an update on my experience in fargo rate so far.

L

lorider

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
A while back I started a thread about joining usapl and entering the Fargo rate system.

Mike page posted that he was interested in hearing about my experience under Fargo rate being an apa player.

Well here goes. I have just now reached a robustness of 103 and realize I have a way to go before achieving an established rating.

I started at a 460 level which I felt was too low considering 2 other apa 5's started at 485. I was at first a little discouraged because my rating dropped even though I was winning most of my matches. The reason it dropped was because I was mostly playing lower level opponents. A few were in the 325-350 range.

I finally starting an upward climb in my rating and reached a 505 rating this week. I really dont know what a 505 is but it sounds a whole lot better than the 460 I started with lol.

You would not believe I really don't have an ego if you have read some of my posts in the how yall doing in league thread but I thought I was a better 5 than the 2 guys who started at 485. So far Fargo rate has proven my suspicion. I was comparing several apa players who play usapl also and found some interesting stats.

The other 2 apa 5's have dropped ....one dropped quite a bit. One is a 470 and the other is a 422. These ratings also back up what I have said for years....not all apa 5's play at the same level.

I have had the chance to play those other 5's and happened to beat both 4-0 in 8 ball. I believe it was possible to do that due to usapl being a call pocket league vs slop allowed. I played them both 9 ball also and happened to win those matches also but it was closer matches . I believe it was due to the slop factor. Too many people resort to slop in 9 ball ..especially in apa. I have to be honest and say I have been the recipient of slop more than once in my life but I dont make a habit of hitting the object ball at warp speed hoping something falls somewhere.

Some ratings on other apa players were also interesting. 2 apa 7's have a lower rating than I do. One is a 500 and the other is a 487. A 6/7 is rated at 527 and a 7/8 is rated at 548.

So upon comparing my rating with other apa players I guess I am rated where I should be but surprised to see I am rated higher than 2 apa 7's . Btw we all are around a 100 robustness so its not like i am comparing apples to oranges... I don't think.:grin:

Also ....i am really loving this league.
 
Last edited:
lorider said:
The other 2 apa 5's have dropped ....one dropped quite a bit. One is a 470 and the other is a 422. These ratings also back up what I have said for years....not all apa 5's play at the same level.
Click to expand...

Wait a minute. If not all APA 5's play at the same level, the same probably goes for all APA rankings. If that is true, then the entire premise of "any one can win" goes out the door. I'm a eight ball 7. Played in a relatively small area. An APA 7 from New York City or Los Angeles certainly must play better than me. Level of competition. Incidentally, my Fargo this morning dropped to 651 with a robustness of 1237. Perhaps my being 73 has some impact?

lorider said:
I believe it was possible to do that due to usapl being a call pocket league vs slop allowed. I played them both 9 ball also and happened to win those matches also but it was closer matches . I believe it was due to the slop factor. Too many people resort to slop in 9 ball ..especially in apa. I have to be honest and say I have been the recipient of slop more than once in my life but I dont make a habit of hitting the object ball at warp speed hoping something falls somewhere.
Click to expand...

During the eight years I played APA, doubt very highly either me or my opponent "slopped" a ball in during a match more than ten times. Far too much is made of the slop factor IMHO. Just a ruse to demean APA. Only an aid to the weakest players. Regardless of ability.

Lyn
 
Last edited:
lorider said:
A while back I started a thread about joining usapl and entering the Fargo rate system.

Mike page posted that he was interested in hearing about my experience under Fargo rate being an apa player.

Well here goes. I have just now reached a robustness of 103 and realize I have a way to go before achieving an established rating.

I started at a 460 level which I felt was too low considering 2 other apa 5's started at 485. I was at first a little discouraged because my rating dropped even though I was winning most of my matches. The reason it dropped was because I was mostly playing lower level opponents. A few were in the 325-350 range.

I finally starting an upward climb in my rating and reached a 505 rating this week. I really dont know what a 505 is but it sounds a whole lot better than the 460 I started with lol.

You would not believe I really don't have an ego if you have read some of my posts in the how yall doing in league thread but I thought I was a better 5 than the 2 guys who started at 485. So far Fargo rate has proven my suspicion. I was comparing several apa players who play usapl also and found some interesting stats. So an APA 5 that is a

The other 2 apa 5's have dropped ....one dropped quite a bit. One is a 470 and the other is a 422. These ratings also back up what I have said for years....not all apa 5's play at the same level.

I have had the chance to play those other 5's and happened to beat both 4-0 in 8 ball. I believe it was possible to do that due to usapl being a call pocket league vs slop allowed. I played them both 9 ball also and happened to win those matches also but it was closer matches . I believe it was due to the slop factor. Too many people resort to slop in 9 ball ..especially in apa. I have to be honest and say I have been the recipient of slop more than once in my life but I dont make a habit of hitting the object ball at warp speed hoping something falls somewhere.

