MattPoland, please check your PM's here.
FargoRate vs ABCD
- Thread starter MattPoland
- Start date
MattPoland, please check your PM's here.
IMO, the ABCD rating does have merit. It's a rough guide measure, like describing whether a person has a elementary school, high school, college level of education.
You have certain expectations, such as the TYPICAL elementary school student isn't going to know to solve Algebra, or the D+ break and run.
You have certain expectations, such as the TYPICAL elementary school student isn't going to know to solve Algebra, or the D+ break and run.
That's a good example.
I am thinking more broadly though of things that we have a continuous numerical scale for for which we make those categories. I think we don't. I think we tend to talk about the numbers, even when we're trying to convey qualitative information (like beginner or pro or whatever).
If someone asks about the weather/temperature outside when you are going to go fishing or golfing, yo might say
gonna be nice! or
gonna be a little warm or
gonna be a hot one or
gonna be a scorcher
If it seemed like more specific information was in order, we wouldn't come to an agreement of what temperature range "scorcher" meant, we would instead say "upper 90s" or whatever. We revert to the numbers, even when we are conveying just qualitative information
It might be a kinda long drive to the lake cabin and a really long drive to grandma's house. But we don't come to agreement on what short drive, long drive, average amateur bowler, good amateur golfer, tall person, really tall person, heavy package, light rock, big crowd are in terms of a numerical range. When there is a continuous range we just use the numbers and everybody knows what we mean.
"A journey of 1000 miles starts with a single step." Everybody knows this saying is conveying really long journey. We don't need to say
really long journey: 550 miles to 10,000 miles
long journey: 70 miles to 554 miles
It is true we need to be able to communicate qualitatively about the skills and experience you find in players at all different levels. But BACKTRANSLATING to the the subjective categories doesn't make sense. You don't actually need to backtranslate to be able to communicate qualitatively. If you listen to conversation in areas where the numerical scale is entrenched, people communicated with it all the time. ""A 700 is going to do it like this..." "A 300 blah blah blah..." It's the same kind of subjective communication.
We are in an unusual situation with pool where we didn't used to have a numerical scale and now we do. It is hard to find analogies. But now that we have a numerical scale, we should treat it and communicate using it like we do for other things that have numerical scales--not do some funny half back translating back to the we have no scale world. We will just develop a new normal
Are you going to muck things up by adding “windchill factor” and “heat index”? 
Pro level rating in pool is not if they are making all the money off playing pool but how good they play. If you can play with the Pagulayans and the Archers and give them a good game, then you are pro level. As to where the cut off when I would say they are not longer at Pro level but Open, well that is a bit nebulous. Basically if someone is in events with 64-128 top players (say US Open, Predator 10 ball, etc..) and they come in top 16 or top 8 in a lot of them, they are Pro speed. If they finish high in a few I would put them in the Open or A++ category. Fargo ratings make things a bit easier to put in numbers, but there are still grey areas there. I would say at 750 you are pretty solid in the Pro speed range, 730 is still about there but is more Open/Pro speed, 700- 730 is Open / A++
Last edited:
That is a great analogy how to rank the players :thumbup: ABCD ratings when used correctly don't care who you play against or where you are, it's how much you know and how well you run out the balls.
All the league ratings are how you do in the league vs the players there, which can still map pretty well to other rating systems but the league ratings don't actually rank you just by skill really but how well you do in matches against the other players you play with and they count things that are very easy to fake which is why we have a bunch of cheaters in leagues. Fargo tracks all the events you play in that report to Fargo so it's harder to cheat there, although I know many people that actually plan on what events are reported to Fargo and either play badly in them to cheat down the line or just avoid playing in them. And yes, I count deliberately paying bad or planning your handicap as cheating, same as hiding a foul from an opponent. Anytime you think "I'd play him but may win and then go up so I won't play him" you are cheating.
Last edited:
This topic can be (and has been) a thread of its own. There’s definitions and then definitions and then definitions. Are we defining Pro Speed vs Pro Status? Is the definition just for the sake of the language we use amongst each other or are we talking about the cutoff for being allowed in a particular event? Are we talking about an agreed upon standard or our particular opinions on what a standard should be? Or are we talking about our disapproval of a specific event’s standard and how it is executed.
For example, the APA Amateur Championship definition is this...
