Can Fargo Ratings be more Accurate with Dr. Dave's TDF Statistic?

Cardigan Kid · Oct 23, 2015

After reading Bob Jewett's article "Fargo Ratings-How They Work" in the October 2015 issue of Billiards Digest, I have a much better grasp on the concept and thought process behind Fargo Ratings.

It's a great article and I recommend it as required reading for anyone wanting a thorough examination of the rating system.

My one question is this:

If Dr. Dave's TDF statistic (table difficulty factor) was added to the ratings equation, could a more accurate rating be made?

I bring this up because we are at a time when tables of all sorts (9 footers,7 footers, 4.5" corners, 4.75" corners, modified gold crowns, diamond bar boxes, etc) are played on all across the world in various leagues and tournaments.

About ten years ago, I recall a small time amateur who bragged about beating Parica in a bar box tournament. Had he played Parica on a full sized table, the odds of him winning would've been slim to none. After reading Mr. Jewett's article, it is understood that if there is an isolated pocket of players (Nome, Alaska was an example) and one player from that group goes to Vegas and plays a match, the results of that match now effect the entire isolated pocket of players because now there is a reference/connection to the rest of the world.

So in a hypothetical situation, if a small time player were to beat a heavy ranking player, but the TDF was recorded and it was well below 1.0 TDF, wouldn't it be more accurate that the numbers wouldn't adjust as much as if said small time player beat the heavy on a 4 1/4" corner modified gold crown?

Going forward, with US Open "bar box" tournaments (as Thorsten described it) becoming more common, should the ever important TDF statistic be valued when it comes to Fargo Ratings?

It would be great to hear thoughts on this.

For more reading on TDF, here is Dr. Dave's thread on it:

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=324408

Banks · Oct 23, 2015

I'm still up in the air about it. Maybe once a robustness gets to a certain point, like 500 or so, then it will settle in a bit better.

iusedtoberich · Oct 23, 2015

I don't think it will make any difference to the ratings.

Jude Rosenstock · Oct 23, 2015

Cardigan Kid said:
After reading Bob Jewett's article "Fargo Ratings-How They Work" in the October 2015 issue of Billiards Digest, I have a much better grasp on the concept and thought process behind Fargo Ratings.

It's a great article and I recommend it as required reading for anyone wanting a thorough examination of the rating system.

My one question is this:

If Dr. Dave's TDF statistic (table difficulty factor) was added to the ratings equation, could a more accurate rating be made?

I bring this up because we are at a time when tables of all sorts (9 footers,7 footers, 4.5" corners, 4.75" corners, modified gold crowns, diamond bar boxes, etc) are played on all across the world in various leagues and tournaments.

About ten years ago, I recall a small time amateur who bragged about beating Parica in a bar box tournament. Had he played Parica on a full sized table, the odds of him winning would've been slim to none. After reading Mr. Jewett's article, it is understood that if there is an isolated pocket of players (Nome, Alaska was an example) and one player from that group goes to Vegas and plays a match, the results of that match now effect the entire isolated pocket of players because now there is a reference/connection to the rest of the world.

So in a hypothetical situation, if a small time player were to beat a heavy ranking player, but the TDF was recorded and it was well below 1.0 TDF, wouldn't it be more accurate that the numbers wouldn't adjust as much as if said small time player beat the heavy on a 4 1/4" corner modified gold crown?

Going forward, with US Open "bar box" tournaments (as Thorsten described it) becoming more common, should the ever important TDF statistic be valued when it comes to Fargo Ratings?

It would be great to hear thoughts on this.

For more reading on TDF, here is Dr. Dave's thread on it:

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=324408

Right now, FargoRate appears to be only one statistic pulling data from across several games/table sizes. I honestly don't know what they're compiling but for all we know, they could be recording this information too (likely). If they are, maybe one day we'll see FargoRatings for all scenarios like, Diamonds versus Brunswicks, 9ball versus 8ball, 9 foot versus 7 foot.

JoeyA · Oct 23, 2015

I'm afraid adding TDF statistics will make Fargo Ratings TDTM (Too difficult to monitor). Asking tournament directors, promoters, pool room owners to determine their particular table's TDF is a bit much, especially since they vary from one establishment to another and sometimes one table to another. The job of confirming the tables TDF is practically impossible, especially since the future will contain statistics coming from pool leagues operators all around the country/world.