Some ratings on other apa players were also interesting. 2 apa 7's have a lower rating than I do. One is a 500 and the other is a 487. A 6/7 is rated at 527 and a 7/8 is rated at 548.

So upon comparing my rating with other apa players I guess I am rated where I should be but surprised to see I am rated higher than 2 apa 7's . Btw we all are around a 100 robustness so its not like i am comparing apples to oranges... I don't think.:grin:

Also ....i am really loving this league.
Click to expand...

An APA 7 (of 9) should be about 500 range. That is abut low B level. But that depends in what game, APA tops out at 7 and at 9 depending on the game. A top ranked APA player can be 550+ in Fargo, about there. Fargo is way more accurate, but you need enough games in against enough opponents. Playing the same 10 people each week that just play each other in league and no-where else is not the same as if you go out and play in tournaments where the players there play 30 other people from different states.

Also keep in mind that sandbagging using Fargo is tougher than in APA or other leagues since it does not just go by your league rating and just your opponent, but all your Fargo tracked matches and also the opponents you opponent played. You can dump to a weak player in APA, then go into a state championship and beat payers there, your one loss to the APA guy will not count for much vs your other wins against good players. The APA 5 that is low 400 vs one that is mid or high 400 may just mean that the APA 5 with the higher rating is not trying as hard to win in the APA.
 
Last edited:
cardiac kid said:
Wait a minute. If not all APA 5's play at the same level, the same probably goes for all APA rankings. If that is true, then the entire premise of "any one can win" goes out the door. I'm a eight ball 7. Played in a relatively small area. An APA 7 from New York City or Los Angeles certainly must play better than me. Level of competition. Incidentally, my Fargo this morning dropped to 651 with a robustness of 1237.



During the eight years I played APA, doubt very highly either me or my opponent "slopped" a ball in during a match more than ten times. Far too much is made of the slop factor IMHO. Just a ruse to demean APA. Only an aid to the weakest players. Regardless of ability.

Lyn
Click to expand...

What I mean is some players are better at pocketing balls than others....some are better at cue ball control than others ....some play safes better than others. Actually there are some 5's in my area that I have never seen play a safe.

Then there are some like me who are inconsistent as hell for whatever reason. In 9 ball some break better than others. And the break is the weakest part of my game in 9 ball . It seems like no matter what I try I suck at 9 ball breaks and it holds me back from obtaining a higher skill level . I have started practicing my break occasionally and it seems to help.....park the ball but nothing ever falls.

Take last night at apa for example. I was breaking from the side rail and parked the cue ball in the middle of the table 2 out of 3 times. Nothing fell and my opponent started pocketing balls left and right. When he broke be made a ball every time and a couple times made 2. He was a 4 and I lost 31-29 in a 38-31 race. The only reason i kept it close is I am better at safes and cue ball control. He pocketed balls as good as I do.

In 8 ball I will pass on to you what some one said to me a while back at an 8 ball tournament I was in. A 7/9 came up to me and said ....man I cant believe you are a 5 . He said you play smart the way you move balls around and the safes you play. You are the best 5 I have ever seen. Like I said earlier I have seen 5's that have never played a safe and 5's that are pretty decent at safes are gonna win every time so i do think there can be different levels of play at the same handicap.

I dont want you to think I am putting apa down at all. I still love the league and play apa 2 nights a week plus the one night of usapl. As far as slop goes I agree there is not much slop at all with 4's and higher especially in 8 ball for fear of making an early 8. However I see a tremendous amount of slop in 9 ball in my area by 5's and below. There are even a couple of 6's and 7's that are notorious for resorting to slop when the get out of line. Too many hitting balls at warp speed....missing the intended pocket and going across table or even around the table and falling in then continuing on with their inning. When I miss a shot it dont go across table and fall in another pocket and my inning is over.

Now I know with his 100 games under our belt its probably a little early to come to any conclusion about different playing levels among 3 apa 5's playing under a different rating system . I will say the so far the rating system confirms what I always thought when I played them in apa.

I always thought I had a better all around game but it was always a tough match against them due to how they resorted to slop a lot and got more than their share of lucky rolls. In usapl I have shut them both out in 8 ball and won one 9 ball by a close margin and won handily again the other. Yea I know one match don't tell the whole tale but stats dont lie. One has dropped 15 points ...the other has dropped 60 points and i have climbed 45 points over the same number of games since we all joined usapl at the same time.

Now like i said ...i dont know much about Fargo rating so I honestly dont know what it really means for one apa 5 to be rated 80 points higher than another apa 5 but there is definitely an overall skill level difference between the 2 players.
 
hang-the-9 said:
An APA 7 (of 9) should be about 500 range. That is abut low B level. But that depends in what game, APA tops out at 7 and at 9 depending on the game. A top ranked APA player can be 550+ in Fargo, about there. Fargo is way more accurate, but you need enough games in against enough opponents. Playing the same 10 people each week that just play each other in league and no-where else is not the same as if you go out and play in tournaments where the players there play 30 other people from different states.