Code:
Professional players are not allowed to participate in the U.S. Amateur Championship. APA will consult with several professional tours concerning the status of any player. In addition, players who possess professional characteristics will not be allowed to participate. Professional characteristics include, but are not limited to: making the majority of one’s income giving exhibitions, giving lessons or playing pool. Please contact the APA if you think there is any possibility that you possess professional characteristics.
APA has a nationwide network of representatives and maintains a list of professional players throughout the country. APA intends to check the amateur status according to the above guidelines on every entrant into the U.S. Amateur Championship. Those entrants found to be in violation will be consulted and given an opportunity to appeal; however, APA has the final authority to make the judgment. Entry fees for those entrants found to be in violation will not be refunded....and that really doesn’t bother accounting for skill level at all.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Yep, a lot of leagues and tournaments don't define what a pro is very well. I have seen tournaments ban people even if they played in a "pro or regional tournament" without accounting how well they play or if they even won a game or match in those events LOL But since there is no Pro Pool Tour, there are not Pro players really aside from in skill. I mean anyone can play in any "Pro" event that is not invitational. US Open is a "Pro Tournament" but if you want to spend the entry fee anyone can play. Same thing for Turning Stone, etc.. Those are people setting rules that don't really know much about the pool world or are just clueless in general. Seems APA maintains a "list of professional players" but of course still allows pro level players to play in their events and win multiple years. That is just stupidity on their part of who they consider a pro player.
Without a Pro Tour Card or something, there are no real "Pro Status" players, there are just top level players that can play with anyone on the planet or country. Back when the PBT was around, maybe you could have a better idea of what a Pro player was, now it's just whoever can beat the most players. I mean look at all the women players that label themselves as "Pro" when they are B or maybe A- level players and I doubt they make enough from tournaments to make a living. Heck how many US players play in international events? Our so-called Pro Players don't want to spend $3,000 traveling to play because that is not covered by any sort of pro organization and the only way to any money after covering travel costs in most events is to finish in top 4. How can anyone say we have Pro players by status vs skill?
Anyone that knows the pool world knows that a Pro player is that due to skill not nearly as much vs some tour they play in or how much money they make paying pool. I mean some C player that gets a huge spot from a pro and beats them for 50,000 and lives off that for a year, are they now a "Pro Pool Player"?
Until there is an organized series of events for players to play in that has standards for who can play in those events and there are accepted national or world wide rankings for those players with easily accessible stats, there are no Pro Pool Players to be named just based on the status as a "Pro". Once you get to MLB, and get a good salary for hitting or catching a ball, you would have gone through organised high school, college, maybe A, AA, AAA ball, then you officially get drafted by a team to play for them for a nice amount of money at the top level. That is Pro. What we have is a bunch of guys with their hats out traveling to whatever place puts up enough money for them to visit. Take $10,000 and add that to some random tournament you want to put on, and you automatically will have a "Pro Tournament" because the top level players will travel to you to play in it. Even the WPA sanctioned events don't really care who plays in it, just how much money is put into the event. I don't think I have seen the WPA sanctioning rule that states "only the top 100 ranked players can play in your event", it's all "you need blah blah money added, and blah blah prize and pay us blah blah amount".
Last edited:
There are three main lists for Michigan:
1) https://www.statewidebilliards.com/player-ratings
2) https://compusport.ca/CS/PlayerOfAssociation/PlayerLookup?AssociationId=34
3) Use the FargoRate App and search for Michigan
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
I think Michigan is in transition. More and more leagues and events are reporting to FargoRate. But not all of them and not for very long. There’s simply a ton of unestablished if not outright wholly unrated players. So we have some prominent local and statewide tournament directors that are long established on the ABCD system. In time with more data and more ratings, I think we will fully switch. In the meantime we are ABCD most everywhere. But interesting things are happening. People are seeing their letter ratings changed not just by the old system (win something, people complain, or a TD watches your skills) but instead purely based off what your FargoRate is. I consider this the hybrid/transition period right before we eventually switch to FargoRate for everything. But honestly that transition period could be 5-10 years. In the meantime the comparisons of ABCD to FargoRate is making for a better ABCD system.
BTW: I shot FargoRate a FB Message asking if I’m using the best API for what I’m looking at.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro