Fargo rating mistake / possible shadiness?

[bhayhurst]

I won't be identifying the parties involved for reasons that will be obvious later.

I'm not a great player. I'm a 5-about-to-be-a-6 in APA. Where I lived until a few months ago, there wasn't any BCA in the city (at least as far as I was aware), so the APA it had to be. This didn't bother me as I just wanted to shoot pool. The point is, I didn't have a Fargo rating as I neither entered Fargo rated tournaments nor played in the BCA.

About a year ago it was mid-Covid, and tournaments/places-to-shoot were hard/impossible to find. (I should have done the right thing and avoided public places, but I'm straight-up addicted to pool and apparently narcissistic.) I heard about a place way out in the 'burbs that was running tournaments, so I went. The tournaments were handicapped based on your Fargo rating, and the results of the tournament effected your Fargo rating. Since I didn't have a Fargo rating, the guy running the tournament watched me play a few racks and marked me down as an average player (I don't know the exact rating, but I am an average player so it was ok).

I entered the tournament 4 or 5 times and placed almost every time. I forget if I ever won straight-up, but I did place. I did well because of my handicap, a nice set of bar boxes, and the fact that the patrons of the place were usually butt-ass wasted. Good combination!

In any case, these 4 or 5 times I played at this local, very small tournament (20 people max) are the only times that I've ever done anything that would effect my previously-nonexistent Fargo rating. As of now, my rating is 528 (robustness 77). I've been gently informed that this is way too high by people I trust to know these things. I also recall meeting some folks at the tournament who paid their rent playing pool -- and mostly by winning money in Fargo rated tournaments. I later confirmed that the two people whom I met that told me this were the real deal, not just talking smack.

A friend of mine has a theory that these tournaments are a clearinghouse for a set of pros who want to sandbag their Fargo score. Of course, this friend of mine also shares memes about the "The Storm", so ya gotta listen to him while sprinkling salt over your head. Nonetheless, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they're not out to get you... could he be right?

Frankly, I doubt that I ran into some nefarious scheme. They guy who ran the tournament seemed pretty straight-up. But then again, what do I know? But I'm still stuck with this: I move to a new city, and a lot of the tournaments here are Fargo rated, a rating that does not reflect my actual skill level. It'll be embarrassing when I get schooled.

You can see the con, right? Run a small tourney way out in the middle of nowhere, and have it Fargo sanctioned (or whatever you call it when the results of the tournament effect your Fargo score and your Fargo score effects your handicap in the tournament). The pros who want to lower their score simply enter the tournament and lose to suckers like me, who feel like a million bucks because they're now $109 dollars richer and can tell their buddies on their local APA team that they "placed in a tournament last week -- yeah, it's no big deal, but I beat a pro you-know...".

Here's my real question:

Would that be a valid way to sandbag?

(Edit: by "valid" I mean "it could be done", not whether it's legal/moral.)

 

[CocoboloCowboy]

Arizona use to have a Rating System, not sure if it still around. Sometimes a cleaver person would get a low rating card, then go clean up winning a few events by hiding true speed. Next time the Rating Committee met the person rating would go up. Many times that same person who hid their true ability moved on.

The idea behind the Arizona Rating was having tournments were player who were not great could compete against people with same skill level. We also had open tournments, in those the better player always won.

 

[Black-Balled]

Ratings are assigned a 'robustness' value, as well as the rating itself.

Robustness is the degree of confidence in the assigned rating and a 77 is very low.

In other words, keep playing and your fargo will become more accurate.

 

[BRussell]

No, it doesn't make sense for a "pro" to lower their Fargorate by losing two matches, which amounts to, what, 6 or 8 racks? If they're really a pro they're going to have lots of games in the system, and they're not going to be able to lower their rating that much by dumping in tournaments like these. Who knows, maybe that's what someone is trying to do, but it won't work IMO. I'm sure Mike Page could look at it and he could probably tell immediately if some 700-rated player was losing two matches in a row to 500-rated players, and losing 5-0.

