BCA Nationals 8 Ball - Fargo Discrepancy

mikepage · Jul 4, 2017

Elmo said:
Well then, why change it? If it means nothing, then why change his starter rating to raise his preliminary score? It's quite obvious this was done because of a personal bias!

Yes exactly. That's what a starter rating is--a way to inject personal bias for players who do not yet have a Fargo Rating. That's exactly the point.

To change a perception of something that is not truly a reality. I am just saying that everyone needs to be treated equally.

Once again, you need to make a distinction between Fargo Ratings--the FargoRate optimization--and the transition process. For Fargo Ratings, everybody is treated equally. There is no bias--no injected information--no changing of anything by us...

The transition process is something different. It is important to note, though, that once a player has a Fargo Rating, there is no memory at all of anything done in the transition process. Starter Ratings are completely forgotten and have no lingering effect.

During the transition process, the preliminary rating--the one people see--is a weighted blend of the emerging performance rating (from the optimization--has no bias or input from us) and the starter-guess (biased input by design). As the player gets closer to 200 games the starter guess gets less and less influence.

The starter guess is a way to put in qualitative information--once again just for a player who doesn't yet have a Fargo Rating. So a region that rates players as C, B, A, etc or 7, 8, 9, or a group off players who have APA ratings or other league ratings can input qualitative information that makes the preliminary Fargo Rating more useful.

It is, once again, a transition process. It is not Fargo Ratings

This system is no better than the old system where you could petition someone to change from a Master to an Advanced Player etc. You have shown that by your actions!

OK. But when you say "this system," you're not talking about Fargo Ratings.
[...]

Whenever you go and check scores the database is so fickle you can't even look up most players. Looks like a cheaply put together mess rather than an accurate means of measuring player performance!

It may be we will never meet your approval. I don't know. But we work very hard at trying, and we continue with heads down and eyes forward

Elmo · Jul 4, 2017

First of all, I want to say this post is nothing at all against Stan personally. I am arguing the personal bias that is in the process. Preliminary ratings are used in competition until a Fargo Rating is established.

The fact that you gave Stan a starter rating of 729 really says something in itself. When Stan was first entered in the system he was at a starter rating of 525. After he complained, you moved it to a 729 (no more matches were played - same data).

This alone says you have a major bias. You only gave John Brumback a 675 starter rating. Same for Tom Rossman and numerous other pros that have won or cashed major events.

You mean to tall me you think Shuffett is better than multi-time World Champion John Brumback? That in itself is a real laugh!!! Stan hasn't even played in a BCAPL in a tournament for years. But he deserves a 729 and Brumback only deserves 675. Stan did not need a starter rating change for tournament play. You changed his starter rating to project a certain "image" for him! If it "truly" did not mean anything you would have told him there was no need to for him to request the change.

By the way, a system that repeatedly crashes after 2 seconds after you look up a player doesn't seem all that reliable. Also, you did not reply about the player HE DID NOT PLAY that was calculated into his average. Stuff like this makes it look like the whole process is a sham. I see you just repeatedly ignored that question!!!

If you have a solid pro (that you like and know personally) that wants to play in in the bronze division do you just dumb down their scores like you have raised his? I'll bet if you know him you do, right?

LOL Thats what it looks like anyways!!!

Poolplaya9 · Jul 4, 2017

Elmo said:
First of all, I want to say this post is nothing at all against Stan personally. I am arguing the personal bias that is in the process. Preliminary ratings are used in competition until a Fargo Rating is established.

The fact that you gave him a starter rating of 729 really says something in itself. When Stan started he was at a starter rating of 525. After he complained you moved it to a 729.

This alone says you have a major bias. You only gave John Brumback a 675 starter rating. Same for Tom Rossman and numerous other pros that have won or cashed major events.

You mean to tall me you think Shuffett is better than multi-time World Champion John Brumback? That in itself is a real laugh!!! Stan hasn't even played in a BCAPL in a tournament for years. He did not need this changed for tournament play. You changed his starter rating to project a certain "image" for him! If it "truly" did not mean anything you would have told him there was no need to for him to request the change.

By the way, a system that repeatedly crashes after 2 seconds after you look up a player doesn't seem all that reliable. Also, you did not reply about the player HE DID NOT PLAY that was calculated into his average. Stuff like this makes it look like the whole process is a sham. I see you just repeatedly ignored that question!!!

If you have a solid pro (that you like and know personally) that wants to play in in the bronze division do you just dumb down their scores like you have raised his? I'll bet if you know him you do, right? LOL Thats what it looks like anyways!!!

Even if everything you are saying is true (all the bias and favoritism and bad subjective judgement etc), and I don't personally believe it is, nor do I think you really do either, at least not to the extent that you are claiming to believe, but even if it were all true, it still all goes completely and totally away as soon as they get 200 games in the system, and so in that respect it is already much better than the old system that BCAPL used. No subjectively is or can be in the FargoRate after someone hits 200 games.

And as Mike pointed out, there are some good reasons to have it in the system until then, like if you know their true speed is very different from what their first few results would show. Also as Mike pointed out, until 200 games is in the system it is a weighted average where the subjective judgement of their ability is counting for very little the closer you get to 200 where it disappears completely and forever.

GideonF · Jul 4, 2017

Elmo said:
First of all, I want to say this post is nothing at all against Stan personally. I am arguing the personal bias that is in the process. Preliminary ratings are used in competition until a Fargo Rating is established.

The fact that you gave Stan a starter rating of 729 really says something in itself. When Stan was first entered in the system he was at a starter rating of 525. After he complained, you moved it to a 729 (no more matches were played - same data).

This alone says you have a major bias. You only gave John Brumback a 675 starter rating. Same for Tom Rossman and numerous other pros that have won or cashed major events.

You mean to tall me you think Shuffett is better than multi-time World Champion John Brumback? That in itself is a real laugh!!! Stan hasn't even played in a BCAPL in a tournament for years. But he deserves a 729 and Brumback only deserves 675. Stan did not need a starter rating change for tournament play. You changed his starter rating to project a certain "image" for him! If it "truly" did not mean anything you would have told him there was no need to for him to request the change.

By the way, a system that repeatedly crashes after 2 seconds after you look up a player doesn't seem all that reliable. Also, you did not reply about the player HE DID NOT PLAY that was calculated into his average. Stuff like this makes it look like the whole process is a sham. I see you just repeatedly ignored that question!!!

If you have a solid pro (that you like and know personally) that wants to play in in the bronze division do you just dumb down their scores like you have raised his? I'll bet if you know him you do, right? LOL Thats what it looks like anyways!!!

Based on everything I know about Mike Page, your allegations are way off base.

Go find an example of a "pro" given an artificially low starter rating (by the bank, Brumback has a starter rating of 710, which doesn't strike me a crazy given how little 9b or 10b he seems to play).

And what exactly is FargoRate supposed to do if the tournament reports matches incorrectly? And, of course, any errors like that are smoothed out by more data. Give me 500 real matches and one which incorrectly has been beating SVB and I'm pretty sure that mistake won't cause much of an impact on my rating.

Elmo · Jul 4, 2017

Poolplaya9 said:
Even if everything you are saying is true (all the bias and favoritism and bad subjective judgement etc), and I don't personally believe it is, nor do I think you really do either, at least not to the extent that you are claiming to believe, but even if it were all true, it still all goes completely and totally away as soon as they get 200 games in the system, and so in that respect it is already much better than the old system that BCAPL used. No subjectively is or can be in the FargoRate after someone hits 200 games.

And as Mike pointed out, there are some good reasons to have it in the system until then, like if you know their true speed is very different from what their first few results would show. Also as Mike pointed out, until 200 games is in the system it is a weighted average where the subjective judgement of their ability is counting for very little the closer you get to 200 where it disappears completely and forever.

I believe all of this is true because both of them wrote about it in this very forum a few months ago. I am not making this up people. I do believe it because I read it and so did several other people!!! Don't think for a minute people don't talk about what is posted on here!

