Last edited:
fargo ratings aren't very good or accurate
- Thread starter schon267
- Start date
What part was wrong? The fact that most every player I know thinks the system blows? That's a fact. Are you the guy giving ridiculous spots or getting them? That will answer my question a little.
The fact is they're using a system to handicap tournaments right now that still doesn't have a program that can distinguish what your rank is without 200 games. That is a FLAWED System.[/QUOTE]
Law of large numbers. Google it.
Law of large numbers. Google it.
Last edited:
It's worse than that. A good chunk of those 200 games need to be against opponents we have clocked.
That you win 80% of your games against a group unknown to us is--at least for now--useless information.
Bottom line is....if the above makes you uncomfortable, get used to disappointment...
My bad, sorry about that rob.
So, somebody more interested in playing for cash could enter some tournaments, sandbag when playing highly ranked players, and then hustle away based on his Fargo rating?
the devil is in the details on this stuff.
There is nothing, really, to stop someone from
pay, dump
pay, dump
pay, dump
pay, dump
pay, dump
etc...
But remember influence on ratings depends in a big way on the number of games you play. If you are entering cheap tournaments, there are short races and you are not playing many games --maybe 8-12 games for a two-and-out tournament.
When you show up and play for that one event that matters to you, you play enough games to overshadow all of these.
When Fargo Ratings show up in any new area, there is always this discussion, and a few people who tell a few people who tell us about how hey are going to try to do this. We have actually tagged people and watched their performance, and we have ways of detecting anomalous performance as well. Despite the talk, we just haven't seen it. Once Fargo Ratings become the norm in an area and become widespread, these discussions tend to go away...
That's exactly what can happen. My buddy begged me to go last year because someone who played his speed would have to give me a spot they couldn't possibly win with. I play about the 8 under what the OP Steve plays and an APA 6 would have to give me a ridiculous spot. So how isn't that Flawed? I'm not into robbing tournaments, I'd rather gamble, but there are plenty ready to robb the tournament.
While I DON LIKE IT, let's be honest. OK so Fargo will take a bit to be accurate - the real issue is when we wanna make some cheez it's gonna prevent us when the " what's your Fargo Rate " comes up. I'm with you. Just Freaking play, I get it!
Mike/Mark - I'll pull an example from Vegas since you're both familiar with the local players. Greg Kuhl (571) and Ozzy Reynolds (684). Both of these players have over 200 games according to Fargo. Based on the website, a fair match would be 5-9. I don't think Ozzy wants that action!!!!
I think the point is that while the concept of Fargo ratings is a good idea, there are instances where players have over 200 games and they're still nowhere near accurate. I'd love to see Greg Kuhl in the Doc Hill since it's a 580 and under tournament, however, the TD for the Doc Hill knows Greg is FAR from a 571 so he cannot enter. Now it becomes a matter of "known ability" which is extremely subjective. I'm not saying Fargo is a bad thing, but I think there are some extreme discrepancies in how some people are rated.
I think the point is that while the concept of Fargo ratings is a good idea, there are instances where players have over 200 games and they're still nowhere near accurate. I'd love to see Greg Kuhl in the Doc Hill since it's a 580 and under tournament, however, the TD for the Doc Hill knows Greg is FAR from a 571 so he cannot enter. Now it becomes a matter of "known ability" which is extremely subjective. I'm not saying Fargo is a bad thing, but I think there are some extreme discrepancies in how some people are rated.
Seems like opening a huge can of worms if you have requirements to enter a tournament and then you say someone cannot play who meets all of the requirements. I believe you would use the system to get away from being subjective about who can play and who cannot. Isn't the point of Fargo to take out the guesswork?
That's exactly my point. It was advertised as a 580 and under tournament. The tournament director has now allowed people in that over over 580 and kept out people that are under 580....simply because he does not agree with their ratings.
Perhaps. Ozzy is well established at 684. Greg much less so. Some of Greg's games go back to 2010 and so carry notably less weight. He would not, for example make the criteria to be on the lists we keep. That being said. He really has been performing at a lower level than you might expect him to. Reality might be somewhere in between...
More data...
You might want to ask Ozzie if he thinks it is accurate. The interesting thing about FargoRate, it brings a dose of reality to people.
It is hard for someone to FargoRate players without watching thousands of games. I have watched thousand of FargoRate games, including my own.
I don't know what your definition of accurate is, but it fits my definition.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
But it's not a flawed system at all and should be used in every tournament. That is why I don't agree it should be used yet. I'm just an uninformed hater though!
Someone giving weight who should be getting weight is not freaking accurate!!! There's hundreds of the same example. Freaking guy gives you a example and you just say "well, mine's accurate ".
Your lack of understanding, and more importantly not wanting to learn is impeding your realization.
If Ozzie had 200 games in the system. Can you watch everyone? Can you list all 200 games?
People have questioned Mike on various players. Mike lists the last 50, 100 or more games. Every time people understand once they see the data.
As mentioned before use the search function. Learn.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If Ozzie had 200 games in the system. Can you watch everyone? Can you list all 200 games?
People have questioned Mike on various players. Mike lists the last 50, 100 or more games. Every time people understand once they see the data.
As mentioned before use the search function. Learn.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I am not sure why you say dose of reality. Lots of people know how they match up with players in their area.
There is a big difference between 200 games and 1,000 games.
Mike has said 200 games is enough to establish a rating.
Why would you say it is hard to rate someone without watching thousands of games?
I have seen thousands of games in my area and it appears to be accurate for the 690+ players but everyone else is all over the place.
If I see a tournament advertised as below 580 with minimum 200 games and then get there and they say "Sorry, you play better than that. Have a nice drive home." I am going to be really upset.