Fargo rating

[Woodshaft]

I think the only real upside to all that additional data management is simply that last line.... You would like the ability to compare what your local league player does on Wednesday night to how he performs when it matters more. I get it, but I don't see the value in league stats beyond the local district, but maybe thats the point...

I can tell you right now, that my fargo rates would be very different between the two designations. I play league for fun, and "hold my beer and watch this" moments. When I play tournaments I'll only touch a drink if a long wait is in my future. Does that mean I sandbag in league...?

Exactly my point. The problem with this one all-inclusive fargorating is that it is usually based on two totally different mind-sets(data): casual league play, and competitive tourney play. And where this is becoming an issue is that more and more big money tournaments are using fargorates as caps. This means more league players will want to sandbag in order to be able play in tournaments that use fargorate caps that would otherwise lock them out.
These 580 fargorate-capped, $1,000 entry/winner-take-all-type tourneys, for example, are becoming much more common, and the ability and incentive to sandbag outside of these tourneys (with recreational data) is higher than ever. I feel that TOURNAMENT RESULTS should carry much more weight in the overall rating because of this.

 

[mikepage]

How strong is a 604?

If you are in NY area, this might help

 

[The_JV]

Exactly my point. The problem with this one all-inclusive fargorating is that it is usually based on two totally different mind-sets(data): casual league play, and competitive tourney play. And where this is becoming an issue is that more and more big money tournaments are using fargorates as caps. This means more league players will want to sandbag in order to be able play in tournaments that use fargorate caps that would otherwise lock them out.
These 580 fargorate-capped, $1,000 entry/winner-take-all-type tourneys, for example, are becoming much more common, and the ability and incentive to sandbag outside of these tourneys (with recreational data) is higher than ever. I feel that TOURNAMENT RESULTS should carry much more weight in the overall rating because of this.

Ah... I see what your saying. Frankly if leagues are going to report to Fargo, then yes there should be a separate designation for that data.

The action must be crazy where you live. I can't imagine a sub 600 player forking out $1k to play in a winner take all tourney in my neck of the woods. We have a hard enough time trying to pull $20 out of their pockets for a handicapped tournament...lol

 

[Woodshaft]

Ah... I see what your saying. Frankly if leagues are going to report to Fargo, then yes there should be a separate designation for that data.

The action must be crazy where you live. I can't imagine a sub 600 player forking out $1k to play in a winner take all tourney in my neck of the woods. We have a hard enough time trying to pull $20 out of their pockets for a handicapped tournament...lol

Griff's 580 & Under $1000 Entry 10-Ball Event, for example​

 

[Woodshaft]

Griff's 580 & Under $1000 Entry 10-Ball Event, for example​

There are many "well off" people who think they're good enough at pool to compete with almost anyone. These folks have been financing road players for decades lol. A few of the folks in that tourney were UNDER 500 fargo!

 

[Get_A_Grip]

If you are in NY area, this might helpView attachment 579728

This chart most accurately reflects my perception of a Fargo Rating to it's proper Letter Rating. A strong B player is more like a 575. An A is around 600, a AA around a 625 to 650, and a AAA or Master is between a 650 and 700.

 

[gerryf]

I sandbag to keep my FargoRate low. Then i plunk down $1000 to enter a tournament.

Playing in that tournament will affect my FargoRating. I have to be so good and so lucky that i can ensure i don't beat anyone too badly.

Then return to my league, and sandbag again to try and to get my FargoRate low again?

I can see people might try to do that if they are right at the edge of a cutoff. A true 590 might want to stay around 575. That seems like a pretty small margin to play with.

Has there been any instances where this has happened?

I did find a Mike Page video looking at sandbagging.

.

I think letter ratings are much more likely to be inaccurate.

 

[Woodshaft]

I sandbag to keep my FargoRate low. Then i plunk down $1000 to enter a tournament.

Playing in that tournament will affect my FargoRating. I have to be so good and so lucky that i can ensure i don't beat anyone too badly.

Then return to my league, and sandbag again to try and to get my FargoRate low again?

I can see people might try to do that if they are right at the edge of a cutoff. A true 590 might want to stay around 575. That seems like a pretty small margin to play with.

Has there been any instances where this has happened?

I did find a Mike Page video looking at sandbagging.

.

I think letter ratings are much more likely to be inaccurate.

It depends on how hard you sandbag. Say you play(sandbag) 500 league games at fargo 450, and play 500 tourney games at 650. Your overall fargo is around 550, but your money game (authentic data) fargo is 650. That 100 point difference is huge in fargo-handicapped tourneys.
And until league/recreational games are separated from tournament games, I take a person's fargorate with a big grain of salt.

 

[gerryf]

It depends on how hard you sandbag. Say you play(sandbag) 500 league games at fargo 450, and play 500 tourney games at 650. Your overall fargo is around 550, but your money game (authentic data) fargo is 650. That 100 point difference is huge in fargo-handicapped tourneys.
And until league/recreational games are separated from tournament games, I take a person's fargorate with a big grain of salt.

But after doing well in that tournament, my Fargo Rate is going up, maybe to 590. So if i go back to the league to sandbag again, my FargoRate has to drop down. There should be an oscillation in my FargoRate - going up after a tournament i play well in, then back down between tournaments.

That should show up shouldn't it? Any league keeping track of the Fargo Rate of their own players should see that.

And the players i play against in the league will also know something is up. Poor players will be beating me and their FargoRate will start going up as mine comes down.

