Fargo Caps = The dumbing down of pool

[SUPERSTAR]

If all the caps were 499 and 599, that would lead to a discreet target for players to purposely manipulate towards. With random caps, that goes away. With traditional handicaps spots of games based on rating, then its also lessened because there is not a target.

Well, we both know the same guys that are constantly trying to get under 599 so they can try to steal an event. That one guy exerted a whole lot of effort to key under the cap and then dogged it when he finally had the chance to steal.

With random caps, I feel like if the cap goes over a certain number and it’s only a split with 2 fields and there is say, more than 150 points between caps, there will be a mass exodus of players on the bottom end of the higher cap.
They won’t even bother.

What I would try, if you MUST have a capped event instead of a scratch tournament would be to have more than 2 cap brackets.
I’d try 3 or 4

As an example
Imagine a 499 and below, a 599 and below, and a 699 and below, and ALL of them having their own bracket to battle it out in a tournament, with everything merging at the end in a combined free for all.

Obviously you’d have to figure out how to break the prize money down if you have say 50 499s and below, 25 599s and below, and say 20 or 25 699s and below. Or whatever.

But im sure you get my point.
This way, there is a format for MORE people to play. Not some arbitrary 2 field split.
Heck, even have a 799 and below and figure out how to incorporate them into the event.

Get my drift?

 

[Sheldon]

As an example
Imagine a 499 and below, a 599 and below, and a 699 and below, and ALL of them having their own bracket to battle it out in a tournament, with everything merging at the end in a combined free for all.

Our BCA league has around 200 members and only half a dozen barely above 599. The rest of the player pool would probably be well below 500 if they had fargo ratings.
The idea sounds good if the caps were created at the tournament to reflect the fargo ratings of whoever signs up.
Of course, you'd have to deal with people griping about handicaps, as they always do. I could see something like this working for most people though.

 

[mikepage]

I wonder how much clustering there is underneath the 500, 600, and (less important) 700 levels. 495 and 595 are the places to be.

We can't detect any. If it's there it is in the noise.

 

[Icon of Sin]

Disagree.

If there is widespread manipulation (which is another topic, and I certainly have not seen it)...

If all the caps were 499 and 599, that would lead to a discreet target for players to purposely manipulate towards. With random caps, that goes away. With traditional handicaps spots of games based on rating, then its also lessened because there is not a target.

There are soooo many players around here that should be 600+ that cruise under 599 to play in 599 and under tournaments.

With multiple weekly and smaller tournaments contributing to Fargo to makes it super easy to keep that score low by dumping in the weekly, low money events and then jumping in a low rated or handicapped tournament.

There are also a good amount of larger Fargo events around there that will pay 1k+ to first making it worth it to donate 100 here or there to the weekly events to snap off a bigger one. You can in theory keep this going for some time and hell, even if you run into another underrated player that is 599 and have to duke it out in the final it's not going to hurt you as much as it would if your opponent was rated properly.

One of the things that isnt considered is the ripple effect this has... If I am an honest player, the dumping underrated player still causes my score to be inaccurate directly (by playing them) or indirectly (by playing someone they played).

Rating systems only work if everyone is honest or if they are only used in larger events. Once you start introducing low level, weekly play and further more start limiting the field and handicapping these events, you start encouraging the dumping.

I have a fargo. I try to keep mine up because I like it as an assessment of my game, so I try to be honest with it... it just hurts because I end up playing so many people that aren't.

 

[alphadog]

There are soooo many players around here that should be 600+ that cruise under 599 to play in 599 and under tournaments.

With multiple weekly and smaller tournaments contributing to Fargo to makes it super easy to keep that score low by dumping in the weekly, low money events and then jumping in a low rated or handicapped tournament.

There are also a good amount of larger Fargo events around there that will pay 1k+ to first making it worth it to donate 100 here or there to the weekly events to snap off a bigger one. You can in theory keep this going for some time and hell, even if you run into another underrated player that is 599 and have to duke it out in the final it's not going to hurt you as much as it would if your opponent was rated properly.

