So in a format
Master
AA
A
B
C
I am listed as a B player while my Fargo has me as a AA in their same system. I would be a favorite to cash in a B trnmnt the AA not so much.
Are Fargo Ratings inflating?
- Thread starter mikepage
- Start date
Master
AA
A
B
C
I am listed as a B player while my Fargo has me as a AA in their same system. I would be a favorite to cash in a B trnmnt the AA not so much.
Willowbrook Wolfy
Going pro
Yes but the alternating break field was weaker than the winner breaks in this scenerio. Once you get to higher levels with higher break and run percentages there’s no way that is correct. Almost every tournament.
Check the stats. I can guarantee you. I even said at 500 level maybe not. At the pro level. In winner breaks format. The breaker of a game wins more often than their opponent does. The person breaking has the advantage every game at the pro level. I did see the stats on one tournament where breaker lost more often but other than that. Never. And that one tournament may very well have been alt break.
Last edited:
Willowbrook Wolfy
Going pro
Here. It’s crazy saying alternating break cant get a lower high level closer to a better high level player in ratings.ATTACHMENT: International 9 ball open. In turn more 790s looking like 800’s. It’s more emphasized at high levels but trickles down. Simply put if a field avgs 30% break and run every 3 extra breaks is 1 more win for each player. Or statistically in a race to 10 each player is almost guaranteed 3 wins by the alternating break format. The initial breaker is guaranteed 3 statistically. Where in non alternating the same field would possibly only get 6 breaks in a match with only 2 statistically guaranteed wins in that match.
Plus in that international open with the breaker winning 70% of the time each player in that race to 10 is almost guaranteed another 3 games. So really alternating break just turned a 10-10 match into a 4-4 match. It’s a huge equation but alternate break for sure changes things more than just a little over the long run.
And hey, I’m not saying that it should be fixed or anything like that. It would be really complicated trying to get a solution to that. All I’m saying is this could very well be the reason for more players in the 800s now. That’s all. Mike’s system is fine as it is. He made a really good system.
Plus in that international open with the breaker winning 70% of the time each player in that race to 10 is almost guaranteed another 3 games. So really alternating break just turned a 10-10 match into a 4-4 match. It’s a huge equation but alternate break for sure changes things more than just a little over the long run.
And hey, I’m not saying that it should be fixed or anything like that. It would be really complicated trying to get a solution to that. All I’m saying is this could very well be the reason for more players in the 800s now. That’s all. Mike’s system is fine as it is. He made a really good system.
Attachments
Last edited:
The problem with the A, B, C rating system is that it's completely subjective
FargoRate is not…
I call these 'systems'(??) "homecooked rating method". If a rating system is not based on actual match/games results it really means nada. I'd be first to say FR is not perfect(what is??) but its BY FAR the best rating system pool has seen to date. The number of FR tournaments across the country on any given weekend speaks for itself.
Atorontopoolplayer
Active member
Over the long haul it balances out and the same ratio of wins/ losses will apply.
Really it could all be as simple as with the increase in money in the game -- the top players are just distancing themselves more from the field than in the past. As the game becomes more and more professional, the part timers just can't keep up as much as in the past and even many of their fellow pros who aren't "all in". The guys at the top just aren't following as much of a linear progression as before. Maybe we are seeing the natural evolution of a game into a sport.
I think with more reason to play and win, the top players are working more on their games instead of, say, playing golf. I think it's possible that the top 20 as a group have raised their average absolute skill level by 10 or 15 points.
Last edited:
This guy I been having an eye on was 601 early march as of now he keeps going down now at
583
583
I've been paying attention to all topics Fargo on AZB for some time. I think I can paraphrase the likely answer for Mike:
Now that's not to say that alt break doesn't clearly provide an opportunity for both players to score, and thereby generate much closer matches. However as we all know. When 'stats' math validity is question. It's always defended blindly with sample size.
-With a large enough sample size alt break does not alter the results.
Now that's not to say that alt break doesn't clearly provide an opportunity for both players to score, and thereby generate much closer matches. However as we all know. When 'stats' math validity is question. It's always defended blindly with sample size.
robustness...? I'm guessing <500
Differences in fargo only 'really' matter once the swing is around 30pts imo. Anyone on any given day can easily play +/-30 from their average.
Over 1400