FargoRate: Is an Arizona 600 better than a 600 elsewhere?

mikepage

mikepage

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
​
This is the claim we heard recently, the latest variation of the kind of claim we hear a lot.

Here is a hint. We—FargoRate—wouldn’t say no unless, well, no. If we were unsure or the answer was mostly no, we’d say “we’re unsure” or “mostly no.” The answer is no. This is the way Fargo Ratings work. Asking whether 600 here is the same as 600 there is like asking whether water is wet.

Whether the ratings are accurate is a separate issue. Some players are overrated. You may know one. Some players are underrated. You may know one. A Fargo Rating is an estimate that gets more reliable with more information. A thorough examination of the accuracy of the ratings and what that accuracy depends on is complicated, and we’ll leave that for another day.

Today, we’ll show you water is wet.

Today we’ll look at players from Arizona competing against same-rating players from elsewhere.

We’ll look at the recent 2023 BCAPL events in Las Vegas and focus only on matches/games for which an established Arizona player faced an opponent rated the same within 12 points.

Turns out that’s 730 games: 327 games as part of singles matches (shown here) and another 403 games as part of team matches (one game at a time.) The yellow here is information for the Arizona player. Green is opponent.

The score for the matches shown here is
ARIZONA 164 ELSEWHERE 163
The score for the team play not shown here is
ARIZONA 201 ELSEWHERE 202
Just against California,
ARIZONA 61 CALIFORNIA 60
Just against Texas
ARIZONA 53 TEXAS 58
Just against Canada
ARIZONA 20 CANADA 20
Just against states east of Mississippi River
ARIZONA 121 EOMR 122
  • Some bring up that some areas are small ponds with few good players and the leagues and local tournaments are easy pickings. Doesn’t matter. The 500s there are 500s.

  • Some places get most of the data from leagues, and other places get most of the data from tournaments. Doesn’t matter.

  • Some of these players got most of their data on 9-foot tables, while these games are on 7-foot tables. Doesn’t matter, so long as those players are also comfortable on 7-foot tables (i.e., they’re not a fish out of water.)

  • Some bring up that if an area is completely isolated, there is no way to know the level of play. While that’s true, is is a counterfactual that’s in practice unimportant because everyplace with a few hundred players or more has plenty of coupling whether you see it or not.


1684467015040.png
 
mikepage said:
​
This is the claim we heard recently, the latest variation of the kind of claim we hear a lot.

Here is a hint. We—FargoRate—wouldn’t say no unless, well, no. If we were unsure or the answer was mostly no, we’d say “we’re unsure” or “mostly no.” The answer is no. This is the way Fargo Ratings work. Asking whether 600 here is the same as 600 there is like asking whether water is wet.

Whether the ratings are accurate is a separate issue. Some players are overrated. You may know one. Some players are underrated. You may know one. A Fargo Rating is an estimate that gets more reliable with more information. A thorough examination of the accuracy of the ratings and what that accuracy depends on is complicated, and we’ll leave that for another day.

Today, we’ll show you water is wet.

Today we’ll look at players from Arizona competing against same-rating players from elsewhere.

We’ll look at the recent 2023 BCAPL events in Las Vegas and focus only on matches/games for which an established Arizona player faced an opponent rated the same within 12 points.

Turns out that’s 730 games: 327 games as part of singles matches (shown here) and another 403 games as part of team matches (one game at a time.) The yellow here is information for the Arizona player. Green is opponent.

The score for the matches shown here is
ARIZONA 164 ELSEWHERE 163
The score for the team play not shown here is
ARIZONA 201 ELSEWHERE 202
Just against California,
ARIZONA 61 CALIFORNIA 60
Just against Texas
ARIZONA 53 TEXAS 58
Just against Canada
ARIZONA 20 CANADA 20
Just against states east of Mississippi River
ARIZONA 121 EOMR 122
  • Some bring up that some areas are small ponds with few good players and the leagues and local tournaments are easy pickings. Doesn’t matter. The 500s there are 500s.

  • Some places get most of the data from leagues, and other places get most of the data from tournaments. Doesn’t matter.

  • Some of these players got most of their data on 9-foot tables, while these games are on 7-foot tables. Doesn’t matter, so long as those players are also comfortable on 7-foot tables (i.e., they’re not a fish out of water.)

