I'm not worried about anyone. It's just that your rating system is based on too many variables to be precise. The games themselves-- 8-Ball, 9-Ball, and 10-Ball, are three totally different animals. Same with table size-- 7 or 9 footers. (Your "Woodward" analysis of table size is meaningless btw. He is an outlier-talent in your data). Or Diamond tables (tight pockets) vs Valley tables (buckets).I know you are just speculating. But who are you actually worried about? Did you see our video on league games?
Mr. Page, I've been playing for 37 years and have played tons of your "established" fargorated players, both in league play and tournaments. There are, many times, huge differences in players with near identical fargos and their ability to perform equally in each of the three major games or by table size or type. Too many players are one-trick ponies. They excel at one type of game on one type of table, and they play against the same people with the same qualities, and that's how they're fargorated. The data is one-sided. Frankly your "one-number-fits-all-games-and tables", just isn't that accurate in real game situations. A better indicator would be by game type. For example, I personally excel at 8-ball, on any table, and I play even with guys you'd rate about 650. But I hardly play rotation games. Probably 575ish there at best. Why? Because I'm a pure 8-ball player and that's all I play. And I see this discrepancy all the time. Lotsa "one-trick-ponies". Mike, I personally would love to see you do three ratings: A Fargo-8, Fargo-9, and Fargo-10 (ball). You have the data and tools. Those ratings would be MUCH more meaningful, imo.