BCA Nationals 8 Ball - Fargo Discrepancy

[JC]

Mark,

The single most important thing to do that will ensure the success of Fargo ratings is to limit entry into the Nationals' Fargo divisions to those players with a minimum "robustness".

Perhaps next year this minimum could be less than the 200 game threshold so that unknown players have a reasonable chance to get their games in.

Of course to implement this two other things must happen immediately:
1. The new LMS software needs to roll out
2. CSI must broadcast this new requirement to all players

I will happily volunteer my services to any league operator that has tons of game data but limited knowledge of how to extract and format the data so it can be inserted into Fargo.

Contact me (Chris Ackler) at sbpoolleague@cox.net if you have historical league data and need help.

Thanks Chris,

So one of my questions has been answered by #1 above. It appears that even if us leagues are ready, CSI is not. It doesn't take a statistician to identify this as the bottle neck in moving forward.

We have paper copies of every score sheet played in our league going back to it's inception in 2008. I have no problem understanding how to extract the data but no inclination to do so retroactively with a pencil and paper. If this is ever going to work well the new LMS software needs to be very well designed. People are lazy. I am people. I am lazy. And many are considerably lazier.

If the goal is to mandate leagues to report then the software has to be up to the job. Don't want to send a crew out to build a hydroelectric dam and hand them shovels when they arrive. The dam will not be built.

JC

 

[BRussell]

Mark,

The single most important thing to do that will ensure the success of Fargo ratings is to limit entry into the Nationals' Fargo divisions to those players with a minimum "robustness".

That would solve the problem of unknown players, but I'd be afraid you'd exclude people who, through no fault of their own, don't have enough games in the system.

I wonder if part of the issue is that BCA is a sanctioning body, and does not have the same level of influence over the leagues as APA or USAPL. I doubt they want to start requiring FargoRate for sanctioned leagues.

I'd prefer that they make it available, people see the benefits of it and voluntarily use it.

 

[GideonF]

Lowering the robustness requirement encourages sandbagging and barring unestablished players altogether would probably destroy participation. Why not simply drop starter ratings and put unestablished players in the divisions where they belong?

How do you decide "where they belong"? Is the process any different than assigning a starter rating?

 

[Mark Griffin]

FargoRate league management software (LMS)

The software is currently being tested by many (20?) and hopefully ready for release in fairly short order. I had heard maybe a month. This is a Mike and Steve question.

Mark Griffin

 

[Mark Griffin]

Next year

Chris,
I kinda agree with what you're suggesting, we haven't had our event debriefing yet (server down till Monday or Tuesday), but we are definitely going to address starter rates, low robustness, and other factors. We did get a ton of info from this year's event and hope to maximize its usefulness.

There are other options, like taking the starter rate and adding 50 points (or similar), and then their play will help establish a more accurate rating. As time goes on, we will have more data and that alone will assist us in being accurate.

I appreciate constructive criticism and especially appreciate your offer to help leagues get their info into Fargo.


As far as Lyn's predicament of being in the middle of a division-----I'm inclined to say that is something that every player potentially faces. The divisions will have different Fargo numbers from year to year. Not every player can be at the top of their division- unless the divisions are very narrow. It begs the question---does everyone realistically have a chance to win an event? The answer is yes and no. Fargo gives a much better chance you will be playing someone if a similar skill level. But if there are 150 entrants, and only one winner, there are a lot of disappointed players.

Why do we play the game? Because of the challenge! You cannot expect to 'win it all' but you can always hope, and try to improve.


Mark Griffin

Mark,

The single most important thing to do that will ensure the success of Fargo ratings is to limit entry into the Nationals' Fargo divisions to those players with a minimum "robustness".

Perhaps next year this minimum could be less than the 200 game threshold so that unknown players have a reasonable chance to get their games in.

Of course to implement this two other things must happen immediately:
1. The new LMS software needs to roll out
2. CSI must broadcast this new requirement to all players

I will happily volunteer my services to any league operator that has tons of game data but limited knowledge of how to extract and format the data so it can be inserted into Fargo.

