And those are even far less than someone who's played in a 100 events. What's your point?
A Questoin For FargoRate
- Thread starter watchez
- Start date
And those are even far less than someone who's played in a 100 events. What's your point?
My point is that the rating needs to be like that of a radioactive material - it wears over time. According to a system like FargoRate, if used in other sports for example - Anthony Kim would still be a top 20 golfer in the world.
Then it's not diminishing fast enough or conversely increasing fast enough with more play. Stating you don't have to have all the data is where it lacks. So the college football playoff, let's omit data from October and see what teams would be in. Shouldn't matter.
Inactive players can be filtered out of the list, but since Archer is still adding plenty of games to his rating, he isn't inactive. 7 events is enough to add several hundred results to your rating against dozens of opponents.
You are good at stating the obvious but can't see what is not obvious to you.
It's not possible to get all data. How exactly would you go about getting data about every gambling match and every small weekly tournament that goes on? The comparison to college football is silly.
In statistics, you can determine, with a certain level of confidence, the characteristics of an entire population, with a large enough sample size.
You don't need to have all matches that ever existed in order to produce an accurate rating. You just need enough matches recorded to get within a certain confidence zone.
I think it's funny that people think they can size up a player based on one result, like Jayson Shaw losing to Bergman, and then call a rating system flawed because it isn't able to account for the racks a player is running in their basement, or at a bar during a weekly tournament.
I do feel like I'm stating the obvious, and it seems obvious that I shouldn't have to, but here we are.
Last edited:
Good point. We could easily have both ranking going.
For your very 1st question, FargoRate bases on game won. So yes a race to 100 is usually more significant than a race to 7.
The good thing about this is, if Corey beat Shane (hypothetically of course) 100 to 99, it will equalize a lot the score between them, even if then he beat Shane 2 matches 7-0 9-0.
The overall score will be only 116 to 99. It still reflects the fact that they are relatively close (as it showed in the long race), in compare to match win count of 3-0.
The more data we have the more accurate it will be, and the outcome of the matches so far have been pretty consistent with the rating.
FargoRate, imo, is the best solution up until now, the same with standardized test or GDP calculation lag. They are not perfect but they are the best you can come up with for now.
Very good. Another question to ask someone is how do the call elections with low percentages of precincts counted? You that understand Statistics font bat an eye because it makes sense. Only two classes of statistics in college makes it clear, even though I do not know the math behind it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
... according to your judgment about how good Archer is.
But here's the thing about these systems: They really are "perfect"/optimal for predicting how well the players are playing, because they feed the wins and losses that they get now back into their rating. If Archer's Fargo rating was too high because it over-weighted his play from too long ago, then he would lose a lot more than expected now which would decrease his score by the appropriate amount to get it back into line.
You are making my initial point for me -- my original question was does a race to 5 carry the same weight as a race to 100 as the same weight as the finals in the US Open. See your comment in red above - you do agree with me. We are now getting somewhere.
You sound like a friend of Mike's so your loyalty is admirable. Your thought process not so much.
You didn't like the college football analysis? How about a baseball players batting average? Let's throw out the month of April each year for say Matt Holiday who is a notorious second half player. He will have a better chance to get into the HOF. He appreciates you being accommodating.
Just like Johnny Archer appreciates FargoRate keeping his stats from 1998 so when his dream of the defunct and originally virtually non existent PBA a seeded tournament can come true, he can get that first round bye and easier path thru the bracket.
I can tell you who has the most capable rating system -- amateur golf. How do they do it accurately? They have a course rating so if you play on Whistling Straights, your score is adjusted compared to playing on the dirt track by your house. And a player records all of their scores to give an accurate rating. Then you get your handicap based on their formula.
This gets back to the thread on Pool Sharks closing and the subject that was turned to moving pool back into the pool room and out of the bars. What Mike Page needs to do to have FargoRate accurate is have a kiosk or terminal/laptop in every pool room in the country -- just like have at the golf course. Then when you are finished with your tournament or league play there, you enter in your scores. Enter in the entry fee as well. Then compute it. Bigger tournaments, the TD can enter scores when it is done or pool can realize it is almost 2016 and everything can be online and no more paper brackets duct taped to the wall.
Last edited:
People have perceptions built on past experiences. The power of compounding makes that perception (belief) bigger with each occurrence that agrees with that belief. Take Shane, for example. They are camps that think his a top player and camps that say he isn't. All built on the perception you have.
It is interesting when alike will list out s players games against a certain opponent or in the last 40 matches etc.
