Are Fargo Ratings inflating?

[skip100]

US Open - Fargo Ratings of field

These are the Fargo Ratings of the 96 (of 128) participants for the US Open who have established ratings (at least 200 games in the system). These ratings are current as of 10-7-15 1 Shane Van Boening USA 824.5 2 Dennis Orcollo Philippines 811.5 3 Pin Yi Ko Taiwan, ROC 805.4 4 Niels Feijen...

forums.azbilliards.com

Here's the top 20 from 2015 and their change over time:

1 Shane Van Boening USA 824.5 to 838
2 Dennis Orcollo Philippines 811.5 to 825
3 Pin Yi Ko Taiwan, ROC 805.4 to 832
4 Niels Feijen Denmark 804.8 to 816
5 Yu Lung Chang Taiwan, ROC 800.1 to 802
6 Carlo Biado Philippines 798.9 to 832
7 Mike Dechaine USA 797.8 to 799
8 Lee Van Corteza Philippines 796.4 to 817
9 Kai Lun Hsu Taiwan, ROC 795.9 to 807
10 Jayson Shaw Scotland 792.6 to 832
11 Darren Appleton England 790.9 to 791
12 Efren Reyes Philippines 790.7 to 770
13 Ping Chung Ko Taiwan, ROC 789.7 to 836
14 Justin Bergman USA 787.2 to 799
15 Alex Pagulayan Canada 786.9 to 811
16 Jung Lin Chang Taiwan, ROC 786.8 to 824
17 Mika Immonen Finland 786.3 to 787
18 Johnny Archer USA 783.9 to 764
19 Rodney Morris USA 783.6 to 760
20 Warren Kiamco Philippines 783.4 to 787

Niels was at the height of his powers in 2015 yet has seen his rating actually go up. Bergman was #4 on the money list in 2015 and has done little of note since but his rating went up.

It's fine to acknowledge the ratings are drifting slightly over time. It is a well known phenomenon that doesn't change the system's predictive performance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system#Ratings_inflation_and_deflation

 

[garczar]

Are you including yourself in this list since you questioned Fargo as well?

Not at all. I've known all along that FR was never intended to rate 1p matches. 1p is a totally 'specialty' game and bears little/no resemblance to 8/9/10ball games. There are a bunch of really good 1p players that don't play the other games even close to their 1p speed. BTW,there are ways to h'cap 1p using FR but i'm not real sure just how accurate/fair the various ones are. The system just isn't designed with 1p in mind.

 

[Rocket354]

US Open - Fargo Ratings of field

These are the Fargo Ratings of the 96 (of 128) participants for the US Open who have established ratings (at least 200 games in the system). These ratings are current as of 10-7-15 1 Shane Van Boening USA 824.5 2 Dennis Orcollo Philippines 811.5 3 Pin Yi Ko Taiwan, ROC 805.4 4 Niels Feijen...

forums.azbilliards.com

Here's the top 20 from 2015 and their change over time:

1 Shane Van Boening USA 824.5 to 838
2 Dennis Orcollo Philippines 811.5 to 825
3 Pin Yi Ko Taiwan, ROC 805.4 to 832
4 Niels Feijen Denmark 804.8 to 816
5 Yu Lung Chang Taiwan, ROC 800.1 to 802
6 Carlo Biado Philippines 798.9 to 832
7 Mike Dechaine USA 797.8 to 799
8 Lee Van Corteza Philippines 796.4 to 817
9 Kai Lun Hsu Taiwan, ROC 795.9 to 807
10 Jayson Shaw Scotland 792.6 to 832
11 Darren Appleton England 790.9 to 791
12 Efren Reyes Philippines 790.7 to 770
13 Ping Chung Ko Taiwan, ROC 789.7 to 836
14 Justin Bergman USA 787.2 to 799
15 Alex Pagulayan Canada 786.9 to 811
16 Jung Lin Chang Taiwan, ROC 786.8 to 824
17 Mika Immonen Finland 786.3 to 787
18 Johnny Archer USA 783.9 to 764
19 Rodney Morris USA 783.6 to 760
20 Warren Kiamco Philippines 783.4 to 787

Niels was at the height of his powers in 2015 yet has seen his rating actually go up. Bergman was #4 on the money list in 2015 and has done little of note since but his rating went up.

It's fine to acknowledge the ratings are drifting slightly over time. It is a well known phenomenon that doesn't change the system's predictive performance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system#Ratings_inflation_and_deflation

Yes, acknowledging what is known and that it is ok is a much better path than what the OP did which is use statistical sleight of hand to try to draw attention away from rating inflation*. All that does is lessen his own credibility with respect to his system.