One of the things that isnt considered is the ripple effect this has... If I am an honest player, the dumping underrated player still causes my score to be inaccurate directly (by playing them) or indirectly (by playing someone they played).

Rating systems only work if everyone is honest or if they are only used in larger events. Once you start introducing low level, weekly play and further more start limiting the field and handicapping these events, you start encouraging the dumping.

I have a fargo. I try to keep mine up because I like it as an assessment of my game, so I try to be honest with it... it just hurts because I end up playing so many people that aren't.

A common problem is what really is a "X" level player? Wether you cal them A ,B ,C or 10,9,8...or fargorate what are the real distinctions? Do you think they are absolute? Can you really say "Bill" is a 625 player but he stays under 600 so he can rob the 599 and under trnmnt.

Let's be honest no one is making a living by robbing the fargorate cap trnmnts.

 

[maha]

no one is making a living but are making money so they do it. the thing that hurts so much is those that recognize it lose interest in playing in events so events do suffer till they are gone.

 

[mikepage]

There are soooo many players around here that should be 600+ that cruise under 599 to play in 599 and under tournaments.
With multiple weekly and smaller tournaments contributing to Fargo to makes it super easy to keep that score low by dumping in the weekly, low money events and then jumping in a low rated or handicapped tournament.

[..snip.]

I have a fargo. I try to keep mine up because I like it as an assessment of my game, so I try to be honest with it... [..snip.]

You are an example of what I was talking about in this recent facebook post--feeling you are honest and others are not. Turns out many of those "others" see themselves as honest and you as likely not. Here is that post for those not on facebook.
********************
As one of the FargoRate people, I have many conversations with pool players about ratings. One refrain I hear often is some version of, ”I am one of those unusual people who actually WANTS a higher rating.” And I smile inside.

Cynicism is in style. Nobody wants to be caught erring on the naïve side of reality, and so their safe space, their comfort zone, is to assume bad intentions are rampant in others. We get to a bizarre situation where of 100 pool players, 95 see themselves as having integrity and those same people imagine half of everyone else doesn’t.

We can see how some of this happens by taking ethics out of the equation for a minute. To say someone is a sandbagger is a compliment of their skill, like yeah that stupid number is 510, but you’re 550 all day. For you as a player to suggest after an embarrassing loss that you might be managing your rating is to say "I could have won if I really wanted to."

We do, at FargoRate, have information not generally available to others. We can see, for example, whether match data that comes in through Salotto has more unexpected scores than similar match data from tournaments: it doesn’t within a margin of error. We can see whether underperforming in league compared to tournaments is more pronounced than underperforming in tournaments compared to league: it isn’t within a margin of error. We can see whether there are extra people with ratings just under key numbers like 600 and corresponding missing players just over 600: there are not within a margin of error.

Statistical measures like these can’t say that manipulation doesn’t exist. Manipulation, of course, does exist. But we can say with confidence that it is far less prevalent than virtually everybody believes. And we can also say data integrity is something we take seriously and that we continually work to improve detection of statistical anomalies and vet and monitor data sources.

Finally, we get some clues from the questions and comments and support requests we field every day. If wanting a lower rating was common, we’d expect more questions about why a poor performance tournament is not recorded. We get the opposite; players want to insure they get credit for their good tournaments. When someone claims a score is incorrect, it is nearly always that they won more games than recorded.
You might enjoy reading just some of these comments. These are all longer comments with identity and more culled out. And they’re all commenters who received a written reply from us.

 

[The_JV]

I'm at the 725 area and i have no asperations to become a world champ or beat people out of their money. I love pool and i just like to play now.

I like to maintain the notion that IF I put some minor effort in, I could hold a mid to high 680. I'm really not that far off. I also like to pretend that IF my life outside of pool was just a bit different, then I'd be beyond the 700 glass ceiling.

