And I'd say Dawid, one of the B-players here, did alright when he was in the US last year
Fargo rating
- Thread starter measureman
- Start date
I agree that a 650 level player is not considered any kind of a B (or they sure shouldn't be anyway) in any area of the country.
I also agree with Mike in that the letter systems should go away and it is kind of dumb for us to discuss what A and B etc mean, should mean, or used to mean, when there is now a system that is very consistent, very accurate, and allows for a lot more precision in ratings and is therefore infinitely better suited for the purpose. Even when talking about players that don't yet have a FargoRate rating, or even in areas that don't yet report to FargoRate or officially use them for much locally, it is still better to use the FargoRate ratings to approximate people you are talking about because at this point everybody pretty much knows about what a 500 or 600 or 630 etc level player looks like and that provides a lot more consistent, accurate, and precise information than any other descriptor of playing level.
I would ask what the rating is of the "A" players that any of them play. 950? To me, you take the very top rating and work your way down to figure out the proper letter rating. Those letter ratings are messed up I would think based on the highest rated player.
_______
If I had to match letter ratings to the Fargo Ratings, I guess this is how I would do it.
800-850 Top-Level Pro
750-799 Mid-Level Pro
700-749 Lower-Level Pro
675-699 AAA or A++ or Master
650-674 AA or A+
625-649 A. Or 600 to 674 = A
600 to 624 A-
575-599 B+
550-574 B. Or 525 to 599 = B
525-549 B-
500-524 C+
475-499 C. Or 450 to 524 = C
450-474 C-
425-449 D+
400-424 D. Or 375 to 449 = D
375-399 D-
Below 375 = Beginner
_______
800-850 Top-Level Pro
750-799 Mid-Level Pro
700-749 Lower-Level Pro
675-699 AAA or A++ or Master
650-674 AA or A+
625-649 A. Or 600 to 674 = A
600 to 624 A-
575-599 B+
550-574 B. Or 525 to 599 = B
525-549 B-
500-524 C+
475-499 C. Or 450 to 524 = C
450-474 C-
425-449 D+
400-424 D. Or 375 to 449 = D
375-399 D-
Below 375 = Beginner
_______
That is the nature of local ratings. It is not uncommon to call the best players "A," the first letter in the alphabet. Then call the next group down "B," and the next "C," and so forth. That is the point here with the Poland group. The top level is world top 100 speed players. So you might call them "A." Then lesser elite players might be called "B," and so forth.
Or you can just forget the letters.
I agree with forgetting the letters. In fact my crazy state tournament is not only using letters, but they aren't assigning letters solely based on someone's Fargo Rating. Instead, they also increase someone up a letter if they placed in the ~top 15 in the last state tournament. Now that's really a way to mess things up. I have a friend that has only a 535 rating and has to play as an "A" in 2021 because he took 13th place last year. Crazy. A different guy that I play leagues with took 2nd, but his Fargo Rating is only a 512. So he's an "A" now too.
_______
...and it's typical that the very best will continue to win even after being deemed an "A". So they end up being bumped to "AA" or "AAA", "AAA++++", etc.
Comical system...
Mike,
All of your points in your posts in this thread are very much appreciated, and I mostly agree with all of them. However, I see nothing wrong with having Fargo-approved letter designations for different ranges of FargoRate numbers. And if those designations agreed with the generally-accepted traditional usage of the ABCD scale, maybe it would help better define and standardize ABCD ratings. This is what I've tried to do with columns 2, 3, and 5 in the BU Ratings Comparison table:
Many people like referring to player levels with a well-understood letter (e.g., A or B-) instead of seemingly oddly-scaled numbers (e.g., 698 or 532). It can be difficult for many people to grasp the meanings of FargoRate numbers, especially if they don't have much direct experience with many players over a wide range of scores, especially since the numbers don't occur over typical rating ranges like 0-10 or 0-100 or 0-1000. Hopefully, FargoRate will some day become so commonplace and widespread that everybody (even casual players) will automatically have meaning attached to the full range of possible FargoRate numbers, but I think Fargo-approved letter designations might actually help with this and better standardize the commonly-used ABCD designations.
But having said all that, I can fully appreciate how much better everything would be if everybody would just use the FargoRate numbers (or official letter designations) and not make up their own regional or arbitrary ABCD designations and interpretations. Just like it would be nice if all leagues and tournaments used a common set of pool rules.
