New Rating System

cardiac kid

cardiac kid

Super Senior Member
Silver Member
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 :rolleyes: .

Lyn
 
cardiac kid said:
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 :rolleyes: .

Lyn
Click to expand...

The bolded part is your obvious problem. The pool players in my league vote to use their old system which was free. Now what do you do?
 
cardiac kid said:
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 :rolleyes: .

Lyn
Click to expand...

This is doable at https://www.vivianmarran.com/

1st thing to do is get all tournaments easily posted (20 seconds) at one site. Kinda like this one -- https://www.vivianmarran.com/tournaments/find/fast-eddies-monthly-9-ball-tournament-10/

2nd is to get all players registered (again 20 seconds) at that same sitehttps://www.vivianmarran.com/login/

3rd is that it needs to be free https://www.vivianmarran.com/

Now we have a list of all tournaments (big and small) and a list of all players that played in each tournament. From there we can implement your rating system.

Here is that site...https://www.vivianmarran.com/ just give it a shot. It's brand new and needs some traffic to get buzzing
 
I think you're right to be cautious about something like that, and I hadn't thought about the potential power that someone could have by running a rating system that has become essential. A couple of counter-arguments:

1. For league amateurs, right now it looks like CSI will be using Fargo ratings, but APA and the others will continue to use their own systems. That sounds like competition! If people see Fargo ratings as a valuable benefit to being a CSI league member, they will pay for it, but if they charge too much, they will go with other leagues.

2. For pros it appears that Fargo ratings are descriptive rather than used for handicaps like in amateur leagues. They get put in to Fargo simply by participating in pro tournaments. It's hard to foresee a rating being a paid requirement for those kinds of tournaments.

3. Would it be so bad if someone actually made money from pool? IMO the big problem with pool right now is that promoters etc. aren't making money and so have no incentive to run anything.
 
this sounds like yelp.com but for pool. soon the operators of the rating system will be calling pool players asking for fees or else they get ruined online.
 
This is well timed for me since watching CSI Podcast 18 finally, I now have a lot more questions about Fargo rating. What if I don't play in an BCA league? Can I still get an accurate rating? It sounds like it takes 200 games to become established.

I think something like the Fargo rating would be great if it truly could be made generic and not tied to USAPL or APA or any other single organization since NONE of them seem to agree on anyting, including the rules.
 
Floppage said:
This is well timed for me since watching CSI Podcast 18 finally, I now have a lot more questions about Fargo rating. What if I don't play in an BCA league? Can I still get an accurate rating? It sounds like it takes 200 games to become established.

I think something like the Fargo rating would be great if it truly could be made generic and not tied to USAPL or APA or any other single organization since NONE of them seem to agree on anyting, including the rules.
Click to expand...

You're right in that you can't leverage league data. Leagues are great for what they are but they inherently possess a toxic incentive to hide true ability or sandbag. And this incentive to lose supports a successful business model so no need to change it.

Any rating system that truly changes the game will inherently reward winning and punish losing; regulated by the self-interest of the player.
 
Floppage said:
This is well timed for me since watching CSI Podcast 18 finally, I now have a lot more questions about Fargo rating. What if I don't play in an BCA league? Can I still get an accurate rating? It sounds like it takes 200 games to become established.

I think something like the Fargo rating would be great if it truly could be made generic and not tied to USAPL or APA or any other single organization since NONE of them seem to agree on anyting, including the rules.
Click to expand...

Where's the value in it ,, with YouTube and social media players don't fly under the radar
I really don't see where the value is


1
 
Banks said:
Tournament seeding, divisions and whatever else they choose, such as player selection for invitational events. My main concern is how long it takes to get a solid rating.
Click to expand...

And what are the restrictions on the sources. I did horribly at the USBTC and my rating on Fargo reflects that. I'm at least a hint better in my local leagues but since they aren't sanctioned leagues, that data isn't part of my Fargo rating. The local tournaments I play in are also not in the ratings.

Not all tournaments and leagues are going to be part of the BCAPL or some other big organization. By playing in those am I "flying under the radar"?
 
one stroke said:
For what ,,?

1
Click to expand...

An accurate list of national player rankings based on performance at non-league tournaments, updated weekly, would be nice for fans to follow. And might be an incentive to rank-and-file tournament players as we could aim to build and improve our rankings.

We all the know SVB, Orcullo, Skylar, etc., but how about all the other guys who are playing regularly, and well known regionally as talented, but not necessarily well known to players outside their region. A national ranking system would allow everyone to see where everyone ranks.

Being able to follow a dynamic number/rank and associate that with a name would elevate the lesser known monster players to a bit more prominence and possibly be an incentive to us non-league tournament players to step up our game and get a decent ranking for ourselves
 
BRussell said:
The practical value is in having a more accurate handicapping system.

one stroke said:
For what ,,?

1
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
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.
 
Banks said:
Tournament seeding, divisions and whatever else they choose, such as player selection for invitational events. My main concern is how long it takes to get a solid rating.
Click to expand...

I'm sure some where along the line it will have a value to someone just don't see it now to anyone other than railbird gamblers ,, , of course you would have to know what the numbers actualy mean before you could acuratly use it
Leagues have a system that's worked for them for decades I see no reason they would change
Local tourneys and almost all Reginals are not seeded or handicap so little value there

So it's along ways away from being anything more than a talk piece

1
 
Banks said:
Tournament seeding, divisions and whatever else they choose, such as player selection for invitational events. My main concern is how long it takes to get a solid rating.
Click to expand...

I don't think it would take long. If all tournaments were posted by tournament directors in a central database, and all players searched for tournaments in this central database, and all players signed up for tournaments in this central location then there would be record of past, present and future results. National rankings would just be one benefit a such a system.

Just try getting your tournament director to post his event here https://www.vivianmarran.com/
 
look at FargoRate

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
 
BRussell said:
The practical value is in having a more accurate handicapping system.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Mark Griffin said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top