The perceptions are removed and the data speaks.
I like that I can play a 500 in Nee York and know he is my speed. Where as an A player in NY, built in a perception, is totally different than an A player in ND.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It is interesting when alike will list out s players games against a certain opponent or in the last 40 matches etc.
The perceptions are removed and the data speaks.
I like that I can play a 500 in Nee York and know he is my speed. Where as an A player in NY, built in a perception, is totally different than an A player in ND.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You really don't like being wrong do you watchez?
By the way - to give some of my background to those here and to Mike Page -- I run a successful Golden Tee tour. The Golden Tee machine gives a fallible handicap rating that is practically useless. We came up with a power rating, based on some of the principles Mike uses such as what player won or lost to what player. And we did it long before anyone heard of FargoRate. I can tell you our rating is very accurate and how is it done beyond the calculation formula - EVERY match is recorded.
Just like the PGA World Ranking --- they don't leave out scores.
Just like the PGA World Ranking --- they don't leave out scores.
I wouldn't know if I like it or not -- I have never been wrong.
I am thinking that it's a self-regulating system in the sense that as a player's skill diminishes he will win less and lose rank or he will play less and lose rank because people who played him will still be adding to their rank and thus taking away from his.
In other words the only way to maintain a high fargo rating is to have enough games in the system AND plenty of wins.
You want to get a higher rating you have to play more and win more against better players.
In other words if a fading pro played local weekly tournaments that carried very little weight and consistently beat low ranked players his fargo rating won't move up much because of the general level of the players he is beating and the fact that those players don't beat anyone above his caliber.
Conversely if he should lose in those weekly events the players who manage to beat him will see bumps in their ratings because of who the pro has beaten. But overall those bumps won't be big, the system allows for players to rise and fall slowly over time UNLESS there is a flurry of activity like say four world class events in one month where one player dominates and scores like 80 high value games won. And even then it's probably not a super jump but for FargoRate maybe a 30 point jump in a month is a lot.
That's how I understand it. Correction is welcome.
Lol you're all over the place. Stick to one point at a time. My comment in red that you somehow related to your original point, was simply to indicate that there's no possible way Fargo can be made aware of every single tournament. How many completely separate, unsanctioned little weekly bar tournaments do you think there are? That has nothing to do with your original question. It seems like you're having trouble following the conversation here.
I am not loyal to Mike. I just happen to actually know a little bit about ELO ratings and the math behind them, and consequently am less ignorant about the subject than most people seem to be here.
Please stop using professional sports as an analogy to support your claim that you must have all data. Pool does not have one single organization overseeing all tournaments and matches like professional leagues do. Also, the data they get is specific to their league. If the players in that league played elsewhere, that data would not be recorded.
In regard to amateur golf, you mentioned that the scores were "adjusted" based on where they were played. How exactly are they adjusted without being subjective? Also, you mentioned that players record their own scores? Ya that's not flawed.
By the way, golf is much easier to handicap, because the result of the game is based solely on your number of strokes, which gives you a metric that directly determines skill, unlike pool. The only issue with golf is that, for instance, all par 4's are not exactly the same difficulty, so it's tough to compare scores from different courses.
I am not loyal to Mike. I just happen to actually know a little bit about ELO ratings and the math behind them, and consequently am less ignorant about the subject than most people seem to be here.
Please stop using professional sports as an analogy to support your claim that you must have all data. Pool does not have one single organization overseeing all tournaments and matches like professional leagues do. Also, the data they get is specific to their league. If the players in that league played elsewhere, that data would not be recorded.
In regard to amateur golf, you mentioned that the scores were "adjusted" based on where they were played. How exactly are they adjusted without being subjective? Also, you mentioned that players record their own scores? Ya that's not flawed.
By the way, golf is much easier to handicap, because the result of the game is based solely on your number of strokes, which gives you a metric that directly determines skill, unlike pool. The only issue with golf is that, for instance, all par 4's are not exactly the same difficulty, so it's tough to compare scores from different courses.
No doubt Mr. Page will be very grateful for your offer to put a kiosk/terminal/laptop in every pool room in the country. :thumbup:
Fargo Ratings are what they are, given the limited amount of resources that can be justified being spent on it. Hey, maybe we could get the government to underwrite it...then we can see how more money can actually screw it up.
I do think there should be a way to allow players to enter their data. But each match would have to be a set of scores, one from each player that match up with opposing w/l scores to be allowed in. That way it reduces the chance of errors and fudging.
Last edited: