EMILY DUDDY Professional

jasonlaus said:
Guess that backfired on him lol.

No chance she could buy enough ramen noodles to live on with her pay as a "pro"
Click to expand...

I would doubt it:)
The mens equivalent would be Robb Saez at #36
or Tin man at #35.
At least those guys can win smaller tournaments
for a liitle foldin' money, her not so much.
 
TheRanger said:
I think it means winning 17.2% more games in the long run:

Player 1 = 58.6%
Player 2 = 41.4%

Best of 100 game set = 59 games to 41 games
Click to expand...

When I said "That translates into winning somewhat over 40% more games in the long run" I meant the higher-rated player will win about 40% more games than the lower-rated player. With your numbers, 59 is what percentage more than 41?

Similarly, with a 100 point FargoRate difference, the higher-rated player will win 100% more games than (i.e., twice as many as) the lower-rated player in the long run.
 
Last edited:
iusedtoberich said:
I disagree pretty strongly with this paragraph. I don't think its a single thing that separate players 50 points apart as in your example. First, 50 points is a LARGE difference in skill. That's like the 6 ball difference for most local players playing 9 ball. I think players that are 50 points apart, will have large differences in EVERY single part of their game. The break, shotmaking, safety, position play, thinking, pressure handling, etc. The whole game moves together, for the most part.

As an example, here are a few players rated 750 plus/minus:
Jesse Engel USA752
Max Eberle USA751
Jeremy Jones USA751
Jeremy Sossei USA751
Danny Olson USA750
Danny Smith USA750

Your statement was the only thing separating them from Shane was the break. I would argue that Shane is significantly better than each of these players in all facets of the game, not only the break.
Click to expand...

Great post that I see hasn't gotten a reponse. That's kind of ironic wouldn't ya say?
 
couldnthinkof01 said:
Fargo says 36
Click to expand...

Ok, whatever the number is. She is top 36 in the country. That's a pro. Why are folks arguing over shit like this.

She plays pool for a living, she's rated high enough to be a woman's pro. So, she's a pro. Big whoop.

Does anyone believe that there is some badminton website where folks are calling out woman players for not being "pro" enough? geez.
 
jasonlaus said:
Guess that backfired on him lol.

No chance she could buy enough ramen noodles to live on with her pay as a "pro"
Click to expand...

Pay/salary/winnings has nothing to do with being a pro. I'm pretty sure I make more money just in the chalk biz than most male American pro's not named Shane ;) And it's not even my day job. Not boasting but making a point.

Would I trade all the Magic Chalk in Russia to be in the top 20 men's players right now. You betcha ;)
 
ChicagoRJ said:
Ok, whatever the number is. She is top 36 in the country. That's a pro. Why are folks arguing over shit like this.

She plays pool for a living, she's rated high enough to be a woman's pro. So, she's a pro. Big whoop.

Does anyone believe that there is some badminton website where folks are calling out woman players for not being "pro" enough? geez.
Click to expand...

Not even close to being a pro.

Look at it this way, if she came in 36th place on average how much do you think that would pay? She would be eating out of dumpsters. Now figure she isn't anywhere close to top 100 in the world and that leaves her without a dumpster to eat out of.
 
ChicagoRJ said:
Pay/salary/winnings has nothing to do with being a pro. I'm pretty sure I make more money just in the chalk biz than most male American pro's not named Shane ;) And it's not even my day job. Not boasting but making a point.

Would I trade all the Magic Chalk in Russia to be in the top 20 men's players right now. You betcha ;)
Click to expand...

Pay has EVERYTHING to do with being a pro.
 
jasonlaus said:
Pay has EVERYTHING to do with being a pro.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. If it did, what is the magic number that one must make to be a pro?

SVB is the best pool player in the country, and there is some rookie that has not even made to the Major Leagues yet, riding buses in the Carolina league, and makes more money than Shane could ever dream of. But, they are both pro's, right?

I'd say were you rank has more to do with being a pro. Then we could at least argue you need to be at a certain level to considered a pro... top 30, top 50, whatever, but at least it's clear cut, with no subjective opinions. Either you are at this level or you are not. Very simple.
 
jasonlaus said:
Not even close to being a pro.

Look at it this way, if she came in 36th place on average how much do you think that would pay? She would be eating out of dumpsters. Now figure she isn't anywhere close to top 100 in the world and that leaves her without a dumpster to eat out of.
Click to expand...

This^^

She wouldn't even get in the $ in 98% of the weekday
$8-10 tournaments I play in.

Considering most womens events pay poorly, if at all
and she is not a favorite to beat half of those fields,
at what point are you considered a professional?
 
ChicagoRJ said:
No, it doesn't. If it did, what is the magic number that one must make to be a pro?

SVB is the best pool player in the country, and there is some rookie that has not even made to the Major Leagues yet, riding buses in the Carolina league, and makes more money than Shane could ever dream of. But, they are both pro's, right?

I'd say were you rank has more to do with being a pro. Then we could at least argue you need to be at a certain level to considered a pro... top 30, top 50, whatever, but at least it's clear cut, with no subjective opinions. Either you are at this level or you are not. Very simple.
Click to expand...

Now we're comparing baseball to pool and the pay each recieves?

She is so far down on the world stage it's not even funny.
 
I hope she makes all the $$$ in the world with TV shows and whatever else she does. Good for her and congrats

But she is not a pro pool player.
 
AtLarge said:
A 50 point FargoRate difference means the higher-rated player has a 58.6% probability of winning any single game. That translates into winning somewhat over 40% more games in the long run.
Click to expand...

AtLarge said:
Similarly, with a 100 point FargoRate difference, the higher-rated player will win 100% more games than (i.e., twice as many as) the lower-rated player in the long run.
Click to expand...
Does that mean that the point difference in Fargo rating = the percentage more games that will be won? I.e., a 25 point difference = 25% more games won and a 150 point difference = 150% more games won?

pj
chgo
 
AtLarge said:
A 50 point FargoRate difference means the higher-rated player has a 58.6% probability of winning any single game. That translates into winning somewhat over 40% more games in the long run.
Click to expand...

AtLarge said:
Similarly, with a 100 point FargoRate difference, the higher-rated player will win 100% more games than (i.e., twice as many as) the lower-rated player in the long run.
Click to expand...
Does that mean that the point difference in Fargo rating = the percentage more games that will be won? I.e., a 25 point difference = 25% more games won (5:4) and a 150 point difference = 150% more games won (5:2)?

pj
chgo
 
Patrick Johnson said:
Does that mean that the point difference in Fargo rating = the percentage more games that will be won? I.e., a 25 point difference = 25% more games won (5:4) and a 150 point difference = 150% more games won (5:2)?

pj
chgo
Click to expand...

I think you know better than that, but funny none the less:thumbup:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top