Contact me (Chris Ackler) at sbpoolleague@cox.net if you have historical league data and need help.

 

[Hits 'em Hard]

Maybe this has been asked before, but how do I search for particular players without having to make an account?

 

[watchez]

Maybe this has been asked before, but how do I search for particular players without having to make an account?

Just make an account -- what's the issue in doing that ?

 

[cardiac kid]

Lyn - you have had some pretty good success over the years at the BCAPL. Guess how many of 1000s go and each year have no chance.

PMGB

Steve,

The problem lies in the fact entries have continued to drop year after year. Everyone has a theory. Some of it may be players tired of not having a chance. Forget about me. Think of the average player who spends well over $1000 to travel to nationals. Some continue to go. Some have given up. IMHO, placing players in a perpetual position of losing does not bode well for BCAPL. How many years will you go if you have no chance? CSI does not need me or you to succeed. They need fresh meat just like APA and TAP. How many young players does Teacher's have coming up through the ranks? How many did we lose to video games? Maybe I'm missing a point but I don't know which one!

Yes, you are correct. Over the twenty five years or so I've been travelling to Vegas for BCA pool league or the BCAPL event, I've had some success. One year I even made money. The last four years has been a big change. Several friends of mine have commented on differences in my game. It may sound like a joke, but I miss shots now I never used to miss. I chalk it down to getting old. Some on AZ told me to get better. At 72 I should get better? Practice roughly 10 - 12 hours a week just to try to stay the same. One thing for sure, there is no way I'll miss or lose intentionally. That is a slippery slope I'd prefer not to face.

Anyway, congratulations again on your teams finish. May be driving out to Vegas again this winter. If I do, perhaps we can meet up at Teacher's.

Lyn

 

[cardiac kid]

Being ranked in the middle of a group isn't unfair. It's normal. This is not a problem that needs to be solved.

How many years have you travelled to Vegas and lost? How many years would you continue to travel to Vegas if you had no chance? Yep, it is a normal situation. Until it affects you! Then it will become special.

Lyn

 

[jojopiff]

Steve,

The problem lies in the fact entries have continued to drop year after year. Everyone has a theory. Some of it may be players tired of not having a chance. Forget about me. Think of the average player who spends well over $1000 to travel to nationals. Some continue to go. Some have given up. IMHO, placing players in a perpetual position of losing does not bode well for BCAPL. How many years will you go if you have no chance? CSI does not need me or you to succeed. They need fresh meat just like APA and TAP. How many young players does Teacher's have coming up through the ranks? How many did we lose to video games? Maybe I'm missing a point but I don't know which one!

Yes, you are correct. Over the twenty five years or so I've been travelling to Vegas for BCA pool league or the BCAPL event, I've had some success. One year I even made money. The last four years has been a big change. Several friends of mine have commented on differences in my game. It may sound like a joke, but I miss shots now I never used to miss. I chalk it down to getting old. Some on AZ told me to get better. At 72 I should get better? Practice roughly 10 - 12 hours a week just to try to stay the same. One thing for sure, there is no way I'll miss or lose intentionally. That is a slippery slope I'd prefer not to face.

Anyway, congratulations again on your teams finish. May be driving out to Vegas again this winter. If I do, perhaps we can meet up at Teacher's.

Lyn

You're stuck in your own situation. There's nothing to see here. You think you should be lowered because you "had no chance". What was the Fargo spread in your division? Do you have no chance or did you simply not play well? If you get your wish & moved down it doesn't fix the problem. It fixes your problem & creates the same problem for people in the division your in that you likely have no business in. You keep wanting to know why no one will answer the question with the "problem" you propose and it's because you've created a straw man.

 

[SWRLE]

How do you decide "where they belong"? Is the process any different than assigning a starter rating?

Yes you get a completely different set of assignments and tournament results based on 1) how you assign the starter rating for a player 2) where you set the starting rating for a division, and those in combination with 3) the weighted average formula used to combine starter ratings with actual fargo game results.

