Vegas BCAPL 2016, fargorate problems

BmoreMoney

BmoreMoney

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
poolscholar said:
Just to be clear, again, FargoRate is a great rating system. Probably the best we've seen in pool.

However, right now a team of accurately rated players is at a disadvantage vs a field with a lot of "unrated" players present because of the lower starting rating. There will be teams that are over the caps with unrated players. I would bet the farm.

I have a couple guys on my team that are not very seasoned players that are in the upper 500's. They would be fine in the lower division but still probably choke here and there from inexperience. BUT, since they have a real rating, I can't register for the lower division. I now have to find local unrated open players (525) in order to compete.

If the starting rating was higher that would eliminate this problem and encourage people to play singles to get a real rating.
Click to expand...


Why would they not delay using Fargo in such an important event as Nationals for maybe a year until more data can be collected with knowing it still has severe deficiencies in regards to unrated players. Doesn't that seem like that would be the smart thing to do? The right thing? Make the most sense?
 
pocket

pocket

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
akaTrigger said:
I am looking forward to hearing how the players feel after Nationals in July. Will be interesting, as the first round of anything new brings challenges as well as working out any kinks, along with the allure of learning something new and different.

I think it will take some time, but in the end, it's the way of the future, no?
Click to expand...

The teams that lose will complain. The teams that win wont. Overly simplistic mostly accurate answer.
 
sbpoolleague

sbpoolleague

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
fargo.png
 
alphadog

alphadog

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
akaTrigger said:
I am looking forward to hearing how the players feel after Nationals in July. Will be interesting, as the first round of anything new brings challenges as well as working out any kinks, along with the allure of learning something new and different.

I think it will take some time, but in the end, it's the way of the future, no?
Click to expand...

Do you still run the Omega tour? Do you suscribe To Fargorate?
If not ,why?
 
Corwyn_8

Corwyn_8

Energy Curmudgeon
Silver Member
yelvis111 said:
It's not the mathematical soundness of Fargo rate that might lead to its rejection, it's the loss of credibility that Fargo rate suffers from when bugs, like this one, are discovered and then socialized to the relatively-uninformed masses.
We've had this discussion already.
Q.E.D.
Click to expand...

And you didn't prove it that time either.

Are there going to be fewer instances of sandbagging in this tournament with FargoRates than with the old system? Yes. No one who is unrated (or with low robustness) will be more underrated then they would be with the old system.
Therefore, there will fewer people *able* to complain that they lost because the ratings.
You haven't actually pointed to a bug in the FargoRating system. The bug is in the previous system, and FargoRates just hasn't had a chance to act on it, and fix it.
This can all be patiently explained to anyone capable of seeing reason.

Thank you kindly.
 
Corwyn_8

Corwyn_8

Energy Curmudgeon
Silver Member
BmoreMoney said:
Why would they not delay using Fargo in such an important event as Nationals for maybe a year until more data can be collected with knowing it still has severe deficiencies in regards to unrated players. Doesn't that seem like that would be the smart thing to do? The right thing? Make the most sense?
Click to expand...

Nope. Because it is ALREADY better than what they would otherwise use. The deficiencies come from the old system.

Thank you kindly.
 
Corwyn_8

Corwyn_8

Energy Curmudgeon
Silver Member
yelvis111 said:
What medication are you taking for your Aspergers?

QUOD ERAT DEMONSTRANDUM

You're very welcome
Click to expand...

Well certainly using all caps, size 6, and spelling it out, is what makes a proof. Not actual logical arguments.

Thank you kindly.
 
sbpoolleague

sbpoolleague

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
poolscholar said:
This also shows that starter ratings are way too low and there will be sandbagging teams
Click to expand...

After the Nationals are over and these unknown players slowly become known to the Fargo system, analysis may show that you are correct and the starter rating should be put higher.

I for one am comfortable where it is. I looked at all 136 players from our league that have established Fargo ratings and have NEVER been to the Nationals or any other tournament that fed the Fargo ratings. These players range in rating from 123 to 659. The average rating is 370.

The key stat is that only 10% of these players have Fargo ratings over 525. The rest are below that line. Assuming these numbers are anywhere near to the national average, if you increase the starter rating to 625 then you might catch a few unknown ringer teams but you will force the vast majority of unknown teams who SHOULD be in the Gold Division to play with the Masters.

The 525 line has been set. Teams have been registering for a few months now. All we can do now is sit back and see how it plays out.
 
Bob Jewett

Bob Jewett

AZB Osmium Member
Staff member
Gold Member
Silver Member
sbpoolleague said:
... I looked at all 136 players from our league that have established Fargo ratings and have NEVER been to the Nationals or any other tournament that fed the Fargo ratings. These players range in rating from 123 to 659. ...
Click to expand...
I'm curious about the 123. Is this a brand new player?
 