  • Some bring up that if an area is completely isolated, there is no way to know the level of play. While that’s true, is is a counterfactual that’s in practice unimportant because everyplace with a few hundred players or more has plenty of coupling whether you see it or not.


View attachment 700663
Click to expand...
Unrelated to the subject matter of the thread title. However was this event winner or alternate break..?
 
mikepage said:
​
This is the claim we heard recently, the latest variation of the kind of claim we hear a lot.

Here is a hint. We—FargoRate—wouldn’t say no unless, well, no. If we were unsure or the answer was mostly no, we’d say “we’re unsure” or “mostly no.” The answer is no. This is the way Fargo Ratings work. Asking whether 600 here is the same as 600 there is like asking whether water is wet.

Whether the ratings are accurate is a separate issue. Some players are overrated. You may know one. Some players are underrated. You may know one. A Fargo Rating is an estimate that gets more reliable with more information. A thorough examination of the accuracy of the ratings and what that accuracy depends on is complicated, and we’ll leave that for another day.

Today, we’ll show you water is wet.

Today we’ll look at players from Arizona competing against same-rating players from elsewhere.

We’ll look at the recent 2023 BCAPL events in Las Vegas and focus only on matches/games for which an established Arizona player faced an opponent rated the same within 12 points.

Turns out that’s 730 games: 327 games as part of singles matches (shown here) and another 403 games as part of team matches (one game at a time.) The yellow here is information for the Arizona player. Green is opponent.

The score for the matches shown here is
ARIZONA 164 ELSEWHERE 163
The score for the team play not shown here is
ARIZONA 201 ELSEWHERE 202
Just against California,
ARIZONA 61 CALIFORNIA 60
Just against Texas
ARIZONA 53 TEXAS 58
Just against Canada
ARIZONA 20 CANADA 20
Just against states east of Mississippi River
ARIZONA 121 EOMR 122
  • Some bring up that some areas are small ponds with few good players and the leagues and local tournaments are easy pickings. Doesn’t matter. The 500s there are 500s.

  • Some places get most of the data from leagues, and other places get most of the data from tournaments. Doesn’t matter.

  • Some of these players got most of their data on 9-foot tables, while these games are on 7-foot tables. Doesn’t matter, so long as those players are also comfortable on 7-foot tables (i.e., they’re not a fish out of water.)

  • Some bring up that if an area is completely isolated, there is no way to know the level of play. While that’s true, is is a counterfactual that’s in practice unimportant because everyplace with a few hundred players or more has plenty of coupling whether you see it or not.


View attachment 700663
Click to expand...
Great stuff Mike, you have proven with numbers time and time again that Fargo works and is accurate yet there will be people who insist it is impossible. They will use examples like a 650 beating a 799 or a 650 losing to a 511, it happens, the only thing guaranteed in life is death. People get hot, some people get out of stroke, some days the stars line up just right and those people meet each other in competition. When higher rated players get beat by lower rated players their Fargo ratings will move towards each other to fix any discrepancy there may be until all is right with the world again.
 
fastone371 said:
Great stuff Mike, you have proven with numbers time and time again that Fargo works and is accurate yet there will be people who insist it is impossible. They will use examples like a 650 beating a 799 or a 650 losing to a 511, it happens, the only thing guaranteed in life is death. People get hot, some people get out of stroke, some days the stars line up just right and those people meet each other in competition. When higher rated players get beat by lower rated players their Fargo ratings will move towards each other to fix any discrepancy there may be until all is right with the world again.
Click to expand...
Ye sometimes stuff happens.
Looking back on the first open tournament I won in which I beat 2 pros, a lot had to happen for me to win. One, I was playing my tip top best. Two, the tables were breaking kind of easy and we had a lot of open racks. I was at a level many young up and comers find themselves in.... a shot maker that can get out from a lot of positions but tactically weak with a terrible safety game. Had the racks been tricky tactical battles, I would have been destroyed. On top of all that, I not only got lucky with the draw, but got absurdly lucky on my match ball with the first pro I beat in my life... I hit the 9 so bad that it came two rails out of the corner, off the CB and into the other corner. Match over instead of hill-hill with pro breaking. The second pro I beat was just off in the semi and rattled some easy outs.
This was before FR but I'd venture a guess that I was easily 100 points below both of those guys. My game had only 2 strong points...break and the runout that followed. Anything tricky, I just didn't have that side of the game at all and over time that would show and I'd get killed.

