Remember when I pointed out a flaw in your system years ago? You didn't say thanks or even respond to me but you fixed it eventually. If you were more forward about limitations then you'd get less of these reactions, hell maybe you could develop an even better system
Why Pool Leagues Should Embrace “ALL BALL FOULS”
- Thread starter dr_dave
- Start date
There's conscious bias and unconscious bias. The second is much harder to avoid and affects us all--including, of course, myseelf. I could absolutely be misinterpreting how you present your arguments and otherwise ignore some raised points, but everything you do seems to align more with what presents Fargo in the best light than being purely objective analysis of the system.
That all said, I think it's a great system overall, and is the best system we have for relative comparison between players. If I knew nothing about two players and had to choose one data point to evaluate them, Fargo would be it. Thank you for your contribution.
Wow, how much are we going to beat this dead horse? I guess the A B C system where someone issues you an arbitrary rating was much better than Fargo, maybe we should go back to that.
The one thing that will always be a constant is that it is player against player, not player against table. That makes the equipment a very small consideration in Fargo ratings unless there is a game that I don't know about where the competitors each compete on different equipment from each other.
If you have a better system than Fargo why don't you implement it then test it and bring the results to Mike Page? A solution is always better than just being critical.
It's easy to fall into logical falacies and misdirection. Smart people especially are good at using misdirection and we're all bias sometimes. I'll play any 750 plus as a 650 alternate break, bar table 8 ball with Fargorate even handicap race. For a large sum, except maybe not corey lol..Wow, how much are we going to beat this dead horse? I guess the A B C system where someone issues you an arbitrary rating was much better than Fargo, maybe we should go back to that.
The one thing that will always be a constant is that it is player against player, not player against table. That makes the equipment a very small consideration in Fargo ratings unless there is a game that I don't know about where the competitors each compete on different equipment from each other.
If you have a better system than Fargo why don't you implement it then test it and bring the results to Mike Page? A solution is always better than just being critical.
We've been lead to believe that Fargo works well in this situation and it does not. On average, on a large scale, yes it generates expected results.
Welcome to the club. While I am in business for profit and do care about the money, what people usually don't realize is that caring that I get paid for what I do is different than the business strategy I employ to make that money. Mine is the long game. Provide the best product you can and the best service you can, and let the business grow steadily over time. There are others who have different philosophies and reasons for those philosophies which may be just as valid. But one thing's true in every case - someone will always accuse you of letting money influence your decisions. That's not gross, it's just a fact of life - I sometimes find myself doing the same thing with utility companies, for example.
And yet more often than not these bar box matches go the way that Fargo suggests it will, there will always be outliers but that true with anything, its unpreventable.
"We've been lead to believe that Fargo works well in this situation and it does not. On average, on a large scale, yes it generates expected results"
You're playing both sides of the coin there, I caught that.
Regardless of table size there will be times the weaker player wins and the stronger player loses, that why we play the matches, its no different than football handicapping. Its all about the averages and they work out well. If you are a 650 and you played a player 750 or above on a bar box you may win a match or 2 but the majority of time the better player would win. If you set up a match with SVB, Bergmann, Gorst, Styer, etc. I know which side I'm laying my money.
You're missing my point. On a large scale meaning all conditions, formats and players, which is what fargorate does. I outperform my rating under certain conditions which I listed because I've played incredible amounts of bar table 8 ball.
There are differences between alternate break and winner break when you handicap and especially when you get players that often break and run. A overly simple mathematical model of winner break versus alternate break shows that they are equal without handicap.
It's also obvious that some players are better at 8 ball than 9 ball.
Im not saying that Mike is lying but maybe just avoiding certain possibilities that would contradict his business and model. There's nothing wrong with that.
boogieman
It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that ping.
I think Fargo is more like a thermometer or speed radar for players. It shows how "hot" they are or their speed. Sure there are outliers, specialties, people better on different conditions, but all this stuff is true with or without Fargo. Fargo at least gives you an idea of a player's speed. It's also common knowledge that you can play 50 points high or low of your FR on any given day. I'd say that 50 point gap can cover most situations of condition, equipment and game.
Heck, I'm a nobody but beat a player considered a master on a race to 5 9B that on most days would destroy me on any length match or any game. I mean if we were playing a race to 100 I might get 10 because he lost focus now and then. That day I was in dead stroke, had a clear mind and was being fueled by peanut butter cup nitro stout in a glass bottle.
Every wild shot he forced me to try dropped. Banks fell in like hangers, even when he left me frozen to the rail and I had to play jacked up as all get out. Double and triple combos fell, caroms felt as if they were all wired. And I played every shot as a 2 way so if I missed he had basically nothing. I played at least 2 levels above my "average" game but damn does it feel good to play how you know you can once in a while... especially in a tournament setting where you're an absolute underdog. It happens and you have to remember, Fargo is an average. We all catch gears or grind gears from time to time, it's the nature of the game.
