You're not doing the comparison fairly. If all you play is people in your pond and all those people play is people in the same pond, you know nothing about how low the lowest is or how high the highest is if you only have relative results. Maybe they're all equally skilled, but in Fargo you don't know if that's 250 or 650. In APA you at least know which is closer. If you have a broad range of ability, that will show in both systems. In neither system will you know for sure until you have play outside your pond. APA has ways (not all computerized) of resolving differences in ponds. There just aren't as many differences as people like to think, and that's because there are people who suck everywhere, most people are honest about their ability, and it's natural to blame the system when you lose.
I keep saying continually that a comparison between fargo and the "Equalizer" is unfair. ...and I'll take your above example and expand upon it to illustrate.
100 players sign up for both APA and a separate fargo reporting league. None have prior handicaps to draw opon. After, lets say a year, the skill levels of the players has pretty much leveled out in each individual league. The handicaps/fargos are consistent between the two leagues. At least I would expect them to be. You'd have an assortment of APA SL handicaps with varying skill sets within them, but no way to determine other than subjective opinion who's the strongest/weakest within those groups. In the fargo league the APA players are ranked within a span of roughly 50 points, (weakest 5=425, strongest 5=475). <-Trying to adhere to the Dr's chart.
Then one day a two equally skilled players (both 7s in APA and lets say 600 in fargo) jump in a car and drive to another city. One plays in an APA tournament as a 7 and gets killed by a couple of 5s. The other plays in a fargo reporting tournament and gets killed by a couple of ~425 players. So now what happens....?
They go home and the APA league remains the same. The fargo league nows has data that not only effects the player that traveled, but every other player he has gone up against in that league.
So after all that, yes we agree that both systems suffer from the same issue when players never leave their pond. However once one player does in fargo there's a ripple effect. That ripple may also cause indirect players to either go up or down. In APA example nothing changes, and lets pretend it did for a moment, and lets pretend the change was drastic enough to have the direct player drop to a 6. That change would only effect the direct player and have zero bearing on the rest of his pond.
Now you may argue that the APA "has waaays" but proof is in the pudding as they say. So if you can speak freely about it. What "way" does the APA have to create parity between ponds, that is grounded in something other than subjective opinion...?
The lack of subjective opinion, is what I enjoy the most about fargo.
I screwed up the quoting but I wanted to address this directly..:
Maybe they're all equally skilled, but in Fargo you don't know if that's 250 or 650. In APA you at least know which is closer. If you have a broad range of ability, that will show in both systems
I fail to see the difference in APA and Fargo when it comes to gauging the overal SL of an isolated pond. A SL in APA is determined by wins/loses and so is fargo. To be a 650 in fargo you would need to beat up heavily on the rest of the league. To be 7 in APA you just need a winning record against 6s.
