New Rating System

[BRussell]

Honestly even with youtube and social media there is a huge potential for people to fly under the radar. Just think about all the excellent senior players out there that have no desire to use a computer. Granted they may not be interested in going pro but they should be allowed to participate in local leagues or tournaments. It is possible for anyone to go out and buy a table of their own and practice till they become a great player. In fact with youtube and the internet they could have all the training available to anyone out there right in their own home. I am a firm believer that there are probably hundreds if not thousands of pro level players not competing or rated in any systems.

I don't see the problem. New players will always be coming in to the system, and if they want to play league or handicap tournaments, they'll have to be given a temporary rating until they're established. They're not going to be kept out, that would mean no new person ever gets in. If you're talking pro-level tournaments like Turning Stone or Derby City, they don't play with handicaps anyway.

 

[one stroke]

I'm not sure I understand the question. A better handicapping system could be used for anything that uses handicaps today, right? For leagues, and for tournaments that are either handicapped or that have skill-level divisions.

I don't really see what use they have for pros and pro tournaments, outside of entertainment value, but like Banks says I suppose they could be used for seeding rather than using random draws, or for invitations.

Unless you know how the info is accumulated it's barley worth the paper it's printed on APA has 250k plus players I highly doubt thier jumping on board these leagues compete against each other
CSI / BCA of course is going to use it , thier invested in it ,, and they've had some issues with players not being in the right groups for thier National Tournoments
WPA is highly unlikely to use it since they have thier own ranking points Tournoments
There may be a couple of other Turneys who might use them for seeding
But seeded tourneys are pretty rare
It's best use is in gambling and buying players in calcuttas where someone slipping in could do damage
1

 

[Mark Griffin]

FargoRate

I totally agree. Everyone should be striving to improve pool. Fargo has way more value than just for gambling, or handicapping. This is the first real system that is based on past performance. that statistically improves with more data.

I believe it will evolve to become the measuring standard in performance on a pool table; a little similar to a golf handicap or bowling average. It is not a 'magic bullet' - so just be patient.

As time goes on, I hope I am proven right!!

Mark Griffin

I support Fargorate. I support anyone who is putting time, effort and especially computing power behind the game. And Fargorate is a great idea to boot. Let me know how I can contribute.

I think we have to realize that there are like 4 people reading this forum. We may as well push each others products and ideas so that one day, one of these good intentions, catches on with the general public.

 

[Kevin3824]

I only see a problem with it if a player attains world professional skills without ever playing in a tournament. Then decides they want to call themselves Professional or want to compete against like skilled players in a tournament without having a rating or points earned from enough tournaments previously they would not be able to do that. At this point I don't even know if there is a such thing as the world's best pool player without breaking it into game category. I know there are still tournaments out there that are by invitation as well. I think of all the older or senior players that have been playing most of their lives and still have amazing skill levels. I have seen a lot of highly skilled older players that can play better pool then I witnessed on televised tourneys.

 

[azdiamondbacks1]

I totally agree. Everyone should be striving to improve pool. Fargo has way more value than just for gambling, or handicapping. This is the first real system that is based on past performance. that statistically improves with more data.

I believe it will evolve to become the measuring standard in performance on a pool table; a little similar to a golf handicap or bowling average. It is not a 'magic bullet' - so just be patient.

As time goes on, I hope I am proven right!!

Mark Griffin

Looking at Fargo from a player perspective I have seen several benefits to me personally. I live out in Arizona and I have participated in a couple of tournaments. I noticed in the Fargo tournaments the matches/races were much more fair than before. I didn't snap the tourney off or anything but I pretty much knew the skill levels of the players I was playing and based on the races I felt I had a fair chance. Also, another example is I play in a large VNEA tourney in Vegas every year. After I got bounced out of a singles event last year I looked up the player who knocked me out and he was like 125 points higher than me. He was rated over 750 and he ended up winning the 8 ball event. It's now wonder I lost in a short race to 5 and in all honesty he shouldn't have probably been allowed to play in the "open" event but I wouldn't have known any of that without the fargo ratings. I think if you don't like fargo and it's potential you are not paying attention. I like it and I think Fargo is here to stay.

 

[BRussell]

I totally agree. Everyone should be striving to improve pool. Fargo has way more value than just for gambling, or handicapping. This is the first real system that is based on past performance. that statistically improves with more data.

I believe it will evolve to become the measuring standard in performance on a pool table; a little similar to a golf handicap or bowling average. It is not a 'magic bullet' - so just be patient.

As time goes on, I hope I am proven right!!

Mark Griffin

Mark -

Fargo Ratings are presented as a universal system for rating players. The idea seems to be that all pool players everywhere can and should be in the system. I think it’s great that your leagues are going to be using it, and that will get a lot of amateurs in, but I assume that APA, VNEA, etc. will continue to use their own systems. Can players from other leagues get in? To put it another way, is your support for this to make it an extra value unique to your league members, or to give some initial support to what will eventually be a more universal system?

