My Fargorate progression

iusedtoberich said:
I don’t see what the holdup is on making it all public. The data you get starts as public. Everything (well almost every tournament) on digitalpool, ingenpool, chollange, etc, is public. I can go to digital pool and see any player’s entire history.

Most organized sports are like this.

Including for minors.
Click to expand...
Yeah... It totally sounds shady, without any effort whatsoever to explain "why" they can't make all the match data public.. By "we can't do that", I assume one of three possibilities...

1. They CAN in fact, make all the games public... But don't want to, because of the gamblers who will get pi55ed off and start badmouthing Fargorate and raising a stink.

2. Fargorate made a short sighted business agreement early on that locked them in to that requirement, and now can't go back.

3. Because Fargorate has put all it's focus on the app over the website, they are interpreting match data as "private data", and are adhering to "opt-in" choices to make sure they don't get hit with any issue due to sharing "private data". The only thing, as you say.. The match data was completely public in the first place.

And off course... We KNOW Fargorate is prolly not gonna go talk to an organization like the USCF, which has already navigated all these questions a LOOOOONNNNGGG time ago...
 
Last edited:
iusedtoberich said:
I don’t see what the holdup is on making it all public. The data you get starts as public.
Click to expand...
Yes, the data we incorporate is public. When you sign up for the tournament that displays brackets on Ingenpool or Challonge or Cuescore or whatever, you have no reasonable expectation the fact you were in Norristown PA playing in a pool tournament on Jan 21 2025 and lost to so and so is private.
That's fine and is true for any individual tournament. The aggregated data, on the other hand, has information--call it meta information--that you didn't knowingly make public, like the fact you traveled four times in the last 15 months from PA to Macon GA.

When someone signs up for a tournament at Joe's Bar one Saturday and Billy's Bar the next Saturday and Corner Pocket pool room the next Saturday, they're thinking of those as uncorrelated and not knowingly communicating to their boss or their ex that they were not at work any of the last 10 Saturdays.

If tournaments we collect match data for were all "FargoRate" tournaments in some way, we could be like chess and make everything public. But they're not and we're not. USCF--the chess federation--has a database of games that totals 11 million--and that's games played over about 6 centuries. We have 50 million games. There are fewer than 1 million games per year added to the chess database. We add more than 1 million games per month.
 
mikepage said:
While I understand your objections, consider that "useless" might overstate the case.

One value to matches being public is as a deterrent against particularly egregious behavior. It doesn't happen often, but there are cases in which a player has gone 2 and out several weeks in a row against weaker players in a local weekly tournament. A player with public matches who does that runs the risk of being called out with a screenshot on facebook. If tournaments that use the ratings require matches to be public, that bad actor might reconsider the idea in the first place.

Another value is in allowing people to see that the claims of bad behavior are far more frequent than the reality.

While we are prohibited from making the matches public by default, it would be good, once again, if tournaments that allow players to benefit from a rating (by being eligible to enter or by getting a spot) rejected players who keep their match history private.
Click to expand...
I'm in a really strange spot. Say I play 5 tournaments. 3/5 I might go 2 and out. I literally got put out by a 12 year old girl. She could play some for sure, but it's awfully difficult to eat the liver out of a 12 year old girl who is just finding a love for the game. 1/5 I might win a game and go out. Then when the stars align and I'm out of my own way I may win the thing, or finish in the top 3. I've beat some local monsters at times. I don't have facebook but if fellas started calling me out on there for going 2 and out I might just have to have a face to face talk with them.

Not that I'm really good enough to be on anyone's radar.

Drama... it's just not for me, and the main reason I don't have facebook to this day.

I'm super over paraphrasing here but I think the bible says something like if you have a problem with someone to talk to them in private, if that doesn't work take a couple others as a witness. This shit of blasting people on facebook for the whole world to see reeks of cowardice and immaturity.

I get it, if you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about, but it still doesn't sit right with me. I'd rather someone be innocent until proven guilty.

I'd hope I'm not in the minority on this, but my opinion is that cheaters are only hurting themselves. I mean winning by cheating may get you a win, but in your heart of hearts all you know is that you're a good cheater. I guess some pool players may get off on that but I'd rather lose that cheat. Some things aren't worth it, cheating being one of them. A man is only as good as his word and your word essentially means nothing if you rely on cheating to win. If you sell your soul for some extra paper it reflects more on your worth than any trophy ever will.

