IMO, it starts with the parenting.
Asian parents are very strict, or so I've heard.
Chezka Centeno
- Thread starter Rhea
- Start date
IMO, it starts with the parenting.
Asian parents are very strict, or so I've heard.
If you were referring to me as the previous poster pointing out that FargoRating is "very flawed", I don't agree that it very flawed. I pointed out one flaw (or what I see as a flaw). I think it is better than any other rating going.
As to your point about not factoring in the draw, in fact Fargo does do that - it cares very much about who you beat. A 9-7 win over SVB is worth more than a 9-7 win over Donnie Mills.
By the way, as has been pointed out, Karen has won 5 Joss Tour events. Karen's 2nd place finish is her best finish in a "major" or more significant event.
I don't think you're full of shit. I think that perhaps you are curmudgeonly and stuck in the 50s on a couple subjects.
I am sure you do love women, as long as they know their place. ;-)
Fargo has been adequately explained several times. It has ZERO to do with who wins the tournament or the strength of the field. Absolutely nothing.
It is ALL ABOUT the individual games played and the strength of the players who play each other. SVB beating me moves his rating a teeny bit. SVB beating Wu moves his rating a lot more. And by beating I mean winning more games than losing. I don't mean winning a set or a tournament. Although in order to get a lot of games into the system players have to naturally go deep in events to play lots of games.
You say Karen's 2cnd place finish proves nothing...as if it's just some fluke. No, it proves that she has the ability to finish high in fields full of strong male players. She had already proven that several times in the past anyway but why quibble...
Other strong players have had high finishes and even taken titles and never done much after that which goes to show that a decently strong player can have a good event and do really well finishing above their normal level. What it shows is that they have the ability to do so even if they don't have the consistency to do so. Same thing for the strongest women at the moment. So who are you to say that there won't ever be a woman who actually makes the jump to the next level and finishes high in male pro events consistently? Your opinion on the subject is ONLY your opinion and also carries zero expertise. In your day there was one or two women who played strong enough to be considered near the top notcher speed. Today there are a good dozen women or more who are there.
That's the point that Mike Page is making with Fargo Ratings. That the gender doesn't matter, the player's skill is bourne out by the numbers regardless of how you feel or what your opinions are. A 775 is a 775 is a 775 and the predictions have so far held up well within the margin or error through hundreds of thousands of games.
We both know of players who were world class but just always seemed to be unable to win lots of tournaments. Bustamante was like that for years and years. Just because a player is world class speed Fargo 800 for example - doesn't mean that they will dominate tournaments. Look at Shane and the trouble he has had winning events outside the USA. Yet there is no line forming to take him on in one-on-one events....
Anyway, no, you're not full of shit and I didn't say or imply that. But I do think you are a little sexist, which you can be and still love women. You simply don't seem to respect them as much as you love them when you claim that they won't ever be equal to men as pool players. They already are.
I don't believe that for a second for instance , I have a 14 yr old daughter who is around 5-8 she is simply clumbsy her mother was tall also ,, my other 2 girls who's mother is much shorter and so were they were far more coordinated at the same age
Having coached youths in many sports Iv found this to be the trend
1
Slow down John, you're getting ahead of yourself. Any high schooler that can run a four minute mile will probably be the national champion! There's only been a few who have ever done it.
About Chezka, Dennis is here now and he said she is already better than Rubilen Amit, previously the Philippines greatest woman player. He said she is the near equal of the best Chinese women as well, but still has some things to learn about playing in competition. He is high on her game. She's actually 17 now. Getting old!
Yes sorry. I think that the point was more that performance across the board has improved tremendously in all sports. So the best performing women in many sports today are better than the best performing men in the same sport 50 years ago. I don't know that to be a fact and if no one has already done the study it would be an interesting one to see the results of.
The sample size from men to woman is very small most of its based thru Karen who plays routineley with men meeting most over and over again so she has a book and comfort zone very few other women have
Looking at Fargo we see Albin way way down on the list yet he's rose to the occasion more than once and be considered a fluke , like in golf some players just have this ability to raise their level of play for bigger events , we could look at baseball and players who have high averages and wilt under the big moments and others who shine,
It's nice to have analytics base line but it's not always a true predictor of winners in any sport
1
Has FargoRate ever claimed to be such a thing?
If that's your main gripe against it, then I think you've been really out of line with all of your anti-Fargo posts.
