It seems the way to go should be to have the appropriate game spots within each bracket. Isn't that what Fairmatch was designed for? Otherwise, the players who might be in either bracket are just gambling they will be put in the lower bracket once all the entries are in. It is a tough situation for the players in the middle.
Fargo Breakdown - Singles @ BCAPL Nationals
- Thread starter sbpoolleague
- Start date
It seems the way to go should be to have the appropriate game spots within each bracket. Isn't that what Fairmatch was designed for? Otherwise, the players who might be in either bracket are just gambling they will be put in the lower bracket once all the entries are in. It is a tough situation for the players in the middle.
Because in the past, once you got bumped out of the open tournament, it wasn't worth coming. The prize money was nothing because the field was so small. The funny part was, the open tournament was filled with killers. Made zero sense.
IMO fargo rate isn't a bad idea to use for this tournament, but you'd be better off with everyone in one tournament but handicapping games on the wire based on your fargo rating.
Last edited:
The brackets are not going to be the same each year in terms of FargoRating. That is to stop the sandbagging cause no one will really ever know what bracket they might be in until all the entrée fees are in. So they might not always be in the bottom to the middle. In the old days, the was nothing below 'Open' so they didn't have anything to drop out of. If you are in one of the upper brackets now and don't do well for 2 or 3 years, it would make sense that your FargoRating would go down and you might drop into a lower division. Also, with the brackets not being the same each year, BCAPL could look at their stats and see that maybe there is a large % of players that aren't doing well in a particular grouping and move them out the following year.
Again - I think FargoRate is a good thing. Especially like it for the teams cause it ends the old, if you do good, you can only play with two of the same players rule. This way you can continue to play with your friends if you choose. I think it is also good cause LESS people will be sneaking into a lower divisions to steal the money. Just look at last year in the Open singles-- Jon Brown is a 733, no way he should have been in the Open. I'll state - he didn't do anything wrong, he entered by the rules as they were and won. Many others shouldn't have been in the Open as well.
And the mechanism is for the player to PMGB.
I don't follow their logic as to how fargo will stop sandbagging. If you're really a 610 but you preform in your league at a 500 level, you'll be playing nationals as a 500. You won't know what bracket you're in but it's probably a lower bracket than you should be.
You are right. There is nothing we can do to prevent this.
But you really have to set up a straw-man scenario here to get the effect you want
(1) The person has to have not played in Vegas the previous year (performing as a 610)
(2) The person has to dump significantly every week for a year
(3) The person has to avoid playing in weekly tournaments that go in --or the SBE or Joss events, etc (or dump those as well)
(4) To insure you are in a lower division, the effect has to be as large as you suggest (610 to 500).
(5) The person has to fade any lack of or lowered league payout while paying dues all year
(6) The person has to recognize that when he DOES come alive, his rating will go up pretty rapidly. So better blow his wad without getting a good payday...
This just doesn't sound like fun to me. And those of us who have been running these kinds of systems for years in our areas have been on the lookout for things like this. We don't find them. The only thing we have found is that if we announce a big monthly "under 600" tournament in a couple weeks, then a 599 might avoid playing in a weekly tournament for fear he'd go up a point, and a nefarious 600 might dump a match in a weekly tournament to get under 600. Still that doesn't happen much. Around here, we just say you must be eligible when you pay, so if you pay your entry fee as a 599, you are OK if you slip over before the tournament.
If you KNEW that the high end of the divisions were 524 and 624 then you could drop games purposely to achieve that rating so that you'd be top dog in the division.
If the division ranges changed significantly that would at a minimum reduce that type of sandbagging.
Um....THAT....is what they do. And they now consider it fun.
It not nearly as hard as you think. I've played in a ton of tournament, weekly tournaments, SBE, predator tour, tristate tour and BCAPL league for several years at Amsterdam Billiards but you've got very little on me. For all you know, I'm a solid 610 not the 476 you have me at. Or maybe i'm a 300... who knows!
Last edited:
"...Another interesting player is Greg Romero II of Lakewood, CO. He has zero games but there is a Greg Romero of Thornton, CO (another suburb of Denver) that has 398 games and a 646 Fargo rating. I wonder if they are the same player."
I know these guys. Greg II is Greg Sr's son. BTW, Greg Romero Sr. won the open singles in 2014.
Great post btw.
I know these guys. Greg II is Greg Sr's son. BTW, Greg Romero Sr. won the open singles in 2014.
Great post btw.
LOL, looks suspicious huh? I'm sure it's legit. Oh and Chisolm has no shot, ha!
Settle down everybody ;-)... I saw it same time as others... And I've requested a bump up...
Fargo will help a lot, eventually. But I think Cleary was spot on about Mike needing to be more open. I can see at least 5 players in the platinum who shouldn't be playing. IE, they play 740 speed. Shows how data can't help and human discretion would.
Last year I said I would take one player to win the open, and he won it undefeated. So I think Fargo is a good thing, but I will guarantee players who win this year. Will go up by over 50 points, that I was told would never happen. Imo there needs to be a players committee to make judgment calls also.
Mike did you guys throw Shane winters out?
Last year I said I would take one player to win the open, and he won it undefeated. So I think Fargo is a good thing, but I will guarantee players who win this year. Will go up by over 50 points, that I was told would never happen. Imo there needs to be a players committee to make judgment calls also.
Mike did you guys throw Shane winters out?
Top 100 USA players.
http://www.fargorate.com/Home/TopTen
Who are your 740 speed players
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Lee - I don't understand the Shane Winters question. Below is what we have on Shane for just the past year. We have him clocked just fine--USA # 34. I think there was discussion over him playing amateur event at SBE. Maybe that is what you are thinking of?
You see at least five players registered for platinum who play at 740 speed? That's the speed of Shaun Wilkie, Robb Saez, Brandon Shuff, Tony Chohan, John Schmidt. I won't rule anything out, but that sounds unlikely to me.
In any case, I don't make grandiose claims about having everybody on the planet rated correctly... But what I can say is we are doing it the right way, our heads are down, our feet are dug in, and more data makes us better--always.
Attachments
Thank you Mike Page.
Fargo will correct the problem of having 'player's committees' - that is the key, and in a few years all the nay sayers will be using Fargo. Fargo is based on data - not opinions.
It is a rating tool, not a handicapping system. But once the data is stabilized, the information can be used in many ways.
Show me any other sport/game that doesn't have statistics???
Mark Griffin
Fargo will correct the problem of having 'player's committees' - that is the key, and in a few years all the nay sayers will be using Fargo. Fargo is based on data - not opinions.
It is a rating tool, not a handicapping system. But once the data is stabilized, the information can be used in many ways.
Show me any other sport/game that doesn't have statistics???
Mark Griffin
Well first that doesn't show that data doesn't help. It shows the opposite actually. It shows that not having data (or in some cases just not enough data) is what can be a problem. But we already know that.
In years past they placed people by known ability when it was known. Do we know for a fact that they are not using similar discretion this year too just like in years past? People that would likely be "known" will likely have a Fargo Rating anyway so the situation probably won't come up that often, but when it does, and they know a player is much better than their starter rating would suggest are you saying they are not going to move them into the appropriate division? Do you know this for a fact, or are you just guessing and assuming? I don't recall this ever being specifically addressed but I find it hard to believe they would leave somebody they know to be a grand master in the Gold division just because they don't have games in the Fargo system.
On a side note, if there is not a robust Fargo Rating they sometimes don't have a way of knowing if someone is grossly under rated unless somebody tells them. Whether you should rat them out or not is an issue that people will disagree on (and that I am going to leave alone for now) but what seems pretty obvious is that anybody that knows of people who are grossly under rated and chooses not to bring it to FargoRate's or CSI's attention has zero business ever complaining about there being people who are under rated.
One solution is that if anyone goes up by more than X number of points, say 50 points, then they are no longer eligible to win prize money in that event.
Or even better and more fair, since it is easier for players who have no games in FargoRate to move up more (and more quickly) than someone who is very established with a high robustness, you can do it by percentages based on robustness level. If a player with a 200+ robustness level has their Fargo Rating go up by more than 5% (like a 600 moving past 630) they become ineligible for prize money. If someone who has no FargoRating at all and had to be assigned a starter rating goes up by more than 10% (like a 600 moving to 660) they become ineligible for prize money. And in the middle, if someone with a robustness of 100 games has their Fargo Rating go up by more than 7.5% (say a 600 moving to 645) then they become ineligible for prize money. Nobody is going to move up that much by "playing over their head". The only way it is going to happen is if they were grossly under rated at the start. Put it on the players to make sure they are rated in the vicinity of what they should actually be.
Going that route would certainly put a stop to players trying to be too dishonest about what their starting Fargo Rating should actually be. I am not not necessarily advocating for this and it comes with its own set of problems but I guarantee it would cure all sandbagging or people slipping into the wrong divisions because they weren't known. Players would start looking up the Fargo Ratings of the other players they knew to get a rough gauge of where they should be rated and they would be contacting CSI in droves saying "I don't think I should be a 525, it looks to me like I am probably right around a 580, please adjust me accordingly".
I am pretty certain though that Mike Page and Mark Griffin have both already thought of this and probably even discussed it and have decided against it for one reason or another. But it sure would take care of the problem you mention. You (and others) just reporting them would also take care of the problem too. Not reporting them is fine too but in that case I think you give up the right to complain about under rated players.
He was on the list for the platinum rated at 715, but is now not on the list and his Fargo is now in the 740's. Me and Alex olinger was chatting about this.
I never said this, we are actually on your side not against you, I think you need to not be so defensive and listen to people's opinions. Don't shoot the messenger.
Mike, trust me when I say this. There are players in there, who you could even google them and get the data.
Mark we all agree, what we are saying is use some discretion until the data is flawless. There are many flaws right now, why not use extra methods to fix the flaws, instead of waiting for the flaws to iron out. You will never have all the data available.
Problem in pool, you speak your opinion. (Freedom of speech) and you are suddenly the bad guy. You will never have a perfect system. Humans are still needed to run computers.
Mike and Mark, you can call me anytime and I will happily discuss this with you.
Last edited:
The problem is this is a public forum. A lot of people who read this do not research. When you say flaws, without stating what you think they are it can lead to problems. People will share your thoughts.
State these flaws and let Mike give his thoughts on it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Been done many times. Ask cleary on his opinion. We will let Fargo iron itself out. Version 19.0 will work perfect. We are on on version 1.0 takes time windows 10 is better than windows 2.
I agree. Statistics are a good thing and something that's been lacking in pool. Fargo does an okay job but I've found several holes which Mike choose to discredit and ignore. That's fine, it's his system. Waiting for someone to say the tired old pool line... "if you don't like it, make your own". Cause that helps...
There are many factors that are ignored, the biggest IMO is table size. One of thing is that playing speed isn't linear. 50 points for the lower ranked players is very different than 50 points for the higher ranked players. That's a huge flaw IMO. Hopefully Mike will take that into consideration and alter his system to becoming more accurate.