Meanwhile in Qatar

[Drop The Rock]

Hunter Lombardo is in the Final 64, not sure who he has played so far or how he has done but he is still in the final 64.

Now. Where is he on the Fargo? Not in the top 100 for USA but he still has a higher WPA ranking than Johnny Archer and is 74th by their rankings. Mind you the WPA rankings don't say much either.

My main issue is that this Fargo rate stuff is taken as gospel by a lot of people on here.

Meanwhile Ko Pin Yi is ranked 21st on Fargo while 3rd in WPA.

My issue isn't with Fargo itself though. My issue is that rating pool players is painfully inaccurate in general, especially if based purely off how they finish in a handful of tournaments and without inclusion of the derby, which if you ask most pros is one of the toughest environments and tournaments one can possibly play in.

Without tracking break and run % after pushout or after open shot on the break, safety leading to forced BIH, dry breaks vs ball made, successful kicks for ball hit, successful kicks for ball made or other comprehensive stats, rating a player properly is near impossible. Tracking how often a player comes up short, over runs position or gets out of line is a good way to measure them.

However the problem with this is that its near impossible to do. So to some it up. I'd rather leave ratings to popular opinion than a system that is still developing. So please don't gamble based on ratings like this.

 

[pwd72s]

Or...not bet and just enjoy the show while rooting for your favorite? Oh...wait...this is pool...:rotflmao1:

 

[Drop The Rock]

Or...not bet and just enjoy the show while rooting for your favorite? Oh...wait...this is pool...:rotflmao1:

Lol I have a baby on the way so no sweat bets for me =]

 

[fastone371]

Hunter Lombardo is in the Final 64, not sure who he has played so far or how he has done but he is still in the final 64.

Now. Where is he on the Fargo? Not in the top 100 for USA but he still has a higher WPA ranking than Johnny Archer and is 74th by their rankings. Mind you the WPA rankings don't say much either.

My main issue is that this Fargo rate stuff is taken as gospel by a lot of people on here.

Meanwhile Ko Pin Yi is ranked 21st on Fargo while 3rd in WPA.

My issue isn't with Fargo itself though. My issue is that rating pool players is painfully inaccurate in general, especially if based purely off how they finish in a handful of tournaments and without inclusion of the derby, which if you ask most pros is one of the toughest environments and tournaments one can possibly play in.

Without tracking break and run % after pushout or after open shot on the break, safety leading to forced BIH, dry breaks vs ball made, successful kicks for ball hit, successful kicks for ball made or other comprehensive stats, rating a player properly is near impossible. Tracking how often a player comes up short, over runs position or gets out of line is a good way to measure them.

However the problem with this is that its near impossible to do. So to some it up. I'd rather leave ratings to popular opinion than a system that is still developing. So please don't gamble based on ratings like this.

Just because 1 person is rated higher than another does not mean the higher rated player will win. If that were the case they would not need to play games, the highest rated player wins, give him the cash. Player ratings establish the average performance of a player over time, the more time and games the player plays the more accurately Fargo can establish player strength. Luck is also a factor as are so many other variables. 1 player may be particularly hot and the other in a slump. We have been using a similar system in WI for a couple years for tournaments, it is a lot more accurate than the BCAPL letter ratings.No system will ever be 100% accurate, that's why they play the games and have tournaments. Have you never beat a stronger play or lost to a weaker player? 5h1t happens!!!

 

[spartan]

Just because 1 person is rated higher than another does not mean the higher rated player will win. If that were the case they would not need to play games, the highest rated player wins, give him the cash. Player ratings establish the average performance of a player over time, the more time and games the player plays the more accurately Fargo can establish player strength. Luck is also a factor as are so many other variables. 1 player may be particularly hot and the other in a slump. We have been using a similar system in WI for a couple years for tournaments, it is a lot more accurate than the BCAPL letter ratings.No system will ever be 100% accurate, that's why they play the games and have tournaments. Have you never beat a stronger play or lost to a weaker player? 5h1t happens!!!

Well said
Fargorate is similar to ELO ratings for chess which has been used successfully for long time and now used in other sports
Obviously accuracy of Fargorate depends on whether all players, games, events are added in system
Other thing is Fargorate does not differentiate between current speed and old speed. So some old player with high rating who is inactive will still show in system
It is not perfect and is a work in progress.

 

[Drop The Rock]

Just because 1 person is rated higher than another does not mean the higher rated player will win. If that were the case they would not need to play games, the highest rated player wins, give him the cash. Player ratings establish the average performance of a player over time, the more time and games the player plays the more accurately Fargo can establish player strength. Luck is also a factor as are so many other variables. 1 player may be particularly hot and the other in a slump. We have been using a similar system in WI for a couple years for tournaments, it is a lot more accurate than the BCAPL letter ratings.No system will ever be 100% accurate, that's why they play the games and have tournaments. Have you never beat a stronger play or lost to a weaker player? 5h1t happens!!!

Well said
Fargorate is similar to ELO ratings for chess which has been used successfully for long time and now used in other sports
Obviously accuracy of Fargorate depends on whether all players, games, events are added in system
Other thing is Fargorate does not differentiate between current speed and old speed. So some old player with high rating who is inactive will still show in system
It is not perfect and is a work in progress.

I really don't disagree. The Fargo ratings need to include more tournaments and is a work in progress. I think an improvement would be more categories as well. If we are going to base ratings on placement in tournaments/wins and losses then ratings for One Pocket, 14.1, 8, 9, 10 ball should have their own categories and table size would be a nice factor as well. This would basically put Darren Appleton as the best 8 ball player in terms of Fargo because of the Chinese 8 ball masters. Its tough for me to disagree with that. It would put Ko Pin Yi near the top if not first in the 10 ball, and Alex, Orcollo and Frost around the top in One Pocket, which in my opinion is quite accurate. Sky Woodward would float around the top of the 9 ball scene too which I don't disagree with either.

As it stands a rating system of this type isn't the right way to go about things in my opinion when it comes to pro pool because it is far too broad. IMO Chess isn't very comparible but I could be wrong.

 

[Kris_b1104]

I really don't disagree. The Fargo ratings need to include more tournaments and is a work in progress. I think an improvement would be more categories as well. If we are going to base ratings on placement in tournaments/wins and losses then ratings for One Pocket, 14.1, 8, 9, 10 ball should have their own categories and table size would be a nice factor as well. This would basically put Darren Appleton as the best 8 ball player in terms of Fargo because of the Chinese 8 ball masters. Its tough for me to disagree with that. It would put Ko Pin Yi near the top if not first in the 10 ball, and Alex, Orcollo and Frost around the top in One Pocket, which in my opinion is quite accurate. Sky Woodward would float around the top of the 9 ball scene too which I don't disagree with either.

As it stands a rating system of this type isn't the right way to go about things in my opinion when it comes to pro pool because it is far too broad. IMO Chess isn't very comparible but I could be wrong.

So make your own rating system.

 

[Drop The Rock]

So make your own rating system.

See this is the kind of mentality I find a little funny. Would you tell that to someone pointing out fallacies of the current government lol? I don't have time to make my own rating system bud. Does that mean I should be cheery and happy about one that I think is incomplete? I didn't say **** FargoRate did I? Merely that rating pool players with a fairly small sample size isn't the right way to do it imo. Its a forum. I don't have to agree with everybody else on everything now do I? We have a weird good enough mentatlity in the pool world and I for one want to see the game improve and get more mainstream. Player personalities and details create just as much popularity as "ranking"

 

[jmhanson_21]

“rating pool players is painfully inaccurate in general, especially if based purely off how they finish in a handful of tournaments and without inclusion of the derby”

Well . . . Hunter’s rating is based off of 3,368 games played. I think the WPA ranking would be the system that looks at only a handful of tournaments.

“I think an improvement would be more categories as well. If we are going to base ratings on placement in tournaments/wins and losses then ratings for One Pocket, 14.1, 8, 9, 10 ball should have their own categories and table size would be a nice factor as well.”

Well . . . the ratings only consider 8 ball, 9 ball, and 10 ball, for now. Mike said he would like to rate one pocket, but if he did, it would be nice to use the score to help rate the player. The problem there is that many players play differently based upon the score, which makes it a poor indicator. Another issue is the limited data – there aren’t as many tournaments. Concerning 14.1, there aren’t enough tournaments, and the races are too short. Often you’ll see pros beating pros 100 – 1 or something along those lines.

