(Un)Popular Opinion on Fargo Rate

[ShootingArts]

he played to a 714 against 600 players and won. his fargo rating was lower than them but he played much higher, so the higher playing player won just as forgo would predict.

if he played to his rating he would not likely finished in the list.

why or how he played way over his rating needs to be determined.

I think you are 100% correct here. I didn't think you could bend a robust fargo that much. A few possibilities, some more nefarious than others. With no proof of anything but playing his heart out we have to give the benefit of the doubt here. I have seen people benefit vastly from just having their mental game pumped up for some reason.

Hu

 

[fastone371]

Tell me if you thought it was possible before the event that Eric were going to win? I didn't.

So why is there no way he wins it again?

Besides my point was to point out that fargo although a good indicator of skill over time is not "deadly accurate" to predict who will win.

So how have you done up there? I've been there lots with only a little success as far as results go. But probably more success than most. It's a tough row to hoe.

To me it seems like a 30-40 point FR difference is pretty much an even match, either player can win. Doesn't BCA spot 1 game per 50 points of FR? If so its not really that shocking that 606 FR won the tournament.

 

[Coos Cues]

he played to a 714 against 600 players and won. his fargo rating was lower than them but he played much higher, so the higher playing player won just as forgo would predict.

if he played to his rating he would not likely finished in the list.

why or how he played way over his rating needs to be determined.

Why he played well is anyone's guess. He's not a rising young player and his robustness is 4k. Fargo predicted he would lose every match but the first one. His average opponent was a 632 so on average over that short event so his average match odds were 38% to win. At any rate I would consider this to be a major outlier and keep in mind I'm not attacking Fargorate but I started on this when Maha said fargo is "deadly accurate" at predicting who will win between two players. Not so much in my mind. Accurate? sure. But not "deadly"

 

[fuggles]

Why he played well is anyone's guess. He's not a rising young player and his robustness is 4k. Fargo predicted he would lose every match but the first one. His average opponent was a 632 so on average over that short event so his average match odds were 38% to win. At any rate I would consider this to be a major outlier and keep in mind I'm not attacking Fargorate but I started on this when Maha said fargo is "deadly accurate" at predicting who will win between two players. Not so much in my mind. Accurate? sure. But not "deadly"

I will use myself as an example. About 5 months ago I discovered something in my preshot routine. I changed it and since then I've been playing about 70 points higher than I was playing before. And my fargo has been climinig up to the right. About 25 points in the last 175 games.

 

[alphadog]

Lassiter said you have to play well and get lucky.

 

[Jaden]

People are still making the mistake of thinking that fargo rate is skill level. It's not, it's performance. Any number of things can affect performance. Someone could be a 600 fargo but skill wise be a 750. They tweak one thing or start practicing more and bang, they're winning tournaments. The reason you don't see it that often is that players aren't often increasing their practice or discovering the thing holding them back in competition. That's not even taking into consideration that the way fargo tournaments are structured, the players in the 600-700 range will be kept artificially low if they are only or mainly competing against lower skilled players for the reasons I've already mentioned.

If they were to exclusively play in higher level open tournaments, their fargo rates would be higher.

 

[fuggles]

People are still making the mistake of thinking that fargo rate is skill level. It's not, it's performance. Any number of things can affect performance. Someone could be a 600 fargo but skill wise be a 750. They tweak one thing or start practicing more and bang, they're winning tournaments. The reason you don't see it that often is that players aren't often increasing their practice or discovering the thing holding them back in competition. That's not even taking into consideration that the way fargo tournaments are structured, the players in the 600-700 range will be kept artificially low if they are only or mainly competing against lower skilled players for the reasons I've already mentioned.

If they were to exclusively play in higher level open tournaments, their fargo rates would be higher.

Agree with everything except the bolded. If you are 100 points above your opponent but you are winning 80% of the games, then your fargo will go up.

 

[maha]

my deadly accurate is accurate. but of course any prediction of events need a big enough sample to determine the outcome.

short matches give a direction but not a definitive prediction.

let a 600 player play a 650 for an all day session like in the pool room and you can bet your sweet ass you know who will win.

in a tournament you can bet that the top fargo players will take off most or all the top money on the average. if they are significantly higher than the field behind them.
and of course there will be an occasional outlier that sneaks in for some reason.

 

[Jaden]

Agree with everything except the bolded. If you are 100 points above your opponent but you are winning 80% of the games, then your fargo will go up.

Here let me explain it again. It has nothiing to do with the fact you're mostly playing lower skilled players, it has to do with the formatting when you're playing against lower skilled players. You're almost exclusively playing handicapped tournaments at the lower levels, and they are designed to even the playing field. So if you're opponent only has to go to say 3 games to your 6 or 7, they will often get to that 3 or 4 games before the opponent gets above 2,3 or 4 games. This artificially creates an input into fargo that makes the higher rated player appear lower than they actually are. You may 99 out of 100 times if playing the full race to 6 or 7 end up 7-2 or 6-3. If those scores are inputted iinto fargo, the fargo will remain accurate.

But because of the nature of handicapped tournaments, those other inputs will keep the better player artificially low and the lower player artificially high.

 

[maha]

but if he had played to his fargo rate he almost certainly would not have won.

but he played to a much higher almost impossible level at 714 over 100 points higher.

that is the major point. fargo rate does not mean you will shoot to that level of play each and every day.
or that your opponent will shoot to his level.

 

[maha]

But because of the nature of handicapped tournaments, those other inputs will keep the better player artificially low and the lower player artificially high.

that doesnt seem right jaden. for good mathematical reasons.

but if it was so it can explain lots of strange events.

