A chink in the armor of Fargorate
- Thread starter JC
- Start date
Let's assume that you are considering only applying probability and statistics and not some unknown, unproven and unquantified psychological factor....
The winner/alternate break choice does not change the probabilities for who will win the match. This is a rather amazing result, but that's the way it works out. In fact you have the same chances in loser breaks matches and for having the winner of the lag/flip take N breaks first followed by N-1 for his opponent in a match to N games.
However, the format does change the match score expectations some. If both players are expected to break-and-run a lot (like 80%, which is not the case, yet), then alternate will give lots of hill-hill matches while winner breaks will give more lop-sided results.
For a specific example suppose player A has a "wins-from-break" percentage of 80% and B has a WFB of 60%. In alternate breaks, the most likely match score for a race to 9 is 9-5 at 14% while if they play winner breaks the most likely score is 9-2 at 11%. Amazingly, the chance that A will win either format just given the WFB percentages is 82.2%.
The largest WFB percentage that resident statistics guru AtLarge has observed was in a TAR 10-ball match between SVB and Mike Dechaine, with WFBs of 76% and 55% respectively. On average, the top players are around 56% WFB.
So to more directly answer the question I think you were asking, with the present level of play the choice of format makes a small difference in the statistics of match scores but probably not enough to worry about. Technically it means that in the Fargo calculations the game score with alternate-break format should be counted slightly more heavily than the game score in winner-break format games, but this is true for only the top-ranked players.
The only discrepancy I have personally found is switching from 7ft to 9ft tables/games.
If you take somebody who plays 8 ball on a bar box all the time and let's say their rating is around 550. Now, you move that player to a 9ft table and make them play 9 ball. I think you will find that they will play closer to 520 speed in most cases.
The bar table players tend to have lil imperfections in their stroke that get magnified on the 9ft table. Also, when playing 8 ball, they can get out of line and just decide to shoot a different ball of the same group. This option does not work for 9 ball....get out of line and your inning is more than likely over.
Players with higher Fargo, let's say 650+, usually can play the same on either the 7ft or 9ft. A better stroke equals better position play.
Anyhoo, just my .02
If you take somebody who plays 8 ball on a bar box all the time and let's say their rating is around 550. Now, you move that player to a 9ft table and make them play 9 ball. I think you will find that they will play closer to 520 speed in most cases.
The bar table players tend to have lil imperfections in their stroke that get magnified on the 9ft table. Also, when playing 8 ball, they can get out of line and just decide to shoot a different ball of the same group. This option does not work for 9 ball....get out of line and your inning is more than likely over.
Players with higher Fargo, let's say 650+, usually can play the same on either the 7ft or 9ft. A better stroke equals better position play.
Anyhoo, just my .02
I agree with this. In practice it will only affect top ranked players but those are also the ratings people care about most.
But the ranking order should not change assuming the top players are in roughly the same mix of formats. I think the absolute errors due to format are going to be pretty small until the players get a lot better.
Where the format can make a difference is in the over/under for total number of games played. In the example of SVB/Dechaine above, in a race to nine with alternate breaks, the over/under split is 14.5 while the winner breaks split is 13.5 games. That's not much and it is the extreme observed WFB percentage.
Also if there are games spotted on the wire, math changes and then alternate favors the person getting the spot. I wrote a computer program to verify this a while back. I'm sure Mike could gather this data and look at the difference...
But i think a flat measure having disparate impact on the ends of the spectrum is also true in most sports. At least is singular effort ones.
Cycling? A hack vs a low level pro, over a 20mi race? Might be 20min difference. Low pro vs top pro? Pprob only a handful of minutes.
That definitely true but I would expect you’re better than that.
Could you please make a list of things I’ve bashed? Or that I’m sceptical about? More than anything I’m sceptical about this claim.
Every ‘concern’ I have for Fargo is not only valid, it comes from caring. I would love nothing more than Fargo (or similar) to be perfect and used across the board. The game needs this and it needs to properly use it. Unfortunately it’s not properly using it and it’s not, in my opinion, close to perfect. I will say that Mike Page has done a damn good job though considering it’s not worth the time.
