BCA pool league adjusting Fargo rating
- Thread starter Soberlife
- Start date
Soberlife
Active member
This is true but decent players only have to win a single game potentially with these new adjustments.
No BCA league i ever played in did anyone only have to win 1 game.
That sounds like it’s a policy with your league, not with FargoRate.
From my understanding if a league operator wants an adjustment to a starter rating, the adjustment can only move the starter rating closer to the player’s actual performance up to that point, which may be higher or lower. FargoRate won’t arbitrarily move it 100 points even if the captain convinces the league operator, and the league operator asks FargoRate.
From my understanding if a league operator wants an adjustment to a starter rating, the adjustment can only move the starter rating closer to the player’s actual performance up to that point, which may be higher or lower. FargoRate won’t arbitrarily move it 100 points even if the captain convinces the league operator, and the league operator asks FargoRate.
My understanding (someone will correct me if I'm wrong) is that if the league operator assigned someone a preliminary Fargo initially, it can be adjusted while they're still preliminary if it becomes evident that the initial guesstimate was significantly off.
The same holds true in USA pool league. I honestly wish it would be used more often...
The same holds true in USA pool league. I honestly wish it would be used more often...
I see tournaments now where they are requiring robustness of 400 or higher to enter- must be a lot of complaints by players - Fargo has not seemed to fix problems with player complaints at handicapped events - might as well install a totally socialist spin on these events the way this is going!
Definitions
Changing someone's starter rating has the most influence on affecting a players Preliminary Rating in scenario 1 and its impact has diminishing returns as you move through scenario 2, 3, 4 and 5. By scenario 6, it has zero impact whatsoever because a Fargo Rating can only ever be changed by actual performances.
So, here's the things to think about...
- Starter Rating: (Optional) An initial adjustable guess at your initial ability assigned by a human
- Preliminary Rating: Blend of your actual performance and your starter rating
- Fargo Rating: 100% your actual performance after you've logged 200 games
- Starter Rating: 525
- Games Played: 0
- Preliminary Rating: 525 (100% Starter Rating & 0% Actual Performance)
- 200 fake games at 525 speed (your starter rating)
- 0 real games rated on your actual performance
- Fargo Rating: You don't have one
- Starter Rating: 525
- Games Played: 50
- Preliminary Rating: ??? (75% Starter Rating & 25% Actual Performance)
- 150 fake games at 525 speed (your starter rating)
- 50 real games rated on your actual performance
- Fargo Rating: You don't have one
- Starter Rating: 525
- Games Played: 100
- Preliminary Rating:
- ??? (50% Starter Rating & 50% Actual Performance)
- 100 fake games at 525 speed (your starter rating)
- 100 real games rated on your actual performance
- Fargo Rating: You don't have one
- Starter Rating: 525
- Games Played: 150
- ??? (25% Starter Rating & 75% Actual Performance)
- 50 fake games at 525 speed (your starter rating)
- 150 real games rated on your actual performance
- Fargo Rating: You don't have one
- Starter Rating: 525
- Games Played: 199
- ??? (0.5% Starter Rating & 99.5% Actual Performance)
- 1 fake game at 525 speed (your starter rating)
- 199 real games rated on your actual performance
- Fargo Rating: You don't have one
- Starter Rating:
525<-- Not a part of the system anymore - Games Played: 200 (or more)
- Preliminary Rating: You don't have one
- Fargo Rating: ??? (0% Starter Rating | 100% Actual Performance)
Changing someone's starter rating has the most influence on affecting a players Preliminary Rating in scenario 1 and its impact has diminishing returns as you move through scenario 2, 3, 4 and 5. By scenario 6, it has zero impact whatsoever because a Fargo Rating can only ever be changed by actual performances.
So, here's the things to think about...
- How does your league use the ratings to apply match handicaps?
- Consider how important it is to get everyone established with 200+ games as quick as possible.
- How does your league handles players who only have preliminary ratings?
- How many players in your league only have preliminary ratings?
- How many adjustments have been made to starter ratings?
- Do you trust your league operator?
Soberlife
Active member
Thank you so much for your information!
There is no way to fix or stop sandbagging
Fargorate does a dam good job of it though. If your robustness is low you Fargo number can swing rapidly, if you have Fargo rating over 1.000 sandbagging will do virtually nothing. If people want to sandbag to win a future tournament all of their sandbagging will be undone. Most smart people know this so they don't bother sandbagging, those less than smart, what needs to be said??