And when i enter tournaments, other players will know what happened at the last tournament, and that i'm trying to scam them.

I don't know any details, but i did hear a rumor that FargoRate threw out some match data from a league in Calgary where the numbers didn't add up.

 

[Poolplaya9]

The problem with this one all-inclusive fargorating is that it is usually based on two totally different mind-sets(data): casual league play, and competitive tourney play. And where this is becoming an issue is that more and more big money tournaments are using fargorates as caps. This means more league players will want to sandbag in order to be able play in tournaments that use fargorate caps that would otherwise lock them out.

As far as the league vs tournament play, a couple of thoughts that may be broadly applicable and not necessarily directed specifically at you. First, in league, when you supposedly aren't trying your hardest, don't forget that your opponent is playing a league match too. All of your opponents are. Why do we always tend to act like we are the only ones that aren't giving 100%? Truth is nobody there is probably trying as hard as they would be if they were playing a gambling set for $1000, and since everybody is of a similar mindset it is an even playing field and everything probably stays pretty close to how it would be if you were all in a tournament instead and so not much is being skewed.

Second, you make the assumption that since you aren't trying as hard you automatically play worse in league than you do in tournaments but this may not even be true even though it sure is nice to believe and therefore we generally believe it. In tournaments you probably feel more pressure which makes you dog things you would never be dogging in league and so forth. I bet on net there isn't near as much difference in how we ultimately perform in each as we would like to be believe, but we almost certainly have selective memory and bias about what things we conveniently notice and remember and count and which things we don't. You might actually even play a better game in league than you do in tournaments but in any case chances are that they aren't as far apart as you would like to believe as your game excels and suffers under each, just for differing reasons.

Third, we tend to think we play like a 100 Fargo points worse or something in league where we aren't trying as hard but truth is it is probably closer to like 15 points or something. I think we ascribe this huge difference between the two when the reality is that the difference isn't really actually probably all that massive at all. SVB playing around is still going to wipe the floor with you, and chances are he is still going to beat a pro a couple dozen points lower in rating than him even when he is playing around too same as you are going to do with a player rated a couple dozen points under you. If we are honest about it we probably aren't really all that much worse while playing around but it makes us feel good to think there is this enormous chasm of difference.

As for the intentional sandbagging stuff, see the video below linked below that was posted by gerryf just earlier in the thread.

We all have our guesses and theories about things but data trumps all that, and the data at hand so far, and it is a pretty good amount of data, says that there isn't all that much difference between people's ratings in how they play league vs how they play tournaments--even among those people that are trying their hardest to make sure that there is a big difference between the two. The only real speculating there is left to do is on why that is, which is what I did above.

 

[Weber]

There are many "well off" people who think they're good enough at pool to compete with almost anyone. These folks have been financing road players for decades lol. A few of the folks in that tourney were UNDER 500 fargo!

Ouch, that hurt! Lol.

 

[Fast Lenny]

If you are in NY area, this might helpView attachment 579728

I am a 650 and consider myself a strong B+ low A player. Would not consider myself in between an A+ and A++ player. Just my personal assessment.

 

[Get_A_Grip]

I am a 650 and consider myself a strong B+ low A player. Would not consider myself in between an A+ and A++ player. Just my personal assessment.

Considering that most people consider a 700 a low-level pro, you are probably a AA player (A+).

 

[mikepage]

It depends on how hard you sandbag. Say you play(sandbag) 500 league games at fargo 450, and play 500 tourney games at 650. Your overall fargo is around 550, but your money game (authentic data) fargo is 650. That 100 point difference is huge in fargo-handicapped tourneys.
And until league/recreational games are separated from tournament games, I take a person's fargorate with a big grain of salt.

I know you are just speculating. But who are you actually worried about? Did you see our video on league games?

 

[mikepage]

Considering that most people consider a 700 a low-level pro, you are probably a AA player (A+).

There are no universal uses for the letters. There is no "true B speed." Poland does handicapped tournaments in which a "B" is around 680 and a "C" might be 650. In Minnesota a typical "B" is in the upper 400s and an "A" is maybe 560 give of take 30. points. US mid-atlantic/northeast you'll see various things between these. In Michigan there is a BB rating in the upper 500s or so. These letters just need to go away.

What's a B bowler? What's a B golfer? What is "B level" for the pole vault or the mile run? What is a "B level" chess player?

The letters just need to go away.

 

[mikepage]

[...]

We all have our guesses and theories about things but data trumps all that, and the data at hand so far, and it is a pretty good amount of data, says that there isn't all that much difference between people's ratings in how they play league vs how they play tournaments--even among those people that are trying their hardest to make sure that there is a big difference between the two. The only real speculating there is left to do is on why that is, which is what I did above.

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

 

[gerryf]

Thanks for the analysis Mike. Great stuff!

 

[Get_A_Grip]

There are no universal uses for the letters. There is no "true B speed." Poland does handicapped tournaments in which a "B" is around 680 and a "C" might be 650. In Minnesota a typical "B" is in the upper 400s and an "A" is maybe 560 give of take 30. points. US mid-atlantic/northeast you'll see various things between these. In Michigan there is a BB rating in the upper 500s or so. These letters just need to go away.

What's a B bowler? What's a B golfer? What is "B level" for the pole vault or the mile run? What is a "B level" chess player?

The letters just need to go away.

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.

 

[Fore Rail]

Whether a number or a letter if one plays / competes long enough he / she will soon find out if that ranking is appropriate.

 

[mikepage]

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?