Nice idea but I doubt that TDF's will be added to Fargo Ratings. I am not affiliated with FargoRate or Mike Page, but I once traveled across North Dakota with him, counting pheasants as he drove.

JoeyA

Cardigan Kid said:
After reading Bob Jewett's article "Fargo Ratings-How They Work" in the October 2015 issue of Billiards Digest, I have a much better grasp on the concept and thought process behind Fargo Ratings.

It's a great article and I recommend it as required reading for anyone wanting a thorough examination of the rating system.

My one question is this:

If Dr. Dave's TDF statistic (table difficulty factor) was added to the ratings equation, could a more accurate rating be made?

I bring this up because we are at a time when tables of all sorts (9 footers,7 footers, 4.5" corners, 4.75" corners, modified gold crowns, diamond bar boxes, etc) are played on all across the world in various leagues and tournaments.

About ten years ago, I recall a small time amateur who bragged about beating Parica in a bar box tournament. Had he played Parica on a full sized table, the odds of him winning would've been slim to none. After reading Mr. Jewett's article, it is understood that if there is an isolated pocket of players (Nome, Alaska was an example) and one player from that group goes to Vegas and plays a match, the results of that match now effect the entire isolated pocket of players because now there is a reference/connection to the rest of the world.

So in a hypothetical situation, if a small time player were to beat a heavy ranking player, but the TDF was recorded and it was well below 1.0 TDF, wouldn't it be more accurate that the numbers wouldn't adjust as much as if said small time player beat the heavy on a 4 1/4" corner modified gold crown?

Going forward, with US Open "bar box" tournaments (as Thorsten described it) becoming more common, should the ever important TDF statistic be valued when it comes to Fargo Ratings?

It would be great to hear thoughts on this.

For more reading on TDF, here is Dr. Dave's thread on it:

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=324408

BRussell · Oct 23, 2015

iusedtoberich said:
I don't think it will make any difference to the ratings.

Probably right. In theory any additional information would improve it, but there are diminishing returns and as JoeyA said it would further complicate things.

I have a different concern, about applying the ratings in a winner-breaks context. I'm guessing that the probability methods they use are based on an assumption that the chance of winning is independent from one game to the next, but that's clearly not the case in a winner breaks format.

Cardigan Kid · Oct 23, 2015

JoeyA said:
I'm afraid adding TDF statistics will make Fargo Ratings TDTM (Too difficult to monitor). Asking tournament directors, promoters, pool room owners to determine their particular table's TDF is a bit much, especially since they vary from one establishment to another and sometimes one table to another. The job of confirming the tables TDF is practically impossible, especially since the future will contain statistics coming from pool leagues operators all around the country/world.

Nice idea but I doubt that TDF's will be added to Fargo Ratings. I am not affiliated with FargoRate or Mike Page, but I once traveled across North Dakota with him, counting pheasants as he drove.

JoeyA

I will agree with you that there are a variety of tables and tournament directors would have a tough time keeping up.

One Joss tour stop at Snookers in Rhode Island, the tv table is a gold crown with super tight 4 1/8" corners, while the tables right next to it have gold crown standard 4 3/4" (possibly bigger)corners, yet it was the same tournament utilizing all tables.

An AZ user created a TDF calculator that is linked to in Dr. Dave's thread. Upstate Al and I talked and he recommended that if an App was created that could run this calculator, then anyone could just take the three measurements, open the app, plug them in, and record the TDF.

As for some of the bigger tournaments, many times it's on the same table Diamond 9 foot, valley bar box, etc. So the TDF would be the same throughout and not a problem for the tournament director to log the extra info. Also after its done once, a pool room owner can have the TDF already down for that table until the rails are changed/modified. So it may stay the same forever.

The real difference is in the odd size or modified tables that many pool halls have that might be utilized in tournaments- that info should be recorded and known.