These days, I don't know how much I "love pool". More of an activity I partake in when socializing. My issue is cyclic. I underachieve so I grow frustrated. I'm frustrated, so I don't want to play. I underachieve because I don't play enough...lol

Such a hard life....lol

 

[Zerksies]

I like to maintain the notion that IF I put some minor effort in, I could hold a mid to high 680. I'm really not that far off. I also like to pretend that IF my life outside of pool was just a bit different, then I'd be beyond the 700 glass ceiling.

These days, I don't know how much I "love pool". More of an activity I partake in when socializing. My issue is cyclic. I underachieve so I grow frustrated. I'm frustrated, so I don't want to play. I underachieve because I don't play enough...lol

Such a hard life....lol

I am really not going out much at the moment, I am doing about 30 minutes a day just to keep in some what stroke. I have a new pool hall opening a fw blocks from me. That will kick me in the ass to get back into full stroke.

 

[George the Greek]

I thought I'd be on the table hours upon hours like I did when I was young but being 71 it's not happening. I get on the table after coffee every morning for a good hour then take a break. I'll repeat that a couple times a day. Sofar I'm somewhat happy with the results. I'll be testing myself this weekend in my 2nd 9-ball event after a 25 year hiatus.

 

[SUPERSTAR]

You are an example of what I was talking about in this recent facebook post--feeling you are honest and others are not. Turns out many of those "others" see themselves as honest and you as likely not.

Dude.
I know you have a ratings system to defend but stop sounding like a robot that doesn’t play pool and just looks at numbers.

I know several people who actively discuss getting within a caps limitations, to try and exploit it. And I don’t even really play anymore. I can only imagine how many people would be having this discussion, if I did play and was around players every day.
No, that doesn’t mean everyone. No, the entire pool population isn’t dumping.
But people raise valid points when talking about manipulation. Some people are trying to get below a cap and while no, they aren’t making a living (to whomever said that) the paydays in capped events are ten or twentyfold of what they are in non capped events. Same exact people are always looking for partners they feel have a Fargo that is lower then their ability, so that they can team up with them in a partners cap, to try an steal.
They stay within whatever little pond of Fargo league they play in and rarely if ever go to scratch events (maintain your Fargo by not playing/omission) because god forbid they play good and beat someone with a much higher Fargo than them, or even have a close match with them, and their fargo efforts go down the toilet.

This is ALSO why scratch tournaments are suffering in certain areas because why play in a scratch event that I know I can win some matches or cash, when it will ruin my Fargo and stop me from entering a Fargo capped event worth 10 times the money.

You can break down the data any way you want.
Obviously this isn’t the masses and really has nothing to do with who feels more honest.
What I mentioned above is a reality that is observable and Fargo capped events has given them the incentive to try and manipulate things.

 

[Texas Carom Club]

Dude.
I know you have a ratings system to defend but stop sounding like a robot that doesn’t play pool and just looks at numbers.

I know several people who actively discuss getting within a caps limitations, to try and exploit it. And I don’t even really play anymore. I can only imagine how many people would be having this discussion, if I did play and was around players every day.
No, that doesn’t mean everyone. No, the entire pool population isn’t dumping.
But people raise valid points when talking about manipulation. Some people are trying to get below a cap and while no, they aren’t making a living (to whomever said that) the paydays in capped events are ten or twentyfold of what they are in non capped events. Same exact people are always looking for partners they feel have a Fargo that is lower then their ability, so that they can team up with them in a partners cap, to try an steal.
They stay within whatever little pond of Fargo league they play in and rarely if ever go to scratch events (maintain your Fargo by not playing/omission) because god forbid they play good and beat someone with a much higher Fargo than them, or even have a close match with them, and their fargo efforts go down the toilet.

This is ALSO why scratch tournaments are suffering in certain areas because why play in a scratch event that I know I can win some matches or cash, when it will ruin my Fargo and stop me from entering a Fargo capped event worth 10 times the money.

