Ideal rating system

M

Masayoshi

Fusenshou no Masa
Silver Member
Most other sports have standard measuring system in place to rate skill in some form or another. Of course that is due to the fact that they have organizations and associations that can regulate these things.

So, hypothetically speaking, lets say hell freezes over and a well funded, world wide organization for pool starts up and needs to find a way to rate the skill of players every where. Also, for the sake of discussion, let's say all the sandbaggers in the world decide to grow a pair and stop sandbagging.

In this case, what would be the ideal rating system for a game like pool? Would it be an accustats-like average of game statistics? Or maybe an average of matches won taking into account the strength of opponent. Or possibly a points system based on prize money or finishes in tournaments. Or maybe something else. I dunno. Really, I just want to know what you guys think about this topic.

One more topic to get you guys thinking. Let's say we have a perfect rating system and want to separate players into orderly ranks (ABC, 123 whatever). How many skill levels do you think would be appropriate to encompass all players from beginner to top-pro and how would you handicap tournaments to entice beginners to play?

I'll post my thought later on, for now please post away.
 
Last edited:
Masayoshi said:
Most other sports have standard measuring system in place to rate skill in some form or another. Of course that is due to the fact that they have organizations and associations that can regulate these things.

So, hypothetically speaking, lets say hell freezes over and a well funded, world wide organization for pool starts up and needs to find a way to rate the skill of players every where. Also, for the sake of discussion, let's say all the sandbaggers in the world decide to grow a pair and stop sandbagging.

In this case, what would be the ideal rating system for a game like pool? Would it be an accustats-like average of game statistics? Or maybe an average of matches won taking into account the strength of opponent. Or possibly a points system based on prize money or finishes in tournaments. Or maybe something else. I dunno. Really, I just want to know what you guys think about this topic.

One more topic to get you guys thinking. Let's say we have a perfect rating system and want to separate players into orderly ranks (ABC, 123 whatever). How many skill levels do you think would be appropriate to encompass all players from beginner to top-pro and how would you handicap tournaments to entice beginners to play?

I'll post my thought later on, for now please post away.
Click to expand...

We've thought quite a bit about this issue. I'm convinced something akin to ELO ratings in chess is the way to go.

We have introduced Fargo Ratings for 8-ball along these lines:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRWECaLnaxY
 
In a perfect world where everyone tries his best, it's wins and loses, and "strength of schedule". Nothing could be simpler.
 
I agree that an elo based system is the way to go.

For me, the categories would be

World Class
Pro
Semi-pro
AAA
AA
A
B
C
D
E

I think the 'E' rating is important because D player is such a large level. It encompasses everyone from the absolute beginner to the 1-3 ball runner. Some D players I can comfortably spot 90 points in 14.1 playing to 100, others at the top end of that spectrum make me more nervous.

If people are going to insist on handicapped tournaments, might as well make those handicaps as accurate as possible, which means more rating categories I think.
 
I imagine if you can convince the brains in chess to accept Elo's system, it would probably also work on pool. It would be nice to weed out subjective stuff when coming up with a player's stats and ratings, but I was impressed with how reasonable and clear-cut the accustats system is. The TPA ratings seem pretty accurate as a way to describe how well someone played a match or series of matches.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top