[DecentShot]

Originally Posted by TheLoneSilencer

I don't know what is a bigger joke, people who buy into the Fargo Rate bullshit (sorry no rating system can accurately reflect players true speed when all factors can't possibly be measured & that is fact) or people like Emily who think they play pro speed.

I disagree, although I think I agree in spirit. To parse it out, I would say no rating system can PERFECTLY reflect players true speed. But Fargo is real close, and I spend A LOT of time watching all different levels.

[jasonlaus]

Originally Posted by TheLoneSilencer

I don't know what is a bigger joke, people who buy into the Fargo Rate bullshit (sorry no rating system can accurately reflect players true speed when all factors can't possibly be measured & that is fact) or people like Emily who think they play pro speed.

I will take Fargo over your system everyday.

[pt109]

Originally Posted by DecentShot

I disagree, although I think I agree in spirit. To parse it out, I would say no rating system can PERFECTLY reflect players true speed. But Fargo is real close, and I spend A LOT of time watching all different levels.

Every day when we get out of bed, we’re a different person.
..we’re often going to play under our ability, or over our head.
...we’re human beings, not a computer game.

FargoRate is a great system....but it’s impossible to predict perfectly.

Hell, we can’t even predict dice....boxcars are 35-1against showing...
...but every backgammon player knows you might roll them three in a roll.

[Bob Jewett]

Originally Posted by pt109

... Hell, we can’t even predict dice....boxcars are 35-1against showing... ...but every backgammon player knows you might roll them three in a roll.

Well, maybe, but back when I played a lot of Monopoly, it sure seemed like I could roll boxcars when I most needed them. At the time I figured I shouldn't speak up about the ability.

[ShortBusRuss]

Originally Posted by couldnthinkof01

The premise of this show is silly and not representative
of the pool halls I've been to.
Maybe I just haven't seen it but, all the women I have
played with or against have been treated with respect.
All have been treated as equals with respect to their
abilities, as I'm sure we all have.
Busting balls is part of the fun, if everyone is
not busting on you a bit, you would feel left out.
I imagine that wouldn't make for good t.v. though.

Exactly... If people aren't talking a little sh*t to you in the pool hall, you just don't play well enough to warrant their attention. Male OR female...

[iusedtoberich]

Slightly off topic:

It seems the few recent professional tv shows about pool have had roughly the same NY pool players as the actors. Does that group have the ear of tv people? Are they trying to springboard into mainstream acting?

[ShortBusRuss]

Originally Posted by jrctherake

How does that good news help with people that don't have a fargo rating?

Hmmm.....I guess we are back to speculation again here at the ymca..

Jeff

Oh, that part's easy. If one doesn't have a Fargorate, and they don't KNOW from watching her play a few games, they probably can't beat her. It means they don't compete enough in larger events, and don't play tougher players enough.

[ShortBusRuss]

Originally Posted by TheLoneSilencer

I don't know what is a bigger joke, people who buy into the Fargo Rate bullshit (sorry no rating system can accurately reflect players true speed when all factors can't possibly be measured & that is fact) or people like Emily who think they play pro speed.

It absolutely can. Fargorate looks to use the same method as the United States Chess Federation ratings - statistics.

And a rating in either system, for established players, makes SPECIFIC predictions on match scores between two rated players. At least in chess, it is generally one game against each opponent, so a single "bad game" can somewhat skew things.

Even so, USCF ratings are extremely accurate, and Fargorate might actually capture MORE information, as there are less Fargo rated events than USCF events.. But we get the benefit of more games in each match. Mike Page has demonstrated in here multiple times, including the Siming Chen - Donnie Mills match, and the prediction were spot on, within a GAME.

Irrespective of naysaying, statistics don't lie, and they don't care whether one player can't kick well, but plays great safes and runs out, versus a player who is a moderately good shotmaker, great safety player, and great kicker. Fargorate makes very specific predictions based on pure rating, and unless that player practiced heavily in the last period before a tournament, the results are generally gonna be in line with their Fargorate.. Shotmaking is the number one factor, just as in chess, the ability to see another half-turn accurately is the number one factor.

To be more analytical about it, at virtually every Fargorate range, there is a very specific skill that separates them from the next level. What, in general, separates SVB from a 750 player? I will tell you, it's 100% the break. So, "all these factors" are already built in to Fargo rate. What separates a 500 from a 550? Shotmaking and position. Maybe a touch of safety. A 600 from a 650? Shotmaking and safeties. Position is pretty much a non-factor between those two players.

[JohnnyP]

If Emily wants to self identify as a pro pool player, let her. How can it harm anyone?

She could probably get a civil rights attorney to claim it's one of those new gender things, therefore you must refer to her by her chosen pronoun.

But I don't think she's that type of person.

Oh yeah, anyone know Finnegan's Fargo rating? Must be higher than hers if he beats her regularly.

[ShortBusRuss]

Originally Posted by iusedtoberich

Slightly off topic:

It seems the few recent professional tv shows about pool have had roughly the same NY pool players as the actors. Does that group have the ear of tv people? Are they trying to springboard into mainstream acting?