And 528 sounds right for you, given how you described yourself.

 

[MattPoland]

I’m hung up on the way the world “pro” is flung around here. For someone to do what’s being described here, you’re talking players below even shortstop level. Because real pros and shortstops are pretty much always gambling or playing in open events (non-handicapped). If they are playing in handicapped events, they’re usually in their own bracket. There's no "pros" with a rating that'll put them in a B bracket.

Sometimes they’ll play in a small event where they have to give up a huge spot, but usually either they won’t be making real money off that kind of event or they won’t be allowed to play in the first place. In practice this kind of sounds like your friend knows nothing about the industry and trends of human behavior within it.

 

[The_JV]

Ya the math doesn't support the claim. A 'pro' with any decent robustness in fargo woud have to dump a ton to move any significant amount to be worth while.

 

[mikepage]

No, it doesn't make sense for a "pro" to lower their Fargorate by losing two matches, which amounts to, what, 6 or 8 racks? If they're really a pro they're going to have lots of games in the system, and they're not going to be able to lower their rating that much by dumping in tournaments like these. Who knows, maybe that's what someone is trying to do, but it won't work IMO. I'm sure Mike Page could look at it and he could probably tell immediately if some 700-rated player was losing two matches in a row to 500-rated players, and losing 5-0.

And 528 sounds right for you, given how you described yourself.

Yeah, nothing to see here...

 

[jasonlaus]

I bet these "pros" probably had Dad's or Uncles who paid their way through college too

BTW, robustness has nothing to do with "degree of confidence" as BB said, it is the amount of games you have in the system. Anything under 200 doesn't count for much

 

[garczar]

I bet these "pros" probably had Dad's or Uncles who paid their way through college too

BTW, robustness has nothing to do with "degree of confidence" as BB said, it is the amount of games you have in the system. Anything under 200 doesn't count for much

It does have something to do with the level of confidence. The more games you've played the more likely your rating is accurate.

 

[garczar]

I bet these "pros" probably had Dad's or Uncles who paid their way through college too

BTW, robustness has nothing to do with "degree of confidence" as BB said, it is the amount of games you have in the system. Anything under 200 doesn't count for much

200 games is bare minimum for even a remotely accurate FR.

 

[fastone371]

I won't be identifying the parties involved for reasons that will be obvious later.

I'm not a great player. I'm a 5-about-to-be-a-6 in APA. Where I lived until a few months ago, there wasn't any BCA in the city (at least as far as I was aware), so the APA it had to be. This didn't bother me as I just wanted to shoot pool. The point is, I didn't have a Fargo rating as I neither entered Fargo rated tournaments nor played in the BCA.

About a year ago it was mid-Covid, and tournaments/places-to-shoot were hard/impossible to find. (I should have done the right thing and avoided public places, but I'm straight-up addicted to pool and apparently narcissistic.) I heard about a place way out in the 'burbs that was running tournaments, so I went. The tournaments were handicapped based on your Fargo rating, and the results of the tournament effected your Fargo rating. Since I didn't have a Fargo rating, the guy running the tournament watched me play a few racks and marked me down as an average player (I don't know the exact rating, but I am an average player so it was ok).

I entered the tournament 4 or 5 times and placed almost every time. I forget if I ever won straight-up, but I did place. I did well because of my handicap, a nice set of bar boxes, and the fact that the patrons of the place were usually butt-ass wasted. Good combination!

In any case, these 4 or 5 times I played at this local, very small tournament (20 people max) are the only times that I've ever done anything that would effect my previously-nonexistent Fargo rating. As of now, my rating is 528 (robustness 77). I've been gently informed that this is way too high by people I trust to know these things. I also recall meeting some folks at the tournament who paid their rent playing pool -- and mostly by winning money in Fargo rated tournaments. I later confirmed that the two people whom I met that told me this were the real deal, not just talking smack.

A friend of mine has a theory that these tournaments are a clearinghouse for a set of pros who want to sandbag their Fargo score. Of course, this friend of mine also shares memes about the "The Storm", so ya gotta listen to him while sprinkling salt over your head. Nonetheless, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they're not out to get you... could he be right?