I just think a win over a pro caliber ranking player on a diamond 9 footer should be taken into account higher than a win over the same player on a valley bar box. At this point, the TDF is what will give is that factored difference.

fastone371 · Oct 23, 2015

Regardless of TDF, Fargo ratings are based on 2 players playing against each other. If the table is more difficult for one theoretically it should be tougher for both players. In the end I would think same player still wins, which is what affects your Fargo rating. IMO it would make little to no difference in Fargo ratings.

iusedtoberich · Oct 23, 2015

We make way too much of a big deal of table specs. I don't think there is any correlation between the chance of upset when a weak player matches up against a strong player, and the difficulty of the table.

I don't believe there is any evidence supporting the position that a tougher table makes the stronger player win more often. Since there is no real data, its all opinion.

And mine is it makes no difference

Your's may vary

spartan · Oct 23, 2015

Pool must be the only sport that has so many many many types of non-standardized equipment

Cardigan Kid · Oct 23, 2015

fastone371 said:
Regardless of TDF, Fargo ratings are based on 2 players playing against each other. If the table is more difficult for one theoretically it should be tougher for both players. In the end I would think same player still wins, which is what affects your Fargo rating. IMO it would make little to no difference in Fargo ratings.

The example that sits with me is the low level amateur squeaking out a victory in a race to 7 over Jose Parica on a valley bar box.
Should that effect his numbers the same as if he beat Parica in the big foot challenge on a 10 foot diamond table at derby city?

If the Fargo Ratings are effected the same in both scenarios then I believe they aren't accurately rating the match results.

Cardigan Kid · Oct 23, 2015

spartan said:
Pool must be the only sport that has so many many many types of non-standardized equipment

Absolutely! Does table tennis go through this? Gigantic large tables with mini nets, and half size tables with gigantic nets?

:thumbup:

iusedtoberich · Oct 23, 2015

Cardigan Kid said:
The example that sits with me is the low level amateur squeaking out a victory in a race to 7 over Jose Parica on a valley bar box.
Should that effect his numbers the same as if he beat Parica in the big foot challenge on a 10 foot diamond table at derby city?

If the Fargo Ratings are effected the same in both scenarios then I believe they aren't accurately rating the match results.

There are examples of this all the time. Bobby Pickle beat Efren one year in 9 ball on the DCC 9' stream table. Hell, one time I beat Lee Holt (an open level player) in a non-handicapped race to 5 weekly tournament in our local room. I was a C, we played on 9' GC with shimmed pockets.

I saw Jose Parica get beat on the stream table at DCC 2 years ago I think 7-0 in 9 ball by a non-top pro.

Upsets happens. Not often, but they happens.

Cardigan Kid · Oct 23, 2015

iusedtoberich said:
There are examples of this all the time. Bobby Pickle beat Efren one year in 9 ball on the DCC 9' stream table. Hell, one time I beat Lee Holt (an open level player) in a non-handicapped race to 5 weekly tournament in our local room. I was a C, we played on 9' GC with shimmed pockets.

I saw Jose Parica get beat on the stream table at DCC 2 years ago I think 7-0 in 9 ball by a non-top pro.

Upsets happens. Not often, but they happens.

Yes, sir. You are correct. Upsets do happen.
I suppose I'm coming from the angle that the limitations of a lesser player are not brought into the spot light on an easier table (one with a lower TDF) than they would on a higher TDF table.

Could this be proved by having Dr. Dave's skills test or Ralph Eckerts PAT tests taken by same player on a valley bar box, and then on a diamond nine foot?
Both tables have different TDFs and the test results would have different results no doubt.

Those results could then prove that the TDF is a statistic that should be considered when comparing hypothetical matches.

iusedtoberich · Oct 23, 2015

Cardigan Kid said:
Yes, sir. You are correct. Upsets do happen.
I suppose I'm coming from the angle that the limitations of a lesser player are not brought into the spot light on an easier table (one with a lower TDF) than they would on a higher TDF table.

Could this be proved by having Dr. Dave's skills test or Ralph Eckerts PAT tests taken by same player on a valley bar box, and then on a diamond nine foot?
Both tables have different TDFs and the test results would have different results no doubt.

Those results could then prove that the TDF is a statistic that should be considered when comparing hypothetical matches.

Another viewpoint is that the better player will play better still on easier tables.

So while the weak player might run 5 balls on a 9' table, and a full rack on a 7' table, the better player may run 2 packs on a 9' table, and 4 packs on a 7' table.

