Define "accurate" and define "perfect system"
Then tell me who is pretending that this is either.
You dont have a dictionary? Use google.
Plenty of people are pretending.
Define "accurate" and define "perfect system"
Then tell me who is pretending that this is either.
You dont have a dictionary? Use google.
Plenty of people are pretending.
Obviously more data is always preferred to less, but people sometimes forget the marginal cost of collecting data. This is why they do political surveys with thousands of respondents and not millions.
Usually hundreds. Several hundred people will reflect votes/opinions of a hundred million people very closely.
But I don't think sampling is an issue with these Fargo ratings. They probably want every tournament entered into the system, and they'll probably get them.
Agreed, new technology (such as a scoring app) will reduce the marginal cost of Data collection, but when people start talking about implementing an accustats type rating system for all major events...this is a silly pipe dream.
A scoring app, as far as players being able to enter their own scores, with no verification that the match ever took place, will completely destroy the integrity of the data. Even if you had a way for both players to verify the match happened, there could still be fake accounts, collusion between players, ridiculous matches that may have not even involved pool at all, etc....
Getting fargo to be a respected and universal rating means the matches recorded need to be official and verified in some way. ELO ratings would be a joke in chess today if the FIDE allowed players to enter their own games.
You don't need, or really want, every single game ever played, recorded. Quality and accuracy is much more important. Over time, there will easily be more than enough data to accurately represent people's relative skill levels.
[...]
Getting fargo to be a respected and universal rating means the matches recorded need to be official and verified in some way. ELO ratings would be a joke in chess today if the FIDE allowed players to enter their own games.
You don't need, or really want, every single game ever played, recorded. Quality and accuracy is much more important. Over time, there will easily be more than enough data to accurately represent people's relative skill levels.
Pipe dream or not. it is a way more accurate way to rate players. If you want to rate you have to look at the performance not results. This is not chess and each player does not get the same luck. You can play perfect and lose or play bad and win. That is why nobody matches up based on results... not if they are smart.
Ranking, which is something different, can he done from results 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.
Pipe dream or not. it is a way more accurate way to rate players. If you want to rate you have to look at the performance not results. This is not chess and each player does not get the same luck. You can play perfect and lose or play bad and win. That is why nobody matches up based on results... not if they are smart.....
Pipe dream or not. it is a way more accurate way to rate players. If you want to rate you have to look at the performance not results. This is not chess and each player does not get the same luck. You can play perfect and lose or play bad and win. That is why nobody matches up based on results... not if they are smart.
Ranking, which is something different, can he done from results 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.
How does one begin to 'Fargo rate" themselves, do any scores count if you haven't played anyone with an established Fargo rating?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Interesting perspective. Sounds like a prescription for homeless "smart" people to me...[...]That is why nobody matches up based on results... not if they are smart.[...]
Yes but the idea is that it's a cumulative picture of performance over many games. So while you can play bad and win and play good and lose over time your average performance shows in the results you get consistently against the crowd of people who are also doing the same task as you, playing to win.
Interesting perspective. Sounds like a prescription for homeless "smart" people to me...
Interesting perspective. Sounds like a prescription for homeless "smart" people to me...
Or 1.6 games a day. I still don't call that active.
Watchez, Johnny has played tournaments near me in Canada that aren't on Mike Pages list, as well as who knows how many more. He's an active player all right, but the money just isn't there to be on the road all the time.
Sent from my C811 4G using Tapatalk