Do fargo ratings change fast enough?

P

poolscholar

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
For very established players is it changing fast enough? Seems like Van Boening hasn't performed as well over the last year compared to the past (could be wrong, but seems like results aren't his usual domination and there are many guys playing better it seems). Yet his rating hasn't moved. I wonder what happens when someone like Efren gets so old his game clearly falls off.

It would be interesting to see the top 100 players current rating using only the last 12 months of data.
 
poolscholar said:
For very established players is it changing fast enough? Seems like Van Boening hasn't performed as well over the last year compared to the past (could be wrong, but seems like results aren't his usual domination and there are many guys playing better it seems). Yet his rating hasn't moved. I wonder what happens when someone like Efren gets so old his game clearly falls off.

It would be interesting to see the top 100 players current rating using only the last 12 months of data.
Click to expand...
A match that happens today is counted twice as much as a match that happened three years ago. I think that's about the right average rate of performance change. If a player is really improving or declining there will always some lag in his rating.
 
Its like the price of gas. Goes up fast. Goes down slow. Well thats my experience but i dont have 15k matches like Shane
 
Last edited:
Bob Jewett said:
A match that happens today is counted twice as much as a match that happened three years ago. I think that's about the right average rate of performance change. If a player is really improving or declining there will always some lag in his rating.
Click to expand...

Sure but he has thousands of games in from years of play that current games are fighting against. Clearly his rating doesn't change much. Seems like its been 820 plus or minus a couple points for as long as I remember. So he has to suck for years on end before it moves down 10 points?
 
misterpoole said:
Its like the price of gas. Goes up fast. Goes down slow.
Click to expand...
I think that probably describes how the ability of a lot of players varies with their career. A lot of improvement over the first few years and then a plateau and then a gradual decline.

I don't think there's anything built into FargoRate that makes up faster than down.
 
Asked another way.

A player who's rated 820 has 10000 games in FargoRate over 10 years. They are currently playing at an 800 speed because they just don't care as much anymore.

How many games over the next year does it take to drop to an 800? or even 810?
 
I asked about this, and basically there's no natural decay. But the rating can become more brittle if you go inactive. So if an inactive player tries to jump back in and play again, and their current performance is below their current rating, that rating will drop faster than if they took no break and then had the same downturn in performance.

still, I think Mike Page told me once that if Shane were to put down his cue tomorrow, he would still be on the top 100 for a year, or maybe he said two years. then he would drop because there's a minimum number of games you need to be on that list in a certain time span.

I do think the recency bias should be a bit stronger. I don't think how someone played 10 years ago is relevant at all and I question whether even three or four years is that important. you can still record a peak rating to show what gear a player is capable of reaching if they have a flashback to their prime.


Posted from Azbilliards.com App for Android
 
I'd say they don't change fast enough. Early bloomers are favored and late bloomers are over-penalized for their mediocrity early in their careers. Most of all, though, players whose participation declines are not sufficiently penalized.

I don't think anything that happened more than three years ago should count in any way and also feel that anything that happened more than two years ago should count only marginally, if at all.

That said, I love Fargo and see it as an ever-improving work in progress that is adding great value to our game.
 
Pretty sure Shane is winning more matches than he’s losing....
...to players at his level......so why should he move?

I think it is possible to move to top five without winning a tournament.

Mike Page...what say you?
 
sjm said:
I don't think anything that happened more than three years ago should count in any way and also feel that anything that happened more than two years ago should count only marginally, if at all.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I told the judge!
 
pt109 said:
Pretty sure Shane is winning more matches than he’s losing....
...to players at his level......so why should he move?

I think it is possible to move to top five without winning a tournament.

Mike Page...what say you?
Click to expand...

Yeah, Shane has played 2000 games in the last 12 months, performing at 819 speed, right where we expect him to.
 
mikepage said:
Yeah, Shane has played 2000 games in the last 12 months, performing at 819 speed, right where we expect him to.
Click to expand...

Cool, so a very slight drop but not much.

How many games for him to actually drop a few points if he's playing at 819 speed?
 
poolscholar said:
... How many games for him to actually drop a few points if he's playing at 819 speed?
Click to expand...
With as much robustness as he has -- over 14000 games in the system -- and the number of games he plays per year, if he were to suddenly change to a much better or weaker player, it would take about three years (if my calculations are correct) for his rating to move half way to his new actual value.

It is also important to realise that the listed ratings are estimates of the players' abilities and each one has an associated uncertainty. The uncertainty is larger if a player has only a few games in the system. For Shane, the uncertainty in his rating -- how much it might "reasonably" be wrong -- is only about 5-10 points, which puts his last year's performance within the uncertainty of his current rating (823 and 819). The difference between 819 and 823 is not "statistically significant".

You may want to read over the FAQ on the FargoRate website. It's quite informative: https://fargorate.com/#faq
 
Bob Jewett said:
With as much robustness as he has -- over 14000 games in the system -- and the number of games he plays per year, if he were to suddenly change to a much better or weaker player, it would take about three years (if my calculations are correct) for his rating to move half way to his new actual value.

It is also important to realise that the listed ratings are estimates of the players' abilities and each one has an associated uncertainty. The uncertainty is larger if a player has only a few games in the system. For Shane, the uncertainty in his rating -- how much it might "reasonably" be wrong -- is only about 5-10 points, which puts his last year's performance within the uncertainty of his current rating (823 and 819). The difference between 819 and 823 is not "statistically significant".

You may want to read over the FAQ on the FargoRate website. It's quite informative: https://fargorate.com/#faq
Click to expand...


If there isn't a difference between 823 and 819 when someone is well established and active, then whats the point of the current top 10 player list? There should be a bunch of ties.

I would guess there are a few guys that should be higher than SVB right now and using more current data would probably give a more accurate top 10. Would be interesting to see
 
Educate someone who doesn't follow this or play competatively... what does a slightly lower rating mean to a peo player? Pro events are not handicapped are they? Is it an eligibility for events thing?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
logical said:
Educate someone who doesn't follow this or play competatively... what does a slightly lower rating mean to a peo player? Pro events are not handicapped are they? Is it an eligibility for events thing?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Mostly just a pecking order thing for top 10 or 100 or looking at top regional players. You'd have to ask the pros if they actually care about their rank

It is starting to be used for seeding however
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top