No sir, I was simply referring to the general consensus..Could you please explain (briefly) how Fargo determines the skill of many dozens of different players?..Do they not first use their system to determine player ranking?..If I am wrong in saying Fargo-rating is 'extremely' flawed, I will gladly admit it!
PS..I will also concur, Karen is an extremely gifted player.(for a woman
)......But, I can easily name a whole bunch of men, she would be an underdog against in any kind of extended race! :wink:
Last edited:
It's not a gripe it's a statement of fact ,, and my gribes as you would say bared out when a player dropped from Platinum to gold and won , as they say the proff is in the pudding
1
Last edited:
No sir, I was simply referring to the general consensus..Could you please explain (briefly) how Fargo determines the skill of many dozens of different players?..Do they not first use their system to determine player ranking?..If I am wrong in saying Fargo-rating is 'extremely' flawed, I will gladly admit it!
PS..I will also concur, Karen is an extremely gifted player.(for a woman
whole bunch of men, she would be an underdog against in any kind of extended race! :wink:
I won't try to explain Fargo. I'm sure the FAQ on their website will do a much better job than I could.
As for the second point, everyone could name a whole bunch of men who are favoured over her. Her FargoRating puts her on par with about the 69th best player in the US. Can you list a whole bunch of men ranked below her that she would be an underdog against? (I'm not saying you can't, I'm just saying that's the list you've got to pick from if you are making a point about Fargo).
But again I have to ask you, Has Fargo Rate ever claimed to be a predictor of the winner?
Well, the way I look at it is that Fargo Rating has hundreds of thousands of games in the data set. So they can run those games through any number of filters to see what comes out and test the results.
They have tens of thousands of games between the world's best players to test their predictive abilities on. They can cross reference players in dozens of ways.
For example: They could take Shane Van Boening and only use his matches against amateurs and see what Fargo Rating that produces. If I understood Mike correctly then it should produce a Fargo Rating that is very close to whatever Shane has now.
People are confusing tournament performances with Fargo Rating. Fargo can only make a prediction of how a match is likely to go, not who will win a tournament. There is a performance expectation based on past performance PER match for both players. For example if I play Shane a race to 13 then I am expected to be able to hang with him to about 3-3 and from there he cruises to an 13-5 victory. The shorter the race the more the lower player has a chance to win and the longer the less of a chance they have. We all know that instinctively of course but Fargo Ratings bear it out.
As is always the case John, you tend to base (or blame) all my opinions on my age!..That may have been the case during my prime years, but not since I've retired..All I do now, is watch streams, and observe both men and women. (that little Chezka gal does play pretty sporty)..It is true, in my day there were very few women, if any, who could come close to competing with the men..There were also very few tournaments, no internet and for sure, no 'fargo ratings', which you seem to live and die by!
I am simply not as easily impressed as you are, by a few (very few) ladies who are admittedly now playing much better than they were 40 years ago!..However, I base all my opinions on my accumulated years of experience, and I still come away believing no female will ever dominate our game!..I do respect them though, but you're right about one of my old-fashioned beliefs..As much as I love 'em, I do believe a woman's place, is in the kitchen cooking up some vittles for me and the kids..not in some lousy pool hall!
(JK ladies)PS..At least I don't call them "Mop Squeezers", like Titanic used to.
.. Always fun jawing with you, but its cocktail time again before I get in big trouble with 'em all! :grin:
Last edited:
Of course Fargo Rate is designed to be a good predictor of the winner on average. That's the whole point of the system. And it does a pretty darn good job.
From what you've described, Jayson has outperformed Alex and will have the higher rating. This is the way it IS as well as--imo--the way it should be.
So what if it is the case that Jayson is a better player but Alex for some reason "has his number"?
Fargorate is blind to this sort of thing
--blind to someone who tends to choke on the TV table,
--blind to someone who tends to deteriorate late at night,
--blind to someone who has an extra gear in reserve,
--blind to someone who cant play against women, and so forth
I call these situational effects, an though they certainly exist I think they are ridiculously exaggerated by many.
I believe in nearly every case a situational effect is proposed on this form, for instance, it is nonsense.
Regardless, Fargorate does not see them.
Mike,
Thanks for the reply. My point was less about a player having the opponent's number and more about the weight given to lopsided wins versus deep finishes or wins.
The example I was trying to give was of a player who when in gear steamrolls opponents but then loses in the semis or quarters compared to the person who wins the championship with a series of hill-hill matches.
It may be that there is no solution to the issue, or you don't think it's an issue at all, but to me the ultimate test of excellence is winning events against top fields, so the theoretical world champion who gets there with nothing but hill-hill victories should be higher than the person who runs over people until they don't - and don't win the championships.