*the OP is "look at the fact that all groups of players that have played in the last two years have seen an average rise in their Fargo. If we pretend a point I have data on but conveniently don't actually show (players who haven't played) is 0, we can then pretend there's no inflation!"

 

[BasementDweller]

Not at all. I've known all along that FR was never intended to rate 1p matches. 1p is a totally 'specialty' game and bears little/no resemblance to 8/9/10ball games. There are a bunch of really good 1p players that don't play the other games even close to their 1p speed. BTW,there are ways to h'cap 1p using FR but i'm not real sure just how accurate/fair the various ones are. The system just isn't designed with 1p in mind.

Not that I disagree with you entirely, but Fargo Rate includes one-pocket matches. So you are being critical of their system just like the rest of us.

 

[derangedhermit]

Not at all. I've known all along that FR was never intended to rate 1p matches. 1p is a totally 'specialty' game and bears little/no resemblance to 8/9/10ball games. There are a bunch of really good 1p players that don't play the other games even close to their 1p speed. BTW,there are ways to h'cap 1p using FR but i'm not real sure just how accurate/fair the various ones are. The system just isn't designed with 1p in mind.

There's no reason FR can't work as well for 1p as for the other games. You have a point that there may be a weaker relationship between a 1p rating and the other games. My guess is 8 and 9 ball are so common that most active players play enough of both that there is not that much difference in rating between the two for most players. But these are things Mike Page could answer, and likely has at some point. It seems to me that with maturity (enough data for each game), FR could be broken out as FRUS8, FR9-10, FR1p, etc. But if you have a FR based on playing mostly 1p, and use it while playing others who also mostly play 1p, using FR should be fine.

Snooker is another example, like one pocket, where there may not be a high correlation between it and the other games. There are a couple places on the web that use an Elo-type system to rate snooker players, but I don't think it is supported by any governing bodies.

 

[garczar]

Not that I disagree with you entirely, but Fargo Rate includes one-pocket matches. So you are being critical of their system just like the rest of us.

FR might be used now to do 1p but it was not designed from jump-street to do 1p and i have ZERO issue with that. There have been a few events that have tried it and i have seen no results or reviews of how it went. Its obvious you hate FR but quit trying to prod in me into admitting something that i don't believe. FR is great but not meant for 1p. 1p needs its own rating system, too different/unique to lump in with 8/9/10ball.

 

[garczar]

There's no reason FR can't work as well for 1p as for the other games. You have a point that there may be a weaker relationship between a 1p rating and the other games. My guess is 8 and 9 ball are so common that most active players play enough of both that there is not that much difference in rating between the two for most players. But these are things Mike Page could answer, and likely has at some point. It seems to me that with maturity (enough data for each game), FR could be broken out as FRUS8, FR9-10, FR1p, etc. But if you have a FR based on playing mostly 1p, and use it while playing others who also mostly play 1p, using FR should be fine.

Snooker is another example, like one pocket, where there may not be a high correlation between it and the other games. There are a couple places on the web that use an Elo-type system to rate snooker players, but I don't think it is supported by any governing bodies.

1p needs its own rating system. Its a specialty game like golf, banks,etc. As i said earlier i know a few 650ish FR players that play 1p WAY above that speed and regularly beat players 75-100pts above them.

 

[BasementDweller]

FR might be used now to do 1p but it was not designed from jump-street to do 1p and i have ZERO issue with that. There have been a few events that have tried it and i have seen no results or reviews of how it went. Its obvious you hate FR but quit trying to prod in me into admitting something that i don't believe. FR is great but not meant for 1p. 1p needs its own rating system, too different/unique to lump in with 8/9/10ball.

Haha.

I love Fargo Rate actually. I just think there are minor issues on the periphery that if identified, those of us "in the know" can use to our advantage. Just like your view on one-pocket. I admit there can be very repetitive, ignorant takes on Fargo Rate. I try not to argue those points. I'm actually excited to hear that there may not be "inflation" up and down the rankings like many of us were thinking, as I'd like to use it as a gauge of my own performance.

 

[thebark]

I am a 625 and run out fairly well playing the ghost. When I played a series of cheap sets with a 700 I came to a conclusion about why he was always winning. Of course there were SLIGHT differences in break and accuracy. But Believe the biggest reason is the higher players play safe and kick with a return safe much better. In Onepocket we play even. So why the discepancy, and why is fargo not toally accurate for Onepocket? The answer is that in 1P you aren't forced to shoot at the ball your opponent has just played off of. With a properly shaped head you can find many different balls to hit first and get your opponent into trouble.

