And I'd say Dawid, one of the B-players here, did alright when he was in the US last yearOK, but if a one-eyed man is king in the land of the blind, who is a C player in Marvel Superhero land? These ratings look reasonable don't you think?
And I'd say Dawid, one of the B-players here, did alright when he was in the US last yearOK, but if a one-eyed man is king in the land of the blind, who is a C player in Marvel Superhero land? These ratings look reasonable don't you think?
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 agree that the letters need to go away. But by looking at the Fargo Ratings of known pros in the USA, I think that it's somewhat clear that 700 is a low-level pro, 750 is a mid-level pro, and 800 is an elite-level pro. That's all I'm saying. If a 700 is where the low-level pros are, than a 650 certainly isn't a B player.
OK, but if a one-eyed man is king in the land of the blind, who is a C player in Marvel Superhero land? These ratings look reasonable don't you think?
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.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.
_______
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.
...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.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 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'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 agree with your speculation. Trying harder means doing better when you are moving a pile of rocks on a hot day--not so much at pool.
Mostly, when we play a little looser, a little more aggressively, with a few drinks in us, we perform about the same.
If you tell John Schmidt you'll give him $1,000 if he runs 200 balls in three tries. And on a separate day I tell him I'll shake his hand and buy him a drink if he does it--his chance of success is about the same
Wait!? There’s someone else named “Jalapus Logan?” Who’d a thunk it!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!
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.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!
Lol, it was my pseudonym in high school, used to write humor pieces.Wait!? There’s someone else named “Jalapus Logan?” Who’d a thunk it!
Wish more players like your lived around my parts. Thanks and have a great holiday.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.
I am just under rated, not a sandbaggerI'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 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
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.
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.
If you send an email to support@fargorate.com, we can get the games assigned to the correct records.Lol, it was my pseudonym in high school, used to write humor pieces.
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:... Attached is a chart that shows some overlapping classifications. In a bizarre coincidence, it is prepared by Chess's "Dr. Dave." ...