Frankly, I doubt that I ran into some nefarious scheme. They guy who ran the tournament seemed pretty straight-up. But then again, what do I know? But I'm still stuck with this: I move to a new city, and a lot of the tournaments here are Fargo rated, a rating that does not reflect my actual skill level. It'll be embarrassing when I get schooled.

You can see the con, right? Run a small tourney way out in the middle of nowhere, and have it Fargo sanctioned (or whatever you call it when the results of the tournament effect your Fargo score and your Fargo score effects your handicap in the tournament). The pros who want to lower their score simply enter the tournament and lose to suckers like me, who feel like a million bucks because they're now $109 dollars richer and can tell their buddies on their local APA team that they "placed in a tournament last week -- yeah, it's no big deal, but I beat a pro you-know...".

Here's my real question:

Would that be a valid way to sandbag?

Your Fargo may bounce around a lot until you have a few hundred games played (robustness) this is normal. The problem where sandbagging is not very effective with Fargo is because Fargo not only looks at your win/loss record but also your opponents win/loss records and their opponents too. If you have a 528 rating and beat a 630 rated player there is not a fixed number that your Fargo will increase by, it will look at your W/L history and your opponents ratings, your opponents opponents W/L record and their opponents rating and W/L records and so on. When you have enough games you will fit in where you belong, if your opponents rating seems fishy look at the robustness, if its low that is probably why.

 

[mikepage]

It does have something to do with the level of confidence. The more games you've played the more likely your rating is accurate.

Often when people give a number or a measurement they'll give a "plus or minus" or put an error bar on a graph. Usually that refers to the standard deviation and means there is a two thirds chance the real answer is within this and a 95% chance the real answer is within twice this.

Under typical conditions, 300/[sqrt(robustness)] is about that standard deviation. So at 100 games, it's 300/10, or about 30

This guy's rating is about 528 plus or minus 30

Roughly, he has a two thirds chance of being 498 to 558 and a 95% chance of being between 468 and 588

At 200 games, when a rating first becomes established, the standard deviation is about 20 points

 

[hang-the-9]

If you are good enough to be a 6 in the APA then about a 530 Fargo will be right for you. APA and TAP are about the exact same ratings, I'm a 550 Fargo currently, and I was a 7 in TAP then a 6.

Match results like Fargo don't know how you won, just who you beat that is already in the system and by how much. If you played a totally drunk group of Mosconi Cup players that all forgot their cues and had to use no tip house cues, beat them all in a tournament that was reporting to Fargo, you will end up with about a 780 Fargo. Most players that think their rating is unfair have stories like "I get tired at night" "I played drunk people" "I did not play for 4 months" "I just had surgery", there is no way to enter any of that into a rating systems. If you win, you get one rank, if you lose you get another. By how much and to whom also matters in Fargo.

When I first started USAPL I was put in as a 120 as a result of a couple of matches, which was the max level. That is like being a 750-800 Fargo. Took a while but I ended up dropping to the 90s and then to the 80s before the swap to Fargo at which point I became like a 560 or so.

 

[alstl]

I know nothing about Fargo but my experience in handicapped 9 ball tournaments is the best player outran the handicap and consistently won. If you don't know how to kick and give a good player bih your handicap is you don't know how to kick.

 

[bhayhurst]

No, it doesn't make sense for a "pro" to lower their Fargorate by losing two matches, which amounts to, what, 6 or 8 racks? If they're really a pro they're going to have lots of games in the system, and they're not going to be able to lower their rating that much by dumping in tournaments like these. Who knows, maybe that's what someone is trying to do, but it won't work IMO. I'm sure Mike Page could look at it and he could probably tell immediately if some 700-rated player was losing two matches in a row to 500-rated players, and losing 5-0.

And 528 sounds right for you, given how you described yourself.

The place that holds the tournament actually held two or three tournaments a week (to replace the leagues that stopped due to Covid), and I always saw those "pros" there. A few months of two or three tournaments a week add up, but I don't know if it would add up enough to make a difference.