Is Fargo perfect? Nope, but it gets a good reading on someone's average ability.
Excellent explanation.
What are the chances he wasn't aware of the issue well before you "pointed it out"?
Probably zero.
Since you brought it up...
"not driving 4 balls to rails on a break shot."
YES. This is hard to adjudicate, discriminates against people who might not be able to generate that amount of force, risks injuring the equipment, and adds no fairness to the game. If the rules for a particular game don't make it advantageous to hit the rack as hard as can be done with control, expect people to try game it. So, make the rules make it advantageous, and there no reason for this rule.
"not having a foot in contact with the floor during a hit."
I think there might be a better rule. This is obviously discriminatory and biased to certain body types.
"not driving a ball to a rail after ball contact."
This rule is a proxy for a different undesired behavior (tiny safeties). I don't see any reason to have a rule which makes a simple shot which falls a bit short of the pocket into a foul as opposed to a miss. Calling it on an opponent seems amazingly petty.
Thank you kindly.
Then it is working. If you are expecting better odds making than can be achieved through statistics you need to be fixing games.
For any data set, one can determine which variables affect the results significantly, and which don't. Once you know that, more data is more impactful than more specificity in the data, on variables that don't make much difference. If Fargo has done the math, then they are likely at the best compromise available. Since they are seeing, as you claim, expected results on average, then we can conclude they are doing it right.
If we could always determine in advance who would win, it wouldn't be much fun to watch.
Thank you kindly.
So.... should people be able to climb up onto the table like the rule at Buffalo's in New Orleans?
Which body type does it discriminate against?
That is a pretty big strawman you are toting there. Expected better from you.
Is it too hard to imagine how you would do playing pool from a wheelchair, or if you were shorter than the table itself.
Thank you kindly.
boogieman
It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that ping.
I'm not Dr. Dave but here's my unrequested thoughts:
A better player is more likely to get out if the balls are spread out. In our town leagues with no break rule, the "lesser" players often think it's smart strategy to just barely hit the balls and leave a clusterf#$% near the spot. In that rule set, yeah it is strategic. But it makes for boring games... the better player is going to break them out and win anyway. For two "lesser" players competing, they are scared as hell to bust open a rack so their games go on 3X longer than they would if they broke harder. The balls are just a mess and neither player has the skill to break them out. Years ago I used to do this but then at a certain point I realized it was limiting my game.
If I play someone that breaks like this I just punish them like they've never been punished before with stupidly easy safeties freezing them to the rack. The game takes 5X longer but it's funny to watch them sweat at never having a shot. This ain't straight pool so a break should be somewhat forceful.
If a rack is tight it's pretty dang easy to get 4 balls to a rail. I mean, VERY easy. You can still have a defensive break and a clustered mess with that rule. Now in Ultimate Pool 8 Ball I believe you must have 3 balls past the center line of the table or it's a re-rack and opponent breaks. I love this rule. It stopped all the weenie breaks that were so common from scared players and really sped up the game. I hate to be a dick but I've called foul on illegal breaks every time I remember it. The match is on a 30 minute time limit, 30 second shot clock and it's handicapped, meaning some guys have to spot 3 games... that's tough under the time constraint. You need a decent spread to even be able to do that, thus the rule.
The only body type I could think where this is the case would be someone with a physical handicap. Missing limbs or riding a wheelchair. There are usually exceptions built into any ruleset for this. One of my friends plays in a wheelchair. She's a hell of a player, the only "limit" she has is that she had to get good with a rest/bridge for some shots. She has, and she regularly beats some ass.
I guess why I'm mentioning these is that there is a lot of "underhanded" aka smart things going on for strategy. Without the proper rules, things can and will be exploited. The rules are to protect you from the cheap shenanigans. Things like on "in the kitchen 8 ball" and a chicken shit opponent just shooting the CB into the pocket to make you kick at the 8 ball. In that particular situation on a scratch, if all your balls are in the kitchen, the nearest to the line spots on the spot and you shoot out of the kitchen. This rule makes "kitchen" rules not as exploitable to chicanery. It was the rule forever but somehow it was one that got forgotten or never imported to most bars.
A better player is more likely to get out if the balls are spread out. In our town leagues with no break rule, the "lesser" players often think it's smart strategy to just barely hit the balls and leave a clusterf#$% near the spot. In that rule set, yeah it is strategic. But it makes for boring games... the better player is going to break them out and win anyway. For two "lesser" players competing, they are scared as hell to bust open a rack so their games go on 3X longer than they would if they broke harder. The balls are just a mess and neither player has the skill to break them out. Years ago I used to do this but then at a certain point I realized it was limiting my game.