But yes, please... continue to act like you know me. lol
That is less than a 10% difference in performance, not bad at all for a human, and if the player that plays has matches in the system on 9 footers, it will all be averaged in. It's not a flaw in the system, it's a flaw of the data you give it. Just have that player play more on larger tables if they want a rating showing that. You can't give a result from no data.
A 550 will not play as a 550 all the time, 550 is just their average.
I dont know you. I do believe you are a decent guy and a intelligent poster. As I recently found out in a thread I started,re the Nagy story,what one writes is not always whats read
As for you being sceptical,well you are sceptical that you are sceptical? You are sceptical that Florian can play above 550,sceptical about Buffalo Hunt,and seem to be sceptical about most betting lines
I am glad that you can see the value of fargorate,and like you I question its soundness.
Mike has had a acceptable answer for every question posed thus far. Like you say it is not perfect but you have to appreciate the guy who dances when others cant hear the music.
JC
Coos Cues
FargoRate measures performance against other players ability, not a players ability on various games or varying table sizes.
The algorithm is only a probability prediction, albeit an accurate one, but there are many variables that may effect the outcome of any given match.
If they are weak enough that they can't run out an open table, then a player 100 points better probably can't run out a table with trouble. The better player will probably either a) screw up trying to break stuff out by missing or scratching or b) play very conservatively and eventually sell out by screwing up a safety. They will probably do this often enough that the lesser rated player can win 33% of the games.
Think about it. A 450 player playing a 550 player. 550 player can run open tables but isn't really the favorite to run out a tough table. They should be decent at playing safe, etc..but still make a lot of unforced errors. Enough for the lower level player to get a few easy outs and win their share. You see this all the time in bar tournaments. Player A (450) breaks and runs 3 balls then misses. Player B (550) tries for a tough runout but misses with 8 ball and other ball on table. Player A only has 4 balls and plays a little conservatively and makes a couple then leaves player B a long shot. Player B misses and Player A runs two balls for the win. Maybe a few more innings to make it interesting.
550 player playing a 650 player - 650 player should run out even a lot when the table is difficult, but not every time. If they leave an open table, a 550 player is good enough to run out when they do and even play safe successfully often enough to win 33% of the games.
650 vs. a 750 - 750 is expected to control the table every time they get a shot. But if they scratch on a break or make a mistake, 650 has an excellent chance to run out. So I could see them winning 33% of the games here too. A 650 can break and run a few games during the course of a set too.
JC
Coos Cues
With more league data arriving in the system it's now easy to put human bias into your perspective as you can now put many more faces to fargo ratings.
My point was that there seems to be a "sweet spot" where the 100 point dog is a better favorite in 9 ball than 8 ball. I believe it's around my personal rating of 585 compared to 485 now that I have a good idea what type players this number represents.
But I could be wrong. I often am.:smile:
JC
I think you are correct. I have been thinking about it since I posted earlier and I think there is definitely something to what your describing. I’m about the same as you, I think, and when I play someone around that 450-485 Mark they don’t have to win a game for hours. It’s a combination of game management and doing just enough to make sure they can’t win.
I dont know you. I do believe you are a decent guy and a intelligent poster. As I recently found out in a thread I started,re the Nagy story,what one writes is not always whats read
As for you being sceptical,well you are sceptical that you are sceptical? You are sceptical that Florian can play above 550,sceptical about Buffalo Hunt,and seem to be sceptical about most betting lines
I am glad that you can see the value of fargorate,and like you I question its soundness.
Mike has had a acceptable answer for every question posed thus far. Like you say it is not perfect but you have to appreciate the guy who dances when others cant hear the music.
I don’t remember saying a Florian isn’t above a 550 but I do not think he’s a good player. He could be if he applied himself to playing the game rather than trick shots. He’s very talented. I’ve know Jason Hunt since about 2007. Betting lines... You may have got me there.
Few people on this site know me personally. Some of them like me, others don’t. I’m ok with that.