Fargo rating

[JC]

Since this thread is about how good is a 600 player I will tell you from my experience. I have a ton of games in the system about 75% from league play and 25% from outside competition. Here I am today.

In league play I don't have much even competition. There is only one player in our area rated higher than I am. The people below me in the stats below from our last 8 ball session before the pandemic are in the 565 range. And like myself they all have a large robustness to get there with much play out of league. Notice the huge difference in break and runs and table runs between them at 565 and myself at 608.

When I last took my show on the road at the Western BCA regional 9 ball tournament it looked like this with the match results below. This was the platinum division with fargo ratings between 585 and 625. As I recall our bracket had about 60 players. The kid who won was a 590 and oddly still is right in there. He was very tough action though, at least when I played him. Overall I won 36 games and lost 29. However at 605 at the time half of these opponents were 15 points below me. So it looks about right.

At the last Western BCA 8 ball event there were about 1300 players there and less than 100 with a fargo higher than mine so I would guess it's correct a 600 player is in the top ten percent of all rated players. But don't kid yourself there are plenty of players lurking to take your money.

Now back to the other question of this thread. The 9 ball ghost on my tough 9 foot diamond eats my lunch. I win occasionally but usually have 3-5 wins in a race to 7. I can dominate the 7 ball though. If you are a player without a rating and can beat the 9 ball ghost regularly on a nine footer you are considerably better than I am. Probably in the 635-640 range minimum to have that skill level.

Are fargo ratings accurate? I think they are very accurate. Way better than anything we've ever had before.

Thank you Mike Page

 

[hang-the-9]

In my experience most people pretend they are a lower speed than they actually are to steal a tournament. And there’s a lot of drama and politics around who gets bumped up and when. Usually when a bracket gets to the Calcutta, you’re looking at all the players that should never have been in the bracket. It’s not always fair for some of the people at the lower end of the bracket because they end up fodder.

I’ve also seen how drastically different ABCD can be from state to state. Here’s how Wisconsin ratings compare to Michigan ratings...

WI GM = MI AAA
WI M = MI A and AA
WI AA = MI BB and half of B+
WI A = MI our B+ and our B
WI B = MI C and C+
WI C = MI D and D+

In Michigan we are still seeing ABCD tournaments but they are starting to use FargoRate to as the primary cutoff for which bracket you’re in. Like this flyer for a BB and under tournament.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

This rating differences are simply due to the people doing their own thing and not following what the rating actually is. Why re-invent the wheel every single time when it's simple to have the same rating everywhere. I am starting to think all this stuff is done on purpose so it's easier to hide how a player plays to allow them to cheat and play as a lower rank than they really are. Is a BB a B+? So if 90% of places say it's a B+ why not just call it a B+?

Also this going by state thing, is there an official state-wide organization that keeps track of rank and assigns them or is it just what a group of local pool halls do?

I don't have any clue why people go out of their way to cheat. Going by this, anyone that plays in handicapped sports needs to have a 24 hr guard on them to make sure they don't steal candy from a store when no-one is looking and does not lie to the IRS or run red lights. The thought process or someone that complains that they are thought of as better players is beyond me. It's not even about how good people play, it's about what your handicap is.

 

[mikepage]

This rating differences are simply due to the people doing their own thing and not following what the rating actually is. Why re-invent the wheel every single time when it's simple to have the same rating everywhere. I am starting to think all this stuff is done on purpose so it's easier to hide how a player plays to allow them to cheat and play as a lower rank than they really are. Is a BB a B+? So if 90% of places say it's a B+ why not just call it a B+?

You have been consistent over the years expressing that A,B,C, etc have an absolute meaning, and that it is your meaning, the one used in Massachusetts. Now I see you imagine "90% of places" share your qualitative understanding.

Every pool player in Michigan knows what a BB is. There are 10 million people in MI, same as MA and CT combined.

And then every pool player in WI, MN, and ND --more than 10-million population--know what a AA is. It's not that different from a BB in MI.

