Weber
Registered
Key performance indicators
Fargo rating
- Thread starter measureman
- Start date
Think of it like a disease, if you have a closed group of people, they may never get sick. But it only takes a few outsiders to bring it in for them all to start passing it around. You can't have 7' ratings, 9' ratings, 4.5" pocket ratings, 5" pocket ratings, crappy cue area, good cue area, loud annoying bar rating and nice pool hall ratings. You can't base things on "I'm a 550 but since you are playing on 4.75" pockets with 6 month old cloth and it's 75 in the room and I normally play on 5" pockets on old cloth where it's 80, I need to be a 500 here". Any system will break down under odd situations, but overall in the long term with data from many players, it does not. Tossing a coin is an example, the fact that 5 guys got heads 10 times in a row one time does not mean that over time 20,000 players tossing a coin will not end up with a very near 50/50 distribution.
Last edited:
Which APA and TAP tries to use that leads to cheating. Innings/balls per inning, calling a safe, etc... just allows people that want to cheat cheat easier. Fargo is simple, won/loss in any event, and by what score. As long as the win/loss is entered in a large amount over time with a decently large group of players it works just fine without extra stuff added. I've seen players call impossible shots when they were clearly playing safe to jack up their miss count, you do that in Fargo or any other rating system that just counts wins, if it took you 30 shots to win does not matter, you won. If it takes you 30 shots to win in the APA or TAP ratings, you won but since you missed a lot you must be a bad player anyway instead of someone that missed on purpose. Plus who is going to sit there at every match in every tournament and league event to jot down when someone misses and verifies that it was a miss and not sandbagging to raise inning count? Leagues do that, sure, I'm not going to keep track of that in a tournament to compile extra data though. Miss all you want in a game, at the end of the set what counts is the games.
Last edited:
Fargo is an Elo type of rating system. This type of system is widely used for chess ratings and other games where the interest is evaluating relative performance. There have been moves to set up similar systems in Baseball, Hockey, Rugby, etc., and other sports as well.
While these type of rating systems have known issues, adopters look to determine if those issues will be significant in their application, and whether they need to adopt measures to handle rating inflation or deflation as the system ages.
It may not be perfect, but Fargo has demonstrated its value many times since it's been adopted. Kudos to Mike Page and his team who did all the work to get this going.
I know of a good player who scoffed that he only had a Fargo rating of 504, so it must be bogus as he was much better than that. I looked him up, and he had only 4 games registered so he didn't have a Fargo rating, and wouldn't until he had 200 games registered. I think many people who dismiss it just don't know anything about it.
Mike Page has created a number of videos to explain it, and show how it works in the real world, and they're worth looking at.
...and Mike Page provides a good description at https://fargorate.com/fargorateblog/archive/behindthecurtain/
While these type of rating systems have known issues, adopters look to determine if those issues will be significant in their application, and whether they need to adopt measures to handle rating inflation or deflation as the system ages.
It may not be perfect, but Fargo has demonstrated its value many times since it's been adopted. Kudos to Mike Page and his team who did all the work to get this going.
I know of a good player who scoffed that he only had a Fargo rating of 504, so it must be bogus as he was much better than that. I looked him up, and he had only 4 games registered so he didn't have a Fargo rating, and wouldn't until he had 200 games registered. I think many people who dismiss it just don't know anything about it.
Mike Page has created a number of videos to explain it, and show how it works in the real world, and they're worth looking at.
...and Mike Page provides a good description at https://fargorate.com/fargorateblog/archive/behindthecurtain/
Last edited:
Then it might be possible you are underperforming in tournaments. I am currently a 598 Fargo (218 robustness) and wouldn't bet on me beating the ghost on a big table. Also many factors come in to play with Fargo. If a tournament is alternating breaks a lesser ranked player could upset better players more often. I have won several matches against 650-675 Fargo rated players. Again most were either alternating break or on a 7' footer.
I find Fargo ratings to be extremely accurate. That is If more than 200' games are logged recently on both player's. My opinion.
Ah... then I'd rather not see them included with fargo. You're introducing opinion into the equation.
I am currently a 565 (381 games robustness) and was under that prior to a tournament about a month ago where I beat a 699 (over 900 games robustness) 9-2 on a 7ft Diamond playing winner break 9ball. I think I had 2 or 3 break n runs. My next two matches were horrible lost 9-6 to the guy who went on to win it undefeated and lost 7-3 to get knocked out. While I am capable of playing far above my rating...it is a crap shoot as to how well I will shoot and for how long. I think that with some more practice and more recorded games that I will settle into the low 600 rating which is probably appropriate.