Corwyn_8

Corwyn_8

Energy Curmudgeon
Silver Member
Bob Jewett said:
I'm curious about the 123. Is this a brand new player?
Click to expand...

I don't see how it could be. I don't think FargoRates starts anyone off that low. 425 may be the lowest.

The one I found was 128, with a starter rating of 525, and a robustness of 124.

Thank you kindly.
 
sbpoolleague

sbpoolleague

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I just re-checked the list of established players in our league and the lowest established Fargo rating is 209.
 
frankncali

frankncali

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
After breezing therough the posts I had a couple comments or questions..


Why not hold a LO accountable... They should be able to decipher the unknowns better than some guy at a computer in Henderson. If they cant there is always a good player around that can help out.

All the talk about unknowns and stacking teams makes me wonder how many fake leagues or "cheaters" there are. To play in the 3000 cap division all players must play in the same local BCA league.
I hope this is happening... if not then again hold the LO accountable.

I am not 100% of the cutoff to be moved up to advanced from last years teams in the open but NO ONE should have been missed from those guys and it should be triple checked. Start at the top with knowns and move backwards.

Our team finished 4th last year and I honestly think we simply ran out of gas. We also made a substitution error that cost us a game in a 13-12 loss. (btw-- not a chance our team would have taken the game)
FargoRate might change our team but it would have already. Nothing different other than you might be able to play with a buddy or two now instead of not being able to.

There were only a couple handful of teams in last years advanced teams... this had got to be addressed. I am not sure FargoRate is going to help this or not.

i like the cap idea and the pool world is a small community in reality. If leagues and LOs are honest then the number of really underrated players wont be as high as some think.

lastly -- what constitutes a game that is counted into Fargo? Are last years teams not? Why aren't all weekly matches programmed into the system?
I have never played singles and actually play very little pool... I'm rated a 648 and am ok with that. but how was it figured with no singles matches?
 
sbpoolleague

sbpoolleague

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
frankncali said:
After breezing therough the posts I had a couple comments or questions..


Why not hold a LO accountable... They should be able to decipher the unknowns better than some guy at a computer in Henderson. If they cant there is always a good player around that can help out.

All the talk about unknowns and stacking teams makes me wonder how many fake leagues or "cheaters" there are. To play in the 3000 cap division all players must play in the same local BCA league.
I hope this is happening... if not then again hold the LO accountable.

I am not 100% of the cutoff to be moved up to advanced from last years teams in the open but NO ONE should have been missed from those guys and it should be triple checked. Start at the top with knowns and move backwards.

Our team finished 4th last year and I honestly think we simply ran out of gas. We also made a substitution error that cost us a game in a 13-12 loss. (btw-- not a chance our team would have taken the game)
FargoRate might change our team but it would have already. Nothing different other than you might be able to play with a buddy or two now instead of not being able to.

There were only a couple handful of teams in last years advanced teams... this had got to be addressed. I am not sure FargoRate is going to help this or not.

i like the cap idea and the pool world is a small community in reality. If leagues and LOs are honest then the number of really underrated players wont be as high as some think.

lastly -- what constitutes a game that is counted into Fargo? Are last years teams not? Why aren't all weekly matches programmed into the system?
I have never played singles and actually play very little pool... I'm rated a 648 and am ok with that. but how was it figured with no singles matches?
Click to expand...

Frank your starter rating was 625 due to your finish in the team event, and you currently have only 12 games in the Fargo system. These could have been from some local tourneys that fed into Fargo. (eg. Swanee, Mezz Tour). Your Fargo rating might not be that accurate with the small number of games.

Past Vegas team games have not been entered into the Fargo system but I think they might start doing it this year. I believe weekly BCAPL matches that are entered into the LeagueSys system get automatically fed into Fargo. Leagues that do not use LeagueSys can manually send in their games.
 
O

one stroke

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
watchez said:
Previously - if your team got in the top 5% (or whatever it was) of the Open Teams, all the players on the team moved up to Advanced level. This is what, AT MINIMUM, should be happening to these players from last year. If Fargo isn't doing that from last year, it has failed. And it should be doing so rapidly cause people are making plans to go to Vega$.
Click to expand...

This is why the APA has a masters divisions then you can throw all the ratings in the trash where they belong


1
 
mikepage

mikepage

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
frankncali said:
[...]
lastly -- what constitutes a game that is counted into Fargo? Are last years teams not? Why aren't all weekly matches programmed into the system?
I have never played singles and actually play very little pool... I'm rated a 648 and am ok with that. but how was it figured with no singles matches?
Click to expand...

You are close to being unrated, Frank. We have only a few games from your Sure Shot Monday league. And you've played in that against others who have played at the Reno Bar Table event, etc. It's just a start.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top