Concerning table size – I agree with you; however, Mike said that their data has shown that the perceived difference in players’ abilities going from 9’ to 7’ is mostly a fallacy. That being said, it sounds like they actually have that information behind the scenes, but they just haven’t released that information at this time. I believe he also said that when they entered that data, they specifically noted whether the game was 8 ball, 9 ball or 10 ball – so it sounds like they have the capability to make rankings for different games.

Getting to Mr. Lombardo . . . I can’t really fault his Fargo-Rate. He’s 173rd on the AZB Money Leaderboard for this year, he never reached 10k in any of the previous 3 years (2014, 2013, 2012), and he’s never reached 20k in any year. In fact, his numbers are available going back to 2000 (15 years), but he only once made at least 10k. I know I take the money numbers with a large grain of salt, but obviously Mr. Lombardo isn’t winning a lot of tournaments, or even placing high in added money events. I’m glad he’s playing well at the World 9 ball, but if you’re questioning the authority of a rating system that bases its rating off of the results of over 3k games for a given player, and citing to 4 matches in a given tournament, I’m not sure what you’re getting at.

 

[Double-Dave]

Hunter Lombardo is in the Final 64, not sure who he has played so far or how he has done but he is still in the final 64.

Now. Where is he on the Fargo? Not in the top 100 for USA but he still has a higher WPA ranking than Johnny Archer and is 74th by their rankings. Mind you the WPA rankings don't say much either.

My main issue is that this Fargo rate stuff is taken as gospel by a lot of people on here.

Meanwhile Ko Pin Yi is ranked 21st on Fargo while 3rd in WPA.

My issue isn't with Fargo itself though. My issue is that rating pool players is painfully inaccurate in general, especially if based purely off how they finish in a handful of tournaments and without inclusion of the derby, which if you ask most pros is one of the toughest environments and tournaments one can possibly play in.

Without tracking break and run % after pushout or after open shot on the break, safety leading to forced BIH, dry breaks vs ball made, successful kicks for ball hit, successful kicks for ball made or other comprehensive stats, rating a player properly is near impossible. Tracking how often a player comes up short, over runs position or gets out of line is a good way to measure them.

However the problem with this is that its near impossible to do. So to some it up. I'd rather leave ratings to popular opinion than a system that is still developing. So please don't gamble based on ratings like this.

So, because a player has made to the last 64 of 1 tournament (that is still in progress) his Fargo rating
must be incorrect? That's just plain silly. He only made it to the final 64 like a day ago so maybe they haven't
even started to put in all the WC matches (I don't know this).

I have looked over the Fargo ratings and their system, I cannot find anything really wrong with it at all.
Sure, if I would get to choose the weight loss of matches over time I wouldn't have come up with
exactly the weights they use but at the same time theirs sound very acceptable.

Fargo is, to the best of my knowledge currently by far the best rating system out there.
No it isn't perfect and nothing ever will but I don't understand you problem with 'em.

 

[Mark Griffin]

Fargo

Well said
Fargorate is similar to ELO ratings for chess which has been used successfully for long time and now used in other sports
Obviously accuracy of Fargorate depends on whether all players, games, events are added in system
Other thing is Fargorate does not differentiate between current speed and old speed. So some old player with high rating who is inactive will still show in system
It is not perfect and is a work in progress.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

To correct above post:

Fargorate does take into consideration older performance. Their influence decreases as time increases.

Fargorate is quite a bit more accurate than many are aware. Obviously, the more data, the more accurate it will be.

Mark Griffin

 

[BRussell]

The draw really matters, especially in the early stages of the tournament. I doubt Hunter has won much above his Fargo level yet this tournament. To win the whole thing, or even get to say the quarter finals, he will have to. Case in point: His next match is against Dennis Orcollo.

 

[Kris_b1104]

I think FargoRate is the best thing to happen to pool in a while.

It's the most accurate system we have right now and it's still improving, it's still fairly new so obviously there will be faults but give it time.

The WPA rankings on the other hand are a joke. They only count WPA sanctioned tournaments, which we only have like 5 or 6 a year.