I am almost exactly a 604 rating, but with less than 100 games in the system. I routinely beat a guy I know that is a 625. The last local tournament I beat him 5-1. This thread is very interesting to me, because that is my rating. Many have said that a 604 is a strong B player. That may be so. However, in my state they have raised me to an A player for the State Tournament.
My understanding is that our state uses something around a 540 cutoff to go from a B player to an A player. Also, our state will also raise your letter rating if you were in the top 10-15 players in the last tournament. I didn't have a Fargo Rating before last year's state tournament and took 5/6th. So they moved me to an A for the 2021 tournament. If I place in the top 10-15 as an A, I will get raised to a AA. So the state raising you based on your tournament finish AND based on your Fargo Rating seems like not too good of an idea to me. Because it totally confuses someone's Fargo Rating (which is a very accurate rating of someone's skill) with the letter rating (that they simply use for the state tournament purposes).
Just because someone did good in one tournament doesn't seem to me to be adequate justification to raise their letter rating. To me it should only be raised based on a person's Fargo Rating. I also think that making anyone over a 540 an A is too low. It should be at least a 600 rating cutoff in my opinion.
My understanding is that our state uses something around a 540 cutoff to go from a B player to an A player. Also, our state will also raise your letter rating if you were in the top 10-15 players in the last tournament. I didn't have a Fargo Rating before last year's state tournament and took 5/6th. So they moved me to an A for the 2021 tournament. If I place in the top 10-15 as an A, I will get raised to a AA. So the state raising you based on your tournament finish AND based on your Fargo Rating seems like not too good of an idea to me. Because it totally confuses someone's Fargo Rating (which is a very accurate rating of someone's skill) with the letter rating (that they simply use for the state tournament purposes).
Just because someone did good in one tournament doesn't seem to me to be adequate justification to raise their letter rating. To me it should only be raised based on a person's Fargo Rating. I also think that making anyone over a 540 an A is too low. It should be at least a 600 rating cutoff in my opinion.
Weber
Registered
KPI’s are not opinion they are performance. Break and run, run outs, 9 on break, 8 on break, innings, items like that tell the story of the match not just wins and loses.
I'm kind a with you on the BnR's but how things like 9/8 on the break a measure of your performance...? I guess you could say that the opposing player shouldn't be penalized in fargo for a game lost due to a 9 off the break, but honestly how is that any different than losing a game where the guy your playing breaks and runs...? You still don't get to the table...
Innings can be stretched with minimal effort, and is a common method used to skew APA rankings.
Obviously we disagree, but it seems like needless complication. In the end, a win is a win. Doesn't really matter how you got it.
Weber
Registered
I’m not disagreeing with you, just saying there is more to evaluating ones skill level then just wins and loses.
When I was competing in tournaments here in Colorado I would get bounced between a high AA and a low AAA.I’m a 578 and a AAA in Colorado if that helps....
I just accepted what ever they decided in handicap tournaments.
I have no Fargo rating.
600 is about the move from a B+ to an A- or A. They go in groups of 100 pretty evenly but also there is a +- 50 performance modifier that can happen for a normal player, so a 600 can play like a 550 or a 650 at times and still be a 600 on average. Pro level is from the low 700s to 800s, and goes down from there. Dropping down from say 750 -800 which is a decent level Pro, you have the Open players in the 700 and high 600 range, A players in the 600 range, Bs 500s, Cs 400s and Ds 300s. Keep in mind that someone that is a 560 to a 600 is not even a 10% change, so a B+ and A- can trade matches but in the long run the 600 would win more against a group of players the 560 would lose more against. I would say from the years being around players and watching Fargo ratings, there is a bit of a grey area where the + and - ratings of different skills overlap a bit.
Humans are not perfect, someone that is normally a B+ can overlap a bit with an A- at the mid to low performance range, but the A- would take over a B+ when both are playing their top speed. I mean that an A- playing their weaker or average game can lose to a B+ that is playing well without any issues with their rating in the long run, there is that overlap on a per event or match performance. But when both players are on their average game at the same time, that A- player is more likely to beat a B+, even if it's only a 10% or 20% spread over 100 games. That is when Fargo shines, when there is a lot of match data with a group of players from various areas.
