.
America really isn't the best at "everything". It's just one of the best at "making money".
I bring up these points in NPR, and get shouted down by the herd.
Well...... It's all good, until this way of national thinking wrecks "your" particular interest, innit?
Tee Hee. (The schadenfreude is real...)
Zerksies
Well-known member
yeah lots of scumbags in pool that would scam their own mothers
Some point out that ELO schemes are known to have rating creep/inflation. We don't do an ELO scheme. While we could have inflation, it would not be for those same reasons.
Here are two lists of 10 players
List B: Shaw, Majid, Kiamco, Morra, Alcano, Ouschan, Gomez, Pagulayan, Garcia, and He
List A: Filler, Gorst, Ruiz, Kaci, Ko, Ko, Biado, Zielinski, Chua, and Van Boening
The rating gap between List B and List A has increased by 13 points over the last two years. Can't tell from this information whether listA got better, listB got worse, or some combination.
The system could leave the listA rating average the same and lower the listB average by 13 points (what it seems Jaden prefers)
Or the system could leave the List B average the same and raise the ListA group by 13 points (closer to what FargoRate does)
In looking for clues as to which of these is more reasonable (more reflective of actual skill trends), it's helpful to look at what would need to happen to everyone else's rating with either of these plans.
One clue comes from looking at what has happened over the last two years to ratings like that of Justin Bergman--a player who basically stopped getting new games into the system. Justin has games in the system against SVB and Oscar and tons of other players--pretty much all from years ago. If those former opponents have generally been creeping up, Justin's rating would rise with that tide. Justin was 795.0 two years ago, and he's 794.9 now--basically the same.
Here is another exercise I just did. Start with the ratings from two years ago, Nov 2022 and find
--the 100 established ratings closest to 800
--the 100 established ratings closest to 750
--the 100 established ratings closest to 700
--the 100 established ratings closest to 650
Then follow those same players and see what has happened to their ratings one year later and two years later (i.e., now). Following that group gets rid of survivorship bias. As you can see, the averages stay pretty much the same. During this time, the listA group of 10 went up 14 points by contrast.
If we did what Jaden wants, all these players, and basically everyone else, would need to go down 14 points. It seems more reasonable to conclude the super elite are actually stepping it up. That's just not that surprising. There are more events with more prize money and more international recognition now. And another change over the last several years is having the ratings themselves. Right now, if you're an 810 in Albania or Singapore, you know you're knocking on the door of the super elite but you're not quite there. That listA group averages 836. That knowledge in itself is a harsh reality for that 810. But it's also motivating and, imo, contributes to the top players pushing each other to higher levels of play.
You've got ME pegged ;-)
Last edited:
Great post. It must really rankle all the " it's gotta be this/because of that/ could be this/should be that" FR knockers when cold/hard data stares them in the face. Of course FR is a work in progress but its clearly the best handicapping system pool has ever had. the # of people that have FR's and play in FR events speaks volumes. good work MP.
This has been discussed before:
As well as on other threads. Mike can cherry pick the data all he wants, and he knows the data better than anyone so he is damn good at it.
Here is some hard data about players we all know well: https://forums.azbilliards.com/threads/are-fargo-ratings-inflating.563218/page-4#post-7787631
Ratings drifting 20-25 points over a decade is not some kind of massive problem. It is a predictable result of the skill distribution of rated players changing and doesn’t affect the predictive performance of the model since the ratings are used in a relative fashion. But I suppose this phenomenon is seen as inconvenient for messaging purposes.
Rating Inflation in FargoRate
So another question/thread about Fargo. I know this is sort of based off of the Elo rating system in chess or what not, but my understanding is that the average chess ratings have been climbing the past few decades. Now this can be the result of an actual better population of players due to...
forums.azbilliards.com
Are Fargo Ratings inflating?
51 players on top 100 list are now over 800 (vs. 35 players two years ago) The top rating is 848 (vs. 830 two years ago) Are Fargo Ratings inflating? That's not an easy question to answer. But here is evidence they're not--or at least any drift is small. We compared the ratings now to the...
forums.azbilliards.com
As well as on other threads. Mike can cherry pick the data all he wants, and he knows the data better than anyone so he is damn good at it.
Here is some hard data about players we all know well: https://forums.azbilliards.com/threads/are-fargo-ratings-inflating.563218/page-4#post-7787631
Ratings drifting 20-25 points over a decade is not some kind of massive problem. It is a predictable result of the skill distribution of rated players changing and doesn’t affect the predictive performance of the model since the ratings are used in a relative fashion. But I suppose this phenomenon is seen as inconvenient for messaging purposes.
Last edited:
I think Mike may be right about the top players being more focused. I wouldn't necessarily conclude that their consciousness of their Fargo Rating has much to do with it, but instead having a healthier pro tour may be the driver. Has someone like SVB been slumming it with the mortals as much as in the past years? Playing bar table tourneys and regional events? Doesn't seem like it. Seems to apply to a lot of the top dogs -- they are only stepping into serious arenas, where they need to be on their A game.
This heightened focus on being in top form could explain the "creep", especially when you see other less in form players not keeping pace.
This heightened focus on being in top form could explain the "creep", especially when you see other less in form players not keeping pace.
One last thought....
One problem with rating pool vs a game like chess is pool games and the baked in skill required to play the games are sort of viewed in a linear or exponential fashion, but the reality is some games become much closer to binary in that you are either capable of playing the game perfectly or you cannot. If you can approach mastery of a game, and your opponent isn't quite there while still being very skilled, the results can be an overwhelming victory or defeat if you're me.
This is sort of the inherent problem that the game's managers have to stay ahead of. This problem, jumps out at you when someone like SVB could play Corey Duel at 10 Ball and give him a ridiculous spot since SVB was reaching mastery at that discipline. I also thought I saw this when template rack, 1 on the spot 9 Ball was being played.
This mastery issue is part of why I think INCLUDING one-pocket data was a good idea. You want as much diverse data as possible since this can sort of filter out issues like my mastery example.
One problem with rating pool vs a game like chess is pool games and the baked in skill required to play the games are sort of viewed in a linear or exponential fashion, but the reality is some games become much closer to binary in that you are either capable of playing the game perfectly or you cannot. If you can approach mastery of a game, and your opponent isn't quite there while still being very skilled, the results can be an overwhelming victory or defeat if you're me.
This is sort of the inherent problem that the game's managers have to stay ahead of. This problem, jumps out at you when someone like SVB could play Corey Duel at 10 Ball and give him a ridiculous spot since SVB was reaching mastery at that discipline. I also thought I saw this when template rack, 1 on the spot 9 Ball was being played.
This mastery issue is part of why I think INCLUDING one-pocket data was a good idea. You want as much diverse data as possible since this can sort of filter out issues like my mastery example.
European league is a whole different animal.
America is good at one thing.....saving you Euros from communists and nazis
Interesting thing about his statement.... It was actually rampant speculation in the American stock market that caused the stock market crash, which got Germany's loans called in overnight, which led to a massive depression in Germany... Which actually gave the Nazis the economic conditions they needed to get the populace behind them. Before the stock market crash in America..... The German people weren't really listening to Hitler.
But I don't expect SBC knows the actual history all that well. He just enjoys repeating catchy slogans.
So.... One could actually say that America is moderately good at using the military industrial complex to solve problems of it's own making.