FargoRate

[Poolplaya9]

I personally play better on a 9 foot table than on a 7 foot table, but the reasoning I believe has more to do with my cue ball control, speed, and positioning rather than my ability to pocket balls. I find running out on a 7 foot table slightly harder for me. The reason is there is more traffic to deal with, if I get out of line on a 9 foot table, I am rarely hooked, and since I can pocket balls with perfect aim, it doesn't matter how far out of position I end up.

I think this is the same thing you were saying or trying to say, but if somebody plays better on a bar table (for their relative skill level) it almost has to be either because their ball pocketing is a particular weakness, or because one or more of their position play (including speed control), patterns, and strategy are a particular strength.

Vice versa if you play better on a 9 ft for your relative skill level than you do on a bar table which would indicate that either shot making is a particular strength, or one or more of position play (including speed control), patterns, and strategy are a particular weakness.

 

[BmoreMoney]

Yale know what? No disrespect, but hey Ray- come to Bmore and get this even one hole .

 

[mikepage]

There are always intangibles that need to be accounted for, even if Fargo works perfectly. I'll take the 650 ranked player over the 675 ranked player if it's the 650's home pool room. Or if I know he prefers the type of equipment in the room and the other guy doesn't. If you are comfortable just using numbers than that's your call, but there are smart ways to pick your horses besides just the ratings.

I agree with this. Here is an analogy. People who play blackjack a lot all pretty much know what "the book" says to do, and with rare exceptions they do that. It is easy to create the book in blackjack. It's hard to do the same thing in pool, but that's what FargoRate pretty much attempts to do.

What you are talking about--reasons THIS situation might not follow the book--is like in blackjack counting cards or noticing a lot of small cards have been coming out. This might get you to stay on 16 -- tipping the scales on something that was always a close call. But it doesn't change the majority of decisions.

And in fact I'd say most wanna-be card counters over value the information they think they're getting. And wanna-be odds makers in pool over value these subjective things as well.

 

[Poolplaya9]

I think I may have just had a revelation . Mike places everything on tournaments. I place little value in them, placing mostly on action. This may be the disconnect. US in " the know " usually always " know who to bet on. This tournament stuff if Foo - Foo for most of us in that world. So maybe we're both right? In a sense. Not possible of course, but if somehow Fargo could incorporate all action marches maybe I'd be on board. I honestly think this is the problem- most of us here are action people, then you have the " tournament folks".

I agree that players can definitely be better at one or the other between gambling and tournaments, but I think people very often see the differences in people's abilities between the two as being a little more exaggerated than it really is. Yes there are people that are slower starters than others, and people where one or the other is in their head and they just don't do as well at it etc, but for the most part If I am favored over you gambling, I am usually going to be the favorite in a tournament race as well.

 

[one stroke]

I agree that players can definitely be better at one or the other between gambling and tournaments, but I think people very often see the differences in people's abilities between the two as being a little more exaggerated than it really is. Yes there are people that are slower starters than others, and people where one or the other is in their head and they just don't do as well at it etc, but for the most part If I am favored over you gambling, I am usually going to be the favorite in a tournament race as well.

I'm not buying that for a second,,


1

 

[Poolplaya9]

I'm not buying that for a second,,

Which part do you disagree with, and what do you believe is the case? Do you think that for most players they play at a significantly (not a little but at a significantly) different level when they are gambling than when they are playing in a tournament? Do you think that it is very common for someone to be a favorite over you gambling but not in a tournament, or vice versa? While they both occur I don't think either is the norm, especially with better players. Maybe it comes down to how we define "significant".

 

[pt109]

I agree with this. Here is an analogy. People who play blackjack a lot all pretty much know what "the book" says to do, and with rare exceptions they do that. It is easy to create the book in blackjack. It's hard to do the same thing in pool, but that's what FargoRate pretty much attempts to do.

What you are talking about--reasons THIS situation might not follow the book--is like in blackjack counting cards or noticing a lot of small cards have been coming out. This might get you to stay on 16 -- tipping the scales on something that was always a close call. But it doesn't change the majority of decisions.

And in fact I'd say most wanna-be card counters over value the information they think they're getting. And wanna-be odds makers in pool over value these subjective things as well.

This needs to read occasionally, by the pros and the cons.

 

[one stroke]

Which part do you disagree with, and what do you believe is the case? Do you think that for most players they play at a significantly (not a little but at a significantly) different level when they are gambling than when they are playing in a tournament? Do you think that it is very common for someone to be a favorite over you gambling but not in a tournament, or vice versa? While they both occur I don't think either is the norm, especially with better players. Maybe it comes down to how we define "significant".