However in the long run, all of those would mean the player won. You have more break and runs, you win more. They are just stats for nerds to see WHY you won, but won't affect the actual winning if no-one wrote them down. What you track here may tell you who played better in the set or for the day, but not who is better over a year and 200 matches, which is what Fargo does. That is why these stats don't matter to the better rating systems, they don't care about what you did today, only that you win vs a certain rated player in the long run, which means your rating is that player + X.
You run out in less innings, you win more. You mess up less safes, you win more. The 9 and 8 on the break are pretty much 0 skill, just a matter of a lucky roll or a bad rack. It's nice for stats, like the TPA thing Accu-stats does, but those stats are the WHY not the skill of the player executing. Archer won the US Open by beating the players. WHY did he beat them? He shot a .930 average in the event and the opponents shot a .890. If you don't keep track of the why, he still would have won. So Fargo looks at the wins and the game differences in the wins, or losses, they don't care why or how you won or who you played or on what equipment, over time all that blends in to the back ground as extra noise not needed.
That is also why people should not care about a 50 point swing in ratings, it's all an average of all the games played on all the equipment vs all the players. A 550 is pretty much the same as a 570 day to day, but not as good over a year of matches.
I think 630-650 is about AAA in Colorado based on the Fargo rating of players I know who still live there. Over that is AAA+
I won too much as a AA and they bumped me to AAA but I moved shortly after that and didn’t play enough tournaments to really know how competitive I was.
My Fargo rate is lower than it would have been then. I quit for 10 years and then started playing leagues. By the time I got my game back I already had a lot of scores and then just as I was really playing well again COVID happened and now I haven’t played since March so...we’ll see. BTW I’m pretty sure when I moved away from Denver you replaced me on one of the league teams I played for. Although I’m not 100% sure who you are.
I agree to a point. However, I think what is great about FR is that it cuts through the bs and measures who wins. Lots of people have a crappy stroke, can’t run out, and can’t break for crap and yet frustrate the heck out of players who have great strokes and practice drills all the time but don’t have a good sense of the game. We used to have players that everyone would swear couldn’t play a lick yet they win or cash every week because they had a good sense of how to stumble around and mess up balls for their opponents etc. A purely skill-based system or subjective system would never move them up. Lifetime B players.
This is just simply not true although it sure seems intuitive on the surface so lots of people understandably believe it.
What alternate breaks does is make the score lines closer in a match because the value of the points are effectively changed. If in races to 9 against John Smith you lose with an average score line of 9-5 with winner breaks over time, you might lose by an average score line of 9-7 instead over time if only playing alternate breaks. Alternate breaks brings the score lines closer together.
It sure seems intuitive and obvious that if you seemingly get closer to winning (based on the score lines) under alternate breaks that it must mean that alternate breaks is also increasing your chances of winning the match and that you will therefore increase your winning percentage. But it isn't true, and I will explain why in a moment. It doesn't change how often you lose to John Smith at all. If over time you lose to John Smith 68.37% of the time under winner breaks, you are going to lose to him 68.37% of the time under alternate breaks over time as well.
All the breaking format essentially does is change how many points each of your innings at the table is worth, your "innings/games (points) won" ratio, and by extension that effectively changes how much points are worth/what they mean and this brings the score lines closer together or further apart. But what you have to remember is that the format difference is doing the exact same thing for your opponent too, effectively making his points worth more or less in the same proportions as well so you never gain any advantage or change your odds for beating John, you are only changing how tight the score lines are by proportionally changing the effective value of the points for both of you.
Here is an example that will make it make more sense to those that have a hard time understanding the concept. Lets say the ABC basketball team wins over the XYZ basketball team 62.42% of the time and by an average of 6 points over time. Now lets change the game so that the points are now only worth half as much as they were before, so regular baskets are only worth 1 point now instead of 2, and "3 pointers" are now worth 1.5 points, and free throws are worth .5 points etc. So now under the new format the ABC team will beat the XYZ team by 3 points on average. Did this increase the chances for the XYZ team to win? Of course not. Under the new format ABC team is still going to win 62.42% of the time, it is just that now the score lines get tighter and they only win by an average of 3 points now instead of 6.
Last edited:
Correct. Most people I consider a true A player would be North of 625. The difference
Interesting. But wouldn't a closer score put more pressure on your opponent (possibly creating an upset opportunity?
Possibly, but this isn't the format directly making any difference because it didn't and doesn't. This would be the opponent letting a psychological factor affect him that he had no reason to let affect him, no different than if he were to let any other non-factor get in his head.