Agreed. FargoRate is definitely the way the go, and I hope all league systems eventually embrace it.
Keep up the good work,
Dave
New Rating System
- Thread starter cardiac kid
- Start date
Keep up the good work,
Dave
Look at video "what do rating differences mean" here
http://fargorate.com/Home/Videos
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Why would they unless they were making cash off it APA has built the biggest pool Empire in history using thier rating system ,,can't argue success and can't see where thier motivation would be
1
Hmmmm.
I'm on the fence about the whole money possibility.
Although, I am wondering if a system like fargorate would have actually done anything to stop unknowns from stealing, like when the Brits showed up as a team, and scalped that tournament as a bunch of relative unknowns at the time.
Even with an assigned rating, I don't know if something like that could have been prevented, barring the controversial mid tournament rating change, or ejecting them from the tournament. (But if that's the case then rating systems have their weaknesses, regardless of the claims)
Although I do understand the whole, this number means this number, regardless of where you go. Sure. That's great for handicap pool.
But what about for people who don't play handicap pool?
There are several people I know who could care less about playing in anything handicap or far away from home anymore, who only play regional scratch events, whether they are regional tours, or regional specialty events like Turning Stone, or one of Allen Hopkins Expo open events.
Sure, those players can be assigned a rating. But i can almost guarantee that those players are all going to balk at being charged for a system that personally doesn't effect them. (In their minds)
How can one justify charging a player, for keeping statistics on their track record, when they themselves never asked for it and when it's NEVER going to affect them and anything they do?
That's really the only question I have heard come up about charging money.
If it's a BCAPL thing restricted to their league players, or if it's a BCAPL open event, that's ok. Membership fees are fine.
But how would one justify charging players in Europe, or China, or players in the U.S., for something they never asked for?
For instance.
Local regional tour Joss. Doesn't have any handicap events. The entire tour is scratch.
Why would a Joss tour player want to pay fargorate a fee for a statistic, that doesn't pertain to them?
If someone plays stronger or worse, it doesn't matter. That assigned rating has no bearing on the actual tournament, because it's not handicapped. If you are gonna win, you are gonna have to beat everyone anyway.
And for those who say it would help in seeding. Zuglan doesn't seed.
He draws, you play, and that's it.
If someone could make the case for how fargorate will positively effect players in the position i just mentioned, so that they would be willing to pay $5 bucks, that would be great.
Please, no generic "for the betterment of pool as a whole" or some altruistic facsimile, and more money from sponsors as a results.
All those are unproven claims, and will remain so for quite some time.
How will it benefit players NOW.
Not that fargorate doesn't deserve to be paid for its efforts should a better pool landscape emerge as a result of its implementation, but if that can't be justified in the present to players of the sorts that I've mentioned, fargorate just might have to take one for the team and actually wait till pool actually DOES get better, before those players pony up.
Cause if they charge money and pool doesn't improve, and someone is making a lot of money while pool doesn't improve...
At the very least, if the choice is made to monetize a rating system, there should be some type of opting out for people like I've mentioned.
I'm on the fence about the whole money possibility.
Although, I am wondering if a system like fargorate would have actually done anything to stop unknowns from stealing, like when the Brits showed up as a team, and scalped that tournament as a bunch of relative unknowns at the time.
Even with an assigned rating, I don't know if something like that could have been prevented, barring the controversial mid tournament rating change, or ejecting them from the tournament. (But if that's the case then rating systems have their weaknesses, regardless of the claims)
Although I do understand the whole, this number means this number, regardless of where you go. Sure. That's great for handicap pool.
But what about for people who don't play handicap pool?
There are several people I know who could care less about playing in anything handicap or far away from home anymore, who only play regional scratch events, whether they are regional tours, or regional specialty events like Turning Stone, or one of Allen Hopkins Expo open events.
Sure, those players can be assigned a rating. But i can almost guarantee that those players are all going to balk at being charged for a system that personally doesn't effect them. (In their minds)
How can one justify charging a player, for keeping statistics on their track record, when they themselves never asked for it and when it's NEVER going to affect them and anything they do?
That's really the only question I have heard come up about charging money.
If it's a BCAPL thing restricted to their league players, or if it's a BCAPL open event, that's ok. Membership fees are fine.
But how would one justify charging players in Europe, or China, or players in the U.S., for something they never asked for?
For instance.
Local regional tour Joss. Doesn't have any handicap events. The entire tour is scratch.
Why would a Joss tour player want to pay fargorate a fee for a statistic, that doesn't pertain to them?
If someone plays stronger or worse, it doesn't matter. That assigned rating has no bearing on the actual tournament, because it's not handicapped. If you are gonna win, you are gonna have to beat everyone anyway.
And for those who say it would help in seeding. Zuglan doesn't seed.
He draws, you play, and that's it.
If someone could make the case for how fargorate will positively effect players in the position i just mentioned, so that they would be willing to pay $5 bucks, that would be great.
Please, no generic "for the betterment of pool as a whole" or some altruistic facsimile, and more money from sponsors as a results.