And then WA, OR, and ID also have more than 10 million people. You can see here what they used to call "B" is largely players in the 400s.

And I just showed you B for handicapped events in Poland is around 700.

A paragraph or two from an old Phil Capelle book notwithstanding, your sense that A, B, and C have meanings found on gold tablets provided by angels and translated from a long-dead language just isn't the case.

Yes, it's good to communicate qualitatively about pool skill. But defined rating RANGES are not the best way to do it. For instance, if we called 300s C, 400s B, and 500s A, then that suggests a 410 and a 490 are qualitatively similar while a 390 and a 410 are qualitatively different.

It is much better rather than defining RANGES to the vicinity of a particular Fargo Rating.

Scratch golfer, bogie golfer carry reasonable information. But if we called a 1 and a 9 handicap golfer one thing and a 9 and 11 handicap golfers different things, that would be less helpful. Such descriptions don't naturally emerge when numerical ratings are available; they are not desire paths.

The desire to assign rating ranges to the old local categories arises only because the old categories are locally familiar. We--at least most of us--no longer translate 3.0Liter engine or 400cc motorcycle to cubic inches.

Also this going by state thing, is there an official state-wide organization that keeps track of rank and assigns them or is it just what a group of local pool halls do?

Well, the ratings have gone or are going away. But Western BCA, Midwest Poolplayer's Association, and several more.

 

[Jimmorrison]

Mike Page, I think Fargo ratings are accurate and wish all leagues, venders, etc. would adopt them. Could you possibly explain why some don't? For example, southern MN has one vender, that runs all the leagues, all VNEA. Two years ago they switched to an automated scoring system, on our phones. They went with Compusport, why? What are the various financial incentives, ramifications?

 

[Jimmorrison]

My only opportunity to get an established Fargo is the occasional MPA singles tournament. Very few are close enough to my location. It will take several years.

 

[CaleAYS]

Going back to the first page haha, I’m a 594 with around 1800 games logged and agree with the assessment about the ghost. I can beat the ghost pretty consistently on a bar table but not consistently on a nine foot. Somebody would have to be around 690 or higher for me to like my odds if betting on them playing the ghost say race to 11 on the big table.

 

[MattPoland]

This rating differences are simply due to the people doing their own thing and not following what the rating actually is. Why re-invent the wheel every single time when it's simple to have the same rating everywhere. I am starting to think all this stuff is done on purpose so it's easier to hide how a player plays to allow them to cheat and play as a lower rank than they really are. Is a BB a B+? So if 90% of places say it's a B+ why not just call it a B+?

Also this going by state thing, is there an official state-wide organization that keeps track of rank and assigns them or is it just what a group of local pool halls do?

I don't have any clue why people go out of their way to cheat. Going by this, anyone that plays in handicapped sports needs to have a 24 hr guard on them to make sure they don't steal candy from a store when no-one is looking and does not lie to the IRS or run red lights. The thought process or someone that complains that they are thought of as better players is beyond me. It's not even about how good people play, it's about what your handicap is.

WHAT IS A BB?
In Michigan we have D, D+, C, C+, B, B+, BB, A, AA, AAA, and PRO. BB plays in the upper division with a spot.

WHO SETS MICHIGAN RATINGS?
My opinion is that Statewide Billiards is the most prominent tournament promoters for decades and just last year published their rating database. The letter scale they’ve evolved over the years is what all other groups use in the state. That scale will be embedded in our vernacular for decades longer.

WHO ELSE?
The state BCA promoters have their own rating database but the scale is consistent with Statewide Billiards. Then there are a bunch of local pool halls that started tracking their own ratings but I think many of them are just adopting the Statewide Billiards (SB) ratings.

WHO ELSE?
Brown Bread Red is an upcoming tournament promoter that has gained lots of popularity honoring Statewide Billiards ratings and also adopting a FargoRate conversion. His approach is the future of how handicaps will be managed in Michigan in the future because it honors the past and offers a smooth transition to the future.