You might not be able to answer all that, which is OK too. :wink:

 

[Paul Schofield]

.... similar to a golf handicap or bowling average.

Mark Griffin

It is not. It is a gigantic ladder tournament. Everyone gets a rung (a number).

 

[mikepage]

It is not. It is a gigantic ladder tournament. Everyone gets rung (a number).

The distinction that Paul is making here--a valid distinction-- is there are two fundamentally different types of activities for which we might wish to rate or rank participants.

One, like bowling or golf or running or jumping or swimming, is activities where individual performance can be compared to an absolute standard.

The other, like chess, pool, staring contests, games of chicken, the game of GO, and various online video games, is activities where where performance is relative, i.e., is based upon who beats whom.

This seems like a fundamental distinction, and in some ways it is. But as the number of participants grows in the latter class,the ostensibly arbitrary relative performance level becomes entrenched, and the score--the Fargo Rating--begins to enjoy an absolute meaning.

The bottom line is the distinction Paul makes is real, but it matters far less than he seems to think it does... A person is no worse for the wear if he imagines a Fargo Rating refers to an absolute level of performance

 

[Paul Schofield]

One, like bowling or golf or running or jumping or swimming, is activities where individual performance can be compared to an absolute standard.

The other, like chess, pool, staring contests, games of chicken, the game of GO, and various online video games, is activities where where performance is relative, i.e., is based upon who beats whom.

Bowling, golf, track: Players are measured against the sport.

Chess, tennis, boxing: Players are measured against players.

I do understand the difference. I have extensive experience with both.

 

[JB Cases]

Hi Fellow Pool Players,

Have a question for you folks to ponder. Hypothetically speaking, someone like me comes up with a new way to rate all pool players. System seems to work. There are a few holes to fill. All the major leagues and tournaments adopt the system. The folks who own and run the system do such a good job that a player who does not have a rating number can not play in either a league or tournament. Got to have a rating. Sort of like the one in use in Arizona.

Now the folks who own the "system" decide their costs have risen to the point where they need income to offset expenses. Data input is not cheap. Neither is the input program and necessary hardware to run the system. System owner decides they need $5 per player to run the system. Remember, no number, no play. The same Grinch who stole Christmas buys the system from the nice guys. He wants $20 per player.

As this is still hypothetical, say there are 500,000 registered players in the system. At $5 per player, that's $2,500,000. Per year!!!! What a country. What a system. Should I consider starting one?

I'm sure there will be some unflattering replies. Still, I think it's a question that needs answering. Just think about the national leagues who require people to buy a franchise. Those people need to make income to offset their original outlay and the expenses.to continue to run their league. Is this really about the "system" or the potential income? Feel free to discuss .

Lyn

If you create something useful and necessary and do work to maintain it you should get paid.

The people who maintain the rankings for other sports presumably are employed by whatever organization is responsible for tallying those ratings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIDE

 

[JB Cases]

Please be aware of how difficult and time consuming (costs) it is to accumulate enough statistics to be pertinent.

Please go to www.fargorate.com and watch the videos.
Go to www.fairmatch.fargorate.com and get familiar with the options available there. Just so you know robustness means number of games in the system.

Fargo is not just for tournaments - it is for league play. But it tracks the relationship between all the players - and recalculates the rating every day.

Not going to debate the value or why use it at this time. CSI is going forward with full adoption of Fargorate because we strongly feel it will provide a much more fair playing field for all players. That should mean players have more fun and can actually see how they compare to everyone else.

The value of any numeric or alphabetic system is only good in their 'home' area. It means nothing anywhere else - so that is just not a decent method. Bob Jewett went into this a little bit in a couple of articles in recent Billiard Digest magazines.

I hope the pool playing community will embrace this giant leap forward. If you don't like it, give it a chance. By criticizing what we are doing does noone any good.

For additional info on Fargo, best source is to watch CSI podcasts on YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/user/csipool?sub_confirmation=1

Have a Happy New Year!

Mark Griffin, CEO
CSI

Fully behind you on this Mark. I have known Mike for a long time and while we don't agree on everything pool I have known him to be meticulous and brilliant in everything he does.

 

[thepavlos]

The inherent problem with all handicapping systems is that they are usually insulated groups of data. Your results are based on the group you are playing with; therefore you may be a "5" in that group and then travel to a city where there is a higher caliber of play now in that city you may only be considered a 3. It really is hard to get a universal rating system. Not saying it's impossible just very difficult where you can cover the full spectrum of play.