If I play someone that breaks like this I just punish them like they've never been punished before with stupidly easy safeties freezing them to the rack. The game takes 5X longer but it's funny to watch them sweat at never having a shot. This ain't straight pool so a break should be somewhat forceful.
If a rack is tight it's pretty dang easy to get 4 balls to a rail. I mean, VERY easy. You can still have a defensive break and a clustered mess with that rule. Now in Ultimate Pool 8 Ball I believe you must have 3 balls past the center line of the table or it's a re-rack and opponent breaks. I love this rule. It stopped all the weenie breaks that were so common from scared players and really sped up the game. I hate to be a dick but I've called foul on illegal breaks every time I remember it. The match is on a 30 minute time limit, 30 second shot clock and it's handicapped, meaning some guys have to spot 3 games... that's tough under the time constraint. You need a decent spread to even be able to do that, thus the rule.
The only body type I could think where this is the case would be someone with a physical handicap. Missing limbs or riding a wheelchair. There are usually exceptions built into any ruleset for this. One of my friends plays in a wheelchair. She's a hell of a player, the only "limit" she has is that she had to get good with a rest/bridge for some shots. She has, and she regularly beats some ass.
It does seem a bit petty. The thing is, one could purposely do this and give the opponent a really stupid angle to try to get shape. Basically leave them a shot with no future. I do this all the time (after legal rail contact) and you'd be surprised how effective it can be. When teaching strategy I've named this particular tactic "poisoning the waters." It's a close cousin to "scratch traps" which leave a scratch near the tangent line that is surprisingly hard to avoid. The placement of "scratch traps" can be really dependent on who you're playing. Do they draw most of the time, do they follow, do they shoot hard, do they not recognize secondary caroms? Set the trap accordingly. And if possible do it multiple ways, it they can draw out of it they may not notice the "fat pocket" carom leading the CB to doom. Very effective.
I guess why I'm mentioning these is that there is a lot of "underhanded" aka smart things going on for strategy. Without the proper rules, things can and will be exploited. The rules are to protect you from the cheap shenanigans. Things like on "in the kitchen 8 ball" and a chicken shit opponent just shooting the CB into the pocket to make you kick at the 8 ball. In that particular situation on a scratch, if all your balls are in the kitchen, the nearest to the line spots on the spot and you shoot out of the kitchen. This rule makes "kitchen" rules not as exploitable to chicanery. It was the rule forever but somehow it was one that got forgotten or never imported to most bars.
The WPA rules include specific rules for wheelchair players. I don't know of any junior player who requires stools or such. Leagues are free to add their own special rules for people with disabilities.
As for four balls to a cushion ... if a player can't routinely make four balls hit cushions on an eight ball break, they need very badly to practice their break and they probably don't belong in a league yet. The alternative seems to be to allow a safety break at eight ball.
SeniorTom
Well-known member
Pool is like golf when it comes to playing by the rules, and maybe other sports as well. I would say a good portion, maybe a majority, of players want to have fun and not be bogged down by technicalities. I can respect this approach because when it's all said and done, enjoying yourself is the primary goal. When I go out and play golf, I'll roll the ball over in the fairway, take a mulligan on the first tee, and other leniencies. I don't care what Joe professional does on the golf course in accordance with the rules, that is his choice. Some people say I'm not actually playing golf when I play casually, but that's okay because I play the way I want to play. Pool is a lot the same to me, and I can go any direction with respect to rules that the league imposes. I will say that for the most part if leagues get too picky, they will lose players and eventually die out. Who makes money off of playing pool? Only a small percentage of people, and the rest just want to enjoy themselves.
OK, but if a pool organization gets to the point of having national championships, I'd argue that maybe they have serious players and ought to be careful about the rules.
Outlawing touching an object ball is not a technicality -- it has been the official rule for a long, long time.
SeniorTom
Well-known member
That is fine with me, as I also play golf in tournaments where I follow all the rules of golf. My comment was more towards leagues and Casual play, as there is no Authority mandating their rules of play. I support playing by all the rules if that is what the league chooses, and maybe should choose as DD suggests. That's okay with me as well, but for casual play I get a bit lenient with my play And my partner's play and just have some fun, and work on my stroke.
What is it with everyone here? Shall we just eliminate all rules and start poking object balls in with our cues? How fun would that be? Part of the fun and strategy is playing within the rules. Leaving your opponent locked up to another ball or in a pile of balls is part strategy, making the shot difficult. What's next, no moving you opponents balls to difficult places to pocket or tying them up? Coming up with creative ways to safe your opponent is strategy and fun. I love 3 fouling opponents in rotation, unless they are a high level player they rarely see it coming.