Also keep in mind that sandbagging using Fargo is tougher than in APA or other leagues since it does not just go by your league rating and just your opponent, but all your Fargo tracked matches and also the opponents you opponent played. You can dump to a weak player in APA, then go into a state championship and beat payers there, your one loss to the APA guy will not count for much vs your other wins against good players. The APA 5 that is low 400 vs one that is mid or high 400 may just mean that the APA 5 with the higher rating is not trying as hard to win in the APA.
Click to expand...

Some truth there and like i said.....its still early on the system and therefore can't really jump to any real conclusion . Just my thoughts so far when halfway through to an established rating.

Some guys are headed to a regional tournament this weekend a d unfortunately I could not go. It will be interesting to see how they do and what effect it will have on my rating having played some of those guys since Fargo ties all opponents in together .
 
lorider said:
A while back I started a thread about joining usapl and entering the Fargo rate system.

Mike page posted that he was interested in hearing about my experience under Fargo rate being an apa player.

Well here goes. I have just now reached a robustness of 103 and realize I have a way to go before achieving an established rating.

I started at a 460 level which I felt was too low considering 2 other apa 5's started at 485. I was at first a little discouraged because my rating dropped even though I was winning most of my matches. The reason it dropped was because I was mostly playing lower level opponents. A few were in the 325-350 range.

I finally starting an upward climb in my rating and reached a 505 rating this week. I really dont know what a 505 is but it sounds a whole lot better than the 460 I started with lol.

You would not believe I really don't have an ego if you have read some of my posts in the how yall doing in league thread but I thought I was a better 5 than the 2 guys who started at 485. So far Fargo rate has proven my suspicion. I was comparing several apa players who play usapl also and found some interesting stats.

The other 2 apa 5's have dropped ....one dropped quite a bit. One is a 470 and the other is a 422. These ratings also back up what I have said for years....not all apa 5's play at the same level.

I have had the chance to play those other 5's and happened to beat both 4-0 in 8 ball. I believe it was possible to do that due to usapl being a call pocket league vs slop allowed. I played them both 9 ball also and happened to win those matches also but it was closer matches . I believe it was due to the slop factor. Too many people resort to slop in 9 ball ..especially in apa. I have to be honest and say I have been the recipient of slop more than once in my life but I dont make a habit of hitting the object ball at warp speed hoping something falls somewhere.

Some ratings on other apa players were also interesting. 2 apa 7's have a lower rating than I do. One is a 500 and the other is a 487. A 6/7 is rated at 527 and a 7/8 is rated at 548.

So upon comparing my rating with other apa players I guess I am rated where I should be but surprised to see I am rated higher than 2 apa 7's . Btw we all are around a 100 robustness so its not like i am comparing apples to oranges... I don't think.:grin:

Also ....i am really loving this league.
Click to expand...

The problem is in the APA rating. I don't play APA. Never have, but from what I read here and hear about APA ratings they seem more than arbitrary. I think Fargorate is spot on. I see my Fargo and compare it to the Fargo of dozens of players that I play against and with and the ratings fall right in line with how I personally would rank the players I know. Kudos to Mike Page. Finally a system that is relevant and trustworthy.
 
Was curious and it's a bit off topic... Does a player have the option to have his name and rating removed from the Fargo Website?
 
Icon of Sin said:
Was curious and it's a bit off topic... Does a player have the option to have his name and rating removed from the Fargo Website?
Click to expand...

Interesting question but why would you want your name and rating removed? Are you a hustler? LOL. It's designed to determine, as objectively as possible, a fair game.
 
philly said:
Interesting question but why would you want your name and rating removed? Are you a hustler? LOL. It's designed to determine, as objectively as possible, a fair game.
Click to expand...

No definately not, I'm too bad of a player to be a hustler of any sorts, see disclaimer below. I'm saying just out of privacy. I dont use facebook or anything other social media. This site, Jimbo's forum and reddit is about as social as it gets for me online. With the Fargorate site, technically your name is now associated with something on a public website.
 
Rider, I and othershave previously stated it sounds as a you are a 5++. Keep in mind you will have 5's that can play well enough to beat 7's with the help of a handicap. Handicaps work mentally too! The same 5 may not be able to overcome giving a spot.
As others have said 1 league tends to be a small pool. If that pool has weaker players then other leagues,ratings are skewed. Same if many strong players. My 5s beat your 5s cause my 6s beat your 6s,and my 7s beat your 7s. I know part of APA is innings,safeties,misses. Most of these are subjective.Strong players miss while playing safe. I bet you fall in this category. Better players demand better play or you cant be competitive.
Fargorate does not involve handicaps,so it is more objective.
Fargorate isnt perfect but its getting better all the time.
 