CSI are experts in assigning players a division and have been doing that fairly accurately and successfully for at least ten years under the old system. I think they did an excellent job assigning players to intended divisions this year - with a few exceptions discussed previously. They also set some astute breakpoints for the divisions - 425 for Silver, 525 for Gold, 625 for Platinum, etc. - rather than blindly following the advertised division target %'s that will work fine once everyone is established. However, these good decisions were nullified when you bring in the weighted average formula in combination with setting target starter ratings at the bottom of the division breakpoints.

This is what allowed 8 Gold level players to sweep the Silver bracket. Since this seems to be a point of contention how do we know these were Gold level players playing in Silver? Well because 7 of them were ASSIGNED Gold level starter ratings but their few actual games played under that level allowed them to slip back into Silver. The Silver winner was assigned a 400 (Bronze!) starter rating despite the fact he had 52 games in the fargo database played at a 560+ Gold level which allowed him to slip into Silver. Had he also been assigned a 525 starter like the other 7 he would have been moved to Gold immediately by the same formula that moved the others down.

I remain confused on CSI's and Fargo's stance on these Silver results. There has been a lot of discussion about how we need a lot more data (this will NOT address the issue) and how top finishers will always perform high (this does not address the issue either), but no response whatsoever to the assertion that people assigned to play in Gold or should have played in Gold swept the Silver bracket.

So I ask csi and fargo again - if the same tournament were held tomorrow in which divisions would Mason, Vogelman and Pierce play? In the absence of any changes to the starter ratings policy or the weighted average idea we can answer the question ourselves. Mason would play in Bronze again, Vogelman would play in Silver again, but robust Pierce would now be returned to the Platinum division in which he belongs. N'est ce pas?

 

[SWRLE]

Chris,
I kinda agree with what you're suggesting, we haven't had our event debriefing yet (server down till Monday or Tuesday), but we are definitely going to address starter rates, low robustness, and other factors. We did get a ton of info from this year's event and hope to maximize its usefulness.

There are other options, like taking the starter rate and adding 50 points (or similar), and then their play will help establish a more accurate rating. As time goes on, we will have more data and that alone will assist us in being accurate.

I appreciate constructive criticism and especially appreciate your offer to help leagues get their info into Fargo.

Mark Griffin

Good deal. Thank you doing that. SWRLE out.

 

[one stroke]

Being ranked in the middle of a group isn't unfair. It's normal. This is not a problem that needs to be solved.

True dat unfortunately in handicap pool being in the middle is the worst possible place to be ,, the system is worthless to them it's worth is on the edges and thier the ones who may try to minipulate the system ,, most good people want to be the best they can be that's the true competive spirt ,, I don't have a rating myself I've knocked down some pretty good players lately played a session of BCA but still have no ranking


1

 

[skip100]

How many years have you travelled to Vegas and lost? How many years would you continue to travel to Vegas if you had no chance? Yep, it is a normal situation. Until it affects you! Then it will become special.

Lyn

When everyone's experience is special and deserving of special treatment, then no one is special.

 

[cardiac kid]

You're stuck in your own situation. There's nothing to see here. You think you should be lowered because you "had no chance". What was the Fargo spread in your division? Do you have no chance or did you simply not play well? If you get your wish & moved down it doesn't fix the problem. It fixes your problem & creates the same problem for people in the division yoeur in that you likely have no business in. You keep wanting to know why no one will answer the question with the "problem" you propose and it's because you've created a straw man.

Guess I'm just amazed in the lack of vision. Most of you think this is just about me. There are hundreds of players out there in my position. Numbers keep dropping. Why can most of you only think of the condition of the host hotel, the price of food , the cost of transportation to and from or the weather? Why is my question so quickly dispatched? It's just another possibility for the loss of players. Frankly I don't give a damn if I play BCAPL next year or not. I've already made my reservations for two trips to Vegas next May. About this time next year, I'll drop by just to see what your thoughts are regarding the 2017 event. Should be interesting. Maybe there is a problem and you just don't see it. Maybe I just don't see it. Oh well.

