I can find positives on both sides of the argument. I just think the ship has sailed on this decision.
I fixed Fargorate
- Thread starter poolscholar
- Start date
Your room was a special case I assure you. I'll ask few people tonight and we'll see lol
Please explain.
Everyone I know that shoots pool, and is under the age of sixty, would know. Lots of the people over 60 would also know. Where is there a group of pool players, that at least one of them, doesn’t have the app? It calculates for you.
And to take it one step further, look at the APA SL mapping to 8 ball races with the following column added (yes, there are no SL 8 in 8 ball, but some people think there should be):
The lower to mid APA SL match ups resemble closely to the APA 8 ball race grid, but things start to digress some (but not a lot) beyond that, say a 5 vs 6 match:
I like the level of precision on the middle column vs the APA rankings, as again, the APA rankings show linear progression (like the current Fargo) when they actually aren't.
The lower to mid APA SL match ups resemble closely to the APA 8 ball race grid, but things start to digress some (but not a lot) beyond that, say a 5 vs 6 match:
I like the level of precision on the middle column vs the APA rankings, as again, the APA rankings show linear progression (like the current Fargo) when they actually aren't.
#1 Some people in this thread are overestimating the intelligence of the average pool player
#2 Even a lot of smart players often don't know how the system works and never cared to read about it
#3 I have seen very few people over the existence of FargoRate using the app to calculate anything, it's not even easy to find in the app
#2 Even a lot of smart players often don't know how the system works and never cared to read about it
#3 I have seen very few people over the existence of FargoRate using the app to calculate anything, it's not even easy to find in the app
The app’s usability problems are a whole nuther discussion, and I would hate to see resources spent on changing the numbering system prior to bringing the app up to modern standards.
Different regions are VERY different in these regards. If you are in Phoenix or Portland or Oklahoma City or Madison WI, or Calgary and a bunch of other places, people are using the APP all the time. And tons of people who play in local tournaments or match up at the pool hall have a pretty good idea of what the different rating differences mean. I'm not saying they're going to talk math or describe the algorithm or anything like that. But they have a functional working knowledge of the way the ratings work.
They're going to know what it means if there are hot handicaps in tournament.
It's going to sound pretty normal if somebody says a tournament is race to 7 with a game for each 50 points and worst race 7-to-3 (or something like that).
If you're in Los Angeles or Atlanta or Raleigh, you might find players who know nothing or confuse Fargo Ratings with accustat ratings.
The point is we know what the progression looks like because we've seen it before. And more and more areas are progressing.
From what I've seen all over the place, very few know how or want to use the system properly. I see handicap tournaments where a range of Fargo numbers is tied to some race number instead of calculating the races using a rating difference between players.
If you have a league using it, of course it's easier since it's all in computer and you're having the same system used week after week
Good luck using the app to figure out races, it's very cryptic
If you have a league using it, of course it's easier since it's all in computer and you're having the same system used week after week
Good luck using the app to figure out races, it's very cryptic
I don’t know Mike…you should actually consider this.
The representative math is A LOT more clear and the graph proves the point that we all see…a logarithmic algorithm expressed linearly loses the expression of the numbers being looked at.
The numbers play tricks on you in the current system whereas this new system is extremely digestible and easy to understand along with the added bonus of showing us how far away an 850 fargo really is!
Local tournament directors won’t rate a 5OO player as being half as good as a 600 Fargo - so you won’t see a 500 having to go to 3 games when a 600 goes to 6 games - at least I have not seen that - in a race to 6 I see much more of a 6-4 spot in a 100 point Fargo difference - the spots always seem to favor the better players
Example: Josh Filler would be a 1900 while your local shortstop (670ish FargoRate) would be a 550
I can see both sides but ultimately I like the current Fargo rating system.
The above example is problematic to me because the numbers themselves don't have a lot of meaning, it's the ratio that is important.
Take players with a current Fargo of 400, 600, and 800. The gaps between them, skill level wise, is consistent and the numbers represent that.
Under this proposed system they would be 80, 320, and 1280. This gives the impression that the first two players are much closer in skill level then the second two players. They're not, because the ratios are consistent, but you don't know that until you do the math. And doing the math with these particular numbers is easy but it wouldn't always be the case.
Both have their benefits for sure, but I like the current Fargo numbering.
6-4 is the race on this hot chart for a 100-point difference. It goes to 6-3 at 109 points
Just what I said! 100 points is not 6-3
What you are overlooking is that if the players are 100 points apart, it is only their long-term average W/L that is 2:1.
Let's look at the case for playing a 2-1 race between players who are 2:1 -- 100 FR points apart. The better player has a 2/3 chance of winning each game while the weaker player is 1/3 for each game.
There are these possible outcomes for the better player's scoring:
W W -- 2/3 times 2/3 or 4/9 -- better player wins
W L -- 2/3 times 1/3 for 2/9 -- better player loses
L -- 1/3 or 3/9 -- better player loses
Even though a match at 2-1 seems fair, in fact it is not. The better player is only 4/9 or 44.4% to win the match.
One way to think about this is that randomness tends to favor the weaker player.
Pretty please don't ever put APA ratings in the same chart/sentence/paragraph/planet as FargoRatings
I think the OP has a nice idea, but me personally I don't think its as good as the 100 point logarithm system now.
It's sort of like the fractional inch system vs the metric system. The fractional inch is based on "half". You take half of everything to get to the next increment. 1, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, 1/32, and 1/64. The metric system on the other hand is based on "ten". You divide everything by 10/100/or 1000 for the next increment. 1 km, 1m, 1cm, 1mm, 1 micron, etc. The metric system scales a lot better, and is easier to communicate. (I'm very well versed in both, more so in inches actually).
If we ended with FargoRate at weird numbers, rather than incrementing on every 100, it would not be as intuitive, IMO.
We'd end up like RAM numbers on computers. No one understands those except people into computers as much as we are into pool.
It's sort of like the fractional inch system vs the metric system. The fractional inch is based on "half". You take half of everything to get to the next increment. 1, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, 1/32, and 1/64. The metric system on the other hand is based on "ten". You divide everything by 10/100/or 1000 for the next increment. 1 km, 1m, 1cm, 1mm, 1 micron, etc. The metric system scales a lot better, and is easier to communicate. (I'm very well versed in both, more so in inches actually).
If we ended with FargoRate at weird numbers, rather than incrementing on every 100, it would not be as intuitive, IMO.
We'd end up like RAM numbers on computers. No one understands those except people into computers as much as we are into pool.
I think the OP has a really lousy idea but then I've been friends with logarithms and exponentials for about 60 years.
One huge problem with using a linear ability scale, as the OP is proposing, is that at the low end, the difference in ability between a 2 and a 4 is the same as the difference between a 500 and a 1000. You need more gradations down there.
Innumeracy is a horrible problem in the US, and I blame school boards and home schooling.