Fargo Ratings and table size

[mikepage]

Regarding the consistency myth video: Very informative video! I find it very interesting and would not have thought that to be the case (at first). But now I think it makes sense. I think part of the push-back from people is that the type of “Fargo consistency” talked about in the video doesn’t fit well with traditional ideas of consistency. But what really is "consistency"? Take these two statements:

(1) Higher rated players tend to be more consistent than lower rated players.

(2) Higher rated players have the same Fargo performance variability as lower rated players.

Some may believe that only one of these statements can be true. Though I believe both can be true as long as we differentiate between the two ideas of "consistent" If fact, (2) may imply (1) if a suitable definition of "consistency" in statement (1) is pinned down.

Intuitively:

Take 2 players: Player 1 (Fargo 800) and Player 2 (Fargo 400), and have them each play many games against the ghost or some common third player. Give both players the same detrimental nudge to their “consistency” by making sure each misses an extra 1 out of 6 balls. (Something like: before every shot, a die is thrown and if it shows 6 spots, then the next shot is a miss, by definition,) In other words, give both players the same absolute change to “consistency”. (This means i am defining consistency in terms of a rate of missing balls, an arguable point.)

Using “Fargorate performance” as the measuring stick, we should expect a more catastrophic effect on the 800 player than on the 400 player, due to differing relative effects this nudge has on each player’s (vastly different) natural error rates. (Whether or not this seems intuitive, a very crude math analysis shows this is expected. It is as though, with the 400 level player, Fargorate views this nudge with a naked eye, but with the 800 level player, views it through a 16x magnification lens, figuatively making a mountain out of a molehill.)

Therefore if (1) were false, we should expect you (Mike Page) to be reporting that highly ranked players have more variability in Fargorate performance, because of the "making of mountains out of molehills" effect . But you are not. You are reporting that variability is constant, and this would support (1).

Crude math seems to support this as well. If we imagine Fargo rating as determined by playing games against a 500 level opponent, then Fargo rating is proportional to the logarithm of the odds of losing a game to this opponent. Deviations in Fargo performance would be (approximately) proportional to observed deviation in these odds, divided by the odds. For a 400 level player you'd have a quotient with denominator 2. For a 800 level player you'd have a quotient with denominator 0.125. So if these two quotients show the same variability (as the data seems to indicate), then the numerators must have differing variances, with the one corresponding to the 800 level player being less.

The best part of what the video suggest is that is permits that consistency can have some grounding by being quantifiable and empirically justified. In my mind it's ok to accept that (1) and (2) are compatible with each other as as it is understood the two notions of consistency refer to different things, with the traditional notion of consistency referring to something vague and subjective. Vague, subjective and even incorrect ideas can have lots of traction simply because they've been around a long time.

I agree with this. SVB's day-to-day variations in performance are smaller on an absolute scale than are mine. But SVB relies more on precise performance than I do. So the impact of our day-to-day variations are similar.

The science fiction writer Robert Heinlein once noted that, for example, a convenience-store-clerk and Elon Musk both getting a $200 fine for the same speeding violation is effectively widely disparate penalties for the same infraction. His solution was to advocate for corporal punishment for traffic offenses.

 

[Poolplaya9]

I don't disagree with anything you said in the rest of your post. I'm not one of those guys that's opposed to handicapped events. There's a time and a place for both open and handicapped tourneys, and I love what Mike and his team have done with FargoRate.

I guess I'm just pointing out my one lament about handicapped tourneys.

Shame on me, but in some of my responses including that last one I kind of forgot that they were handicap events you were talking about and so I was writing mostly from the perspective of them being regular ole heads up short race tournaments. Fortunately most of it still applies but some of it is now a bit out of place in that context.

Switching topics completely. I don't personally care for handicapped leagues or tournaments and don't play them, although I totally understand the need for them and if that was all that was available to me I would probably play some of them (as far as tournaments go there are not currently and never have been any handicapped tournaments in my area, everything is heads up so fortunately I've never had to make that choice). But what I really, really, reaaaaally hate, with a passion, is events that are handicapped with the intention to have all dead even matches to the best of their ability. Might as well flip coins then and save time playing the matches as far as I am concerned. I think the better players should be winning more often, and the lesser players are supposed to be trying to outrun the nuts, at least to some extent, even in handicapped tournaments. That's the whole thrill in being a better player and in being a lesser player, it's what its all about and true even handicaps take that away from both.

To expand on that, if an event is to be handicapped, I think efforts should be made to always give the more skilled player a slight advantage for all the races on average, kind of like mikepage described in post #29 which I linked below. This is a reasonable handicap compromise that gives some benefit to everybody. The more skilled players still have some advantage so they will still win much more often than less skilled players, just as it should be, and while this isn't nearly as good for them as getting the full benefit of all their skill, many/most can still live with it as a decent compromise if need be. The less skilled players will still win often enough that they aren't just totally wasting their time and money so it keeps them interested and coming too, and they respect that the better players should be able to keep a bit of an advantage and win more so that doesn't bother them much either as long as they can steal a win every so often. It helps keep tournament field sizes up which benefits the prize fund and by extension the players. A larger field also benefits the establishment holding the tournament, and probably makes it likely that they will want to do what they can to see the tournament continue to run and flourish. Etc.

This is one description for what it would look like as given by Mike in post #29, and while not ideal for anyone, it sounds reasonable for everyone:
"HOT matches are not really 100% handicapping. It just means no individual match is tilted in favor of the lower-rated player. On average, the higher-rated player has an advantage--perhaps 55%/45% if it is like races to 5 or so. This means for, say a 32-player single elimination tournament (for which you must win 5 matches to win), the highest-rated entrant has about 3 times the chance of winning the event as does the lowest-rated entrant."

Fargo Ratings and table size

Here is a little investigation some may find interesting comparing 9-Ball on 7-foot tables to 10-Ball on 9-foot tables --basically Amateur to Pro conditions

forums.azbilliards.com

 

[Bob Jewett]

In terms of match results, you might expect higher rated players to have more variability in their results.

Consider an even match between two 200-rated players. Race to 10. Every rack takes five or six innings minimum. You may as well be flipping coins. The distribution of results will be pretty much the same as coin flips. Lots of hill-hill results and rarely (1 in 512) 10-0.

Now consider the same match between two 900-rated players if such people existed. The first player runs a 3-pack and then the second player runs 10-and-out. Next match is 10-0 from the first break. Hill-hill is rare and 10-3 and worse is common. The players appear to have far more variability. The problem is that the match is not long enough for their skill level. A more extreme case would be playing straight pool to 10.

 

[BasementDweller]

In terms of match results, you might expect higher rated players to have more variability in their results.

Consider an even match between two 200-rated players. Race to 10. Every rack takes five or six innings minimum. You may as well be flipping coins. The distribution of results will be pretty much the same as coin flips. Lots of hill-hill results and rarely (1 in 512) 10-0.

Now consider the same match between two 900-rated players if such people existed. The first player runs a 3-pack and then the second player runs 10-and-out. Next match is 10-0 from the first break. Hill-hill is rare and 10-3 and worse is common. The players appear to have far more variability. The problem is that the match is not long enough for their skill level. A more extreme case would be playing straight pool to 10.

This is clearly true but also part of the reason I don't ever see winner breaks in my neck of the woods anymore. Still someone mentioned previously the two types of variances at work here and I guess that's what I was getting at intuitively, while not clearly describing it....hey I'm thinking out loud here people...

So your description explains why a lower rated player may have more variability in their results than the better players, but their actual execution on the table may still have a greater variability and that's what bites the better players and is always difficult to swallow. I guess it would be like a FargoRate vs TPA discussion.

 

[BasementDweller]

Shame on me, but in some of my responses including that last one I kind of forgot that they were handicap events you were talking about and so I was writing mostly from the perspective of them being regular ole heads up short race tournaments. Fortunately most of it still applies but some of it is now a bit out of place in that context.

Switching topics completely. I don't personally care for handicapped leagues or tournaments and don't play them, although I totally understand the need for them and if that was all that was available to me I would probably play some of them (as far as tournaments go there are not currently and never have been any handicapped tournaments in my area, everything is heads up so fortunately I've never had to make that choice). But what I really, really, reaaaaally hate, with a passion, is events that are handicapped with the intention to have all dead even matches to the best of their ability. Might as well flip coins then and save time playing the matches as far as I am concerned. I think the better players should be winning more often, and the lesser players are supposed to be trying to outrun the nuts, at least to some extent, even in handicapped tournaments. That's the whole thrill in being a better player and in being a lesser player, it's what its all about and true even handicaps take that away from both.

To expand on that, if an event is to be handicapped, I think efforts should be made to always give the more skilled player a slight advantage for all the races on average, kind of like mikepage described in post #29 which I linked below. This is a reasonable handicap compromise that gives some benefit to everybody. The more skilled players still have some advantage so they will still win much more often than less skilled players, just as it should be, and while this isn't nearly as good for them as getting the full benefit of all their skill, many/most can still live with it as a decent compromise if need be. The less skilled players will still win often enough that they aren't just totally wasting their time and money so it keeps them interested and coming too, and they respect that the better players should be able to keep a bit of an advantage and win more so that doesn't bother them much either as long as they can steal a win every so often. It helps keep tournament field sizes up which benefits the prize fund and by extension the players. A larger field also benefits the establishment holding the tournament, and probably makes it likely that they will want to do what they can to see the tournament continue to run and flourish. Etc.

This is one description for what it would look like as given by Mike in post #29, and while not ideal for anyone, it sounds reasonable for everyone:
"HOT matches are not really 100% handicapping. It just means no individual match is tilted in favor of the lower-rated player. On average, the higher-rated player has an advantage--perhaps 55%/45% if it is like races to 5 or so. This means for, say a 32-player single elimination tournament (for which you must win 5 matches to win), the highest-rated entrant has about 3 times the chance of winning the event as does the lowest-rated entrant."

Fargo Ratings and table size

Here is a little investigation some may find interesting comparing 9-Ball on 7-foot tables to 10-Ball on 9-foot tables --basically Amateur to Pro conditions

forums.azbilliards.com

Great post. I'm with you entirely on your view of handicapping.

Mike's explanation of the Hot matches doesn't seem very descriptive to me because doesn't this -- "It just means no individual match is tilted in the favor of the lower-rated player" apply to HOT, MEDIUM, and MILD matches? Also if we are talking about a 55/45 percentage, coupled with short races and my belief in the performative variance of the lesser players, I'd say for my one off match -- that's as good as a coin-flip.

 

[Poolplaya9]

Well first off I know they were looking for one word descriptors, but hot, medium and mild was quite possibly the dumbest naming convention in history, or real close to it. The names don't intuitively lead you into knowing exactly what they are (I've asked a ton of people about this and it hasn't been clear to a single one of them yet), and then to add insult to injury the site doesn't even bother to offer any explanation as to exactly what each are (or at least it didn't for many years until I last checked maybe a year ago). I and others can see hot meaning hot as in no advantage, or hot as in a lot of advantage, and same for mild, they are both just as easily seen both ways. You have to look at the recommended races for each one to figure out what each one appears to be doing, and I'm sure there are a few players that wouldn't be able to figure it out that way. But in any case you shouldn't have to. What a disaster. The naming should make it abundantly clear exactly what they are, or it should be explained on the site what they are, and that it was never done (or took so long) was a gross misjudgment and is inexcusable in my book.

That aside, when dealing with short races, there is no way to give a very similar handicap for each race. You choice for one match may be something like you can have the better player be at a 3% disadvantage, or a 16% advantage with no in between option because of the short race lengths you are working with, and you might decide to go ahead and handicap that particular match giving the better player the 3% disadvantage because 3% is closer to even than 16% is, and because a 16% advantage is just too much. And then other times the odds for players with given fargos may straddle a little closer to the 50/50 line and you have the luxury of easily being able to go either way of your choice for that match, like maybe for that next match your choices are to give the better player a 2% disadvantage or 7% advantage, and so for that one you choose to go with the 7% advantage. So each race is slightly different in the options that are available to you, but they all average out to a certain average advantage or disadvantage for the better or worse player over time.

I think what Mike is saying is the for the hot handicap category, he made the match length choices such that the advantage would never go to the weaker player for even one match in races to about 5 (which presumably means that in mild or medium the advantage in races to about 5 would go to the lesser player some portion of the time, but what portion for what match lengths is entirely unknown, although it sure would be nice to know). The other thing he is saying is that for the hot category, when dealing with about races to 5, the better player in matches will average out having had an average of a 55% advantage over time. Since we now apparently know that in races to about 5 in the hot category the better player will always have the advantage, the advantages for each match for the better player over time will probably look something like this: 51%, 57%, 62%, 53%, 54%, 57%, 52%, etc, always without exception being above 50%, and ultimately averaging out to around 55% or so over time.

We don't really know how mild or medium play out (for a given match length we don't know what portion of the time the lesser player has the advantage, nor do we know what their average advantage or disadvantage will be over time) because to my knowledge he has never really said and it isn't on the site (again, sure would be nice to know or at least be given some general ideas!), but per his earlier post that is apparently how hot plays out when dealing with around races to 5.

 

[mikepage]

Well first off I know they were looking for one word descriptors, but hot, medium and mild was quite possibly the dumbest naming convention in history, or real close to it. The names don't intuitively lead you into knowing exactly what they are (I've asked a ton of people about this and it hasn't been clear to a single one of them yet), and then to add insult to injury the site doesn't even bother to offer any explanation as to exactly what each are (or at least it didn't for many years until I last checked maybe a year ago). I and others can see hot meaning hot as in no advantage, or hot as in a lot of advantage, and same for mild, they are both just as easily seen both ways. You have to look at the recommended races for each one to figure out what each one appears to be doing, and I'm sure there are a few players that wouldn't be able to figure it out that way. But in any case you shouldn't have to. What a disaster. The naming should make it abundantly clear exactly what they are, or it should be explained on the site what they are, and that it was never done (or took so long) was a gross misjudgment and is inexcusable in my book.

That aside, when dealing with short races, there is no way to give a very similar handicap for each race. You choice for one match may be something like you can have the better player be at a 3% disadvantage, or a 16% advantage with no in between option because of the short race lengths you are working with, and you might decide to go ahead and handicap that particular match giving the better player the 3% disadvantage because 3% is closer to even than 16% is, and because a 16% advantage is just too much. And then other times the odds for players with given fargos may straddle a little closer to the 50/50 line and you have the luxury of easily being able to go either way of your choice for that match, like maybe for that next match your choices are to give the better player a 2% disadvantage or 7% advantage, and so for that one you choose to go with the 7% advantage. So each race is slightly different in the options that are available to you, but they all average out to a certain average advantage or disadvantage for the better or worse player over time.

I think what Mike is saying is the for the hot handicap category, he made the match length choices such that the advantage would never go to the weaker player for even one match in races to about 5 (which presumably means that in mild or medium the advantage in races to about 5 would go to the lesser player some portion of the time, but what portion for what match lengths is entirely unknown, although it sure would be nice to know). The other thing he is saying is that for the hot category, when dealing with about races to 5, the better player in matches will average out having had an average of a 55% advantage over time. Since we now apparently know that in races to about 5 in the hot category the better player will always have the advantage, the advantages for each match for the better player over time will probably look something like this: 51%, 57%, 62%, 53%, 54%, 57%, 52%, etc, always without exception being above 50%, and ultimately averaging out to around 55% or so over time.

We don't really know how mild or medium play out (for a given match length we don't know what portion of the time the lesser player has the advantage, nor do we know what their average advantage or disadvantage will be over time) because to my knowledge he has never really said and it isn't on the site (again, sure would be nice to know or at least be given some general ideas!), but per his earlier post that is apparently how hot plays out when dealing with around races to 5.

This may help

 

[ShortBusRuss]

That's a given, and understood, but my statement stands - technically speaking, this analysis is flawed.

No, it's not. The apropos comparison is you both have a stick shift, and are racing on the same track. But they are simply a better driver, overall. They shift better, they take better lines, they manage the throttle better to keep better traction. They are simply faster.

They are gonna beat you on whatever track you race together on. If you are dirt track specialist, they might beat you by a little less (at first), but they will in short order apply their superior ability to the track, and the full difference in your times will reestablish itself.

The players/racers saying that the system is flawed, simply don't have the skill needed to accurately recognize the difference between the two of you. It's a statistics-based system, and as such, it fully takes into account sandbagging, bad days, etc. All these factors apply to your opponent as well.

 

[ShortBusRuss]

I am able to transition back and fourth between equipment (somehow). The same people that play better than me on a big table also beat me on the bar table.The small table doesn't allow the lesser player to win consistently over time.

What the bar table does do is allow more people to run out at a higher percentage, but the better player can fade that in the long run.

Yes. Because when you suddenly increase to running 3-packs, they increase to running 5-packs. In the end, you both run approximately the same percentages of racks, and execute the same percentages of safes (and here's the important point) RELATIVE to each other. That's the entire point of a statistical, relative rating system.

 

[Welder84]

What makes you think you can buck statistics?

I've said it before and I will say it one last time - I know what the results say and I can't dispute them but, technically speaking you cannot say the results are 100% reliable.

End of story

Yes. Because when you suddenly increase to running 3-packs, they increase to running 5-packs. In the end, you both run approximately the same percentages of racks, and execute the same percentages of safes (and here's the important point) RELATIVE to each other. That's the entire point of a statistical, relative rating system.

Exactly.

 

[Woodshaft]

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...

 

[freds]

And fargorate is just a number based on wins/losses from many different events. IT DOESN'T DEFINE THE PLAYER...

Exactly right. I think all it is intended to do is provide the most reliable answer available to the question: "which player is likely to win this match, and by how much".


Which is a beautiful thing.

 

[David in FL]

This may help

Thanks.

I never understood the hot, medium, mild differences before. I suspect that’s common, even among league/tournament operators.

 

[BasementDweller]

Thanks.

I never understood the hot, medium, mild differences before. I suspect that’s common, even among league/tournament operators.

Yeah that helped.

I will say I do think I understand why they named them the way they did. It's simply about connotations. Had they named them: Strong, Medium, & Weak or Heavy, Medium, & Light they would maybe be more easily understood, but they would possible turn players off as the better players would ask more questions about the handicapping and many wouldn't want to play in a "Strongly" or "Heavily" handicapped tourney.

 

[hang-the-9]

I agree with this. SVB's day-to-day variations in performance are smaller on an absolute scale than are mine. But SVB relies more on precise performance than I do. So the impact of our day-to-day variations are similar.

The science fiction writer Robert Heinlein once noted that, for example, a convenience-store-clerk and Elon Musk both getting a $200 fine for the same speeding violation is effectively widely disparate penalties for the same infraction. His solution was to advocate for corporal punishment for traffic offenses.

First, I love Heinlein There are actually countries that have fines based on your earnings, there was something I read a while about about a guy getting a 1,000 + speeding ticket due to that. In one of his books he also wrote that rudeness should be punishable by death to improve society. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/06/in-finland-speeding-tickets-are-linked-to-your-income/

 

[SBC]

I think it's true the results are similar for better players who play on 9 footers to rank about the same on 7s.

I don't believe for a minute that an APA5 who is a 550 on 7 foot tables would be that on a 9 footer. Their lack of cueball control and ball pocketing skills on a big table with tight pockets, means their win percentage will plummet versus better players.

 

[SBC]

Mike has posted here before that players can range from 50 points below to 50 points above their current FR rating but your statement makes me wonder - is that true for high level players also? Does a 750 FR really bounce from 700 to 800? I wouldn't think so, but it's entirely possible on any given day I suppose.

When Shane beat Corey giving him the 5 ball..., his 782 rating didn't seem that strong.

 

[BasementDweller]

I think it's true the results are similar for better players who play on 9 footers to rank about the same on 7s.

I don't believe for a minute that an APA5 who is a 550 on 7 foot tables would be that on a 9 footer. Their lack of cueball control and ball pocketing skills on a big table with tight pockets, means their win percentage will plummet versus better players.

I know this has been discussed ad nauseum (think I used that one right ) and the "familiarity" argument always comes up. As in, it's only a matter of time before the 550 bar table player gets accustomed to the 9 footer. While there may be some truth to that. I think what's just as likely is the 550 gets drilled 9-1 by a 670 who's familair with the 9'er and so he thinks to himself how he preferred the 9-2 drubbing he took on the bar table so he just stays on the bar table.

I think there could be that area of skill where player performance falls off a cliff when they switch tables. A 550 vs 650 could be a good example. 550 could outrun their cueing deficiencies on a bar table but be unable to hide from them on a big table. But if true, it wouldn't really show up in the data, because what sane primarily bar table player would keep going back to the big table if their game went off the rails on it?

So really this is just info we'll keep amongst ourselves.

 

[SBC]

I know this has been discussed ad nauseum (think I used that one right ) and the "familiarity" argument always comes up. As in, it's only a matter of time before the 550 bar table player gets accustomed to the 9 footer. While there may be some truth to that. I think what's just as likely is the 550 gets drilled 9-1 by a 670 who's familair with the 9'er and so he thinks to himself how he preferred the 9-2 drubbing he took on the bar table so he just stays on the bar table.

I think there could be that area of skill where player performance falls off a cliff when they switch tables. A 550 vs 650 could be a good example. 550 could outrun their cueing deficiencies on a bar table but be unable to hide from them on a big table. But if true, it wouldn't really show up in the data, because what sane primarily bar table player would keep going back to the big table if their game went off the rails on it?

So really this is just info we'll keep amongst ourselves.

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.

 

[Chili Palmer]

I think it's true the results are similar for better players who play on 9 footers to rank about the same on 7s.

I don't believe for a minute that an APA5 who is a 550 on 7 foot tables would be that on a 9 footer. Their lack of cueball control and ball pocketing skills on a big table with tight pockets, means their win percentage will plummet versus better players.

An APA 5 is not a 550, they're closer to 400-450 at best.

A 550 rated player should have ok cue ball control at that level but their win percentage would drop considerably on a 9' if they normally play on a 7'.