Incidentally in 2012, the CSI published results showed there were 516 players in the senior / super senior events. There were 236 fewer players this year. Wonder how many old foggies like me just gave up? There is a point where fun turns to pain.

Lyn

 

[one stroke]

When everyone's experience is special and deserving of special treatment, then no one is special.

Guess I'm just amazed in the lack of vision. Most of you think this is just about me. There are hundreds of players out there in my position. Numbers keep dropping. Why can most of you only think of the condition of the host hotel, the price of food , the cost of transportation to and from or the weather? Why is my question so quickly dispatched? It's just another possibility for the loss of players. Frankly I don't give a damn if I play BCAPL next year or not. I've already made my reservations for two trips to Vegas next May. About this time next year, I'll drop by just to see what your thoughts are regarding the 2017 event. Should be interesting. Maybe there is a problem and you just don't see it. Maybe I just don't see it. Oh well.

Incidentally in 2012, the CSI published results showed there were 516 players in the senior / super senior events. There were 236 fewer players this year. Wonder how many old foggies like me just gave up? There is a point where fun turns to pain.

Lyn

Well it's highly unlikely it's do to a handicap system nor is it likely the system offers any change
1

 

[GideonF]

Guess I'm just amazed in the lack of vision. Most of you think this is just about me. There are hundreds of players out there in my position. Numbers keep dropping. Why can most of you only think of the condition of the host hotel, the price of food , the cost of transportation to and from or the weather? Why is my question so quickly dispatched? It's just another possibility for the loss of players. Frankly I don't give a damn if I play BCAPL next year or not. I've already made my reservations for two trips to Vegas next May. About this time next year, I'll drop by just to see what your thoughts are regarding the 2017 event. Should be interesting. Maybe there is a problem and you just don't see it. Maybe I just don't see it. Oh well.



Incidentally in 2012, the CSI published results showed there were 516 players in the senior / super senior events. There were 236 fewer players this year. Wonder how many old foggies like me just gave up? There is a point where fun turns to pain.



Lyn

Lyn,

I wonder whether the issue is that most players know they don't have a realistic chance of winning or cashing high. Unless a player happens to be at the top of their division (whether fixed by CSI as in the past or determined by FargoRate) they know they likely won't have a real chance.

If that's the case, then the trip is about the rest - the hotel, the food, the experience. (That doesn't mean that those players don't want to win, or take the game less seriously, or won't be upset if a player sneaks in way under handicapped).

Maybe the difference is that you once were at the top of a division (or towards the top) so your expectations are different.

The other issue, which many have noted, is that the problem isn't solvable. The vast majority of those in any division are going to be real underdogs to the top 10% of that division.

 

[jojopiff]

Guess I'm just amazed in the lack of vision. Most of you think this is just about me. There are hundreds of players out there in my position. Numbers keep dropping. Why can most of you only think of the condition of the host hotel, the price of food , the cost of transportation to and from or the weather? Why is my question so quickly dispatched? It's just another possibility for the loss of players. Frankly I don't give a damn if I play BCAPL next year or not. I've already made my reservations for two trips to Vegas next May. About this time next year, I'll drop by just to see what your thoughts are regarding the 2017 event. Should be interesting. Maybe there is a problem and you just don't see it. Maybe I just don't see it. Oh well.

Incidentally in 2012, the CSI published results showed there were 516 players in the senior / super senior events. There were 236 fewer players this year. Wonder how many old foggies like me just gave up? There is a point where fun turns to pain.

Lyn

I'll ask for a 3rd time, what were the high end/low end Fargo rates of your bracket? Are you in the middle/low end? If you think your Fargo is wrong then simply come out and say it.

I'm baffled you don't see it. I seriously doubt BCA/CSI (or whatever they are) is about 100% retention, more so, about losing a person in your position and keeping 20/50/100's of players by not putting someone who's over skilled into their bracket. And letting go of the guy who wants lowered and mentions several times they've been 25 times, a if you're owed something.

