A Questoin For FargoRate

[Alex Kanapilly]

...but again in order to be accurate you need all of the results. WPA already has a ranking system that ranks with the wpa data. Is it going to tell who is truly the best? It will get close but not as close as something like accustats. Is it going to tell who has been winning the events and accumilating points? Yes and that is all pro pool needs anyway imo.

You keep saying this, but the experts (and I'm not one of them) on statistics keep telling you that you don't need ALL the results to be accurate.

I think you want this to be something that it's not. It's going to be an accurate, statistically based rating system. Whether you believe that or not doesn't really matter.

We aren't only talking about pro pool either, there's a large community of amateur pool players that will find this system useful for matching up, league play, tournaments, etc.

Who cares if big Ko isn't rated as highly as you feel he should be compared to Shane (which is what I think your beef is anyway)

 

[BJTyler747]

Interesting Experiment

I think a really interesting idea to try during the next major competition (US Open, 9bWC, TS, etc...) would be to offer a betting line on every match played based ENTIRELY upon the most recent Fargo ratings plus some reasonable bid/ask spread. (Of course, you would need for both players to have Fargo Ratings with some minimum number of games in the system.)

For instance if SVB were to play KPY in a race to 11, Fargo might predict that Shane should win by about 1 game. So you could either take KPY even or SVB minus 2 games.

I'm not on GAL, but this is something I'd be really interested in trying.

 

[67tbird]

So he is sneaking around - that makes sense.

I certainly wouldn't say he's sneaking around. Made a foray into Canada when he was in the area for a bigger tournament. Almost all pros hit everything they can near big tourneys, since they're there already. Not to mention after hours action which will likely never be accounted for in any rating system. Pretty hard to "sneak" when everyone and their brother recognizes Archer.

Sent from my C811 4G using Tapatalk

 

[railbird99]

Judging by results can get you broke also.


You have to know how the play when you know that you know if they played over their head to beat so and so or played real bad to get beat by some other guy.

I feel like I've addressed this over and over again, maybe one more time it will sink in. It makes absolutely no difference how good someone plays. All that matters is who wins the match. If someone plays perfect and loses, and the other player got lucky and won, doesn't that mean the very same thing could happen in the future? Therefore, it should factor in to the probability of winning a match. The probability of player A beating player B includes the element of luck, and the possibility of one of the players "playing above their head". Again, this doesn't measure skill, and it shouldn't, because skill is not the only factor that determines who wins a match. And after all, we want to know who is going to win between two players, regardless of who is better.

Over time, the affect of "luck" on the ratings will start to accurately portray how much of pool luck-based. It will be rather insignificant, as the more skilled player will win most of the time.

 

[watchez]

I believe in statistics when you are flipping coins. It's a 50/50 proposition. But in order to have statistics that are meaningful, you need to have all the data. What if baseball didn't keep stats for day baseball games cause the stat guy was sleeping in? Well I can tell you it is easier to hit a baseball during the day. Or what if football stats weren't kept when a team came off a bye week or was on the road.

I also believe in stats when there is enough data. You can tell me a coin is a 50/50 proposition but if I flip it twice and it comes up heads both times, and then I stop collecting data - what am I to think.

If FargoRate is going to be accepted, it is important that as much data as possible be kept. People won't have faith in it and it will be treated like any other handicap system. That is my advice to Mike Page. Posting here that it doesn't matter if they have all or even almost all the data is simply wrong. And again, if you are touting it and promoting it to date with the use of Top 100 lists - well the data should be weighted current. Not on a player that plays 1.6 games a day. How bout Dennis Hatch - another highly ranked FargoRate player -- how many games did he play in 2015? Is he an active player too?

 

[BRussell]

What matches is Fargorate leaving out? As far as I know they've been keeping up with all of the pro tournaments.

 

[mikepage]

I believe in statistics when you are flipping coins. It's a 50/50 proposition. But in order to have statistics that are meaningful, you need to have all the data. What if baseball didn't keep stats for day baseball games cause the stat guy was sleeping in? Well I can tell you it is easier to hit a baseball during the day. Or what if football stats weren't kept when a team came off a bye week or was on the road.

Let's be careful not to find disagreement where there isn't any. I agree with you with your baseball and football scenarios. That's what I mean by bias in selecting which data goes in. It is important there is none.

It is the "all the data" requirement that is at issue. Yes, more data is better, absolutely. But what we have, say, on Johnny Archer is not somehow tainted because he played in tournaments in Canada or elsewhere for which we were unable to get data. Yes, it is an opportunity lost. Yes, we would better off with the data.

