Do Fargo ratings work on a handicapped tournament?

iusedtoberich

iusedtoberich

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I understand mostly how the fargo ratings work, when its used on professional players and to rate players. I also understand how those ratings can be used on a local level to handicap a tournament match with a game spot. My question is, on a tournament that uses fargorate to handicap with a game spot, how do those results from the "handicapped" matches get fed back into the fargo system logically?

Consider a match between a strong and weak player. Strong player goes to 7 games, weak player goes to 3 games, according to the fargo handicap.

Three scenerios for consideration:
1. Strong player wins 7-1. Feedback into the fargo system should be good.
2. Strong player wins 7-2. Feedback into the fargo system should be good.
3. Weak player wins 3-6. Feedback is unknown, because maybe the weak player could have won more games if the set was not finished prematurely because of the spot.

Using this logic, it seems that when the strong player wins a handicapped match, the fargo rate feedback would be appropriate. However, when the weaker player wins the handicapped match, the system might be shortchanging them as to how many games they might have actually won. This could keep a weaker player's rating artificially low.

Thoughts from Mike Page or others? Is this a concern, or not really a big deal? Thanks for the discussion.
 
I would think it's strictly a ratio of how many games one player wins vs. the other. In your example, a weaker player is going to win 3 games for every 6 that the stronger one will.

As I understand it, that makes one player twice as strong as the other. So, there would be about a 100 point spread between the two, if you looked at it in a vacuum.

Basically, the system figures the probability of how many games each player should win.
 
iusedtoberich said:
I understand mostly how the fargo ratings work, when its used on professional players and to rate players. I also understand how those ratings can be used on a local level to handicap a tournament match with a game spot. My question is, on a tournament that uses fargorate to handicap with a game spot, how do those results from the "handicapped" matches get fed back into the fargo system logically?

Consider a match between a strong and weak player. Strong player goes to 7 games, weak player goes to 3 games, according to the fargo handicap.

Three scenerios for consideration:
1. Strong player wins 7-1. Feedback into the fargo system should be good.
2. Strong player wins 7-2. Feedback into the fargo system should be good.
3. Weak player wins 3-6. Feedback is unknown, because maybe the weak player could have won more games if the set was not finished prematurely because of the spot.

Using this logic, it seems that when the strong player wins a handicapped match, the fargo rate feedback would be appropriate. However, when the weaker player wins the handicapped match, the system might be shortchanging them as to how many games they might have actually won. This could keep a weaker player's rating artificially low.

Thoughts from Mike Page or others? Is this a concern, or not really a big deal? Thanks for the discussion.
Click to expand...

Good question. This is not a concern.

We see these three matches between strong player A and weak player B as follows
(1) played 8 games with A winning 7
(2) played 9 games with A winning 7
(3) Played 9 games with A winning 6

We don't care who won the match or even that the games were part of a match. Each game is an individual event to us. We don't care that they quit when one of them reaches a predetermined number. They may as well have quit because one of their mothers called and said it was time for dinner.
 
fathomblue said:
I would think it's strictly a ratio of how many games one player wins vs. the other. In your example, a weaker player is going to win 3 games for every 6 that the stronger one will.

As I understand it, that makes one player twice as strong as the other. So, there would be about a 100 point spread between the two, if you looked at it in a vacuum.

Basically, the system figures the probability of how many games each player should win.
Click to expand...

Yes this is right, but it is not the ratio alone.

So, for example you could beat me 4 to 2 (2 to 1 ratio) or you could beat me 6 to 3 (also 2 to 1 ratio). In the second case more games were played at that ratio which makes the games more influential for our rating difference.
 
Thanks, that makes sense. Treating it as a per individual game situation instead of a per set situation helped explain it to me.
 
mikepage said:
Good question. This is not a concern.

We see these three matches between strong player A and weak player B as follows
(1) played 8 games with A winning 7
(2) played 9 games with A winning 7
(3) Played 9 games with A winning 6

We don't care who won the match or even that the games were part of a match. Each game is an individual event to us. We don't care that they quit when one of them reaches a predetermined number. They may as well have quit because one of their mothers called and said it was time for dinner.
Click to expand...