It seems as though you want tons of cash but yet still want smaller divisions so you have a better chance to cash.

 

[cardiac kid]

I'll ask for a 3rd time, what were the high end/low end Fargo rates of your bracket? Are you in the middle/low end? If you think your Fargo is wrong then simply come out and say it.

My first Fargo number at the start of the year was 676. Was dropped to 618 then raised back to 662 when Mike PM'ed me to tell me some data they used was invalid. Asked him if he was sure all the data was valid. Now at 655 after nationals. A player at 719 won the event. He was highest. Lowest Fargo was 606 in the Senior Platinum event. Exactly in the middle according to Fargo.

I'm baffled you don't see it. I seriously doubt BCA/CSI (or whatever they are) is about 100% retention, more so, about losing a person in your position and keeping 20/50/100's of players by not putting someone who's over skilled into their bracket. And letting go of the guy who wants lowered and mentions several times they've been 25 times, a if you're owed something.

Sorry, didn't realize I was owed something. Actually I am owed something. Equal opportunity! Paid my league sanction fee every year. The guy who won the senior division I played in was a CSI associate member. In other words, he joined just to play nationals. No league late nights. No weekly league dues. No table fees. Just show up in Vegas and sorry for this but stole the event. 719 in an amateur event? A guy who is known nationally as a pro player / gambler? Look at the list of winners of the BCA pool league Open division and you'll find his name there as well. What happened to known ability?

Why isn't BCAPL not trying to have near 100% retention? What makes BCAPL different from other leagues? Right now it's the best league out there for better players. They should be doing everything possible to keep the players they've won over. Would you agree with that? Don't think CSI gives a rats ass whether I play or not. It is the 200/500/1000 players leaving the national tournament I wonder about.

It seems as though you want tons of cash but yet still want smaller divisions so you have a better chance to cash.

Haven't figured that one out yet. My best guess is most players going to Vegas do dream about, if not winning an event, at least cashing. No different than those slot players who think they will win the jackpot. Odds are even they will win neither! Yep, I dream of winning tons of cash. Just hasn't happened yet! Incidentally, smaller divisions mean smaller payouts.

Lyn

 

[mikepage]

[...] My best guess is most players going to Vegas do dream about, if not winning an event, at least cashing. [...]

We agree on this.

My close friend Rory Hendrickson played in the US Open 8-Ball event. With 6600 games in the system he is as established as they come at a 729.

He was somewhere in the middle of this field with many well above him, including
Van Boening,
Rodney Morris
Corey Deuel,
Jason Klatt,
Mike Dechaine,
Alex Pagulayan,
Josh Roberts,
Oscar Dominguez,
John Morra,
Danny Smith,
Rodrigo Geronimo,
Mitch Ellerman,
Brandon Shuff,
Ernesto Dominguez,
Shawn Wilkie,
Amar Kang,
Jesse Bowman,
Billy Thorpe,
Skylar Woodward,
Thorston Hohmann,
Francisco Bustamante,
Vilmos Foldes
John Schmidt

Despite this he came in second place and got to play SVB on the stream table in the finals. I will tell you this was the tournament of Rory's life. And he had to beat champions 40 to 50+ points above him to get there.

I gather the equivalent of your idea would be that if the past few years Rory didn't cash in this event, he should have been able to join the platinum division instead.

But here is my take. Not only would that have been unfair to players like you, legitimately in the platinum division, but it would not have meant the same thing to Rory to finish high. Had Rory finished high in platinum, he would have 'great , my trip is paid for,' or he would have felt, 'nice, a good evening at the blackjack table.'

But now? Finishing second in the tournament he belongs in? pulling things together at the right time to do it? Beating champions along the way? Now, Rory has a memory he will cherish as long as he lives. This is what we go for. Doing something in some ways we are not supposed to do.. We all have our own version of what it takes to generate a memory like this. And one is thing is for sure. This vision doesn't involve being bumped down to a division where we are the favorite.