The same thing with the argument that thick cloth lets the better player's shine, while the fast cloth allows anyone to move the CB. Well, the other viewpoint is the fast cloth allows the better players to move the CB even better than they could before, opening up a whole range of shots to them that the weaker player does not even know exist.

Again, this is all opinion. But, in all the years of pool, no matter what the conditions were, the top pros almost always end up winning the tournament. The mid pros "sometimes" upset and win a tournament. And the fillers almost never cash, and rarely even win a match in a pro event.

Cardigan Kid · Oct 23, 2015

iusedtoberich said:
There are examples of this all the time. Bobby Pickle beat Efren one year in 9 ball on the DCC 9' stream table. Hell, one time I beat Lee Holt (an open level player) in a non-handicapped race to 5 weekly tournament in our local room. I was a C, we played on 9' GC with shimmed pockets.

I saw Jose Parica get beat on the stream table at DCC 2 years ago I think 7-0 in 9 ball by a non-top pro.

Upsets happens. Not often, but they happens.

And congrats on that win over Lee Holt, which is an accomplishment on the nine foot with shimmed pockets. that win should certainly be valued higher than if you beat him on a valley table.

iusedtoberich · Oct 23, 2015

Cardigan Kid said:
And congrats on that win over Lee Holt, which is an accomplishment on the nine foot with shimmed pockets. that win should certainly be valued higher than if you beat him on a valley table.

Ha, thanks. It was the biggest fluke you can possibly imagine. I buy him a Dr Pepper every time I see him now so that he can verify I beat him one time.

Cardigan Kid · Oct 23, 2015

iusedtoberich said:
Another viewpoint is that the better player will play better still on easier tables.

So while the weak player might run 5 balls on a 9' table, and a full rack on a 7' table, the better player may run 2 packs on a 9' table, and 4 packs on a 7' table.

The same thing with the argument that thick cloth lets the better player's shine, while the fast cloth allows anyone to move the CB. Well, the other viewpoint is the fast cloth allows the better players to move the CB even better than they could before, opening up a whole range of shots to them that the weaker player does not even know exist.

Again, this is all opinion. But, in all the years of pool, no matter what the conditions were, the top pros almost always end up winning the tournament. The mid pros "sometimes" upset and win a tournament. And the fillers almost never cash, and rarely even win a match in a pro event.

Yes, sir. That's a all true. Your last paragraph is spot on.
When Thorsten was being interviewed after winning the US Open 10 ball, he corrected the interviewer and said "US Open bar box champion". It seems the pros have the opinion it's a different level of the game even at their level. The Jayson Shaw comment on bar box was pretty funny.

Cardigan Kid · Oct 23, 2015

:

iusedtoberich said:
Ha, thanks. It was the biggest fluke you can possibly imagine. I buy him a Dr Pepper every time I see him now so that he can verify I beat him one time.

classic.
:thumbup:

mikepage · Oct 23, 2015

fastone371 said:
Regardless of TDF, Fargo ratings are based on 2 players playing against each other. If the table is more difficult for one theoretically it should be tougher for both players. In the end I would think same player still wins, which is what affects your Fargo rating. IMO it would make little to no difference in Fargo ratings.

There are actually two separate legitimate questions here that tend to get conflated.

The first is is whether in a race to 1000 SVB beats Brandon Shuff by a different amount on a Valley Bar Table and on a tight 9' Diamond. I think the answer to this is essentially no, that the final score will be about the same. This doesn't have to be the case, though. All players have relative strengths and weaknesses and one environment might play more to a particular player's strength.

Even if the above--that the table doesn't matter in the long haul--is true, though, Brandon is still way more likely to beat Shane in a tournament match on the Valley table than on the tight Diamond--The volatility of the scores is higher on the Valley table--they fluctuate more. We refer to this as the run-length issue. We understand it, and we have the ability to take it into account. It's the same thing that makes a win in a 10-ball match more meaningful than a win in a 9-ball match of the same length.

We do keep track of the game (9-ball, 10-ball, or 8-ball), and the table size but no other information about the difficulty of the table.

Can Fargo Ratings be more Accurate with Dr. Dave's TDF Statistic?

AzB Silver Member

Banned

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

Efren's Mini-Tourn BACKER

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

Certifiable

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member

AzB Silver Member