https://forums.azbilliards.com/threads/apa-masters-question.254797/
This is an old thread, but it is relevant to this one.
This is an old thread, but it is relevant to this one.
APA/Fargo cut off?
- Thread starter benjaminwah
- Start date
Here’s the official language from APA. Could they do better? Of course, it’s APA. Nuance isn’t their strong suit. Drawing in newbies is.
- Professional players are not allowed to participate in the U.S. Amateur Championship. APA will consult with several professional tours concerning the status of any player. In addition, players who possess professional characteristics will not be allowed to participate. Professional characteristics include, but are not limited to: making the majority of one’s income giving exhibitions, giving lessons or playing pool. Please contact the APA if you think there is any possibility that you possess professional characteristics.
APA has a nationwide network of representatives and maintains a list of professional players throughout the country. APA intends to check the amateur status according to the above guidelines on every entrant into the U.S. Amateur Championship. Those entrants found to be in violation will be consulted and given an opportunity to appeal; however, APA has the final authority to make the judgment. Entry fees for those entrants found to be in violation will not be refunded.
A comparison, and many know this man or have seen em in past US Opens on TV.
Scott ''the shot'' Smith.
Best pool announcer/TD of all.
Lets get ready to rumble....
He's now at 75, physically a very slow/hunched walker, and still competes.
His road has worn em out.
The local APA league, won't even allow him to play because of some ''known pro'' wording that's been inflicted on him.
He's struggles with every game/step, on the 7' tables.
Pretty ''shaming'' to not allow an old hobbled man to not play in that league, it's truly a political type of reason and nothing more.
The beginning league operator did not like Anyone in the league that had allot of pool knowledge, he kept the likes of us out of his barn.
FF to 40 years ago Yeah he could play, but NOW.
Get real APA, yet the legacy of the 1st and successful (lot of work) APA Colorado Springs League Operator was Ron Wollery.
His eeGo still permeates their actions.
Ron passed on many years ago.
Are there BCA league's in the area or only APA? Whats his Fargo or is all of it based on what he used to be considered"Pro"?
tomatoshooter
Well-known member
I'd get equally skunked. Actually I might get inspired and play the best pool of my life, so maybe I'd win 1 game.
You know, sometimes there's a downtime between matches.
BCA...
They are in Pueblo, the Springs humm, don't know tho I'm sure there are.
CO at one time had more BCA league teams in our state than any other states in the early seventies.
I think the state had close to 560 or more at one time.
Pueblo back in the day, 1st place BCA league team 20K, allot of $ in the seventies.
Scott once finished 4th in a major/pro event 1970 out west.
There’s too many Scott Smiths in the Fargo system. I’d say he’s a mid 500s player now. See for yourself. He plays better in the Sunday afternoon tournaments (starting at 1:00 p.m.) than the Saturday night ones (starting at 7:00 p.m.)
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Thanks for finding this, although seeing him this way is a bit bleh. Most of his shirts are probably as older than the kid he was playing LOL
Aside from his tournament work he has some commentating credits on AccuStats videos, was good to listen to. He was not quite as technical as the other guys but his chats about the back-room goings on, dealings between the players (doing savers, etc...) and gambling handicapping were as fun to listen to as anyone else that worked the mike.
I 100% agree someone like his should be allowed in any league right now. I bet even when he was at the top of his game he was no better than the 700+ Fargo guys they let in now.
Last edited:
Jay Helfert too. These guys have given their life to pool and the ratings aren't accurate for them. If they want to play in ANY tournament, it shouldn't even be a question.
Fargo suffers from regionality the same as any other rating system. Unless the players travel around to cross pollinate then there will be a local/regional bias. It should be obvious that any mathematical formula can only differentiate between the player who play each other. There is no absolute rating.
Atorontopoolplayer
Active member
The Fargo Rate is a relative scale as they say in the video. And as I said, if that third match does not happen [the yellow line at 2:12], then the system only rates players relative to each other. Thus it becomes regional. This problem cannot be avoided.
This is correct but very rare to actually happen. There is a room full of new players where I play that are new to Fargo, they have 50-150 or so robustness scores now. Those dozens of players have never played in any Fargo event outside of our local leagues in the single pool hall. But myself, my son, and a few others have played all over New England in the USAPL league and tournaments, also in Vegas nationals, SBE, and other places that report to Fargo. So all those players that are tied to only me and my son are now tied to the 200 other players we played with over the years and their rating against us is tied to our rating against them. Even if they never play us directly, they played someone else in the pool hall that has played us, so tied to our skill level through that over time.
I travel for work, if I play in any event that reports to Fargo, any player there ends up tied to my results and compared to my ratings even if those players are new to the system. Been to like 12 different pool rooms and played in 4-5-6 different local tournaments. That is only me, take another 1,000 players that are wandering around playing in places, and the 1,000 players that play them, and then there are the 8,000 local players that play those other 1,000, and so on, you get a huge blown up tree of linked players and skill levels.
It's not really a flaw of the system but simply a limitation or any handicapping system that used hard data vs just looking at how someone plays every game and making some personal judgement based on prior experience. Even then that judgement has to match what others think of the skill level. For example to my mind using the ABCD ratings, people give the C and B players way too high of a rating and they place the A players very close to the Pro levels. I see players just about run out a rack every turn and they are called "C" players, those players are just one level over the D players that are beginners, no way should that one level from a D to a C gain 4-5 extra balls or run out ability or position or safety skills. It's maybe 2-3 at the C+ levels.
Last edited:
The Fargo Rate is a relative scale as they say in the video. And as I said, if that third match does not happen [the yellow line at 2:12], then the sytem only rates players relative to each other. Thus it becomes regional. This problem cannot be avoided.
2 players do not make a robust connection.
Edit: It is probability based so a large number of samples are needed to reduce the error.
Last edited:
To the extent I've given you this impression, I have failed to convey how it works.
This is a little poll we did a while ago. The correct answer is D. The coupling that makes your rating be on the same scale as another rating elsewhere could be five people away from you. Don't need players themselves to play outside the group or anything.
I didn’t find it, I shot it. Scott shows up at least once a month for our little tournament. Still trying to figure out if it’s worth setting up the stream. What with the jukebox getting streams struck for copyrighted music.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I guess I didn't make myself clear. In your example if Bill doesn't move and only plays 10 games in Phoenix, then Nowhereville is still incorrectly rated. That is what I was trying to say. At some number of players and games then the math should work out.
I think the thing we are missing is that the scenario where a bubble emerges (robustly) and fails to get popped is a unicorn. I think you’re significantly more likely to have an area with a robustness problem due to adoption than you are to have a bubble problem. You’re not getting any sizable population of players (like a league’s worth) up to 200+ robustness within the bubble without more than enough of them getting outside the bubble enough to pop it. At the end of the day, it’s not a regional issue. Michigan FargoRates are on par with California FargoRates. That doesn’t change. The best we can do is try to argue Smallville, IA and Nowhereville, WY are not on par with each other. The point only sticks when you’re talking places with very little adoption at all.
It doesn't really matter the size of the group. For example if people in California never played anybody in Michigan you would still have a problem. In Mike's example, if both Nowhereville and Phoenix had the same offset, then playing between each other wouldn't solve anything. As I mentioned in my very first post here, there needs to be enough cross pollination (people in groups playing people in other groups) in order level out the ratings. It is an interesting problem to me.
I think we find that the cross pollination actually is rampant. Not the majority of players. But more than enough players.
For example in Michigan.
Weak players play medium players in leagues and have a strong relative correlation. Medium players play good players in leagues and local Fargo-reported tournaments. Good players play great players in state tournaments. Great players play excellent players in state and regional tournaments. Excellent players play other excellent players from all over the country and sometimes the world at pro and semi-pro events. Then you get the bonus of medium and good players playing a myriad of national medium and good players in Vegas.
There’s wildly more than enough cross pollination to connect Michigan to California. The only areas lacking aren’t pockets that act like bubbles. It’s the pockets that lack adoption and simply don’t have enough FargoReported events to get locals “one the grid”. Because everyone that is robustly on the grid is only seven degrees away from Kevin Bacon on multiple paths.