WobblyStroke
Well-known member
Things like this happen. I play a '570' from time to time who is really much more of a 670.
APA/Fargo cut off?
- Thread starter benjaminwah
- Start date
I think the answer's in the question. They do not consistently play like a 650, for whatever reason, including misreported results (7-6 instead of 7-2), of which the player may or may not be aware.
yes it was established according to the guy that was running the tournament, and no idea how they were a 500 with how they were playing. It was not just a "good day" for them since they were killing the opponents. You don't win 3-1 on a tight table against a guy almost 700 Fargo just by having a good day of playing or 4-1 or 4-2 on the same table against a 630. I called him winning the thing 3 rounds from the finals soon as I found out he was getting large spots from players and playing how he was.
Yeah this seems odd. I'm an APA 5 sitting at about a 55% win rate, and I've tried to win every rack I've played, so it seems about right (i.e. I have between a 40% and 60% chance to win a handicapped match, playing fairly). But like every other mid-level APA player I have inconsistancies and weak spots, and it really depends on how the racks lay, how my opponents play, and how the night plays out if those weak spots/inconsistencies will come out.
Then why isn't he rated 670? He's rated a 570 based on his overall performance against all his opponents, that's how Fargo works.
It would have to be based upon a small sample size (robustness).
When I was just under 600, I beat up on a 710ish in a local handicapped, 9' 9ball tournament.
Beat him 3-2 and got the W due to the spot. I didn't miss a ball. If you watched that match you may think I was a 700 speed player.
Today, I'm over 600 and occasionally get beat 2-3 by 500 speed players when things don't go right.
If you watched those matches, you may think me to be a 500 speed player.
You can watch a player's fundamentals and get a good estimate of their ability but it would take me several matches to truly gauge a player in competition.
That is why Fargo is more accurate than watching a player shoot a few racks for a couple weeks in a bar box league or similar.
JMHO
When I was just under 600, I beat up on a 710ish in a local handicapped, 9' 9ball tournament.
Beat him 3-2 and got the W due to the spot. I didn't miss a ball. If you watched that match you may think I was a 700 speed player.
Today, I'm over 600 and occasionally get beat 2-3 by 500 speed players when things don't go right.
If you watched those matches, you may think me to be a 500 speed player.
You can watch a player's fundamentals and get a good estimate of their ability but it would take me several matches to truly gauge a player in competition.
That is why Fargo is more accurate than watching a player shoot a few racks for a couple weeks in a bar box league or similar.
JMHO
WobblyStroke
Well-known member
Yes, but what I'm saying is his overall performance is severely skewed by him playing down to his opponent's level and adopting a brilliant, tho shady, strategy against them best characterized by "bet you can't runout". He plays awful out in the open push outs, rarely plays safe and just takes on all sorts of low percentage combos and caroms against weaker players. Sure he may give up more games than usual, but he will play sharp when it's winning time and still beat them, just by a way smaller margin than he could. He also is quick to throw in the towel against similar speed or better opponents and will routinely let a 6-2 deficit turn into an 11-2 loss. It may look like a hothead on tilt slapping balls around and a symptom of a weak mental game, but this is a seasoned money player who is no mental midget.
If he played all his opponents to the best of his ability and fought back against early deficits (which he is more than capable of doing) and demolished weaker players instead of batting them around like a cat does a mouse before finally devouring it, then he'd be a 670, maybe higher. He has won some decent money handicapped tournaments. It is not a coincidence that he just happens to play much better than his 'norm' in those.
So like I said, this stuff happens. Angle shooters are gonna shoot angles. He is, as one of our mutual friends calls him, "the greatest obfuscator of skill there ever was". Not showing his real speed is just a fundamental part of his game until the money comes out. And even then, he only shows as much as he needs to win with relatively little risk but still keep his customer.
Last edited:
Assessing "I know a guy" claims even when the guy is named is like a game of whack-a-mole: actual record is usually far from what's described.
But when the "guy" is anonymous and the claimant is anonymous, it's like whack-a-mole in a pitch black funhouse.
WobblyStroke
Well-known member
K, how about this, I played him last night in a race to 15. He put up a 3 pack and a 4pack. Granted the table was easy and breaking open and I had a 3pack of my own. Regardless of how easy the table was breaking (15-13 race in 100min...so really fast low inning 9b games), a 570 isn't stringing racks together like that.
I'm not trying to out anybody or throw shade at FargoRate, just corroborating what APA Operator already mentioned.... that whenever you have handicapped $ events, you will have guys like this who work their handicaps. It doesn't matter whether we are talking APA ratings or Fargos, people find a way. My apologies if I inadvertently lead to more of them by revealing this guy's 'recipe' for how he does it.
Care to share your fargorate?
...and then there's the same result but the flip side of the coin. I'm currently sitting at 671 but know my avg in game play is on par with top 600's if not rock bottom 700's. My problem is not winning by enough margin against weaker rated opponents. I very rarely lose to sub 625 but never win by enough margin to net positive gains. This is partially due to winner break formats and a lack of intensity on my own part.
Ya ya I know statistically speaking winner break vs alternate supposedly doesn't matter. Of course this is the same logic that claims that not playing the lottery gives you the nearly identical odds to winning then if you buy a number. This argument doesn't get passed allowing an opponent with B'n'R skill a chance at the table or not.
I don't shave games to lower my fargo. I lose games because I don't treat every shot/rack like my life depends on it. If I have breathing room in score I'm more likely to take risks. You could say that that's what separates me from the 700 threshold, and I suppose you wouldn't be wrong. However I see two types of 700 shooters. Those with higher ability with a lack of effort, and those with comparable ability that simply try harder.
Exactly, and that's the difference watching one match could make. If you played a lower skilled player and showed that lack of intensity throughout, the person watching might not have any more information than they already have (they might not see any 700'ish play) and might see a player who's around 670. On the other hand, if they saw a change of intensity and its results, they might note that you can shoot better when you have to, but that could mean a 700 having a bad day or a 670 having a good day (you wouldn't be 700 unless you got those results, or better, around half the time). If they saw you play a similarly or higher-rated player, and I'm assuming by what you said the intensity would be there, they would note that while in this match you shot like a 700+, it could have been one of your better matches. None of that info on its own is sufficient to change your rating, but if combined with other info, like a high match win rate against lower players and multiple complaints from players rated higher (because they see the 700-level play more often), it might be enough to sway them one way or the other.
WobblyStroke
Well-known member
I don't have one. My playing days were before FR, and my back injury won't allow me to play long enough to actually complete a tournament so I don't play them. But based on how I play and the guys with known Fargos that I play, I'd say I'm somewhere in the low 600s rn. Not the ghost killer I was pre injury in my early 20s but I can still string a few racks together here and there playing about 6hrs a week.
My game aint great, but my stroke is as pure as the driven snow. It's the type of effortlessness that just looks like 1000s of hours at the table and the things I can do with the ball that others can't would def raise APA Operator's eyebrows if he saw a match of mine. For that matter, the guy I mentioned above wouldn't fool him either bc the guy is just so fluid around the table it looks like he was born on one. When a guy moves like that and has that type of effortless action on the CB, everything he does just kinda looks on purpose, regardless of result.
Last edited:
I agree.... However, when you boil it down. Results are results, and although I claim to be stronger the results don't back that up. I'm a firm believer in cold math, and statistically probability that comes with robustness.
Your personal opinion on my character determines if I'm an under achiever or sandbagger.
WobblyStroke
Well-known member
Ye I think that is natural and we're seeing it in the playoffs right now too even in team sports. A team gets up and may relax a bit, esp if they've stolen one on the road, while the team that is down plays a bit harder with more desperation and tends to come back on em. In the end the better team still wins, but maybe not in as short a series as they could have if they played with the same force and will every game.
But some players will take this to an extreme and it is certainly more than just letting up a bit with a lead, but score massaging while keeping the opponent a 'safe distance'. I think guys with a history of emotional blowups can def get away with some glaring dumping by putting on an act and pretending to be in one of those moods they have for real sometimes.
Now I love Earl and he is my fav player by a mile, but the sinic in me looks at his collapse vs Efren in their 1995 race to 120 as a perfect dump spot. Now it is, like you said, down to a character judgment and I will give my guy the benefit of the doubt and say he just got overwhelmed by his own demons as he does at times. A hater on the other hand might point out that even tho he could win 100k for the win, how much could he win with a bet on Efren going into the last day up more than 20 racks? He just has his Jeckyl and Hyde history to hide a very obvious dump. Again, not what I believe about my guy based on my assessment of his character, bolstered by his refusal to participate in the infamous Lebron dump, but I can't unsee the possibility and wouldn't fault others for having a different interpretation of events. Sneaky sandbaggers will undoubtedly use these tactics. Their 7-2 deficit turning into a 13-2 loss with them playing like a banger slapping balls just passes for a guy on tilt when in fact, they are just working their handicap in a match that could be a coinflip if they had only started 4-4 instead.
We don't tend to see this kind of imbalance
With you, for instance, I can start with opponents rated 700 and work down adding players until the average rating of the group is close to yours . You have 181 games against opponents from Randy B(699) down to Reid V(650) that average 672. You are expected to win about half and you do, 91 to 90.
I can then do the same thing starting with opponents rated 600 and go down until the average is about 100 points below you. That's 254 games against opponents averaging 573. You are expected to win at a 2-to-1 ratio and you do, 167 to 87
Ok, you clearly understand you're math and the ways to view the data, so I won't attempt to argue your findings. However here's an example of what I suffer from.
The last fargo submitted event I have in the system was done at my local room. Race to 7 alternate break 9 ball. I played 5 sets and my win loss was 31 / 13, scores were 7/1, 7/3, 7/1, 7/3, 3/5. Regardless of opponent fargo, I consider a score line of 7/1 in an alternate break format, a pretty decisive win. However in the world of fargo, that's expected against those weak opponents. In fact, despite the score line. The 7/1 win in the first match had me performing at ~524...lol. If you look at only the first 3 matches (21-5 against <500). I performed at around 610spd. Change the second score line from 7/3 to 7/1 and I'm only back into the mid 670's. That second match was against a APA rated 7/7 player, who runs racks.
The last two sets were against the same opponent. A 590 with inconsistent B'n'R game. The first set I manage a 712 spd game but this more to do with him missing then me controlling the set (alt break). Next loss of 3-5 nets me a rating of 516 but this is merely a single loss of serve in a alternate break format.
So, in reviewing the whole day IMO my only bad set was the 3-5 loss. Great rolls on his side and alternate break not allowing me to keep control of the table. Now clearly my opinion doesn't align with the math. However, those 7/1 wins net me sub-par performance of 643. Kindy nutty when you think of it. More so when alt break is in the mix. So, whatever, I mean I don't argue the math and it's on me to perform better.
The point is my ability to hold intense focus and not give up those single games is where I need to improve. At least locally. There isn't any high 600's to compete with locally, where a score line of a 7-6 win is a positive gain. Dropping a single game is killing me. Worst thing to happen to my fargo was the local reporting....lol
Last edited: