Fargo Ratings and table size

SBC said:
Ok Welder...
You definitely got the 6....
Pretty sure we've had this conversation before
Click to expand...
Lol, cute. I think fargorate is the best ranking system in pool when the robustness gets over, say, 1,000 games. That being said, it has it's flaws, and the main one lies with the interpretation of the data. There is a reason why Mr. Page has to put out video after video to explain the data. But the ratings comparisons/meanings are difficult for the average player to understand. All Mr. Page has to do it make the ratings scale in a manner that people can understand. Yes, it means using bigger numbers, but people like big numbers, so change the scaling and BAM!, easy comparisons. Mike is using a rating scale similar to the Richter scale for earthquakes. Not many people understand that either. If I'm twice as good as you, my fargorate should be twice yours!
 
It would be more like this...
 

Attachments

  • images (2).jpeg
    images (2).jpeg
    7.2 KB · Views: 57
Woodshaft said:
Lol, cute. I think fargorate is the best ranking system in pool when the robustness gets over, say, 1,000 games. That being said, it has it's flaws, and the main one lies with the interpretation of the data. There is a reason why Mr. Page has to put out video after video to explain the data. But the ratings comparisons/meanings are difficult for the average player to understand. All Mr. Page has to do it make the ratings scale in a manner that people can understand. Yes, it means using bigger numbers, but people like big numbers, so change the scaling and BAM!, easy comparisons. Mike is using a rating scale similar to the Richter scale for earthquakes. Not many people understand that either. If I'm twice as good as you, my fargorate should be twice yours!
Click to expand...
Makes perfect sense.
 
Woodshaft said:
Lol, cute. I think fargorate is the best ranking system in pool when the robustness gets over, say, 1,000 games. That being said, it has it's flaws, and the main one lies with the interpretation of the data. There is a reason why Mr. Page has to put out video after video to explain the data. But the ratings comparisons/meanings are difficult for the average player to understand. All Mr. Page has to do it make the ratings scale in a manner that people can understand. Yes, it means using bigger numbers, but people like big numbers, so change the scaling and BAM!, easy comparisons. Mike is using a rating scale similar to the Richter scale for earthquakes. Not many people understand that either. If I'm twice as good as you, my fargorate should be twice yours!
Click to expand...
I think the current method makes is easy for a TD to handicap tournaments, because subtractions are "easier" than ratios. It is clear that a 550 vs 500 match, a 650 vs 600 match, and a 625 vs 575 match would be handicapped the same. A TDs job is easier ( a good thing) and also more transparent in case a player takes issue with how the handicapping was done (perhaps a better thing)
 
Woodshaft said:
There are five extremely important ingredients that make everyone a different animal in regards to sports:
1) Talent (Natural)
2) Knowledge (Experience)
3) Skill (Practiced/learned)
4) Desire (Competitiveness)
5) Ego (Emotions)
All pool players (and athletes) have their own levels of each of these traits.
Even similarly fargorated players can-- and most of the time do-- have widely varying levels of each of these traits. Some are amazing shooters, some are geniuses and can out think you, some people aren't ultra competitive but still have ultra ability, some people choke in the biggest moments while dominate in the smaller ones, some people take it easy in league but step up in tourneys, etc... but yet they all have the same fargorate. And that's my beef with fargorate. It doesn't define a player's actual overall abilities, it only cares about wins and losses. I have never met 2 similarly fargorated players who's "potential" was the same for every game/tourney situation. One "fargo 500 player" isn't the same as another "fargo 500 player", for example. We are humans, not machines. And fargorate is just a number based on wins/losses from many different events. IT DOESN'T DEFINE THE PLAYER...
Click to expand...
Yawn. All these same arguments apply to chess players (as chess ratings use similar methods to arrive at relative ratings). One 1600 level player might be good at tactics, the other at position. If they are both 1600, they both have the same expectation (and actual record) of winning against either a 1400, or a 1800 player. What you think of the math doesn't really matter. All the same BS arguments applied to the Chinese girl's match(es) against Donny Mills. All the big-ego males said it wasn't possible that she would beat Donny, because he has a penis, and she has a vagina. "She plays against mostly females, closed player circle, etc.

Not only did she beat Donny Mills, she beat him by almost exactly the margin she was predicted to. The math doesn't care what you think of it.
 
DCMike said:
I think the current method makes is easy for a TD to handicap tournaments, because subtractions are "easier" than ratios. It is clear that a 550 vs 500 match, a 650 vs 600 match, and a 625 vs 575 match would be handicapped the same. A TDs job is easier ( a good thing) and also more transparent in case a player takes issue with how the handicapping was done (perhaps a better thing)
Click to expand...
It should be easier for the PLAYERS to do/understand the math in proportionate terms. The PLAYERS should be able to compare and understand fargorates easily and quickly when at their local pub. TDs have laptops with software/tables to do the handicapping maths. But average player Joe Blow, "improvedfargorate" 200, should be able to easily see that shark Jeff Sneff, "improvedfargorate" 800, is 4 times better than him. Or easily see that an "improvedfargo" 900 is twice as good as a 450, and 3 times as good as a 300. The scaling is in layman terms-- linear.
 
SBC said:
9 foot table game on 4.5 inch pockets is not equivalent to a Valley barbox. I beat lesser players with ridiculous weight on bar tables.

I race Dale Earnhardt Jr with matching Prius....I might beat him once in awhile.

I race Dale Earnhardt Jr with a typical race car....I probably won't get off the starting line.

You are right....weaker players generally stick to their own. When you find a customer like that who will gamble, be sure to treat them very well.
Click to expand...
You would never beat Dale Earnhardt, Jr., even with a matching Prius. His skill takes WAY more than engine output into account. He'll take better lines, handle the weight transfer better, apply brakes better, etc, etc, etc.
 
Woodshaft said:
It should be easier for the PLAYERS to do/understand the math in proportionate terms. The PLAYERS should be able to compare and understand fargorates easily and quickly when at their local pub. TDs have laptops with software/tables to do the handicapping maths. But average player Joe Blow, "improvedfargorate" 200, should be able to easily see that shark Jeff Sneff, "improvedfargorate" 800, is 4 times better than him. Or easily see that an "improvedfargo" 900 is twice as good as a 450, and 3 times as good as a 300. The scaling is in layman terms-- linear.
Click to expand...

Nope. It’s not linear.
 
Woodshaft said:
It should be easier for the PLAYERS to do/understand the math in proportionate terms. The PLAYERS should be able to compare and understand fargorates easily and quickly when at their local pub. TDs have laptops with software/tables to do the handicapping maths. But average player Joe Blow, "improvedfargorate" 200, should be able to easily see that shark Jeff Sneff, "improvedfargorate" 800, is 4 times better than him. Or easily see that an "improvedfargo" 900 is twice as good as a 450, and 3 times as good as a 300. The scaling is in layman terms-- linear.
Click to expand...
You could argue for either scale, as there’s no loss of information either way. I see the actual method as easier for handicapping on the fly. The argument for the second method is about “how many times better A is than B”. Your choice of method depends on your goals. For running a tournament I’d like the first .. for woofing I’d like the second.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top