THE LETTERS ARE DEAD, LONG LIVE THE LETTERS!
In the end the letter scale that SB has evolved will likely continue for decades but eventually it will all be based on a FargoRate conversion and won’t need the SB database anymore. With how Brown Bread Red does it, the SB database is only good for people that are already known but don’t have an established FargoRate yet.

WHY MICHIGAN IS DIFFERENT THAN WISCONSIN
It’s all organic and it’s all cemented in the players expectation all across the state. I assume that’s very similar to how Wisconsin evolved too but they just happened to emerge also using letters but their expectations on “what a B is” simply manifested differently. And now their scale is cemented in their brains. We’ve only discovered the difference when Michigan players would go to their tournaments and rob the brackets or vice-versa and the Wisconsin players would get slaughtered. Not because one state is better/worse, but because we each have long traditions of different scales.

MY DATA ANALYSIS...
I’ve done work with SB, BBR, BCA (MI), and BCA (WI) comparing their ratings databases to FargoRates and done some deep data analysis on the brackets. The difference that BCA already knew from experience was reinforced in detail with the number differences.

WHY MY B+ IS NOT YOUR B+
It’s different enough that maybe you could pretend nationally that we all agree that D players are bad, C players are highly skilled but their flaws undermine most of their runouts, B players runout nicely but not always, and A players runout noticeably more. But there is still a wide range of difference in how each region attributes specific skill levels into those categories...especially once you start peppering in pluses and double letters. It all starts shifting around drastically even if we are still generally agreeing with the concept of which letters can runout or play lockup safeties.

 

[Dan_B]

...man, I'm sooooo ready to put this machine into action,
possibly, a year this spring having only the game and the usual suspects to deal with,
like those 600's.

 

[bb9ball]

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.View attachment 579902

It's been a lot of years since I played chess. But, I don't remember anyone using the "classes"/letters for anything other than some prizes in bigger tournaments(like last woman prizes in pool) and for "beginner" type tournaments(max rating allowed) that promoted participation and introduction to the game and tournaments.

 

[Island Drive]

WHAT IS A BB?
In Michigan we have D, D+, C, C+, B, B+, BB, A, AA, AAA, and PRO. BB plays in the upper division with a spot.

WHO SETS MICHIGAN RATINGS?


WHY MY B+ IS NOT YOUR B+
It’s different enough that maybe you could pretend nationally that we all agree that D players are bad, C players are highly skilled but their flaws undermine most of their runouts, B players runout nicely but not always, and A players runout noticeably more. But there is still a wide range of difference in how each region attributes specific skill levels into those categories...especially once you start peppering in pluses and double letters. It all starts shifting around drastically even if we are still generally agreeing with the concept of which letters can runout or play lockup safeties.

One thing I learned about handicapping. Player handicaps in large cities, are no where near the same as a small town. A NY 5 rating is probably at least equal to a 7 rating in a town having a small population.

 

[justadub]

My only opportunity to get an established Fargo is the occasional MPA singles tournament. Very few are close enough to my location. It will take several years.

Here in Maine it was a similar scenario, primarily APA here. No BCA leagues here. About two years ago, the New England 9-ball Series tournaments started using Fargo, and last year another person started holding tournaments in many places around the state, also using Fargo. So its growing here, albeit slowly.

Hopefully you'll find someone in your part if the world will do something similar.

 

[JC]

One thing I learned about handicapping. Player handicaps in large cities, are no where near the same as a small town. A NY 5 rating is probably at least equal to a 7 rating in a town having a small population.

That's the beauty of Fargorate. Those 600s from Seattle don't play any better than I do. Pretty sure I can compete with a NY city 600 as well. Proven time and again.

 

[Jimmorrison]

That's the beauty of Fargorate. Those 600s from Seattle don't play any better than I do. Pretty sure I can compete with a NY city 600 as well. Proven time and again.