Best regards and Happy New Year,
Dave
I'm not so sure your example holds up in regards to Schmidt, but I think your point does. However, I think it has more to do with human nature. I think we can be motivated in the short term to play our best, but over time we return to the mean. This idea, that players can sandbag week after week, month after month, and even year after year -- I just don't see it. What kind of person can torture themselves like that? 9 times out of 10, or even 99 out of 100 these sandbagging tales are just that -- tales. Many involve bruised egos.
I would love to know my relative ability, as it is fun to track my progress (or lackthereof) in my hobby. But, life has happened and I'm no longer competing at all these days, and only like literally 2 BCAPL league matches over the last two years. So I'm getting back into playing and wish to improve, but I'm not sure how to track my progress nor do I have a reference point from the past really. I have a FARGO rating of 644, BUT, that's a lie, as I saw that it contains matches I never played (there is another stronger player with my same name that they appear to have accidentally merged our matches to one fargo account).
Anyway, some of my highlights from the past when was playing include the following:
Beat the 7 ball ghost 30-12, beat the 8 ball ghost (can't remember the score), never was able to beat the 9 ball ghost consistenly but did beat it every now and then in short races to 9 or less. Stopped playing the ghost years ago cause I got bored with it and focused on gardening (lol).
High run in straight pool on a 9' diamond pro is 52 (disgusted when I missed an easy shot to keep going - isnt' this how it goes? lol again) - this is only in practive, as I don't know anyone who actually plays 14.1
Personal best package in bar box 8 ball: 4 b & r's in a row (that was fun)
Personal best package in 9 ball on 9' diamond: 3 b & r's in a row
Personal best package in 10 ball on 9' diamond: 2 b & r's in a row
I learned that my break has been and still is pitiful. I don't get a shot on the lowest ball like many decent players. But I run out after the break pretty good I feel like
Anyway, how would you guys recommend that I track my progress. I do want to try some tournies every blue moon in the coming years, so that would be good. I don't like league play much anymore, so not going that route again. This is a hobby for me, but part of the fun is improvement and I really am a competitive person, just have life events that limit my play.
Oh, and happy new year's eve to the AZB crew!
Anyway, some of my highlights from the past when was playing include the following:
Beat the 7 ball ghost 30-12, beat the 8 ball ghost (can't remember the score), never was able to beat the 9 ball ghost consistenly but did beat it every now and then in short races to 9 or less. Stopped playing the ghost years ago cause I got bored with it and focused on gardening (lol).
High run in straight pool on a 9' diamond pro is 52 (disgusted when I missed an easy shot to keep going - isnt' this how it goes? lol again) - this is only in practive, as I don't know anyone who actually plays 14.1
Personal best package in bar box 8 ball: 4 b & r's in a row (that was fun)
Personal best package in 9 ball on 9' diamond: 3 b & r's in a row
Personal best package in 10 ball on 9' diamond: 2 b & r's in a row
I learned that my break has been and still is pitiful. I don't get a shot on the lowest ball like many decent players. But I run out after the break pretty good I feel like
Anyway, how would you guys recommend that I track my progress. I do want to try some tournies every blue moon in the coming years, so that would be good. I don't like league play much anymore, so not going that route again. This is a hobby for me, but part of the fun is improvement and I really am a competitive person, just have life events that limit my play.
Oh, and happy new year's eve to the AZB crew!
Wait!? There’s someone else named “Jalapus Logan?” Who’d a thunk it!
I would say that you are around a 600 based on the fact that I'm a hair over 600 and I have similar personal best packages. I mainly play 8-ball and I do about one 4 pack a year when playing with friends.
Lol, it was my pseudonym in high school, used to write humor pieces.
Wish more players like your lived around my parts. Thanks and have a great holiday.
I am just under rated, not a sandbagger
I agree with this. Chess rating system are the most similar to Fargo and they use letters to classify players. Elsewhere in this thread I think Mike asked, rhetorically mind you, what a B chess player was. It’s a 1600-1799 rated player.Mike,
All of your points in your posts in this thread are very much appreciated, and I mostly agree with all of them. However, I see nothing wrong with having Fargo-approved letter designations for different ranges of FargoRate numbers. And if those designations agreed with the generally-accepted traditional usage of the ABCD scale, maybe it would help better define and standardize ABCD ratings. This is what I've tried to do with columns 2, 3, and 5 in the BU Ratings Comparison table:
Many people like referring to player levels with a well-understood letter (e.g., A or B-) instead of seemingly oddly-scaled numbers (e.g., 698 or 532). It can be difficult for many people to grasp the meanings of FargoRate numbers, especially if they don't have much direct experience with many players over a wide range of scores, especially since the numbers don't occur over typical rating ranges like 0-10 or 0-100 or 0-1000. Hopefully, FargoRate will some day become so commonplace and widespread that everybody (even casual players) will automatically have meaning attached to the full range of possible FargoRate numbers, but I think Fargo-approved letter designations might actually help with this and better standardize the commonly-used ABCD designations.
