advice on Fargorate going down after +59 effective rating

B

ben3595

New member
Hi All,

I was after any advice anyone has regarding my recent Fargorate performance. I've definitely struggled with consistency over several years and I realise my robustness at low performance is probably hold my rating down but...

I recently played in a local 9 ball event at 422 and got an effective rating for the event at 481. My rating went down to 421!?

I don't understand why my rating would go down. I know I tanked the 3rd match but my effective rating for the tournament is +59.

https://digitalpool.com/tournaments/titan-tournament-week-39/overview

match perf.png


effective rating.png
 
Your fargo can fluctuate without you playing at all. It's tied to everyone you've played and everyone they've played.
It's also possible that the games you very recently played haven't even been calculated. A 1 point shift is almost not worth mentioning or worrying about.
With a low robustness, you can expect it to move more than it will when it's higher.
 
couldnthinkof01 said:
Low robustness, high volatility.
Just play.
Don't tie your ego, pride, or sense of ability to the #.
It might have nothing to do with that tournament. Could have been games before that.
Click to expand...

He's got a robustness of 1604.

ben3595 said:
Hi All,

I was after any advice anyone has regarding my recent Fargorate performance. I've definitely struggled with consistency over several years and I realise my robustness at low performance is probably hold my rating down but...

I recently played in a local 9 ball event at 422 and got an effective rating for the event at 481. My rating went down to 421!?

I don't understand why my rating would go down. I know I tanked the 3rd match but my effective rating for the tournament is +59.

https://digitalpool.com/tournaments/titan-tournament-week-39/overview

View attachment 781418

View attachment 781419
Click to expand...

422 to 421 is basically no change. Your 1604 games aren't really going to be affected by the 22 games you posted in the tourney. If everything else stayed equal (it doesn't because of how elo type ranking works), you'd have to log 1600 games at 59 pts higher than your ranking to see a 29.5pt change.

This is really the beauty of Fargo. You had a good tourney, but due to the small sample size, your rating didn't really move.
 
Last edited:
The digital pool brackets performance rating is misleading unless “every single person” in the bracket has a rating. Go to the players tab and if there are any without a rating it messes up everyone’s performance rating. If every single player has a rating then it’s legit. That’s been my experience.
 
I checked your bracket and everyone did have a rating so it wasn’t that.

I agree it does seem your rating should have gone up 1 or 2 points, certainly not down. Did you play any other events about the same timeframe?

It could also be your very early games were a higher performance, and they might coincidentally have been diminished in contribution to your total rating, just as the new tournament was entered.

Also as others mentioned, the rating will often move up and down a point or two with no matches on your part. Mine does that almost weekly even when I don’t play.
 
It's because your first two opponents had virtually no rating, so the Digital Pool calculation was wrong since it assumes their ratings won't change.

If you check their ratings now, Kay is a -90 and Milo is a 391. So your wins against them didn't really count for much, unfortunately.
 
iusedtoberich said:
I checked your bracket and everyone did have a rating so it wasn’t that.

I agree it does seem your rating should have gone up 1 or 2 points, certainly not down. Did you play any other events about the same timeframe?

It could also be your very early games were a higher performance, and they might coincidentally have been diminished in contribution to your total rating, just as the new tournament was entered.

Also as others mentioned, the rating will often move up and down a point or two with no matches on your part. Mine does that almost weekly even when I don’t play.
Click to expand...
yes I did, 1st September https://digitalpool.com/tournaments/celestial-billiards-low-handicap-tournament-3/bracket my effective rating was +111 but my Fargo stayed at 422
 
DeeDeeCues said:
He's got a robustness of 1604.



422 to 421 is basically no change. Your 1604 games aren't really going to be affected by the 22 games you posted in the tourney. If everything else stayed equal (it doesn't because of how elo type ranking works), you'd have to log 1600 games at 59 pts higher than your ranking to see a 29.5pt change.