So your privey to how each game was won , tendencys of players checking out early , scratches on money balls, money balls on the breaks and so on non of these are considerations

1
 
one stroke said:
So your privey to how each game was won , tendencys of players checking out early , scratches on money balls, money balls on the breaks and so on non of these are considerations

1
Click to expand...

No, and not privey to how drunk the players are, whether either player just got fired, whose underwear were tighter, who had the worst body odor, the humidity level, the loudness of the music, the average lumens shone on the table, the hotness of the girls bending over on the next table, how empty or full the players stomach are, which player jus had a hit of bad weed, who had a better nights sleep, who is allergic to the local night-blooming jasmine, who plays better on the type of table rails, whether or not there was a set of mismatched balls that won't rack tight, which player has bad indigestion, who had to pee more, who had smokers hack, dirty cloth, who was better at sharking, who was expecting a child soon, and 53,719 other variables that SHOULDN'T be considered for reasons obvious to everyone except evil billiard forum trolls and the colossally stupid.
 
sbpoolleague said:
No, and not privey to how drunk the players are, whether either player just got fired, whose underwear were tighter, who had the worst body odor, the humidity level, the loudness of the music, the average lumens shone on the table, the hotness of the girls bending over on the next table, how empty or full the players stomach are, which player jus had a hit of bad weed, who had a better nights sleep, who is allergic to the local night-blooming jasmine, who plays better on the type of table rails, whether or not there was a set of mismatched balls that won't rack tight, which player has bad indigestion, who had to pee more, who had smokers hack, dirty cloth, who was better at sharking, who was expecting a child soon, and 53,719 other variables that SHOULDN'T be considered for reasons obvious to everyone except evil billiard forum trolls and the colossally stupid.
Click to expand...



That is really good.

Last night after league, Mike and I visited about table size, balls, cloths, etc. Great conversation, and i always learn.

It is about balance, and not excluding data. In the long run these factors just don't matter.

BTW we played a short set last night and it came within a game of being hill/hill. We use the FargoRate app to find a fair match. I was one game short of the hill. The one game had to be because of my alcoholic drink. Wait he was drinking also. Crap the tables were faster than usually, damn he played on the same table.

I admit it. He exceeded met his expected number before me. He out played me.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
sbpoolleague said:
No, and not privey to how drunk the players are, whether either player just got fired, whose underwear were tighter, who had the worst body odor, the humidity level, the loudness of the music, the average lumens shone on the table, the hotness of the girls bending over on the next table, how empty or full the players stomach are, which player jus had a hit of bad weed, who had a better nights sleep, who is allergic to the local night-blooming jasmine, who plays better on the type of table rails, whether or not there was a set of mismatched balls that won't rack tight, which player has bad indigestion, who had to pee more, who had smokers hack, dirty cloth, who was better at sharking, who was expecting a child soon, and 53,719 other variables that SHOULDN'T be considered for reasons obvious to everyone except evil billiard forum trolls and the colossally stupid.
Click to expand...

What is " a hit of bad weed "?
 
robsnotes4u said:
That is really good.

Last night after league, Mike and I visited about table size, balls, cloths, etc. Great conversation, and i always learn.

It is about balance, and not excluding data. In the long run these factors just don't matter.

BTW we played a short set last night and it came within a game of being hill/hill. We use the FargoRate app to find a fair match. I was one game short of the hill. The one game had to be because of my alcoholic drink. Wait he was drinking also. Crap the tables were faster than usually, damn he played on the same table.

I admit it. He exceeded met his expected number before me. He out played me.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

My goal for our league is to incorporate Fargo into our 15-game round robin matches by averaging the team's players' Fargo ratings and applying the Fair Match calculator to the team Fargo difference, or more likely a smaller percentage of the difference.

Our league has always been a scratch league, and amazingly we have mostly happy players whose Fargo ratings span from 200 - 700. I think it will only get better if we concurrently handicap the matches so that we have scratch team standings and handicapped team standings. Best of both worlds.

Would be interested to hear if Mike is working on just such a match handicap (I think he is but my memory is the shits), and if so what he would recommend I use as a percentage of the team average Fargo rating.

By the way...I have said this many times and I'll say it again...Fargo ratings are the best thing to come along to pool in a long time. I urge Mike not to lock himself exclusively to the BCAPL. If he does Fargo's growth will be severely stunted. And the #1 thing that must happen immediately is for Mike to come up with a viable solution to how all games can get entered. Everyone is clamoring for a way to increase their robustness. If it can be done on the golf course it can be done in the pool hall.
 
FargoRate is putting games in from all over the world. I don't think they are only bca


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top