It might be a simple take on things but I'd rather keep it simple than try to keep lies in order.
 
The same M.O.B. outfit that did the 578 is today having a 730 and under. Our own Marc Vidal is playing. Here is the bracket. 16 players. $1500 entry for this one. IDK if there was a 16 player cap, or not as much interest. This one is on 9' and at Griff's. Frankie Hernandez is playing, from NYC. I'd put him as the best of this bunch (in his prime, he must be old now).

*Edit, I found out the field was in fact capped at 16 players.

digitalpool.com

DigitalPool - Bridging the gap between player and technology

Create and manage your own pool leagues and tournaments and challenge other players from around the pool world.
digitalpool.com digitalpool.com
 
Last edited:
iusedtoberich said:
The same M.O.B. outfit that did the 578 is today having a 730 and under. Our own Marc Vidal is playing. Here is the bracket. 16 players. $1500 entry for this one. IDK if there was a 16 player cap, or not as much interest. This one is on 9' and at Griff's. Frankie Hernandez is playing, from NYC. I'd put him as the best of this bunch (in his prime, he must be old now).

digitalpool.com

DigitalPool - Bridging the gap between player and technology

Create and manage your own pool leagues and tournaments and challenge other players from around the pool world.
digitalpool.com digitalpool.com
Click to expand...
I like Bobby in that field
 
iusedtoberich said:
The same M.O.B. outfit that did the 578 is today having a 730 and under. Our own Marc Vidal is playing. Here is the bracket. 16 players. $1500 entry for this one. IDK if there was a 16 player cap, or not as much interest. This one is on 9' and at Griff's. Frankie Hernandez is playing, from NYC. I'd put him as the best of this bunch (in his prime, he must be old now).

*Edit, I found out the field was in fact capped at 16 players.

digitalpool.com

DigitalPool - Bridging the gap between player and technology

Create and manage your own pool leagues and tournaments and challenge other players from around the pool world.
digitalpool.com digitalpool.com
Click to expand...
Your horse is up soon vs Marc
 
ShortBusRuss said:
Oh, and one more point... The only reason this "sandbagging" sh*t has the "possibility" to work in Fargorate.. Is because not all the data is 100% completely public. Both tournament directors AND players should be able to review the match/rating history of ANY player in the field in the run up to a Fargorate capped event, or be able to review the same after the event is done.

Also.. Chess has "ratings floors". This means if you hit 1800 rating... You rating floor is automatically 1600, so you cannot fall below that rating, unless you petition for it and give reasons. Fargorate does not have as big of a rating range, but this can be done ona smaller scale.. Let's call a spade a spade... What are the odds a player who has reached 650 Fargorate, will ever fall below 550 over a short period of time, without some shadiness?

And as for tournament directors actively participating in shenanigans to tank a specific player's rating to help them win a capped event? Well, if you had ONE single avenue to become a tournament director... Then you ban any TD that engages in obvious manipulation. And you ban the player involved for some period of time.

Fargorate is starting to gain momentum, and is REALLY driving tournament attendance. We are at the point where all the data being public, and the risk of not being able to participate in the rating system is enough to discourage manipulation, given controls are in place, and appropriate punishments.
Click to expand...
It took me 10 solid years to go from 650-550, that’s not shady😎 is it? I perfer to call it the long con😉

Hope your good Russ

Best
Fatboy <——-pondering playing again😃
 
mikepage said:
Yes, the data we incorporate is public. When you sign up for the tournament that displays brackets on Ingenpool or Challonge or Cuescore or whatever, you have no reasonable expectation the fact you were in Norristown PA playing in a pool tournament on Jan 21 2025 and lost to so and so is private.
That's fine and is true for any individual tournament. The aggregated data, on the other hand, has information--call it meta information--that you didn't knowingly make public, like the fact you traveled four times in the last 15 months from PA to Macon GA.

When someone signs up for a tournament at Joe's Bar one Saturday and Billy's Bar the next Saturday and Corner Pocket pool room the next Saturday, they're thinking of those as uncorrelated and not knowingly communicating to their boss or their ex that they were not at work any of the last 10 Saturdays.

If tournaments we collect match data for were all "FargoRate" tournaments in some way, we could be like chess and make everything public. But they're not and we're not. USCF--the chess federation--has a database of games that totals 11 million--and that's games played over about 6 centuries. We have 50 million games. There are fewer than 1 million games per year added to the chess database. We add more than 1 million games per month.
Click to expand...
This is what I was thinking about the reason the data isn't made public by default.

