Fargo Ratings on Player Profiles

You expect Mike to change his system to accommodate you? I think you have it backwards. Total Performance Average is likely not going to translate well to fargo's win/loss system.
 
Sheldon said:
You expect Mike to change his system to accommodate you? I think you have it backwards. Total Performance Average is likely not going to translate well to fargo's win/loss system.
Click to expand...

No, I expected to utilize their system to both his and our benefit, I expected nothing that they didn’t already provide, I’m saying their customer service and professionalism is sub par, and that’s unacceptable.

I have been in customer service and product development for decades and I wouldn’t do business with them if you paid me.
 
I have dealt with them a few times and they always responded quite nicely to my questions and concerns. It sounds like you expected something they were not willing to provide, and you're angry about it.
 
Sheldon said:
I have dealt with them a few times and they always responded quite nicely to my questions and concerns. It sounds like you expected something they were not willing to provide, and you're angry about it.
Click to expand...

I have all email records and PM’s showing otherwise, you’re getting into a conversation you know nothing about, I suggest you stay out of a conversation you know nothing about.
 
This is an open forum that I don't think you own or manage. I'll go ahead and offer my 2 cents whenever I feel like it. :ROFLMAO:
 
Sheldon said:
This is an open forum that I don't think you own or manage. I'll go ahead and offer my 2 cents whenever I feel like it. :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...

And I can appreciate that, you’re welcome to your opinion, as am I.

EDIT: do your research and you’ll realize how much I respect Mike and that this is his house.
 
Sheldon said:
Start a BCA league, they're extremely flexible and relatively cheap. And you get access to FargoRate League Management System.
Click to expand...

I'm sure there is already one here.

I play in vnea and ippl now. Valley does it by the numbers and ippl does it by votes if someone complains about the numbers---god I hate that. Have played in bca many times, and that other bca one. And many other leagues. There used to be 10 leagues here in town. I've played in half of those at least over the years.

Thanks for the info.


Jeff Livingston
 
Thanks for the info everyone.

I'll continue trying to "sell" it in the leagues.


Jeff Livingston
 
mikepage said:
This is basically a non issue. First, when you have a number of opponents, some will go up over the next few years and some will go down. Some will play a lot, and some won't play much at all. Overall they stay pretty close to the same.

You might imagine, though, that if you happened to ONLY play a group of players who were ALL going to log around 1,000 games over next two years in FargoRate, that group might tend to show some rating increase. And if they did, you'd ride along with them whether you played or not.

So let's put some numbers to it. I just found the group of 560 players who both (1) logged between 800 and 1200 games in FargoRate over the last two years, and (2) had at least 800 games in the system at the start of that time. So this is a group of pretty active players. 500 games a year is either a lot of tournaments or one or two league nights and still a number of tournaments. So imagine you played ONLY people from this group two years ago and haven't played since. Turns out your rating would go up 3.6 points per year (7 points total).

If your original rating two years ago was based on 800 recent games, then the uncertainty in your rating would be about 10 points. That is, there is a two thirds chance the rating you see is "right" within 10 points. So here that worst-case scenario in which ALL your opponents continue to play a lot doesn't even lead to a change outside the standard error in your rating in the first place.
Click to expand...
Understood. Thank you for the details.
 
mikepage said:
Your rating can even change if you don't play AND your opponents don't play
Click to expand...
I maybe off on this but I seem to recall Danny Olson vs Chris Reinhold(?) in February as a 750vs751 ? Now Danny is a 737 and Chris is 741?
Both have many games in the system so I wonder are those common swings in a short period?
 
alphadog said:
I maybe off on this but I seem to recall Danny Olson vs Chris Reinhold(?) in February as a 750vs751 ? Now Danny is a 737 and Chris is 741?
Both have many games in the system so I wonder are those common swings in a short period?
Click to expand...
Mid December Chris 742.2 Danny 738.5
End of January Chris 741.8 Danny 737.0
now Chris 741.8 Danny 737.3
 
mikepage said:
Mid December Chris 742.2 Danny 738.5
End of January Chris 741.8 Danny 737.0
now Chris 741.8 Danny 737.3
Click to expand...
Screenshot_20220212-135327_Google.jpg

I knew there prob wasn't a 14 point swing😉
 
Sheldon said:
You expect Mike to change his system to accommodate you? I think you have it backwards. Total Performance Average is likely not going to translate well to fargo's win/loss system.
Click to expand...

The AccuStats ratings and Fargo should match up pretty well. The guys that average in the .900 over a tournament would be 800 Fargo, Not missing and not making mistakes translates to wins and wins translates to Fargo. Seems if you add maybe 50-100 points to the Fargo rating you may be able to get the players AccuStats TPA rating with a pretty decent accuracy. Last time my son and I tried to do a few sets keeping our TPA ratings we were both in the mid 500s Fargo and our TPA was around there as well, maybe a .600
 
I have seen some posts recently about Fargo rate not being accurate or not a true guide of a player's level, so I was wondering what the general consensus is of Fargo. Is it good or bad?
Personally, I was not initially a fan of using it to determine eligibility for tournaments, however now that there is significant data in the Fargo system, I think it is an excellent system that gives a pretty accurate account of what level a player plays at.

I cant remember seeing a well established Fargo rating that is clearly inaccurate regarding a player's level. Are there any examples of this and if so why do you think that is?
 
FastManners said:
I have seen some posts recently about Fargo rate not being accurate or not a true guide of a player's level, so I was wondering what the general consensus is of Fargo. Is it good or bad?
Personally, I was not initially a fan of using it to determine eligibility for tournaments, however now that there is significant data in the Fargo system, I think it is an excellent system that gives a pretty accurate account of what level a player plays at.

I cant remember seeing a well established Fargo rating that is clearly inaccurate regarding a player's level. Are there any examples of this and if so why do you think that is?
Click to expand...
I think it's great. I've seen people complain about Fargo ratings because of "known ability". My problem with that is the person complaining doesn't have nearly the amount of data Fargo does. If a local 600 has a great set and wins against a local 700, that 700 may think the guy is severely underrated. What he probably ISN'T seeing is all of the sets that 600 player lost to lower rated players.

I personally don't like when tournament directors cap a handicapped tournament by Fargo ratings. It's crazy to me when I see a tournament advertised as "643 and under". If they're handicapping the races, what's the point in capping it? Only answer I've heard is that the occasional 11-3 race is going to throw off their whole tournament. I think an 11-3 race between a 750 rated player and a 250 rated player will go faster than a 6-6 race between two 400 rated players.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top