Elmo · Jul 4, 2017

GideonF said:
Based on everything I know about Mike Page, your allegations are way off base.

Go find an example of a "pro" given an artificially low starter rating (by the bank, Brumback has a starter rating of 710, which doesn't strike me a crazy given how little 9b or 10b he seems to play).

And what exactly is FargoRate supposed to do if the tournament reports matches incorrectly? And, of course, any errors like that are smoothed out by more data. Give me 500 real matches and one which incorrectly has been beating SVB and I'm pretty sure that mistake won't cause much of an impact on my rating.

It is 710 now but that was not where it started. More personal bias!!! This is getting a little ridiculous! You think Stan would play Brumback in 9-ball without a sizable spot? There is no way Stan would play him even! I use to live in Ohio and John told me he gave Stan a big spot and he still didn't like it! Personal bias plain and simple.

bral · Jul 4, 2017

Elmo said:
I am not making this up people. I do believe it because I read it and so did several other people!!!

Then it must be true! :smash:

On a serious note, kudos to Mike Page for continuing to maintain his cool while trying to explain starter ratings, the Fargo Rate system, etc.

mikepage · Jul 4, 2017

Elmo said:
First of all, I want to say this post is nothing at all against Stan personally. I am arguing the personal bias that is in the process. Preliminary ratings are used in competition until a Fargo Rating is established.

The fact that you gave Stan a starter rating of 729 really says something in itself. When Stan was first entered in the system he was at a starter rating of 525. After he complained, you moved it to a 729 (no more matches were played - same data).

Actually I did not give Stan a starter rating of 729. I changed his starter rating to 715 when I realized he had the default 525 that basically an unknown league player gets. Subsequent to that there was a broad automated adjustment of starter ratings in the direction of actual performance. That's when the 715 moved to 729.

I also checked the brackets for the 2011 US Open and confirmed Stan did in fact play Donny Mills and not Nick Ekonomopoulos. That change didn't affect him much. An 11 to 1 win over either of those two is pretty good.... That bracket was entered by hand, and that's likely the source of the data error.

I do not know Stan personally, but my personal bias tells me there is a good chance 715 is within 40 points of where he actually plays and 525 is not.

I don't know why you are looking at starter ratings and asking rhetorical questions about who plays better than whom. Starter Ratings are a convenience, mostly for league operators, who have broad authority to adjust them initially and then once games are played they can move the starter TOWARD the actual performance but not away from it.

If I somehow had the ability to clock every player on the planet and set perfect starter ratings, we wouldn't need FargoRate ;-).

This alone says you have a major bias. You only gave John Brumback a 675 starter rating. Same for Tom Rossman and numerous other pros that have won or cashed major events.

You mean to tall me you think Shuffett is better than multi-time World Champion John Brumback? That in itself is a real laugh!!! Stan hasn't even played in a BCAPL in a tournament for years. But he deserves a 729 and Brumback only deserves 675. Stan did not need a starter rating change for tournament play. You changed his starter rating to project a certain "image" for him! If it "truly" did not mean anything you would have told him there was no need to for him to request the change.

I am at a loss to understand why this upsets you. If I could snap my fingers and have every person on the planet have a starter rating that is within 100 points of where they actually play, I would do that in a heartbeat. That would be amazing information.

By the way, a system that repeatedly crashes after 2 seconds after you look up a player doesn't seem all that reliable. Also, you did not reply about the player HE DID NOT PLAY that was calculated into his average. Stuff like this makes it look like the whole process is a sham. I see you just repeatedly ignored that question!!!

I didn't know there was anything to reply about. The opponent for one of his matches was the wrong player. We looked it up when we learned about it, fixed it when we determined Stan was right, and that was the end of it. I'm not sure what you are looking for.

If you have a solid pro (that you like and know personally) that wants to play in in the bronze division do you just dumb down their scores like you have raised his? I'll bet if you know him you do, right? LOL Thats what it looks like anyways!!!

whatever...

hang-the-9 · Jul 5, 2017

Elmo said:
Well then, why change it? If it means nothing, then why change his starter rating to raise his preliminary score? It's quite obvious this was done because of a personal bias! To change a perception of something that is not truly a reality. I am just saying that everyone needs to be treated equally. This system is no better than the old system where you could petition someone to change from a Master to an Advanced Player etc. You have shown that by your actions!