If I were basing someone's rating off a system, I would look at Fargo because they actually count way more tournaments and games played by that player instead of 5 or 6 tournaments a year.

 

[bdorman]

Have you never beat a stronger player Not that I recall or lost to a weaker player More times than I care to think about? 5h1t happens!!!

The only numbers that would make any sense (regarding Mr. Lombardo) are the Fargo Ratings of his opponents in the tournament so far. If they are higher rated, then he's playing better than expected. If they are lowered rated, then he's playing as expected.

 

[Kris_b1104]

Also, the time and effort involved in creating the FargoRatings are massive, let's not just go around discrediting them without learning how they actually work. These people are actually sitting there doing statistics and calculating percentages based on every single match just for us fans to compare, and for free of course. Thank you MikePage for creating this system!

 

[Nostroke]

I would go with Fargo before anything else except my specific knowledge-Love Fargo and it will only get better.

That is assuming they continue it diligently. Can they make money from it somehow? That's about the only way it will continue for sure I'd think!!

 

[one stroke]

So make your own rating system.

ok my top 5

Ko
Ko
Yang
Wu
Alex
Biado

 

[Kris_b1104]

ok my top 5

Ko
Ko
Yang
Wu
Alex
Biado

So if you're going by "WPA" rankings, 4 of them are not even in the top 10, or even 20. But I'm sure they are in the FargoRating, which is more accurate. Which Yang are you referring to? Ching-Shun that got eliminated?

Little Ko is 19. Yang is 51. Alex is 39. And Wu is 30.


Now let's look at Fargorate. 4 of your picks are in the top 20.

Yang is number 31 I believe.

Isn't that more accurate than WPA?

 

[Drop The Rock]

I'd like to add that I never said that WPA is more accurate than Fargo or anything along those lines... MY POINT is that rating systems for pool players in general aren't something that can be quantified by one number...especially when that system doesn't really allow for opinion.

A player's statistics don't simply refer to their wins and losses. Also AGAIN, Fargo may be the most "accurate" system there is currently available but that doesn't mean its accurate. ITS NOT FARGO's FAULT. So remove the sticks. Ranking a player accurately among a field of other players requires that all the other players have played in the same event. Conversely, rating a player based on only a handful of tournaments isn't accurate in itself. The WPA rankings aren't that great, no doubt, but what they do is show the pecking order in WPA events. Which means they only compare to other WPA Events.

Again I'm sorry but you can't tell me Ko Pin Yi is the 21st best player in the world with a world 10 ball title under his belt. Darren Appleton is showing as 15th in the world right now...How many of you can honestly say you agree with that? He won the Chinese World 8 ball. which at the very least deserves top 10. Meanwhile Mike Dechaine who is now in his first international event besides the Mosconi is 8th in the world? Seriously what is in the Kool Aid. Oh and Albin Ouschan? 2nd in last years W9ball and 1st in the China open with a 17th place finish in the chinese 8 ball? That guy? 51st according to Fargo...

For the people using the AZb moneyboard as an argument Wu Jia Qing is 145th and still number 1 in the world according to Fargo.

Part of the problem is trying to rank the players by giving them a rating based purely on wins and losses and ranking them compared to others even if they haven't all played in the same events.

I'm stating that its inaccurate, which unless someone can give me a clear and concise argument as to how it is accurate, I'm going to stick to that. Just because it is inaccurate, doesn't make it the devil. Better than other systems doesn't mean its accurate.

Lets just say the Top 20 of both the WPA and Fargo ratings which do you all honestly think is more accurate? By accurate I mean that there aren't ridiculous stretches or players that seem to be missing completely.

 

[Drop The Rock]

So if you're going by "WPA" rankings, 4 of them are not even in the top 10, or even 20. But I'm sure they are in the FargoRating, which is more accurate. Which Yang are you referring to? Ching-Shun that got eliminated?

Little Ko is 19. Yang is 51. Alex is 39. And Wu is 30.


Now let's look at Fargorate. 4 of your picks are in the top 20.

Yang is number 31 I believe.

Isn't that more accurate than WPA?

Ko is 3rd in WPA and 17th in Fargo while little Ko is ranked higher than him at 11th in Fargo...how is that accurate?
Fargo also has John Morra at 43rd which isn't even close.