 

[fuggles]

Here let me explain it again. It has nothiing to do with the fact you're mostly playing lower skilled players, it has to do with the formatting when you're playing against lower skilled players. You're almost exclusively playing handicapped tournaments at the lower levels, and they are designed to even the playing field. So if you're opponent only has to go to say 3 games to your 6 or 7, they will often get to that 3 or 4 games before the opponent gets above 2,3 or 4 games. This artificially creates an input into fargo that makes the higher rated player appear lower than they actually are. You may 99 out of 100 times if playing the full race to 6 or 7 end up 7-2 or 6-3. If those scores are inputted iinto fargo, the fargo will remain accurate.

But because of the nature of handicapped tournaments, those other inputs will keep the better player artificially low and the lower player artificially high.

But in fair match fargo handicapped tournaments the higher rated player has better odds of winning. And more often than not they win. I see it all the time. But even with your math again when the higher rated player wins more games their fargo will go up.

 

[Jaden]

But in fair match fargo handicapped tournaments the higher rated player has better odds of winning. And more often than not they win. I see it all the time. But even with your math again when the higher rated player wins more games their fargo will go up.

nope not how it works, they have to win more than their expected number of games. It's not like a 650 fargo will have their rate go up by beating a 520 5-3 or losing 4-3. They're expected to win 6-2 or 6-3

 

[Ģüśţāṿ]

People are still making the mistake of thinking that fargo rate is skill level. It's not, it's performance. Any number of things can affect performance.

This is the most accurate description of Fargo I have read. Mike Page should update his outdated website to state it is an average performance rating and remove refereneces to it being used as a handicapping system, which can be confusing to many.

 

[mikepage]

Here let me explain it again. It has nothiing to do with the fact you're mostly playing lower skilled players, it has to do with the formatting when you're playing against lower skilled players. You're almost exclusively playing handicapped tournaments at the lower levels, and they are designed to even the playing field. So if you're opponent only has to go to say 3 games to your 6 or 7, they will often get to that 3 or 4 games before the opponent gets above 2,3 or 4 games. This artificially creates an input into fargo that makes the higher rated player appear lower than they actually are. You may 99 out of 100 times if playing the full race to 6 or 7 end up 7-2 or 6-3. If those scores are inputted iinto fargo, the fargo will remain accurate.

But because of the nature of handicapped tournaments, those other inputs will keep the better player artificially low and the lower player artificially high.

I think the issue is being misunderstood a bit.

The mere fact that one side is going to 3 and the other is going to 6 does not, by itself, make the stronger player look artificially weak in the game data.

In a handicapped race, both players have a stopping rule. In a 3–6 match, it stops either when the weaker player gets to 3 or the stronger player gets to 6. So it’s not really true that the weaker player is uniquely getting “artificially early” scores entered while the stronger player is not.

A good test is this: imagine a biased coin that comes up heads 2/3 of the time and tails 1/3 of the time, with heads racing to 6 and tails racing to 3. If you simulate a huge number of those matches and then total up all the flips, the overall heads-to-tails ratio still comes out 2 to 1 when the numbers get big. In other words, the stopping rules do not by themselves distort the underlying game-win ratio.

What the handicap changes is the match win probability, not the underlying game ratio.

 

[Ģüśţāṿ]

I think the issue is being misunderstood a bit.

The mere fact that one side is going to 3 and the other is going to 6 does not, by itself, make the stronger player look artificially weak in the game data.

In a handicapped race, both players have a stopping rule. In a 3–6 match, it stops either when the weaker player gets to 3 or the stronger player gets to 6. So it’s not really true that the weaker player is uniquely getting “artificially early” scores entered while the stronger player is not.

A good test is this: imagine a biased coin that comes up heads 2/3 of the time and tails 1/3 of the time, with heads racing to 6 and tails racing to 3. If you simulate a huge number of those matches and then total up all the flips, the overall heads-to-tails ratio still comes out 2 to 1 when the numbers get big. In other words, the stopping rules do not by themselves distort the underlying game-win ratio.

What the handicap changes is the match win probability, not the underlying game ratio.

If one person is currently a 600 player but continuously improving their game, playing closer to 750 on average, but ONLY play 550 rated players, how long would it take them to reach 750?

Might be a ridiculous sounding question, but people generally move up faster by playing better players. If they rarely leave their home town, how long would it take for their rating to match reality? Could it?

 

[mikepage]

If one person is currently a 600 player but continuously improving their game, playing closer to 750 on average, but ONLY play 550 rated players, how long would it take them to reach 750?

Might be a ridiculous sounding question, but people generally move up faster by playing better players. If they rarely leave their home town, how long would it take for their rating to match reality? Could it?

The player will move up at the same rate playing games against a 550 or a 350 or a 750 --doesn't matter so long as he is playing the same number of games against each.

 

[cookie man]

Well while fargo was getting going I was playing decently and got my rating up to 640 with a lot of games in robustness. Five years later I’ve gotten older. Health not as good. Eyes not as good and so I’m playing at a much lower speed. Probably 560 or so. But I’m stuck. No where to play. Everyone is running 600 and under. 550 and under. So I have basically quit pool thanks to fargo until they come up with some kind of old age medical condition exemption.

 

[cookie man]

If one person is currently a 600 player but continuously improving their game, playing closer to 750 on average, but ONLY play 550 rated players, how long would it take them to reach 750?

Might be a ridiculous sounding question, but people generally move up faster by playing better players. If they rarely leave their home town, how long would it take for their rating to match reality? Could it?

I see the same players cashing in 600 and under for the last couple years so in reality they don’t move up much.

 

[SBC]

No matter the tournament....a bunch of kids playing in a schoolyard. Only 3 people are supposed to win. Always been that way and always will be.