That's because a low robustness is not an accurate representation of a players abilities, there is no rocket science involved. Its no different than before Fargo when a TD might assign someone a rating, if that player wins that first tournament with a TD estimated rating there would be a lot complaining, its just the way stuff works. If you want an accurate Fargo rating with a strong robustness get out there a play games that will count towards your Fargo rating.
not when those tournaments dont report to fargo, which MANY still do not
Fargorate does a dam good job of it though. If your robustness is low you Fargo number can swing rapidly, if you have Fargo rating over 1.000 sandbagging will do virtually nothing. If people want to sandbag to win a future tournament all of their sandbagging will be undone. Most smart people know this so they don't bother sandbagging, those less than smart, what needs to be said??
i see this all the time people dont like to believe it
but thats how it is
so many tournaments in texas arent reported, they dont have to . fargo isnt the pool police
Last season three new players came into our top league division & were of course assigned a starter rating.
Those starter ratings were,
450
450
425
3 months had passed with quite a bit of grumbling by the other players that their Fargo Ratings were a little on the low side. After 13 weeks of play their Fargo Ratings were,
482
491
458
They had won 59 of the 78 rounds played & built up what was probably an insurmountable lead.
Week 14 their Fargo Ratings had been adjusted to,
579
586
518
They won 34 out of the 54 rounds possible for the rest of the season and won the league.
So yes Fargo Ratings can be adjusted. In this case is should have been done quite a bit sooner.
Those starter ratings were,
450
450
425
3 months had passed with quite a bit of grumbling by the other players that their Fargo Ratings were a little on the low side. After 13 weeks of play their Fargo Ratings were,
482
491
458
They had won 59 of the 78 rounds played & built up what was probably an insurmountable lead.
Week 14 their Fargo Ratings had been adjusted to,
579
586
518
They won 34 out of the 54 rounds possible for the rest of the season and won the league.
So yes Fargo Ratings can be adjusted. In this case is should have been done quite a bit sooner.
With a little research on our league coordinators part it wouldn't have happened. I personally would have put them between 540 & 585 from the start & kept an eye on how they fared.
There are quite a few people of less skill that participate in the this particular league division. It is / was a handicapped league, so some folks take the spot & give it a go.
I think Fargo should be less flexible on who/when/where they get their player info for Stats.
A couple guys in Pueblo CO told me how they easily lowered it, just by sending in the lemonaded scores.
A couple guys in Pueblo CO told me how they easily lowered it, just by sending in the lemonaded scores.
Last edited:
Why is 400 the correct robustness- who decides this stuff? Many people work, have families, homes, etc. and just cannot get to a lot of Fargo rated events- so they should be excluded??--- - there just are no common sense standards that apply to those who " run" tournaments -- just bc a few people cheat- all the honest people who live responsible lives outside of pool get screwed out of even participating in events now. THAT IS MY ISSUE- and you just verified it- only the folks who can play " all the time" DESERVE TO COMPETE--- THAT IS B.S. IN MY OPINION.
Just who decides at what robustness does FARGO become accurate- who is the Fargo GOD- that eliminates someone who could only make 200 or 300 attempts to get a rating- bc they have a life outside of pool----- but OH- not good enough to enter- you need 400??? they are more worried about the complainers than anyone else- apparently!
There is really big money in some of these events that is why they require a minimum robustness. They don’t want some sandbagger coming in and robbing their tournament . Now for smaller tournaments I get your point. The thing is not everyone is honest like you.
There was a 600 and under event out here in Vegas a few weeks ago and the kid that won it cleared $25k. I believe the minimum robustness was 500.
Last edited:
boogieman
It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that ping.
I've played pool again for probably 6 years now. I only have a robustness of 109. To top that off the main event that I got most of the scores was the first big event (50 or so tables) I had ever played in. I played like dog shit. I know my rating is lower than it should be but in the following 5 years I've just not been in many fargo events. I don't avoid them or anything, but it's just that local stuff doesn't report to it. I only get my rating added to when I'm playing on some special occasion out of town, and that's not often, maybe 3-4 times a year if I'm lucky.
I figure I'll be to 200 robustness in another decade or so...