This is really the beauty of Fargo. You had a good tourney, but due to the small sample size, your rating didn't really move.
Click to expand...
so I'd have to play another 4800 racks at this level to make it 525!?
 
iusedtoberich said:
To go up 100 with a robustness of 1600, you’ll need Efren to push your stroke hand for you every shot.
Click to expand...
well, this is disappointing indeed. I'm destined to die as a 400 :( Although I see the point about a lot of my recent opponents having provisional ratings too, so my 'high' performances haven't actually been as high as I had hoped.
 
ben3595 said:
well, this is disappointing indeed. I'm destined to die as a 400 :( Although I see the point about a lot of my recent opponents having provisional ratings too, so my 'high' performances haven't actually been as high as I had hoped.
Click to expand...

Don't worry, that's not actually how FargoRate works and the other commentator is mistaken or exaggerating. Your older games get weighted less and less over time. I think Mike Page mentioned that games one year ago get counted half as much as a recent game. If you keep performing well, your rating will easily increase even with a high robustness (and vice versa if you do poorly). Just today, I noticed a local player has increased by 30 points over the past two years even though his robustness is 5k+ at this point.
 
kingwang said:
Don't worry, that's not actually how FargoRate works and the other commentator is mistaken or exaggerating. Your older games get weighted less and less over time. I think Mike Page mentioned that games one year ago get counted half as much as a recent game. If you keep performing well, your rating will easily increase even with a high robustness (and vice versa if you do poorly). Just today, I noticed a local player has increased by 30 points over the past two years even though his robustness is 5k+ at this point.
Click to expand...

That was my point about all other things not staying equal. I didn't feel the need to explain things that have been beaten to death on other threads.
 
kingwang said:
It's because your first two opponents had virtually no rating, so the Digital Pool calculation was wrong since it assumes their ratings won't change.

If you check their ratings now, Kay is a -90 and Milo is a 391. So your wins against them didn't really count for much, unfortunately.
Click to expand...
This is the answer. On both of the tournaments you posted, your opponents had extremely low robustenss, some of them you are their only data. If you look up their ratings now on the fargorate website/phone app, they took a huge hit after playing you. You, on the other hand, stayed the same.

The digital pool site performance calculator assumes your opponents rating is like a rock, and says what your fargo would be to get the score you did.

When the scores get input into fargorate, it does not assume the "rock" like digital pool does. It recalculate everyone's rating every night in the whole world to best fit all the scores.
 
DeeDeeCues said:
This is the opposite of the actual situation. His rating basically didn't move due to his robustness.
Click to expand...
Next is look at the changes in Fargo rating of his opponents. New players start with 500 or 525 (as that is the median) and then move up or down from there. That can drag or push a Fargo, even if he has not played recently.
 
There is a lot of over interpreting going on here.

Couple points.

(1) You are in a suburb of Sydney AUS, and a lot of your recent play is against Lidcombe players. So even if you don't play, the system is constantly getting new information determining how Lidcombe matches up to other parts of Sydney, how Sydney matches up to the rest of Australia, and how Australia matches up to the rest of the world. In other words if Lidcombe players tend to not live up to the expectations from their ratings, the players who have all their play in Lidcombe might go down by 1.5 points. And if, say, a third of your games are against Lidcombe opponents, then you might go down half a point. This sort of thing is happening every day and is going on whether you play or not.

(2) You should not take the "performance" number in digitalpool very seriously. It tends to be more meaningful when you have many matches against many players with well established rating. You don't meet those criteria here. One of your opponents, Kay, had no information at all in Fargorate. And so games against Kay don't at this point affect your rating. If Kay plays more over the next several months, the system will start paying some attention to your wins against her. Of the other two players, one has an unestablished rating, and so the system will at this point weight the assessment of those games less. But if we ignore that, your two opponents, Milo and Dennis average about 500 and you won 6 games and lost 12 (won a third of the games). This is the expected number of wins of a player rated about 400.
 
ctyhntr said:
Next is look at the changes in Fargo rating of his opponents. New players start with 500 or 525 (as that is the median) and then move up or down from there. That can drag or push a Fargo, even if he has not played recently.
Click to expand...
There is no "start" in FargoRate. When you see unknown players assigned 500 or 525 or whatever, that is just an ad hoc assignment for convenience that is outside the system. The FargoRate process doesn't even know about those assignments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top