Also, what does it say about the Fargo validity when you gave him credit for playing an high 800s player that he states he never even played. Sounds like a mixed up mess. Whenever you go and check scores the database is so fickle you can't even look up most players. Looks like a cheaply put together mess rather than an accurate means of measuring player performance!

From reading this thread you either don't like Mike Page or don't like Stan. I have not seen any issues with the Fargo Ratings outside of the shortened races the leagues use when using Fargo which skews the favor towards the lower rated players.

cardiac kid · Jul 5, 2017

hang-the-9 said:
From reading this thread you either don't like Mike Page or don't like Stan. I have not seen any issues with the Fargo Ratings outside of the shortened races the leagues use when using Fargo which skews the favor towards the lower rated players.

9,

This is the one serious flaw to participation on AZ Billiards. Every forum thread appears to have posts with personal attacks rather than discussing the merits of the subject. I've met Mike Page. He seems like a likeable, knowledgeable fellow. Disagree with some of his ideas. Pretty sure he truly believes in his Fargo Rate System. Tell Michael it's nothing personal. Strictly business

.

Lyn

FastManners · Jul 5, 2017

The Fargo Ratings in general seem like a nice enough idea, however what seems to blow them up a bit is that the Starter Ratings seem to be set by the BCAPL instead of Fargo. I liked the fact that they were somewhat independent, but what it looks like what might be happening is that a few weeks before the BCA Nationals a number of players are having their starter ratings bumped up after they entered (paid and booked for their trip), when they had been set a certain Fargo Starter rate.
That seems a bit off to me.

tucson9ball · Jul 5, 2017

cardiac kid said:
Or as usually happens, neither of them are entered in this years tournament. At least the singles events. Surprse, surprise.

Lyn

Lyn,
As it is with many good players, they prefer not playing in tough tournaments.
Both of these guys should be in the Platinum division, or what they called Masters before.
They took the easier cash from a lower rated field and now they do not want to play at their true level. That's fine.
I'm rated 664 currently and I'm just playing in the team 9 ball and team 8 ball. Singles requires me to be in Vegas for an extra 4/5 days and it's more the time than money that bugs me. I just get tired of the bells and whistles walking through the casino each day. Not much of a gambler....
Next year I'm thinking of just doing singles instead of teams, it works out to be about the same amount of days in Vegas. I like the competition.

Elmo, not sure what your issue is with Stan Shuffet, but he is the least of your worries. Stan was raised based on "known ability" for his starter rating, once it was pointed out. How would anybody like drawing him in the OPEN tourney with his Fargo at 525? Anyways, it doesn't really matter. Once a person gets 200+ games in the system it all starts to balance out.

I've looked up many guys and am surprised that many places in the country just don't do much Fargo. Arizona is on board and most tournaments get games entered into Fargo.
I run a top 10 list in Tucson and have asked Mike how I can get these small challenge matches into Fargo. Still waiting on his reply. They are races to 13, which usually gets 20 games or so for a match. It's not much but all these games add up over time.
I think Fargo is very accurate once a player has about 300/400 games in the system. At that point, your rating only goes up/down maybe 1 point over a month of playing.

Like any system, there will be some players trying to sandbag. This is where the tournament directors or other players need to step up and say something. If there is a known player for example playing at 525 who everybody knows can play at the 650 level......say something. Don't let him enter and rob a tournament.

cardiac kid · Jul 5, 2017

tucson9ball said:
Lyn,
As it is with many good players, they prefer not playing in tough tournaments.
Both of these guys should be in the Platinum division, or what they called Masters before. They took the easier cash from a lower rated field and now they do not want to play at their true level. That's fine. I'm rated 664 currently and I'm just playing in the team 9 ball and team 8 ball. Singles requires me to be in Vegas for an extra 4/5 days and it's more the time than money that bugs me. I just get tired of the bells and whistles walking through the casino each day. Not much of a gambler....
Next year I'm thinking of just doing singles instead of teams, it works out to be about the same amount of days in Vegas. I like the competition.