I also believe in stats when there is enough data. You can tell me a coin is a 50/50 proposition but if I flip it twice and it comes up heads both times, and then I stop collecting data - what am I to think.

That you don't have enough data to make reliable predictions? I'm not sure what your point is.

[...]

Posting here that it doesn't matter if they have all or even almost all the data is simply wrong.

The value of what we have depends on how much data we have. If all the players for whom we have data snuck off to a secret back room and played another match after every tournament, we are not WORSE off for not knowing about it. Yes, we need a lot of data to make reliable predictions. Yes more data is always better.


[..]

How bout Dennis Hatch - another highly ranked FargoRate player -- how many games did he play in 2015? Is he an active player too?

Call him whatever you like. I am curious. How many US players would you stake against Dennis Hatch right now, if you were so inclined?

 

[robsnotes4u]

I believe in statistics when you are flipping coins. It's a 50/50 proposition. But in order to have statistics that are meaningful, you need to have all the data. What if baseball didn't keep stats for day baseball games cause the stat guy was sleeping in? Well I can tell you it is easier to hit a baseball during the day. Or what if football stats weren't kept when a team came off a bye week or was on the road.



I also believe in stats when there is enough data. You can tell me a coin is a 50/50 proposition but if I flip it twice and it comes up heads both times, and then I stop collecting data - what am I to think.



If FargoRate is going to be accepted, it is important that as much data as possible be kept. People won't have faith in it and it will be treated like any other handicap system. That is my advice to Mike Page. Posting here that it doesn't matter if they have all or even almost all the data is simply wrong. And again, if you are touting it and promoting it to date with the use of Top 100 lists - well the data should be weighted current. Not on a player that plays 1.6 games a day. How bout Dennis Hatch - another highly ranked FargoRate player -- how many games did he play in 2015? Is he an active player too?

After two flips? In other words you don't understand statistics.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[fastone371]

It seems like people come to these forums just to simply argue sometimes.

 

[railbird99]

How many times are you going to repeat yourself? Every example you give is also limited data. Baseball stats are only recorded for that particular league. That is only a portion of all of the baseball games played. It doesn't include other leagues, or unofficial games, etc.

That's the exact same thing as Fargo choosing a specified number of tournaments, and putting them under the "Fargo League". That would all the sudden legitimize the rating?

You clearly know nothing about statistics. If you needed all of the data about anything in order for it to be statistically accurate, then we wouldn't have statistics about anything in this world.

In QA testing of products on an assembly line, do you think they check every single item that comes off the line? No... they take a random sample that is large enough to reflect all products on the line.

You are trying to point out flaws in something that's based on math and statistics, which you know nothing about. Educate yourself on those subjects before trying to state facts about them, please.

I believe in statistics when you are flipping coins. It's a 50/50 proposition. But in order to have statistics that are meaningful, you need to have all the data. What if baseball didn't keep stats for day baseball games cause the stat guy was sleeping in? Well I can tell you it is easier to hit a baseball during the day. Or what if football stats weren't kept when a team came off a bye week or was on the road.

I also believe in stats when there is enough data. You can tell me a coin is a 50/50 proposition but if I flip it twice and it comes up heads both times, and then I stop collecting data - what am I to think.

If FargoRate is going to be accepted, it is important that as much data as possible be kept. People won't have faith in it and it will be treated like any other handicap system. That is my advice to Mike Page. Posting here that it doesn't matter if they have all or even almost all the data is simply wrong. And again, if you are touting it and promoting it to date with the use of Top 100 lists - well the data should be weighted current. Not on a player that plays 1.6 games a day. How bout Dennis Hatch - another highly ranked FargoRate player -- how many games did he play in 2015? Is he an active player too?

 

[67tbird]

Now is NOT a good time to stake anyone against Hatch. I wouldn't count him out against anyone right now.

Sent from my C811 4G using Tapatalk

 

[watchez]

Call him whatever you like. I am curious. How many US players would you stake against Dennis Hatch right now, if you were so inclined?

Well to stake someone you have to have 2-1 best of it. Remember math.

Then there is the fact that I would only bet on 4 pool players alive so that limits my options as well.

Beyond that it is hard to answer that question cause I haven't seen him play in quite some time so don't know how he is hitting them. Both Dennis and Johnny were great players, don't get me wrong. So was Tiger Woods and once he stopped playing and winning, he descending rapidly down the rankings.