That being said, Fargo is 100% predictor that high ratings have better fundamentals and are more accurate. So don't leave those 750's long hard shots until you have them broken down.

 

[garczar]

I am a 625 and run out fairly well playing the ghost. When I played a series of cheap sets with a 700 I came to a conclusion about why he was always winning. Of course there were SLIGHT differences in break and accuracy. But Believe the biggest reason is the higher players play safe and kick with a return safe much better. In Onepocket we play even. So why the discepancy, and why is fargo not toally accurate for Onepocket? The answer is that in 1P you aren't forced to shoot at the ball your opponent has just played off of. With a properly shaped head you can find many different balls to hit first and get your opponent into trouble.

That being said, Fargo is 100% predictor that high ratings have better fundamentals and are more accurate. So don't leave those 750's long hard shots until you have them broken down.

well said. higher FR players often don't pocket any better but their safety/mental game is often way better.

 

[iusedtoberich]

I’ve been around gambling since the late 90s. In my experience, a better 9 ball player is better at 1 hole, banks, back pocket 9 ball, 3 cushion, straight pool, and 8 ball. I might have seen like 2 exceptions in 25 years.

 

[garczar]

I’ve been around gambling since the late 90s. In my experience, a better 9 ball player is better at 1 hole, banks, back pocket 9 ball, 3 cushion, straight pool, and 8 ball. I might have seen like 2 exceptions in 25 years.

like Frost and Tony perhaps??? 1p wizards but not champion rotation players. Good yes but not top world speed. At their peak both routinely beat much better rotation players at 1p. Its a different game.

 

[iusedtoberich]

like Frost and Tony perhaps??? 1p wizards but not champion rotation players. Good yes but not top world speed. At their peak both routinely beat much better rotation players at 1p. Its a different game.

They were dominating when no one was playing. Now, the Filipino 9 ballers with semi-regular one hole play beat those two.

 

[smiling_Hans]

So fargo rating is like college football's equivalent of strength of schedule.

You can dominate low rated players and still move up and you can lose to high rated players and keep your rating.

Not all 600 players are equal if we used my theory above.

 

[garczar]

They were dominating when no one was playing. Now, the Filipino 9 ballers with semi-regular one hole play beat those two.

both are past their prime. they beat almost everyone 10-15yrs ago. Frost won almost every $ match he played against ER. Only AP was in the same league with Efren and neither had to beat Tony or Scott. can't compare their current games to their primes.

 

[Willowbrook Wolfy]

51 players on top 100 list are now over 800 (vs. 35 players two years ago)
The top rating is 848 (vs. 830 two years ago)

Are Fargo Ratings inflating? That's not an easy question to answer. But here is evidence they're not--or at least any drift is small. We compared the ratings now to the ratings of the same players two years ago including all players who had established rating then and also played at least some games in the last two years. Then we divided those players according to how many games they logged in the last two years.

Not surprisingly, the people who play more have ratings that increase more. The implication is that players are more likely to have improved if they play a lot. If there is a rating drift/inflation, we'd expect it to appear as an INTERCEPT on the vertical axis, a rating change not tied to improvement. The fact the intercept is near zero suggests there is at best little drift.

View attachment 748917

Hi Mike just a thought. I think that a partial reason for the “inflation” per se is the amount of alternating break tournaments these days. If you think about it those should really be calculated differently. Especially at the upper tiers. I have no clue how you’d address it though. The only thing I can think is instead of by the game put it in by the match. And I’ll explain why.

Top players used to be able to run out sets on their opponents. Fargorate seems more setup for that type of game then for alternating breaks, seeing how it’s based on win%. With the alternating break format I think players rates are being skewed a bit. Especially at the top levels

It might not be as prevalent in the 4-500 level where there aren’t a whole lot of runouts. But 7-800+s runout much more often. Let’s say race to 11. 800 vs 700. So now instead of the pro being on and putting up 7-0 from the get go without their 700 rated opponent shooting it could very well be 4-3 with each running out each time to the table. Both are more than capable of running out each time to the table. Then the pro player still runs out those 7 on 7 breaks and it could be 8-5 or something at that point instead of the 7-0. Even if pro runs 7 700 runs 3 that would’ve made the score 7-3 in a traditional match not 8-5. What’s the higher win% at this point in the match for each? In reality the pro may very well have been on the hill by 13 games instead they still have to win 3 more. Plus the 700 gets to break at least 2 more times Alternating breaks will give more chances at the table to the lesser player than by winner breaks standard rules. And therefore win and loss percentages are skewed some by the alternating breaks.