You can break down the data any way you want.
Obviously this isn’t the masses and really has nothing to do with who feels more honest.
What I mentioned above is a reality that is observable and Fargo capped events has given them the incentive to try and manipulate things.

people on fb actively publicly talk about doing it on upcoming tournament posts

 

[Texas Carom Club]

there was a open doubles for this weekend that got cancelled because as one person mentioned on the post, these two 750 locals could tag up and bully everyone
people are scared to lose so why bother even a fun , cheapish, tournament

 

[Icon of Sin]

You are an example of what I was talking about in this recent facebook post--feeling you are honest and others are not. Turns out many of those "others" see themselves as honest and you as likely not. Here is that post for those not on facebook.
********************
As one of the FargoRate people, I have many conversations with pool players about ratings. One refrain I hear often is some version of, ”I am one of those unusual people who actually WANTS a higher rating.” And I smile inside.

Cynicism is in style. Nobody wants to be caught erring on the naïve side of reality, and so their safe space, their comfort zone, is to assume bad intentions are rampant in others. We get to a bizarre situation where of 100 pool players, 95 see themselves as having integrity and those same people imagine half of everyone else doesn’t.

We can see how some of this happens by taking ethics out of the equation for a minute. To say someone is a sandbagger is a compliment of their skill, like yeah that stupid number is 510, but you’re 550 all day. For you as a player to suggest after an embarrassing loss that you might be managing your rating is to say "I could have won if I really wanted to."

We do, at FargoRate, have information not generally available to others. We can see, for example, whether match data that comes in through Salotto has more unexpected scores than similar match data from tournaments: it doesn’t within a margin of error. We can see whether underperforming in league compared to tournaments is more pronounced than underperforming in tournaments compared to league: it isn’t within a margin of error. We can see whether there are extra people with ratings just under key numbers like 600 and corresponding missing players just over 600: there are not within a margin of error.

Statistical measures like these can’t say that manipulation doesn’t exist. Manipulation, of course, does exist. But we can say with confidence that it is far less prevalent than virtually everybody believes. And we can also say data integrity is something we take seriously and that we continually work to improve detection of statistical anomalies and vet and monitor data sources.

Finally, we get some clues from the questions and comments and support requests we field every day. If wanting a lower rating was common, we’d expect more questions about why a poor performance tournament is not recorded. We get the opposite; players want to insure they get credit for their good tournaments. When someone claims a score is incorrect, it is nearly always that they won more games than recorded.
You might enjoy reading just some of these comments. These are all longer comments with identity and more culled out. And they’re all commenters who received a written reply from us.View attachment 790419View attachment 790418

Naturally you are going to get more comments/emails from players wanting their level to show higher, I assume mainly for prestige or ego. You are not going to get the same from the dumping player because the system is easier to manipulate in regards to having you skill level go down rather then up. Plus couple that with the dumping player trying to cruise under the radar they are not going to bring that attention on themselves.

You can have long winded Facebook posts like this until the cows come home detailing all the data you collect and how you take everything into account and you more then likely genuinely believe that. The APA says the same thing about their skill level system and everyone knows how that goes. Due to not dumping matches my Fargo went up to a point that eliminates me from playing in a lot of capped Fargo rated tournaments... so what do I do? I continue to play in the events that I can (which are fewer now) and try to perform the best of my paltry ability (see my disclaimer below).

The pool world is a scumbag yard sale... and if you have a system like this in place there will be people manipulating it.

One thing that could help keep the system a bit more honest is consistently rating players in major amateur events. Ams from all over the world play in the events at the Super Billiards Expo. I think those matches only contributed to Fargo once, maybe twice. Players are going to play more honest in an event like this due to it being single elimination and the prizes and prestige being larger.

H<---- learned he is the problem for playing the table.

 

[Icon of Sin]

Dude.
I know you have a ratings system to defend but stop sounding like a robot that doesn’t play pool and just looks at numbers.