Anyways, it's good to know that my rating isn't as far off as I thought. Thanks for telling me.

 

[bhayhurst]

If you are good enough to be a 6 in the APA then about a 530 Fargo will be right for you. APA and TAP are about the exact same ratings, I'm a 550 Fargo currently, and I was a 7 in TAP then a 6.

Match results like Fargo don't know how you won, just who you beat that is already in the system and by how much. If you played a totally drunk group of Mosconi Cup players that all forgot their cues and had to use no tip house cues, beat them all in a tournament that was reporting to Fargo, you will end up with about a 780 Fargo. Most players that think their rating is unfair have stories like "I get tired at night" "I played drunk people" "I did not play for 4 months" "I just had surgery", there is no way to enter any of that into a rating systems. If you win, you get one rank, if you lose you get another. By how much and to whom also matters in Fargo.

When I first started USAPL I was put in as a 120 as a result of a couple of matches, which was the max level. That is like being a 750-800 Fargo. Took a while but I ended up dropping to the 90s and then to the 80s before the swap to Fargo at which point I became like a 560 or so.

Yeah, I suppose that the more data is gathered, the more accurate your handicap is, right? Isn't that sort of the cure for edge cases like "I ran into the entire Mosconi Cup team at my local hall, but they were blackout drunk so I took 'em for a kershmillion dollars" or "I'm dopesick -- can't shoot like that."

Your story about the USAPL -- it sounds like what I'm complaining about (which isn't true -- everyone is pointing out that 550 is probably right for me) actually truly happened to you. Were you over-handicapped for a while? Like, you'd enter a tournament and get matched with someone better than you, but you'd have to win more games than them?

 

[bhayhurst]

Your Fargo may bounce around a lot until you have a few hundred games played (robustness) this is normal. The problem where sandbagging is not very effective with Fargo is because Fargo not only looks at your win/loss record but also your opponents win/loss records and their opponents too. If you have a 528 rating and beat a 630 rated player there is not a fixed number that your Fargo will increase by, it will look at your W/L history and your opponents ratings, your opponents opponents W/L record and their opponents rating and W/L records and so on. When you have enough games you will fit in where you belong, if your opponents rating seems fishy look at the robustness, if its low that is probably why.

That makes sense. I knew that "robustness" was a measurement of how many games you'd played, so, yeah, the lower the number the higher your ratings swings should be. I wish I new that number for the players that my friend suspects of being sandbaggers (which I don't). I don't.

 

[bhayhurst]

Arizona use to have a Rating System, not sure if it still around. Sometimes a cleaver person would get a low rating card, then go clean up winning a few events by hiding true speed. Next time the Rating Committee met the person rating would go up. Many times that same person who hid their true ability moved on.

The idea behind the Arizona Rating was having tournments were player who were not great could compete against people with same skill level. We also had open tournments, in those the better player always won.

So it basically created even matches save for the occasional opportunistic soul. Sounds like it worked.

 

[Chili Palmer]

Often when people give a number or a measurement they'll give a "plus or minus" or put an error bar on a graph. Usually that refers to the standard deviation and means there is a two thirds chance the real answer is within this and a 95% chance the real answer is within twice this.

Under typical conditions, 300/[sqrt(robustness)] is about that standard deviation. So at 100 games, it's 300/10, or about 30

This guy's rating is about 528 plus or minus 30

Roughly, he has a two thirds chance of being 498 to 558 and a 95% chance of being between 468 and 588

At 200 games, when a rating first becomes established, the standard deviation is about 20 points

That seems backwards to me?

Shouldn't it be a 95% chance of being a 498 to 558 and a 2/3 (66%) chance of being a 468 to 588?

 

[Bob Jewett]

That seems backwards to me?

Shouldn't it be a 95% chance of being a 498 to 558 and a 2/3 (66%) chance of being a 468 to 588?

A quantity that is estimated has a better chance of being in a wide range around the estimate than a narrow range around that estimate.