560 sounds too high ......... :grin:
My fargo rate is not accurate
- Thread starter donny mills
- Start date
560 sounds too high ......... :grin:
The odds are about 95% for a loss. I would say 100% but you never know, he could come down the flu or lose a limb while we are playing :thumbup:
Seriously, your FargoRate is around the same as mine and from the sounds of it, you would slaughter me.
Yeah..
We both played perfect in that match. I won most of the safety battles which ended up being the difference.
I had 4 bnr's and he had 3.
Jaden
We both played perfect in that match. I won most of the safety battles which ended up being the difference.
I had 4 bnr's and he had 3.
Jaden
What is reported to Fargo depends on whoever is keeping score at the event. They are not magically watching us in every pool hall LOL
Yeah, and I am happy with one and ecstatic with 2 bnr's in a match. From the sounds of it you should be high 600's pushing 700 would be my best guess. Maybe even low 700's.
"bogus" "garbage", right there your opinion is useless to go by since you are clearly biased against it. If you were asked about some person and you started calling them names, right away I would go look for a second opinion.
Please point out where the rating system is bad with the correct data for the player entered. All it is is math. You don't trust math? Or are "feeling" better than data?
There are enough players around here that can humble me enough. Thanks though.
Awww yeah! Easy knows he just come to MA and get humbled. Well, not by me but, there are a few guys, maybe...
I'm wondering if using the match results (score or no score) would be helpful for the Fargo rating system. Just the fact that someone wins a match over someone else seems to be useful information to me. Whether the score was 9-7 or 9-5 is less significant then the fact that they won the match imo.
Anyway, what do I know? :thumbup:
Anyway, what do I know? :thumbup:
Dude... I just checked mine and I am a 578. You should be well up in the 600's. That being said...... lets match up.
Yeah, I get what you're saying, kinda like extra credit for getting it done when you need to....
We treat every game the same. I believe in the long haul, over lots of matches and games, this is the right way to do it. One of the advantages of having lots of data is we can actually go back and test ideas like this: do certain players have tendencies to win matches incommensurate with their ratings? We test lots of things like this. We also develop an intuition from doing lots of tests like these, and my gut tells me the answer is no.
I take that back, just watched some YouTube matches. I think they have you rated correctly :thumbup:
Okay, if I get any other good ideas I'll let you know.
I do like the idea someone offered that by sending someone to record scores at major events you would be gathering a lot of useful data. I'm willing to offer my services for this position. I still like to watch good pool and I'm currently unemployed. :smile:
Dammit. Friggni beat to the punch (line) again.
I care only for 2 reasons. 1. What if one day there is a invitational tournament that goes by Fargo. 2. What if it somehow lowered my chances of being chosen for mosconi cup. Actually 3 reasons. 3. This rating system is supposed to be accurate. So when I offer the last 2 to a player that is 20 points higher than me for whatever you wanna bet the numbers people behind this should put their money where there numbers are lol.
:rotflmao1::rotflmao1::rotflmao1:
Don't worry Donny. If I'm ever the Captain I'm picking you! I like the guys who can come with it under pressure. They're in short supply around here. :thumbup2:
Over time you will get a much more accurate ratings with scores than with just win/loss numbers.
If I lose to SVB every time over a year, but the scores are 9-7, 9-7, 9-6, 9-8 would that not make my skill different than if I lost 9-4, 9-4, 9-2, 9-3 don't you think? In one case I can be a 750, in the other a 700. Remember this is over time, statistics, not short term variances. Sure a 750 can lose to someone badly a few times, but not in the long run vs a lower ranked player. The scores will be closer.
Fargo is almost like if you kept track of the AccuStats scores for players in every match they played and just did an average. In fact I am thinking if you did do that, you will find the two ratings will match up pretty well.
Last edited:
Yes, I don't think Jay is suggesting ignoring the scores. I think he is just suggesting NOT ignoring the match winner.
So, for instance, suppose we play 3 sets with scores
11 - 7
5 - 11
11 - 9
To FargoRate the score is 27 - 27 and these performances are a wash. But I'm going home with some of your $$. One way--just as an example-- to account for the win-when-it-matters idea is to award an extra "game" for the match win itself. Then the "scores" would be
12 - 7
5 - 12
12 - 9
28 - 27 total
This is the kind of thing we can try with a big amount of data for a training set and then see whether the resulting modified Fargo Ratings do a better job predicting match wins in other data than do the virgin Fargo Ratings.