Icon of Sin said:
No definately not, I'm too bad of a player to be a hustler of any sorts, see disclaimer below. I'm saying just out of privacy. I dont use facebook or anything other social media. This site, Jimbo's forum and reddit is about as social as it gets for me online. With the Fargorate site, technically your name is now associated with something on a public website.
Click to expand...

The would need your name to find you there, and if they did all they would see is your Fargo score and State. Just because there is a Bill Smith there and that happens to be your name, no-one will know that is you. It's no different than having your name in a tournament entry sheet or a league roster, all of those are out there also if you look.
 
I think it depends a lot on sample size. When you start you're given a rating via some method. Then that rating changes based on match data. As time goes on and more match data is added, a person's rating should settle to a range and change slowly afterward. Anybody can have a good or bad night which would explain the outliers. At least I think that kinda explains it!
 
flyrv9 said:
I think it depends a lot on sample size. When you start you're given a rating via some method. Then that rating changes based on match data. As time goes on and more match data is added, a person's rating should settle to a range and change slowly afterward. Anybody can have a good or bad night which would explain the outliers. At least I think that kinda explains it!
Click to expand...

You hit the nail on the head. When we first started using it we knew some guys should be rated higher and some lower than they actually were rated. As time went on we were right and people settled in. The cream rose to the top just like it does in tournaments. It's good to use to set goals too. I would like to get to 600 or my goal is to get to 650 or I would like to get to 500.

Once established things move up and down in smaller increments.
 
lorider said:
[...]

Now I know with his 100 games under our belt its probably a little early to come to any conclusion about different playing levels among 3 apa 5's playing under a different rating system . I will say the so far the rating system confirms what I always thought when I played them in apa. [...]
Click to expand...

This is an important point. 100 games is just not much data.

Suppose we choose a player named Bill who is exactly a 470 and we somehow know this, but he is new to the system and plays 100 games.

What will Bill's performance rating be? We all know it will vary. It might be near 470; might be higher; might be lower. But how much variation do we expect?

Think about it like this. If Bill played all 100 games over a dozen days against opponents rated 470, then he would be expected to win half--50 games.
But...
--sometimes he gets rolls
--sometimes his opponents get rolls
--some days he's "on."
--some days he's "off."
--some days an opponent is on or off
--some days his opponent is drunk or had a bad day at work
--some days he is drunk or had a bad day at work
...and on and on

Here is a plot of what to expect. I had Bill play his 100 games many hundred times simulating the results. As you can see most of time he is within about 30 points of 470. The orange part here is about the width of an APA rating. So if someone's actual speed is the middle of the 5 range, then there is a pretty good chance (orange bars here) his rating after 100 games would reflect the "5" range. There is some chance he will appear to be 6-speed or 4-speed. This isn't a flaw; there is just that much variation in the results of just 100 games.
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2017-12-01 at 2.32.26 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2017-12-01 at 2.32.26 PM.png
    33.6 KB · Views: 440
Not sure if this is related or not to this thread, but from what I have experienced most 9ball APA sl9’s are at a minimum a Fargo 600, APA sl 7’s and 8’s are around the Fargo 550 and above range.

8ball is a different story as the sl only goes to 7 so the corresponding Fargo is also that 550 and above range.

Disclaimer though as I know the table size is not supposed to matter but this is all experience from 9 footers.
 
LHP5 said:
Not sure if this is related or not to this thread, but from what I have experienced most 9ball APA sl9’s are at a minimum a Fargo 600, APA sl 7’s and 8’s are around the Fargo 550 and above range.

8ball is a different story as the sl only goes to 7 so the corresponding Fargo is also that 550 and above range.

Disclaimer though as I know the table size is not supposed to matter but this is all experience from 9 footers.
Click to expand...

At the bot to of the scoresheets their are boxes to mark for what size table you played on and I assume apa takes the size table into consideration when entering your stats from that match.

I know the subject of table size has come up numerous times on here ....particularly on which size is hardest to play on.

Before I moved my team from one venue to another we played on valleys sometimes and gold crowns sometimes. It seemed on average that playing on 9 footers resulted in only adding 4-5 innings per match. Especially 5's and above. And on average we got through 45 minutes later playing on gold crowns than we did on valleys. Most of the extra time was attributed to 30-35 innjng matches between 2-3's . But then again I have seen 35 inning matches on valleys between a couple of 2's.

Yea there is a difference playing on the 2 different sizes but I don't think its a major difference like people claim ...especially if you at used to rotating between the 2 sizes.

Granted 9 footers are harder if you have never played on one before but isn't it also true about all things in life . I mean isn't it true that anything new you try is harder at first then it gets a lot easier to accomplish after you have done it a couple hundred times ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top