I think you said this very well. Elite players have bad days just like the rest of us. However their bad days are still way above what most players can achieve.
Post your fargorate;
- Thread starter mvp
- Start date
I think you said this very well. Elite players have bad days just like the rest of us. However their bad days are still way above what most players can achieve.
Very interesting...thanks! I sure didn't find anything to argue with,
-3 currently, but I'm trying to stay positive.
My starter rating was 475 although it doesn't say that on Fargo. They have my starter rating at 525. My highest has been 631 and I have now dropped down to 620 with a Robustness of 220.
Your starter rating has no meaning now; it could be 800. It just doesn't matter.
They can go in if we know the username and check for new activity.
It was nice to finally meet you last week. Let me know if you ever make it up to Chandler and feel like some bar table 8-ball! Last time one of you Tucson boys came up here I lost $500, ready for a rematch!:thumbup:
PS - I agree about the word "robustness", sounds kinda dirty...
Then where does the starter come from? I have no data in mine and my starter is 625?
It’s not that big of a deal to me but the few tournaments I enter I usually do fairly well until I play people who are 690 ish and above. Not to say I haven’t/can’t lose to players with a lower rating than that but will pretty much always be a close match. I just wish I could play the better players more often because I can only take so much losing and it would light a fire under me. Like everyone else it’s a journey
Pretty much ignore the "starter rating" unless you have a reason to not ignore it. It is not part of the FargoRate system. It is just a guess used to help ease someone into having a Fargo Rating. Many are garbage. Others have some meaning --approximate translation from some other rating, for example.
There is a reason.
Right now, Robustness is the same as games played. But likely at some point it won't be.
Games played is a rough measure of the quality (as in the reliability) of your rating. But it not a perfect measure. My 300 games may be better than your 300 games. GOOD games are those that are (1) recent, and (2) against opponents who themselves have reliable ratings.
So if you have 300 games, but half are old and the other half are against opponents who have no other games or only 100 other games, your 300 games don't lead to a very reliable rating. Maybe, for instance you rating is about as reliable as is someone else's who has 175 recent games against known opponents.
In that case, at some point your ROBUSTNESS might become 175, even though your games played is 300. In other words in time "robustness" will mean "effective number of quality games."
This is a little off-topic, but do you think a player's score on a drill program like Dr. Dave's BU or the ipat could accurately predict his/her FargoRate within a certain range, and could that be used as a starter rating?
Last edited:
If you have two players with the same name how does fargorate determine which player the games played belong to?
Why are some players listed as living in one state when they actually live in another state?
I think it would be very 'hit and miss'.
Players may compete better than they do drills...or compete much worse.
...playing per-arranged set-ups don't really prepare you for getting three-fouled.
Years ago, we had a big snooker tournament where the qualifying was based on a drill.
Two city champions had zero chance of qualifying....at least a dozen players made it
that had no chance with the champions in a real game.
JC
Coos Cues
In our BCA league we assign a starter rating to new players relying on the team captain's honest assessment of how they play compared to established players in the league.
We have been using LMS for two years now and the majority of our players are established now.
The reason an accurate starter rating is important for league play is because we handicap with fargorate now and if someone is reported too far inaccurately one way or the other as a starter rating the matches can be affected unfairly for one of the teams until their fargorate levels off correctly. This is working very well for us.
JC
I really like the video Mike did about consistency. As it applies to pool for me, I could care less, but as for golf, I suspect it is quite similar. I'm a little better than average golfer (Index 10). It's giving me a more positive perspective on my performance. It helps knowing everybody has a performance range, and their ranges are likely quite similar.
Last edited:
yes, with reservations.
I think a 600 trying BU drills for the first time and a 600 trying BU drills for the 8th time might score pretty differently. Maybe Dr. Dave has some thoughts on this.
One of the things we will be able to do once our APP is out and widespread is pose questions and immediately be able to segregate responses by skill, by geography, by gender, etc. --what ball to hit with ball in hand from here? take stripes or solids? Suppose we asked 30,000 people to try 5 stop shots next chance they get and report the number of successes. And suppose 1 out of 20 replied. Well then we'd have 1500 people over a wide range of skills shooting 7500 spot shots. We'd be able to plot spot-shot-success vs rating. In time we can see which simple skills/drills correlate best with rating. It would be nice to know "what's the best thing you can do in ten minutes to estimate a rating?"
Here is a plot from the league I play in for all players with at least 10-weeks (80 games) of ERO percent vs rating. This measure is decent for clocking people of higher rating. But not so good for distinguishing the lower-skilled players.