Yes! That's why I want Fargo in my area. It's not a closed circle, you can't hide. There are too many people that take advantage of the letter system, they don't want Fargo.

 

[Bob Jewett]

My only opportunity to get an established Fargo is the occasional MPA singles tournament. Very few are close enough to my location. It will take several years.

Arranging matches through Salotto might be an option for you. Have you looked at it? (I've only glanced briefly.)

 

[Jimmorrison]

I watched part of a match, played by the guy posting here. I have not delved in to what it would take, to do it. I do know a couple of different groups, hosting small local tournaments. Before Covid, I was a regular participant. Thanks, I will contact the hosts. Might be a good option.

 

[9BallKY]

Arranging matches through Salotto might be an option for you. Have you looked at it? (I've only glanced briefly.)

In an area that doesn’t use fargorate it might be hard to find a player with a rating to play matches against. Where I live I know all kinds of players but I only know of 4 with established ratings and 3 of those live 2 hrs away. It’s not worth the trouble.

 

[Jimmorrison]

In an area that doesn’t use fargorate it might be hard to find a player with a rating to play matches against. Where I live I know all kinds of players but I only know of 4 with established ratings and 3 of those live 2 hrs away. It’s not worth the trouble.

I hear ya, I don't know even one person with an established rating. I do know about 20 guys that are half way there. We could play a bunch of reported matches and get there. If about half or a third of our results were against people outside of our group, that might be pretty legit.

 

[Bob Jewett]

I hear ya, I don't know even one person with an established rating. I do know about 20 guys that are half way there. We could play a bunch of reported matches and get there. If about half or a third of our results were against people outside of our group, that might be pretty legit.

I think that if you have a tight group that has played a lot of games against each other and maybe 400 games total against the world, you are going to be rated pretty accurately. You will be rated very accurately against each other and as a group rated reasonably accurately against the world.

 

[MattPoland]

Arranging matches through Salotto might be an option for you. Have you looked at it? (I've only glanced briefly.)

We have a BCA league here in Lansing, MI. The league lobbied two years in a row for submitting to FargoRate, including voting on rules changes. Finally last year the league operator decided to stop fighting it and started submitting.

So I only have 61 games in the system. It felt like a long way to get an established rating. I gamble once a week or so with a buddy usually with 3-4 hour sessions.

Tonight we decided to try Salotto. We played 9-ball (race to 9), 8-ball (race to 5), 10-ball (race to 7) and 9-ball (race to 15). We played a total of 55 games. So I nearly doubled my robustness in one night. Once FargoRate runs its numbers I should have 116 robustness. I find that exciting because otherwise I was looking at trying to get there playing 3 games a night, once a week whenever leagues kick back in.
I could supplement that with some tournaments but honestly as much as I live playing in them, the best ones around me don’t submit to FargoRate anyway and you have to get deep in the bracket to have a bulk of games logged. And honestly most tournaments are such an exhausting time commitment. I usually am too busy for that with work and family.

My experience with Salotto was that it’s nice to gamble with a buddy and have those matches considered formal “ranked games” instead of unranked. It made the match-up mean something. At least mean more than the $10-$20 we were playing for per set. Plugging in the results per game added a scoreboard element to our match-up that was something extra from our normal moving the coins around the table

Overall as a player that just wants to get established to know how well my practice has paid off, it felt good because my buddy and I have never played each other in a FargoRate match. So all our experience was with other players...and mostly different players. So it’s nice to know the system didn’t just connect me to him. It connected everyone he’s played and everyone I’ve played and really learned a lot about a whole network of players. That felt like the games meant a lot more than just gauging where the two of us stood.

Who knows. Maybe once my rating is established then I might not feel anything special about using Salotto. But for my specific situation at this specific moment in time, there’s some personal excitement around it.

 

[peppersauce]

For anyone wanting more info, here is an interview from the Pool Player Podcast with Mike Page and Steve Ernst.

Great interview and I learned a lot. They go into pretty good detail on how the system works and how all the ratings around the world are connected.