I know several people who play much better for cash than the do in tournament play and vise versa , these ain't APA 5 either , different mind set all together, it's not apple and apples it's apples and oranges, , significant would be 1k plus a 10 ahead set would require a whole different animal in itself don't want to hear there is no endurance factor that plays a part because it does it's simply not the same game as turney play by any stretch of the imagination

1

 

[Poolplaya9]

I know several people who play much better for cash than the do in tournament play and vise versa , these ain't APA 5 either , different mind set all together, it's not apple and apples it's apples and oranges, , significant would be 1k plus a 10 ahead set would require a whole different animal in itself don't want to hear there is no endurance factor that plays a part because it does it's simply not the same game as turney play by any stretch of the imagination

I don't count endurance as a pool skill (because it isn't) although if playing marathon matches it certainly becomes a factor. I know a lot of people feel differently but I don't want to see the winner of pool matches determined by who has better endurance, who can juggle better, who has nicer shoes on, or any other factor that isn't pool. I want to see pool skills and only pool skills determine who the better player is. If I want to see endurance competitions I will watch the Boston marathon. Leave the endurance crap to the runners and the pool skills to the pool players.

I don't see where you disagreed with any of what I said though. I said that I believe that some people play significantly better gambling than in tournaments and vice versa, but for the difference to be significant is not the norm. You agreed with me. You said that you know "several people" who play significantly better at one or the other, and several people out of the dozens or hundreds of players that you know wouldn't be the norm (norm means somewhere well over 50%), so you are also saying that while it happens, it isn't the norm just like I said. So what do you disagree with because so far I just see you agreeing with what I said?

 

[BmoreMoney]

I agree that players can definitely be better at one or the other between gambling and tournaments, but I think people very often see the differences in people's abilities between the two as being a little more exaggerated than it really is. Yes there are people that are slower starters than others, and people where one or the other is in their head and they just don't do as well at it etc, but for the most part If I am favored over you gambling, I am usually going to be the favorite in a tournament race as well.

We used to call them tournament champions or cheez dogs. Meaning they play like God in a tournament , but throw them into a $100 set and they can no longer hit the end rail. Sure they're plenty of people that can do both but they'res TONS of people like I described. For the record, I whole heartedly believe there's many more gamblers that could do well in a tournament than a mostly tourney player gamblin.

I also totally agree wig One Stroke about the endurance aspect. To me, it is WAY WAY more impressive to see a guy win a long set ( or ahead ) than to see someone win a race to 7, 9, 11 or whatever in a tournament.

 

[Poolplaya9]

We used to call them tournament champions or cheez dogs. Meaning they play like God in a tournament , but throw them into a $100 set and they can no longer hit the end rail. Sure they're plenty of people that can do both but they'res TONS of people like I described. For the record, I whole heartedly believe there's many more gamblers that could do well in a tournament than a mostly tourney player gamblin.

I also totally agree wig One Stroke about the endurance aspect. To me, it is WAY WAY more impressive to see a guy win a long set ( or ahead ) than to see someone win a race to 7, 9, 11 or whatever in a tournament.

Again, I agree that there are people that are better at one or the other, but I also think it is commonly exaggerated. Also, this is a major weakness in a player if they can't do both, ESPECIALLY if they can gamble well but they can't bring it in a tournament match when they need to from the get go when the pressure is really on and they don't have the cushion of "well I always have a chance to grind it out and maybe catch up later". If you can't come with it when you need to you are weak.

I totally agree that the longer the set, the more impressive the win, and I have played for as long as 40+ hours straight and have seen plenty of long sets from others as well. I stop being impressed as soon as endurance becomes a major factor though. If you want to see who has the most endurance then just bet on who can hold their arms out at full length the longest, or who can run the farthest without stopping. I want to see who can outplay who with pool skill, not who can win because they don't fatigue quite as fast. Now if two guys can play for 10 or even 20 hours or whatever without fatigue or stamina becoming much factor, and many guys can, them I'm all for it. Otherwise split the session up into separate days so that pool skill decides the victor the way it should be, not fatigue and stamina.

 

[BeiberLvr]

No one in the world plays worse on the bar table! Where do you come up with that?!

I do.

 

[Nick B]

I personally play better on a 9 foot table than on a 7 foot table, but the reasoning I believe has more to do with my cue ball control, speed, and positioning rather than my ability to pocket balls. I find running out on a 7 foot table slightly harder for me. The reason is there is more traffic to deal with, if I get out of line on a 9 foot table, I am rarely hooked, and since I can pocket balls with perfect aim, it doesn't matter how far out of position I end up.

It's a well established fact that the BB is easier. Here is another fact...these guys almost never play on one.

 

[Black-Balled]

It's a well established fact that the BB is easier. Here is another fact..

I may be easy, but I am not cheap.
&e

 

[KRJ]

W

I also totally agree wig One Stroke about the endurance aspect. To me, it is WAY WAY more impressive to see a guy win a long set ( or ahead ) than to see someone win a race to 7, 9, 11 or whatever in a tournament.

But, to win the tourney, you must play for days on end, and win a race to 9 or 11, over and over and over again. And if you are in the losers bracket, it gets a little rougher

And not the same person, where you might pick up a few things. But when you win, the next top player comes along and you have to keep doing it till the end. Neither is an easy feet, gambling or winning a tourney, but I'll take the US Open 9b title with ZERO Cash versus a gambling match that nets me $5K.

Nobody is EVER taking away that title, heck, it would be on my tombstone The $5K, eh, someone else will get it eventually, and if not them, then the mortgage folks, car loan guys, or the Piggly Wiggly