Your recent discussion regarding Chezka dominating performance in the group stage versus losing in the elimination phase is what brought it up. Obviously one event or win isn't the issue - but if that happened repeatedly that would be my issue to me.
I do not
A player who plays at a higher level (wins matches better than hill-hill frequently) is more likely to actually win the event.
Going in the other direction like you are--using who won the event as the evidence of who is best--is statistically inefficient. It would work fine if we could have these players play hundreds or thousands of events.
Take Kevin Cheng ---got to the finals with a number of hill-hill matches. He's not really playing at a higher level than is someone like Alex--a few roles at the right time separated him from being eliminated first round.
Once again, I don't agree.
No sir, I was simply referring to the general consensus..Could you please explain (briefly) how Fargo determines the skill of many dozens of different players?..Do they not first use their system to determine player ranking?..If I am wrong in saying Fargo-rating is 'extremely' flawed, I will gladly admit it!
PS..I will also concur, Karen is an extremely gifted player.(for a woman
whole bunch of men, she would be an underdog against in any kind of extended race! :wink:
Ok you know how we all sit around the pool room trying to match up and the conversation goes like this, I need the 7 from you because you beat Billy and Billy gave Tom the 8 and Tom beats me even?
Or Jake is definitely a 10 speed player because he clearly plays a ball better than Bob who is a solid 9. Jake snapped off the saturday tournament last week and had to beat Tom and George to do it. Tom and George are 11 speeds.
This is what Fargo Rate does in a very detailed mathematical way. Every game that you play you can add to your rating or subtract from your rating based on the strength of your opponent. Every single game. Everyone you and your opponent have ever played ALSO affects your ratings. In other words if everyone around you is moving up then you're moving down if you're not beating them....you're moving down even if you're not playing them. But the only way that they are moving up is not by beating people who are below your speed, but instead by beating people who are your speed and higher. So the system presumes that performance in games tells the real story on actual speed.
Yes you can have a great day and play over your head and you can have a bad day and play three balls worse than you usually do....but that's where the number of individual games comes into it....over time your true average comes out and the more games you have in the database the more accurate that average is.
We all know the player who spends a ton of time at the poolroom who plays ok but can never "get there". Once in a while he books a winner but by and large he loses or breaks even a lot.....cracks the "money" in tournaments but rarely wins...we all know where to place that player in the hieracrchy of players in the area. We know what he is capable of on his best day and we know for sure what he is likely to do in any given match. Imagine that on a global scale.
That's Fargo Rating. A mathematical system that only works if can predict what is likely to happen when any two players play a race to whatever. The whole thing rises and falls with that ability because if it's WRONG more often than it is right then the ratings are clearly not right. But if it is right most of the time, within a statistically acceptable margin of error, then the ratings are right.
The whole point of ratings is to determine what the relative skill levels of players are for the purpose of assigning them a handicap that makes the race a fairly even one for both players. Otherwise there is really no need for players to be rated unless you just like to discuss disparate skill levels.
Now the problem isn't really a local one...local pool communities generally have a pretty good handle on where the local players stand relative to each other. But a problem arises when a stranger comes to town.....how does he fit in to the local scene? Well the standard answer is to rate him high and let him donate to prove where he fits in until such a time as the people who hold the ratings in their hands decide on his speed.
With Fargo Rating that is eliminated because a 550 in NYC is literally the same speed as a 550 in Phoenix. Period. Full Stop. Blasphemy you say...that cannot be true.....the variables, the variables!
Yes, a 7 speed in NYC can be actually better or worse than a 7 speed in Phoenix because of the variables in competition, table types, games predominately played...
But when it comes to Fargo Rating none of that matters because performance is based solely on how one does against opponents who are ALL connected. There is no pool community in the world that is fully insulated - it's all Jeff played Bill played Sam played Jessica - played Shane - played Johnny....and so one. Every player's performance literally affects every other player on earth's rating to some small degree. So that the end result is that when a 775 on one side of the earth plays a 775 on the other side of the earth it is an even match and likely to go hill hill on average. Or it could go 9-1 one way and then 9-1 the other way the next set.
That's how Fargo Ratings work for "different" players because at the end of the day the balls don't care who the player is they only care whether they will get pocketed or continue to be beaten around the table. For professional level players the balls don't get hit as much and for amateurs they get a lot more abuse. Fargo tells us who is more likely to be rail abusers