But having said all that, I can fully appreciate how much better everything would be if everybody would just use the FargoRate numbers (or official letter designations) and not make up their own regional or arbitrary ABCD designations and interpretations. Just like it would be nice if all leagues and tournaments used a common set of pool rules.
Best regards and Happy New Year,
Dave
Though for simplicity I would probably create a Fargo specific scale to rather than trying to apply existing scales to Fargo. For example, 400-499 is a C player, 500-599 is a B player and so on. Then for 700+ players, 700-749 is a semi-pro, 750-800 is pro and 800+ is world class. That may not align with existing rating scales, but it’s easy to remember.
I'm not familiar with how people communicate in the chess world. I'm curious, though. I know there are various A/B/C/D classes with rating ranges that people use for tournament classes within certain organizations. We are working with a country federation that will have tournament classes based on Fargo Rating ranges. But another bigger or smaller country might find different ranges useful. I don't see some universal impetus to define a class that has universal meaning. Attached is a chart that shows some overlapping classifications. In a bizarre coincidence, it is prepared by Chess's "Dr. Dave."
With that said, though, we DO need to have ways to express a player-level qualitatively. Defining A,B,C, D, E based on Fargo Rating ranges is one way to do that. But I have two concerns.
The first is if we use letter designations that already have meaning to people (like B and A), we are inviting confusion. To someone in poland, a "B"might be someone who can't quite hang with a world-class player, and to someone in Oregon, a B might be someone who runs a table once in a blue moon when all the stars align. If you want to fix that communication problem by assigning a universal rating range, then why not create new labels that don't have baggage?
The second is we should be looking at desire paths. The country of Finland sends people out after a new snowfall (that covers up paved paths) to see where people actually walk. What path across a field do they take that might be an efficient way to get from the subway exit to a particular street and have a bit of nice lake view? What paths do students on a campus actually take between the lecture halls and the cafeteria and the dorms and the parking lots. Some colleges choose to pave no paths until they see where the grass is worn. You are kind of crowd sourcing the design like this.
In a similar way, we look to places like Oklahoma and Arizona and Wisconsin--places where everybody knows Fargo Ratings and they are used all the time. This is where everyplace is heading. What do they actually do when they want to convey qualitatively how someone plays? Oklahoma and Arizona were both entrenched five years ago with numbers. An Arizona "7" was centered around about 500, and an Oklahoma "7" was maybe 40 points higher. They used to talk about 6's and 7's and 9's, etc all the time. Do they still find numbers like that useful to represent a qualitative idea or a range? Actually no. Check out the facebook groups. There are no desire paths involving these numbers in those places. If people want to communicate speed qualitatively, they will use just one significant figure (500 level, 600 level, 700 level, etc). If they want to refine a bit, it's 400, 450, 500, 550, etc. And this works fine.
The impetus to translate from Fargo Ratings to some old local ratings just comes from people not yet accustomed to Fargo Ratings. So they can't imagine. Fargo Ratings to them seem like using metric units for speed or distance (km/hour or meters) and they just are not yet used to thinking in terms of them. It is not a good time to let this tail way this dog, imo.
If you send an email to support@fargorate.com, we can get the games assigned to the correct records.
The British federation seems to use a bizarre, traditional rating scale. The actual USCF assignment of classes is by simple bands of ELO/FIDE ratings that they assign names to:
In my experience it’s not a matter of people failing to understand the conversion from FargoRate to regional letter ratings. We are fortunate to have a prominent tournament director that gets it and people trust his judgment. The only issue is too many people (including myself) that simply don’t have an established FargoRating. For this category of people, the regional letter rating is the only available measure of them. So we see the more progressive TDs mixing the rating systems with established FargoRatings being the overriding factor. I’d easily have an established rating by now if it wasn’t for some laggard TDs and league operators in my area.