I know several people who actively discuss getting within a caps limitations, to try and exploit it. And I don’t even really play anymore. I can only imagine how many people would be having this discussion, if I did play and was around players every day.
No, that doesn’t mean everyone. No, the entire pool population isn’t dumping.
But people raise valid points when talking about manipulation. Some people are trying to get below a cap and while no, they aren’t making a living (to whomever said that) the paydays in capped events are ten or twentyfold of what they are in non capped events. Same exact people are always looking for partners they feel have a Fargo that is lower then their ability, so that they can team up with them in a partners cap, to try an steal.
They stay within whatever little pond of Fargo league they play in and rarely if ever go to scratch events (maintain your Fargo by not playing/omission) because god forbid they play good and beat someone with a much higher Fargo than them, or even have a close match with them, and their fargo efforts go down the toilet.

This is ALSO why scratch tournaments are suffering in certain areas because why play in a scratch event that I know I can win some matches or cash, when it will ruin my Fargo and stop me from entering a Fargo capped event worth 10 times the money.

You can break down the data any way you want.
Obviously this isn’t the masses and really has nothing to do with who feels more honest.
What I mentioned above is a reality that is observable and Fargo capped events has given them the incentive to try and manipulate things.

Fucking this!

There is a handful of players in my area that are near my fargo or lower then me with an established robustness that I have no chance at beating in a race to 7 for $100 on a random night at the poolhall.

Edit to add... this bring up another good point. This new rating system isn't only used in tournaments now. People are using it to try an gauge a player they may be unfamiliar with. People match up for money all the time and that doesn't contribute to Fargo at all. A player being underrated has the opportunity to make more money that way and not just cashing in the larger tournament making even more incentive to keep your level lower.

 

[Badpenguin]

We do, at FargoRate, have information not generally available to others. We can see, for example, whether match data that comes in through Salotto has more unexpected scores than similar match data from tournaments: it doesn’t within a margin of error. We can see whether underperforming in league compared to tournaments is more pronounced than underperforming in tournaments compared to league: it isn’t within a margin of error. We can see whether there are extra people with ratings just under key numbers like 600 and corresponding missing players just over 600: there are not within a margin of error.

You may have some information not available to others, but that is far from all information. You do not have the information from tournaments/leagues that are not submitted to fargo. In the case of the assholes that are trying to lower their fargos, you are only getting the information that they want you to have.

What particularly disturbs me is watching league operators manipulate data by doing things like adding players with current fargo rates with slight changes to their names, so that their rating "starts over". For example adding the middle initial (John Q Doe instead of John Doe), or using Johnathan instead of John. These players only get results submitted to fargo through their USAPL league nights.

There is at least one egregious example that I know of that a player has gotten his fargo from a high of 671 to 545 via the most blatant sandbagging I have ever seen, in USAPL league play. His only goal with USAPL was to get his fargo down so that he could do capped fargo tournaments in other states. And the LO was not blind to it. This is one of the reasons I will not play any leagues again.

This should be easy to catch by fargo looking for metrics automatically. Maybe it was caught and corrected eventually, but I saw this go on for at least 18 months. I don't do league any more, so I have no idea.

 

[Icon of Sin]

There is at least one egregious example that I know of that a player has gotten his fargo from a high of 671 to 545 via the most blatant sandbagging I have ever seen, in USAPL league play. His only goal with USAPL was to get his fargo down so that he could do capped fargo tournaments in other states. And the LO was not blind to it. This is one of the reasons I will not play any leagues again.

...and on top of this person manipulating their rating down, they are also manipulating everyone they played ratings up by dumping to them and the butterfly effect from people those players have played.

 

[skip100]

Did you report this person and LO?

 

[Badpenguin]

Did you report this person and LO?

Everyone did, including me. It went on anyway.

 

[Badpenguin]

...and on top of this person manipulating their rating down, they are also manipulating everyone they played ratings up by dumping to them and the butterfly effect from people those players have played.

It wasn't just one guy, it was most of the team. Every team that played them won via huge margins because this team was way over the total limit and lost by 100s of points to the opposing teams. As long as every team in the league played this team the same number of times, it bumped them all up so no harm no foul. But every team did not play them an equal number of times, so some teams would play them twice in a session, other teams only played them once, giving the teams that played them twice an unfair advantage.