So now maybe more players that were 790 are going over 800 because of those extra chances they didn’t used to have. When say they play an 840. That 790 might very well get 2 more chances to the table then they would have but 2 chances in a race to 5 is a lot. Plus those 2 chances are better. They might get the same amount. Even so. Without alternating breaks they may have very well been locked up before and on the defense after the 800 won the previous game, broke, and safed. Instead in the alternating breaks they are breaking and have control of the table. That could really add up to more than just a few extra games at that level of play for the lesser player and lower win% for the better player, and I’m sure it does.

I hate alternating break format. Especially when playing worse opponents because of that. But love em when I’m the underdog.

Either way. I think it takes away from the game some. All the tournaments I play are alternating break. It suvks.

 

[David in FL]

Hi Mike just a thought. I think that a partial reason for the “inflation” per se is the amount of alternating break tournaments these days. If you think about it those should really be calculated differently. Especially at the upper tiers. I have no clue how you’d address it though. The only thing I can think is instead of by the game put it in by the match. And I’ll explain why.

Top players used to be able to run out sets on their opponents. Fargorate seems more setup for that type of game then for alternating breaks, seeing how it’s based on win%. With the alternating break format I think players rates are being skewed a bit. Especially at the top levels

It might not be as prevalent in the 4-500 level where there aren’t a whole lot of runouts. But 7-800+s runout much more often. Let’s say race to 11. 800 vs 700. So now instead of the pro being on and putting up 7-0 from the get go without their 700 rated opponent shooting it could very well be 4-3 with each running out each time to the table. Both are more than capable of running out each time to the table. Then the pro player still runs out those 7 on 7 breaks and it could be 8-5 or something at that point instead of the 7-0. Even if pro runs 7 700 runs 3 that would’ve made the score 7-3 in a traditional match not 8-5. What’s the higher win% at this point in the match for each? In reality the pro may very well have been on the hill by 13 games instead they still have to win 3 more. Plus the 700 gets to break at least 2 more times Alternating breaks will give more chances at the table to the lesser player than by winner breaks standard rules. And therefore win and loss percentages are skewed some by the alternating breaks.

So now maybe more players that were 790 are going over 800 because of those extra chances they didn’t used to have. When say they play an 840. That 790 might very well get 2 more chances to the table then they would have but 2 chances in a race to 5 is a lot. Plus those 2 chances are better. They might get the same amount. Even so. Without alternating breaks they may have very well been locked up before and on the defense after the 800 won the previous game, broke, and safed. Instead in the alternating breaks they are breaking and have control of the table. That could really add up to more than just a few extra games at that level of play for the lesser player and lower win% for the better player, and I’m sure it does.

I hate alternating break format. Especially when playing worse opponents because of that. But love em when I’m the underdog.

Either way. I think it takes away from the game some. All the tournaments I play are alternating break. It suvks.

It'll be interesting to see what Mike says, but for my quick first impression, I don't know that alternate break changes things dramatically or should drive a different calculation.

In fact, if two 800 Fargo players play a race to nine, winner breaks, and one runs out 9/0, the implication in Fargo is that the winner is a significantly better player than the loser. That's simply not valid because the second player never even picked up his cue.

In the alternate break format, a more reasonable expectation would be some thing along the lines of 9/8, 9/7… which seems to me to be a more accurate representation of their actual relative skill levels.

I'm not saying that winner breaks is necessarily wrong or otherwise invalid as I'm sure that with enough games, as with most things, it eventually evens out in the wash. I just don't know that it needs some kind of different methodology to be valid with FargoRate.

Again, just my very first impression and thoughts for whatever the hell they're worth.

 

[Atorontopoolplayer]

 

[garczar]

View attachment 750233

interesting but what does it have to do with FR inflation/deflation?? i've always favored AB just because it usually increased field sizes in smaller/regional events. unless the lower player player catches a gear and breaks like god(orSVB) the better player will almost always win regardless if its WB/AB.

 

[Atorontopoolplayer]

interesting but what does it have to do with FR inflation/deflation?? i've always favored AB just because it usually increased field sizes in smaller/regional events. unless the lower player player catches a gear and breaks like god(orSVB) the better player will almost always win regardless if its WB/AB.

Nothing really, but it's in reference to the two posts above referencing alternating breaks and it's direct from Fargo