I fixed Fargorate

P

poolscholar

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Currently in FargoRate 100 point difference is double the skill level. Instead, use an intuitive numbering system.

100 -> 10
200 -> 20
300 -> 40
400 -> 80
500 -> 160
600 -> 320
700 -> 640
800 -> 1280

Example, if a 20 (200) play plays a 80 (400). Then an even race is Race to 80 with 60 game spot to the lower player, or 8-2, 16-4, etc..
 
poolscholar said:
Currently in FargoRate 100 point difference is double the skill level. Instead, use an intuitive numbering system.

100 -> 10
200 -> 20
300 -> 40
400 -> 80
500 -> 160
600 -> 320
700 -> 640
800 -> 1280

Example, if a 20 (200) play plays a 80 (400). Then an even race is Race to 80 with 60 game spot to the lower player, or 8-2, 16-4, etc..
Click to expand...
I can play in tournaments again! 🤣
 
poolscholar said:
Currently in FargoRate 100 point difference is double the skill level. Instead, use an intuitive numbering system.

100 -> 10
200 -> 20
300 -> 40
400 -> 80
500 -> 160
600 -> 320
700 -> 640
800 -> 1280

Example, if a 20 (200) play plays a 80 (400). Then an even race is Race to 80 with 60 game spot to the lower player, or 8-2, 16-4, etc..
Click to expand...
Wow.

It took me a minute but I understand now.

This is WAAAAY more intuitive of a numbering system. I love this.

It also would show the staggering difference between the best player in the world and your “pretty damn good” local.

Example: Josh Filler would be a 1900 while your local shortstop (670ish FargoRate) would be a 550 🤯🤯🤯

This is great. Well done.
 
poolscholar said:
Currently in FargoRate 100 point difference is double the skill level. Instead, use an intuitive numbering system.

100 -> 10
200 -> 20
300 -> 40
400 -> 80
500 -> 160
600 -> 320
700 -> 640
800 -> 1280

Example, if a 20 (200) play plays a 80 (400). Then an even race is Race to 80 with 60 game spot to the lower player, or 8-2, 16-4, etc..
Click to expand...
Nice!

This 2^(rating/100) X 5. If you just get rid of the "X 5" it still has the properties you like and also is a reasonable estimate of your straight-pool high run.

So in other words, take a couple Fargo Ratings, like 570 and 630.
Move the decimal point over
570. => 5.7
630. => 6.3
Do on your calculator 2 to the power of that number --close to your high run if you practice straight pool (52 and 79 here).

1706529762441.png
 
poolscholar said:
Currently in FargoRate 100 point difference is double the skill level. Instead, use an intuitive numbering system.

100 -> 10
200 -> 20
300 -> 40
400 -> 80
500 -> 160
600 -> 320
700 -> 640
800 -> 1280

Example, if a 20 (200) play plays a 80 (400). Then an even race is Race to 80 with 60 game spot to the lower player, or 8-2, 16-4, etc..
Click to expand...
This is the first post concerning Fargorate in quite some time that makes sense from the outside of fargorate looking in.

This would also give a perspective on the proper value of incremental improvements as you attain a higher fargo.
 
Yes. But then you lose the essential feature of an elo-style rating system:

A’s chance of beating B depends only on the rating difference between A and B.
Click to expand...

Because 150 -> 15 is wrong. It's actually 14.14.

See: FargoRate — a look behind the curtain

However, it might be nice if FargoRate converted the ratings for public consumption to reflect the actual nature of the differences (every 100 rating points is a doubling of skill level). I believe your scheme would work well. Bravo!
 
mikepage said:
Nice!

This 2^(rating/100) X 5. If you just get rid of the "X 5" it still has the properties you like and also is a reasonable estimate of your straight-pool high run.

So in other words, take a couple Fargo Ratings, like 570 and 630.
Move the decimal point over
570. => 5.7
630. => 6.3
Do on your calculator 2 to the power of that number --close to your high run if you practice straight pool (52 and 79 here).

View attachment 740442
Click to expand...
So I'm a 550. A 650 is 2x more likely to win playing me?
 
sbrownn said:
And what is Fargo's justification for using the numbers on the left (quite unclear) vs the numbers on the right?
Click to expand...

They're sort of clear in different ways. The scale on the left has the nice feature that a DIFFERENCE between two ratings always means the same thing. So the 60 points between 515 and 575 means the same thing as the 60 points between 590 and 650, etc.

To note the same thing for the ratings on the right, we'd have to point out the RATIO of 53.8 to 35.5 is the same as the RATIO between 78.8 and 59.7. And then a race chart would say, for example, two players play 7-to-5 whenever the rating RATIO is near 1.32 rather than whenever the DIFFERENCE is near 60 points.
 
Unfortunately, 90%+ of players are not going to realize the math. I'd love to survey a bunch of players and ask them to estimate what an even race is between a 600 and 400
 
sbrownn said:
Well, this chart further proves how misleading that system is:

View attachment 740504
Click to expand...
It’s not misleading if you have a grasp on high school math. Fargo is on a logarithmic scale such that every 100 points is a doubling of skill level. That’s why its graph is a straight line.

That constant difference up and down the scale makes handicapping at all levels more straightforward since the difference between two ratings is all you need to think about, as Mike says above.

Even if a new numbering system was deemed to be more understandable, the disruption/re-education that would hit the pool world after over a decade of FR becoming the status quo would outweigh any perceived advantage, imo.
 
DeadStick said:
It’s not misleading if you have a grasp on high school math. Fargo is on a logarithmic scale such that every 100 points is a doubling of skill level. That’s why its graph is a straight line.

That constant difference up and down the scale makes handicapping at all levels more straightforward since the difference between two ratings is all you need to think about, as Mike says above.

Even if a new numbering system was deemed to be more understandable, the disruption/re-education that would hit the pool world after over a decade of FR becoming the status quo would outweigh any perceived advantage, imo.
Click to expand...
that's my entire point of my graph, the "logarithmic scale such that every 100 points is a doubling of skill level" gets completely lost in this representation and why I created it in the first place. who graphs a logarithmic progression as a linear progression?
 
  • Like
Reactions: SEB
poolscholar said:
Unfortunately, 90%+ of players are not going to realize the math. I'd love to survey a bunch of players and ask them to estimate what an even race is between a 600 and 400
Click to expand...

I think you're right when people are new to it or only have casual association. Things are different when players are using the ratings regularly.

I had a pool room where I used them for a decade, and basically everybody--hundreds of players there--would know about what is right for a 400 vs 600. Some would know 200 point difference is 4-to-1 and many wouldn't. But they would basically all know the race might be 8-to-3 or 5-to-2 or something like and that it is the same as between a 350 vs a 550 and the same as between a 500 vs a 700.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top