Credits:

William Finnegan - Generic Asshole #1

[RiverCity]

Originally Posted by ShortBusRuss

Credits:

William Finnegan - Generic Asshole #1

[TheLoneSilencer]

Originally Posted by ShortBusRuss

It absolutely can. Fargorate looks to use the same method as the United States Chess Federation ratings - statistics.

And a rating in either system, for established players, makes SPECIFIC predictions on match scores between two rated players. At least in chess, it is generally one game against each opponent, so a single "bad game" can somewhat skew things.

Even so, USCF ratings are extremely accurate, and Fargorate might actually capture MORE information, as there are less Fargo rated events than USCF events.. But we get the benefit of more games in each match. Mike Page has demonstrated in here multiple times, including the Siming Chen - Donnie Mills match, and the prediction were spot on, within a GAME.

Irrespective of naysaying, statistics don't lie, and they don't care whether one player can't kick well, but plays great safes and runs out, versus a player who is a moderately good shotmaker, great safety player, and great kicker. Fargorate makes very specific predictions based on pure rating, and unless that player practiced heavily in the last period before a tournament, the results are generally gonna be in line with their Fargorate.. Shotmaking is the number one factor, just as in chess, the ability to see another half-turn accurately is the number one factor.

To be more analytical about it, at virtually every Fargorate range, there is a very specific skill that separates them from the next level. What, in general, separates SVB from a 750 player? I will tell you, it's 100% the break. So, "all these factors" are already built in to Fargo rate. What separates a 500 from a 550? Shotmaking and position. Maybe a touch of safety. A 600 from a 650? Shotmaking and safeties. Position is pretty much a non-factor between those two players.

Fargo can't (no system can & this is not debatable) determine table conditions, players dumping, whether in stroke or not, etc... These are things that can't be determined by entering a score. It also can't showcase how a match went, whether spots were involved, etc...

[ShortBusRuss]

Originally Posted by JohnnyP

If Emily wants to self identify as a pro pool player, let her. How can it harm anyone?

She could probably get a civil rights attorney to claim it's one of those new gender things, therefore you must refer to her by her chosen pronoun.

But I don't think she's that type of person.

Oh yeah, anyone know Finnegan's Fargo rating? Must be higher than hers if he beats her regularly.

He beats her regularly? He has a starter rating of 545. I don't see how he can possibly be a player, as much of a clown and he acts. But maybe he doesn't play events, and just gambles. I'd still play him, and I am 10 points below Emily.

[JohnnyP]

I was just going by his smack talk. I don't really know if he beats her regularly.

[ShortBusRuss]

Originally Posted by TheLoneSilencer

Fargo can't (no system can & this is not debatable) determine table conditions, players dumping, whether in stroke or not, etc... These are things that can't be determined by entering a score. It also can't showcase how a match went, whether spots were involved, etc...

1. Fargo rate does not concern itself with handicaps, just as USCF ratings don't get generated off games where the better player spots a rook. What on earth are you talking about?

2. Sure, players can dump a few tournaments in a row to keep their rating artificially lower.... And as soon as you can provide one solid example, with tournament results to support it, I'll actually believe it happens enough to matter. This is what "ratings floors" are for in chess. Once a player hits 1600 USCF, they are locked in at 1400 permanently, and cannot fall below this rating without a petition to the USCF. Stops all dumping nonsense, as you can generally only use this to win one tournament as a super underrated player.

Anyone out there know if Mike Page has implemented ratings floors? This one I can kind of give you, but one needs to outrate the field by approximately 50-75 points to assure a win. That's a WHOLE lotta dumping paid events to get the rating down far enough to assure victory. And generally, it takes either a calcutta or a natiknal event to really get paid off in those sorts of situations. In a calcutta, people will smell a rat, and bid accordingly. And at a national event? Good luck thinking a 75 point gap between you and your opponent is an automatic guarantee of a win, as EVERYBODY practices heavily before nationals.

3. As for, "how a match went" somehow invalidating the statistics, do you even statistics, bro? Lol. The statistics say that out of every "x" matches, player A will be sick, and perform 50-100 points below their Fargorate. And that's why a 700 players loses a long race to a slightly overperforming 550 player MAYBE about once every 10 years. And that is also why the 700 level player is not a 750 level player. Because his game swings from approximately 650 to 750 or whatever, and Fagorate takes the average performance across all matches, (the ones where you were sick included), and the result is your rating.

4. I have never met a player who I crush on a 9 footer, who crushes me long term on a shitty 7 footer. Just doesn't happen. Given that both players are familiar with the game being played, the table does not matter. A crappy table MIGHT swing the match 25 points in the lesser Fargo rated player's direction. There a reason SVB, Pagulayan, etc still win the USBTC events year after year. And even if an "amateur" player manages to snap on off, still... With Fargo rates involved, and races to 5, both SVB and the lesser Fargo rated player will win approximately the amount of times that Fargo rate predicts they will.