Chris,

Noticed Ron Wiseman did not return to defend his Platinum Seniors title. Then again, why was he allowed to play in the first place? His Fargo was like 719. He's been a professional pool player for way over twenty years. He's a jam up money player. You mean to tell me no one at BCAPL knew about him? Wouldn't a Fargo that high entail a bit of research? What happened to known ability? Anyway, I'm only playing in the Platinum Seniors this year. Going to spectate at Griff's for a few days. Would really like to meet you after all these years. I'll try to look you up. First one on me!

Lyn

stan shuffett · Jul 5, 2017

Elmo said:
Oh sure!!! Say what you will!!! But how the heck did he go from a low 600 score up to the mid 700s without playing any more games? Same robustness - two different scores. One before he complained and one after! IT WAS DISCUSSED ON THIS FORUM. After he complained you gave him a completely different starter rating to push him into the 700s. I further found it interesting that you were using U.S. Open matches to calculate his score and Stan admitted that one of the players you were calculating his average from was a player he didn't even play. Think about that for a minute!!! I just went back and looked at the posts from that thread! I know what I am talking about!!! Just how accurate is Fargo anyways?

Let me make one thing very clear.....I have not complained to one single soul about anything concerning my Fargo Rating at any point and it's an outright lie if that's insisted because I don't give a damn about my rating.......

Furthermore, I have never made contact with Fargo for requesting any change. The only contact that I have ever had with Mike Page was right here on AZ when he had indicated that I played Nick E at the OPEN in 2011 and I corrected him by indicating that it was Donnie Mills that I had won against by 11-1. No change was ever requested.....Made no difference to me...

Stan Shuffett

stan shuffett · Jul 5, 2017

Elmo said:
It is 710 now but that was not where it started. More personal bias!!! This is getting a little ridiculous! You think Stan would play Brumback in 9-ball without a sizable spot? There is no way Stan would play him even! I use to live in Ohio and John told me he gave Stan a big spot and he still didn't like it! Personal bias plain and simple.

John and I played a ton of times over the years. The first time we played was in Richmond at Bobby Johnson's. We played even and I finished about 10 games up. John pulled up, out of money I think.

John and I played numerous times on his table, cheap sets-10 hours at a time...races to 11. I never won with 1 game on the wire and he never won giving me 2 games.

We played a lot a bank and a lot of one-pocket and her never gave me a big spot. Bank was never more than one ball.

One time we played one pocket at my house....I was getting a ball and we ended up playing even.....Seems like the last time we played, I got 9-7.

Hell fire, who doesn't know that John's a superior player to me but we have had some great battles.

I contacted John a year and said that I'd do all the driving to his house and play even $20 sets.
He did not get back with me....(tennis elbow I think). Anyway, best practice playing that I have ever had was with John. I miss it a lot.

One time many years back, John came to my home as I remember for about 5 days. We played 9 ball the whole week and came about even. Maybe he won a hundred. My memory is usually quite good but I can't remember the spot but it was not sizable to best of my recollection.
One thing I really liked about practicing with John is that we were able to generally match up good with close outcomes. When we played, we battled. I think it helped his game and I know it helped mine. I wish we weren't 120 miles apart.....

Stan Shuffett

BCA Nationals 8 Ball - Fargo Discrepancy

mikepage

AzB Silver Member

Elmo

AzB Silver Member

Poolplaya9

Tellin' it like it is...

GideonF

AzB Silver Member

Elmo

AzB Silver Member

Elmo

AzB Silver Member

bral

AzB Silver Member

mikepage

AzB Silver Member

hang-the-9

AzB Silver Member

cardiac kid

Super Senior Member

FastManners

AzB Silver Member

tucson9ball

AzB Silver Member

cardiac kid

Super Senior Member

stan shuffett

AzB Silver Member

stan shuffett

AzB Silver Member