 

[bwally]

The inherent problem with all handicapping systems is that they are usually insulated groups of data. Your results are based on the group you are playing with; therefore you may be a "5" in that group and then travel to a city where there is a higher caliber of play now in that city you may only be considered a 3. It really is hard to get a universal rating system. Not saying it's impossible just very difficult where you can cover the full spectrum of play.

FARGO ratings addresses this problem.

 

[thepavlos]

We did try Fargo in our league but it did not work well because everyone plays on one night and the system did not work well when the difference between the 2 players was very large. The higher handicapped player was overwhelmingly favored in those match ups. Not saying it's not a good system just that it did not work for us in our situation. When I spoke to Mike Page he explained that they had different levels playing on different nights and I believe an "open" night where anyone could play. He has the number of players to make that happen whereas we average 50-80 players per session.

 

[mikepage]

We did try Fargo in our league but it did not work well because everyone plays on one night and the system did not work well when the difference between the 2 players was very large. The higher handicapped player was overwhelmingly favored in those match ups. Not saying it's not a good system just that it did not work for us in our situation. When I spoke to Mike Page he explained that they had different levels playing on different nights and I believe an "open" night where anyone could play. He has the number of players to make that happen whereas we average 50-80 players per session.

Yes, we talked back in 2010. What we were doing back then--and what we talked about--was an ELO scheme that was basically a modest improvement on what FIDE does in chess. What we do now --what we call the global optimization--is very different. So hang in there. I think you will like what you see....

 

[thepavlos]

Thanks Mike
I look forward to hearing from you
Pstamatos@gmail.com

 

[Paul Schofield]

.Fargo Rating refers to an absolute level of performance

If I understand this correctly, a Fargo Rating is a meaningless number until other players have a number (a rung on the ladder). I do no get the absolute level of performance thing.

 

[mikepage]

If I understand this correctly, a Fargo Rating is a meaningless number until other players have a number (a rung on the ladder). I do no get the absolute level of performance thing.

Consider some absolute measures of performance in pool...

---what fraction of games do you win against the 9-ball ghost?
---what is you straight-pool high-run after 10 attempts?
---what fraction of 8-ball games do you run out?
---what is your pot percentage on a spot shot?

and so forth...

Now contrast this to relative performance: John wins two thirds of the games against Joe, so John is 100 points above Joe.

At this point, John and Joe could be 800 and 700, or 600 and 400, or 300 and 200. We don't know, and we have no reference for either player to the absolute measures above.

John and Joe's ratings can shift up and down by any amount and still represent the data that John wins two thirds of the games against Joe.

Now add in Bill and George and Sue and Mary and Bob and Sergio and Mohammed and Xiaofeng.

What happens is the formerly arbitrary become more entrenched and resistant
to shifting. We can fix the scale in any way we want. Suppose we say the average of the ratings of the top 100 players in the world does not change.

A consequence of this is every absolute measure mentioned above has a fixed one-to-one correspondence with a rating...

So perhaps beating the 9-Ball ghost on a standard gold crown is a Fargo rating of 687.

Perhaps running out 20% of the 8-Ball racks on a Valley is a Fargo Rating of 617.

It no longer matters that the ratings are not DEFINED by absolute performance; what matters id the ratings can ASSOCIATED with absolute performance--and that, importantly, means a 630 in Erie PA is a 630 in Fargo ND.

 

[Paul Schofield]

Thanks Mike, I am going to read your post a number of times. I want to see what you see so that I may understand.

 

[JB Cases]

Consider some absolute measures of performance in pool...

---what fraction of games do you win against the 9-ball ghost?
---what is you straight-pool high-run after 10 attempts?
---what fraction of 8-ball games do you run out?
---what is your pot percentage on a spot shot?

and so forth...

Now contrast this to relative performance: John wins two thirds of the games against Joe, so John is 100 points above Joe.

At this point, John and Joe could be 800 and 700, or 600 and 400, or 300 and 200. We don't know, and we have no reference for either player to the absolute measures above.

John and Joe's ratings can shift up and down by any amount and still represent the data that John wins two thirds of the games against Joe.

Now add in Bill and George and Sue and Mary and Bob and Sergio and Mohammed and Xiaofeng.

What happens is the formerly arbitrary become more entrenched and resistant
to shifting. We can fix the scale in any way we want. Suppose we say the average of the ratings of the top 100 players in the world does not change.

A consequence of this is every absolute measure mentioned above has a fixed one-to-one correspondence with a rating...

So perhaps beating the 9-Ball ghost on a standard gold crown is a Fargo rating of 687.

Perhaps running out 20% of the 8-Ball racks on a Valley is a Fargo Rating of 617.

It no longer matters that the ratings are not DEFINED by absolute performance; what matters id the ratings can ASSOCIATED with absolute performance--and that, importantly, means a 630 in Erie PA is a 630 in Fargo ND.

Makes perfect sense.