...... Retracted
Last edited:
FargoRate
- Thread starter Rhea
- Start date
Since you have better access to this, can you compare the match results to the prediction in the race? If the wins were close to what the ratings would show as an even game.
I looked up a random match, Shaw beat his opponent 9-4. Fargo predicted an almost even race as 9-3, with a 56-43% favoring Shaw. So the opponent getting to 4 before losing is within 1 of 9 games prediction. Sossei vs Rocha, Fargot ratings show an even game as 9-5, Sossei won 9-7, within 2 games of the prediction. Hewitt vs Daigle, predicted a 9-7 race as a 50/50 win, final result was 9-7, the two players were close, and the result was close. Archer vs Sobers, Fargo showed a 9-2 race with Sobers going to two as the spot, result was 9-3, within one game. So you can certainly get a very good handicap using Fargo. Say if Archer was playing Sobers, if you picked 9-2 spot which is what Fargo showed as Sobers winning 60% of the time, you had a good chance of getting the cash since the actual result was 9-3.
You want a system that predicts the winner with maybe a 10-20% variance, which is damn good, you got it. Based on the results, if you use Fargo with handicap your matches, you can have an 80% win ratio if you get to pick in your favor that is. If you were betting on Archer ask for a spot a game over what Fargo shows as 50/50 and you will win 80% of the time.
You want a system that predicts the winner with maybe a 10-20% variance, which is damn good, you got it. Based on the results, if you use Fargo with handicap your matches, you can have an 80% win ratio if you get to pick in your favor that is. If you were betting on Archer ask for a spot a game over what Fargo shows as 50/50 and you will win 80% of the time.
Last edited:
To paraphrase, what you are essentially saying is that the more people play, and the more often people play, and the more different people they play against, the better and the more accurate FargoRate gets--which is also the same as saying that more data is always better. Everybody would absolutely agree with you.
Where I disagree a bit is with your insinuation, whether intentional or not, that it is not yet a good system or is not yet already reasonably accurate due to your reference that it is "a work in progress". It is already a great system, and it is already pretty accurate. Yes, it will continue to get even better and include even more players and get even more accurate in the future as it accumulates even more data, but it is already pretty darn good right now as we speak.
I think you are putting too much into the 7' vs 9' table difference. Maybe its because I have both at home, Im not sure but going from a 7' to a 9' table really isnt that big of a deal. We are in the heartland of 7' barboxes here in south eastern WI, I have played many players on my 9' table that very rarely if ever play on big tables and it makes very little difference to their skill level. If you are shooting rail to rail on a bog table its only a 24" longer shot than on a 7' Valley and only 20" longer than a 7' Diamond. Realistically most shots are probably only 12" max on average. On the big table you are faced with longer shots, on the small table your speed is much more critical because of congestion.
Here are a couple things I notice when a decent small-table player gets on the 9-foot table and isn't used to it.
(1) His decision making is poor. He tends to think he can get out from a certain place more than he really can and goes for it too much.
(2) He is accustomed to being able to "create an angle" whenever the object ball is within 1 or 1.5 diamonds from the pocket and so tends to be a little sloppy about insuring an angle and being on the right side of the ball.
(3) When playing position, sometimes there is a tradeoff between making sure the cueball is in the clear and making sure it comes in on a good line. On a small table, where you can make most shots you can see, being in the clear is most important. On the 9-foot table, following the right line and getting a little closer to the next ball is most important.
These are all things the decent player figures out with hundreds and not thousands of hours of play.
I grouped the matches according to rating difference with about 10 matches in each group
big difference --ave 172
medium difference --ave 77
small difference --ave 36
Then I looked at the total scores for the matches in each group and compared to the expected score for that number of games if the rating difference was at the average.
Attachments
If I were to buy someone in a calcutta, I would automatically go down the list using the fargoratings to determine how much I spend and who I buy.
Would you ever pay more for a lower rated player?
