JABSolstice
Well-known member
There's a 675 at Stix Dunedin this weekend.
(Un)Popular Opinion on Fargo Rate
- Thread starter kollegedave
- Start date
sudocrushms
Well-known member
Is that from him suddenly having more FR matches in the system, or has he been overperforming that much? Not sure how big the data set was before then.
He won more of his games this past year than expected. The system can't tell to what extent that's an aberration (either he got more rolls than his opponents or his opponents were not as strong as we thought they were) or his baseline skill is higher than we thought. You can think of 830 as the system's best estimate of his current baseline (average) skill balancing the different possibilities as well as it can.
Yep. 12 people signed up. 600 and under fargo tournaments have killed the tournament scene around here. None of the better players play anymore. And anyone under 600 don’t play in the higher tournaments
Coos Cues
Coos Cues
I'm 67 and played in a 610 and under 10 ball 180 miles away from home last year. Full field of 48 and I headed home after losing the point match at 8 pm. There were about 4 matches backed up on the losers side. All the kids there couldn't believe I was quitting but after 11 hours a man's got to know his limits. Probably would have waited until 1 am and got third place anywayCould be worse. You could be 67 and 560...
Funny how what we want to get out of the game evolves as we get older.
Coos Cues
Coos Cues
I had this match under complete control until I didn'tI'm 67 and played in a 610 and under 10 ball 180 miles away from home last year. Full field of 48 and I headed home after losing the point match at 8 pm. There were about 4 matches backed up on the losers side. All the kids there couldn't believe I was quitting but after 11 hours a man's got to know his limits. Probably would have waited until 1 am and got third place anyway
Funny how what we want to get out of the game evolves as we get older.
Those little errors
Last edited:
It pays to complain. My rating just went up a point to 638 lol.
Wayne Crimi
Active member
I still believe the ratings are moving a bit too slowly.
For discussion's sake let say a player is rated 750.
Just on randomness, he's probably going to have short periods where his RESULTS (key word "results") indicate he's playing 700 pool, 800 pool or even in a wider range even if he's still playing at a 750 level. That's just the random break results, leaves, layouts, great/bad shots etc... that occur over short periods that contribute to results. So we know his rating has to reflect a longer period than just a few tournaments. But there are times when you can clearly see a player is playing below or above his Fargo Rating for a period of time and the rating is hardly budging. It trails results that ARE reflective of an actual change in performance.
If you watch chess ratings you see the ratings reflect long term results, but you also see players move up and down the rankings to better reflect their recent play.
I'm not informed enough or perhaps even smart enough to suggest the appropriate change, but I still think the ratings move a little too slowly.
If it was easy to wager on pool, I felt confident no one would be dumping, and the odds were set entirely based on Fargo ratings, I feel confident I would find many inefficient odds and be able to win because Fargo didn't move fast enough.
One other suggestion I would have (granted sample size would be an issue), is that it probably makes some sense to also have seperate ratings for each game, We know some players are a little better at some games than others and their own overall rating could reflect the tournament type they have been playing.
For discussion's sake let say a player is rated 750.
Just on randomness, he's probably going to have short periods where his RESULTS (key word "results") indicate he's playing 700 pool, 800 pool or even in a wider range even if he's still playing at a 750 level. That's just the random break results, leaves, layouts, great/bad shots etc... that occur over short periods that contribute to results. So we know his rating has to reflect a longer period than just a few tournaments. But there are times when you can clearly see a player is playing below or above his Fargo Rating for a period of time and the rating is hardly budging. It trails results that ARE reflective of an actual change in performance.
If you watch chess ratings you see the ratings reflect long term results, but you also see players move up and down the rankings to better reflect their recent play.
I'm not informed enough or perhaps even smart enough to suggest the appropriate change, but I still think the ratings move a little too slowly.
If it was easy to wager on pool, I felt confident no one would be dumping, and the odds were set entirely based on Fargo ratings, I feel confident I would find many inefficient odds and be able to win because Fargo didn't move fast enough.
One other suggestion I would have (granted sample size would be an issue), is that it probably makes some sense to also have seperate ratings for each game, We know some players are a little better at some games than others and their own overall rating could reflect the tournament type they have been playing.