Actual Knowing Of How You Played

[8-ball bernie]

i think pat flemmings accu-stats way of 500-1000 of how someone played is the best way to talk about how well someone played in a given tournament.
for instance:

500-600 horrible terrible awful
600-700 very, very weak
700-799 not very good
835- the typcial professional on a typcial day.
890-playing very well.
930-strong playing
960-top form
980-in the zone, dead stroke
1000-extremly rare, a pefect game, zero errors, zero misses.

i believe us pool players, should start talking in this lingo, so we have common grounds of what we are worth. bowling has averages, so does golf and everything else, why not know exactly how someone played, when they tell you they were in the zone and shot a 980 last night.

 

[cuetechasaurus]

You scored a .260 in spelling.

 

[Colin Colenso]

The stats can be a bit misleading at times. eg. Sometimes games play out such that you have to take on some low percentage shots, and other times the shots are pretty much there.

Also, some players are more likely to take on harder shots that offer bigger rewards. Their rating will undervalue their effectiveness.

The best way to achieve rankings would be to have a chess type rating system. You'd need a lot of tourneys with players mixing from various tourneys to establish a reliable set of ratings though.

Or we could just grade players according to their height, "The Ty Cobb Rating System".

 

[Gerry]

I don't want anyone to know how I play!.....only the last guy I just about squeeked by on, and he also knows he can beat me next time...BTW....I am about a .397

Gerry

 

[rackmsuckr]

Or we could just grade players according to their height, "The Ty Cobb Rating System".

Oh dear, now I am in trouble! On the other hand, since all the Philipinos are short, maybe it will be backwards and the shortest ones get the highest ranking.

 

[DaveK]

The stats can be a bit misleading at times. eg. Sometimes games play out such that you have to take on some low percentage shots, and other times the shots are pretty much there.

Also, some players are more likely to take on harder shots that offer bigger rewards. Their rating will undervalue their effectiveness.

These comments are true in small sample sizes. In large sample sizes these 'special considerations' will even out and the stats would be quite indicative of skill imo. In smaller sample sizes the stats would indicate both player skill and competition influences (a couple of which are described above). Of course that is where the concept of 'confidence' comes into play (in the statistical world).

Dave

 

[Jaden]

.085

I'm about a 85, oh wait a minute no that's the number of balls I pocketed in a row last time I played nineball. J.K.

 

[Colin Colenso]

These comments are true in small sample sizes. In large sample sizes these 'special considerations' will even out and the stats would be quite indicative of skill imo. In smaller sample sizes the stats would indicate both player skill and competition influences (a couple of which are described above). Of course that is where the concept of 'confidence' comes into play (in the statistical world).

Dave

You're right regarding that in the long run players will get the same amount of tough games...assuming they're playing equally good players, but I think their are players who are more willing to take on the 70% pot chance over safety option that maintains their higher accustats rating.

One of my points would be not to refuse watching some matches just because the player's accustat's ratings are in the 800's. Some of these may present some very interesting games with more tactical challenges.