So ye, looking at one match or even one trny sample is silly. This is a long run kinda predictive stat. The only time it doesn't work is when guys deliberately mess around with their level of play to rope ppl into money matches based on Fargos or save their real game for the rare big tourney...they exist, but are outliers.
 
 
The only problems I see with fargorate.
Obviously it is only as good as the data input. Say a fair league player has 1000 games in the system all from beer drinking,back slapping good time Wednesday nights. His 525 fargorate isn't a gauge of his skill after he is layed off , takes lessons on his new table at home and starts playing 525 and under tournaments. Yes his fargorate will change but at 60 or so games a weekend how long until his true 625?
Conversely a 625 can suffer a incident which lowers their true speed when does that straighten out?

The biggest issue-take the BCA championship for example - there is what 4 levels of players? If fargorate is trying to make things fair shouldn't there be a division for say every 25 points?
 
alphadog said:
The only problems I see with fargorate.
Obviously it is only as good as the data input. Say a fair league player has 1000 games in the system all from beer drinking,back slapping good time Wednesday nights. His 525 fargorate isn't a gauge of his skill after he is layed off , takes lessons on his new table at home and starts playing 525 and under tournaments. Yes his fargorate will change but at 60 or so games a weekend how long until his true 625?
Conversely a 625 can suffer a incident which lowers their true speed when does that straighten out?

The biggest issue-take the BCA championship for example - there is what 4 levels of players? If fargorate is trying to make things fair shouldn't there be a division for say every 25 points?
Click to expand...
Screenshot_20230519_141407_Chrome.jpg
 
alphadog said:
The only problems I see with fargorate.
Obviously it is only as good as the data input. Say a fair league player has 1000 games in the system all from beer drinking,back slapping good time Wednesday nights. His 525 fargorate isn't a gauge of his skill after he is layed off , takes lessons on his new table at home and starts playing 525 and under tournaments. Yes his fargorate will change but at 60 or so games a weekend how long until his true 625?
Conversely a 625 can suffer a incident which lowers their true speed when does that straighten out?

The biggest issue-take the BCA championship for example - there is what 4 levels of players? If fargorate is trying to make things fair shouldn't there be a division for say every 25 points?
Click to expand...
The thing I LIKE about Fargo is that it is SLOW to change.
I‘ve seen a lot of high handicappers have a good night and take a win or deep into the $$$ and get their handicap changed immediately…
…now they don’t have a chance on their normal nights and eventually stop playing in that tournament.….
….and the worst thing….get called a sandbagger
 
pt109 said:
The thing I LIKE about Fargo is that it is SLOW to change.
I‘ve seen a lot of high handicappers have a good night and take a win or deep into the $$$ and get their handicap changed immediately…
…now they don’t have a chance on their normal nights and eventually stop playing in that tournament.….
….and the worst thing….get called a sandbagger
Click to expand...
That is a poorly ran trnmnt. Trust me I know the players hate losing to weaker players with a handicap. It is hard to convince them it is "fair" when they have invested time and money in improving their game and someone who hasn't stands the same chance of winning.
 
pt109 said:
The thing I LIKE about Fargo is that it is SLOW to change.
I‘ve seen a lot of high handicappers have a good night and take a win or deep into the $$$ and get their handicap changed immediately…
…now they don’t have a chance on their normal nights and eventually stop playing in that tournament.….
….and the worst thing….get called a sandbagger
Click to expand...
Anyone that plays the game for anything other than entertainment or er recreation, is not in touch with reality. I can be fine with a loss in good competition.
The last time I played a friend rated 650+ or -. He was required to go to 5 and me 3. I was honor bound to beat him 3-2. My Fargo might be a tad low.🤷
 
alphadog said:
That is a poorly ran trnmnt. Trust me I know the players hate losing to weaker players with a handicap. It is hard to convince them it is "fair" when they have invested time and money in improving their game and someone who hasn't stands the same chance of winning.
Click to expand...
What do you mean "someone who hasn't"????? Are you saying that someone who hasn't improved hasn't tried to? There are lots of people who don't know how to improve or have the time it would take for them to make major improvements.

These games. 8, 9, 10, Banks, One Pocket take so much to improve at that its not fair to compain about lower players, APA is the ideal place for them, but if they show up and go to 2 while I go to 5..., it sucks if they win, but they'll never win in the tournamnets where we all go to five and I have put the time in and have the understanding how to improve, so I deal with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top