JC
Coos Cues
Not in an open tournament, however I would consider it in a handicapped tournament if they had a high robustness and a higher rating than what their handicap in the tournament suggests.
There are always intangibles that need to be accounted for, even if Fargo works perfectly. I'll take the 650 ranked player over the 675 ranked player if it's the 650's home pool room. Or if I know he prefers the type of equipment in the room and the other guy doesn't. If you are comfortable just using numbers than that's your call, but there are smart ways to pick your horses besides just the ratings.
I used to live in a house with both sizes a well, and i agree 100% with your point above. The "real pool is played on a 9 footer" crowd will never buy it tho. I play pretty average on a big table, i can beat the 9 ball ghost maybe 60 % of the time. My game doesn't magically go up 2 or 3 balls on a 7 footer... my record against the ghost is strikingly similar on both tables...i would imagine this would be true of many people
I am inclined to disagree. I have played a day of tournament matches on a bar boxes and only missed a ball or 3 all day, vs. A big table event, i am haply if i miss that many in a single set.
I wonder though if you count how many balls you made playing the ghost on the 7', vs the 9', you'd be way ahead on the 7'. Even if the ghost scores were roughly even.
I did this for straight pool. Played 69 innings on a 7' diamond with league cut pockets, and 69 innings on a 9' GC with factory pockets. It was not even close. Total balls pocketed in 69 innings was 442 on the 9' and 680 on the 7'. And this was the first time I ever played more than 5 min on a Diamond bar box, and I hate red label ping pong diamond rails.
To use Mike's term, I'm definitely a fish out of water on a big table with tight pockets. Runouts are few and far between for me although they do happen. On a barbox I run out regularly.
There are people that torture me on a big table with tight pockets that I drill on the barbox. I just flat out know my way around the table better. Like Mike said I am used to cheating the pocket for shape and make poor decisions about what I should run vs. play safe, too far from the ball, etc...I'm guilty of all of it. Also, like he said, I realized quickly what my problems were and have been working to improve. And hundreds of hours to correct is probably about right. I'm probably about 30 hours into it now.
Mostly it's a matter of discipline and just making sure to make the ball. Otherwise I get sloppy and just rattle balls.
There are people that torture me on a big table with tight pockets that I drill on the barbox. I just flat out know my way around the table better. Like Mike said I am used to cheating the pocket for shape and make poor decisions about what I should run vs. play safe, too far from the ball, etc...I'm guilty of all of it. Also, like he said, I realized quickly what my problems were and have been working to improve. And hundreds of hours to correct is probably about right. I'm probably about 30 hours into it now.
Mostly it's a matter of discipline and just making sure to make the ball. Otherwise I get sloppy and just rattle balls.
You beat the 9-ball ghost 60% of the time on a big table? If that's true, I believe you play better than average. I don't understand how you think the average player plays the same on both size tables, that's the first time I've ever heard someone (who plays as good as you claim to) say that.
I personally play better on a 9 foot table than on a 7 foot table, but the reasoning I believe has more to do with my cue ball control, speed, and positioning rather than my ability to pocket balls. I find running out on a 7 foot table slightly harder for me. The reason is there is more traffic to deal with, if I get out of line on a 9 foot table, I am rarely hooked, and since I can pocket balls with perfect aim, it doesn't matter how far out of position I end up.
That's a very honest and understandable position. If I play someone that I've never seen hit a ball, I'd rather play them on the big table. While I think pool is easier for me on the bar table, I think the table size difference will help others more than me. That might not make sense as I read it back... I would bet that I'm more "balanced" between tables than most people I'll meet.
I think I may have just had a revelation . Mike places everything on tournaments. I place little value in them, placing mostly on action. This may be the disconnect. US in " the know " usually always " know who to bet on. This tournament stuff if Foo - Foo for most of us in that world. So maybe we're both right? In a sense. Not possible of course, but if somehow Fargo could incorporate all action marches maybe I'd be on board. I honestly think this is the problem- most of us here are action people, then you have the " tournament folks".