That said could you possibly have a higher level access so that verified tournament directors would have access to all the data? It could be done with the caveat that any tournament director who published data that isn't made public by the player loses their ability to see all the data.

I just find it hard to essentially be herding cats when I tell players that they must make their games public to participate in big tournaments.

Or, and maybe you answered this in chat previously, does LMS give that capability?

Also, is there a way to see what a person's Fargo was on a given date?
 
iusedtoberich said:
I call BS at you ever being 650! :):):)
Click to expand...
I never had a Fargo.

Honest truth, after watching many many Fargo rated matches here’s what I’ve came up with.

When I see 650’s playing I see some holes in their pattern play and in general more misses and mistakes than I make(made in the past).

When I watch 700’s play I see more consistency than I could sustain for more than a few good days here & there. 725’s would flat rob me.

When I see 675’s on average I see where I landed on average when I played my best. Have I played 725 speed? Sure for a set here and there I have, but not day in and day out.

Consistently I’ve played inconsistent. Which is bad, I appeared to play stronger as I did. That was a problem when matching up for years for me. I play so bad somedays it doesn’t make sense. Oddly I’m the same with backgammon as well.

These days I haven’t played enough to come close to knowing where I land. It’s much weaker than before, as I haven’t played much the last years.

That’s the whole book on me,

Best
Fatboy 😃
 
mikepage said:
Can you elaborate on what the issue is?
Click to expand...
Sorry that it took too long to respond. I retired and moved out of state.

Here’s how it works with double jeopardy. I am referring to USAPL league play. You have three seasons to qualify while playing both 8 ball and 10 ball in a night for the year. A team qualifies in 8 ball but not 10 ball. That team will play all out on 10 ball while dumping games in 8 ball.

As long as your total racks balance out or are less than you should have for your HC rating, you will not go up.

Feel free to contact me for further info.
 
New high, 576. All the rest of my Afternoon Delights made it in the system (from a month ago), keeping me at 575. But then a couple days later it moved to 576 on its own. I'll take it;)

1739839364085.png

1739839489334.png


1739839542898.png
 
Today at 3pm eastern. He’s a 573, I’m a 576. All sets race to six. May or may not be on Salotto, we didn’t discuss that.

Youtube link (starting about 3PM eastern):
www.youtube.com

Nick 576 vs Dave 573

Action Challenge, starting about 3PM eastern2 sets of luck 9 ball2 sets of called shot 10 ballRace to 6 all sets100 entry fee all sets
www.youtube.com www.youtube.com

1740075897688.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Good or Lucky.png


I'm playing Rachel again on the stream tomorrow. I'll link it when it's ready. Today I am 575, she's 593. Last time it was 574/591. I'm feeling really good, played a bunch yesterday and today. I'm looking for the upset.

I also spent 2.5 hrs non-stop practicing the back-pocket 9 ball break to make the 9 on the break. I was looking for any "trick" to beat her. I can say with certainty now, it's not a good break for regular 9 ball! ha ha. I might try it on my first break for fun. I actually played a mutual friend of ours today, with her watching, and said "watch this":, and did the break, and the 9 went in the back pocket. She was laughing. ha ha.
 
Don't feel
Fatboy said:
I never had a Fargo.

Honest truth, after watching many many Fargo rated matches here’s what I’ve came up with.

When I see 650’s playing I see some holes in their pattern play and in general more misses and mistakes than I make(made in the past).

When I watch 700’s play I see more consistency than I could sustain for more than a few good days here & there. 725’s would flat rob me.

When I see 675’s on average I see where I landed on average when I played my best. Have I played 725 speed? Sure for a set here and there I have, but not day in and day out.

Consistently I’ve played inconsistent. Which is bad, I appeared to play stronger as I did. That was a problem when matching up for years for me. I play so bad somedays it doesn’t make sense. Oddly I’m the same with backgammon as well.

These days I haven’t played enough to come close to knowing where I land. It’s much weaker than before, as I haven’t played much the last years.

That’s the whole book on me,

Best
Fatboy 😃
Click to expand...
Don't feel like the lone ranger bud. I worked hard to avoid Fargo and other rating systems.
Prefer it that way.
Playing me is like a box of chocolates... Never know what your going to get. 😉
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top