All those are unproven claims, and will remain so for quite some time.
How will it benefit players NOW.
Not that fargorate doesn't deserve to be paid for its efforts should a better pool landscape emerge as a result of its implementation, but if that can't be justified in the present to players of the sorts that I've mentioned, fargorate just might have to take one for the team and actually wait till pool actually DOES get better, before those players pony up.
Cause if they charge money and pool doesn't improve, and someone is making a lot of money while pool doesn't improve...
At the very least, if the choice is made to monetize a rating system, there should be some type of opting out for people like I've mentioned.
What game are they talking about or is this for all games?
Hmmmm.
I'm on the fence about the whole money possibility.
Although, I am wondering if a system like fargorate would have actually done anything to stop unknowns from stealing, like when the Brits showed up as a team, and scalped that tournament as a bunch of relative unknowns at the time.
Even with an assigned rating, I don't know if something like that could have been prevented, barring the controversial mid tournament rating change, or ejecting them from the tournament. (But if that's the case then rating systems have their weaknesses, regardless of the claims)
Although I do understand the whole, this number means this number, regardless of where you go. Sure. That's great for handicap pool.
But what about for people who don't play handicap pool?
There are several people I know who could care less about playing in anything handicap or far away from home anymore, who only play regional scratch events, whether they are regional tours, or regional specialty events like Turning Stone, or one of Allen Hopkins Expo open events.
Sure, those players can be assigned a rating. But i can almost guarantee that those players are all going to balk at being charged for a system that personally doesn't effect them. (In their minds)
How can one justify charging a player, for keeping statistics on their track record, when they themselves never asked for it and when it's NEVER going to affect them and anything they do?
That's really the only question I have heard come up about charging money.
If it's a BCAPL thing restricted to their league players, or if it's a BCAPL open event, that's ok. Membership fees are fine.
But how would one justify charging players in Europe, or China, or players in the U.S., for something they never asked for?
For instance.
Local regional tour Joss. Doesn't have any handicap events. The entire tour is scratch.
Why would a Joss tour player want to pay fargorate a fee for a statistic, that doesn't pertain to them?
If someone plays stronger or worse, it doesn't matter. That assigned rating has no bearing on the actual tournament, because it's not handicapped. If you are gonna win, you are gonna have to beat everyone anyway.
And for those who say it would help in seeding. Zuglan doesn't seed.
He draws, you play, and that's it.
If someone could make the case for how fargorate will positively effect players in the position i just mentioned, so that they would be willing to pay $5 bucks, that would be great.
Please, no generic "for the betterment of pool as a whole" or some altruistic facsimile, and more money from sponsors as a results.
All those are unproven claims, and will remain so for quite some time.
How will it benefit players NOW.
Not that fargorate doesn't deserve to be paid for its efforts should a better pool landscape emerge as a result of its implementation, but if that can't be justified in the present to players of the sorts that I've mentioned, fargorate just might have to take one for the team and actually wait till pool actually DOES get better, before those players pony up.
Cause if they charge money and pool doesn't improve, and someone is making a lot of money while pool doesn't improve...
At the very least, if the choice is made to monetize a rating system, there should be some type of opting out for people like I've mentioned.
How about using FargoRate to see if you game is improving or diminishing? That is how a lot of us at Fargo Billiards use it.
Say you are a 550 and your goal is to be a 600. You now have a way to measure that improvement.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
While I can understand this, I don't think it applies to certain people.
To some, improvement or lack thereof, is measured purely in $$ made, and by personal accomplishments.
I know I don't care about a number measuring how awesome or how terrible i play.
I also know that my opinion isn't representative of everyone though.
I would think that people concerned about improvement, and a number to back that up, are still up and coming players trying to reach their potential.
Not for people who have already realized it, who know it's just a matter of getting in the appropriate practice and competition, to get into gear.
And this isn't to knock the rating system.
This is just how some view rating systems, when they feel it doesn't pertain to them individually. That's all.
Does a player have one rating or are there different ratings for different games?
Same for all, and "if" you think there is a huge difference in game type or table type please ask Mike and he will explain what the tremendous amount of data has shown.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You would think they have to for games like one pocket.
Some might dispute that because of several high finishes by non one pocket players at the derby.
But to not make some distinction for that game, is just wrong IMO.
Rotation games, and 8ball, not so much.
One pocket?
Totally different ball game.
The Rating isn't for one pocket
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't think one can justify it, and I don't even see how anyone could require players who never use Fargo Ratings to pay for Fargo Ratings. The only way you can be required to pay for it is if some tournament, tour, or league director requires it.
I don't understand complaining, or even questioning something before it has even happened. I also can't comprehend people thinking that a person, or persons do not deserve to get paid for their work. Do you all work for free?
I have read people complaining about a $5 fee, which I don't think any number has been stated by Mike, Steve, and/or CSI. If you can not afford $5 then get your asses out of the pool hall and tournaments.
On another note I doubt CSI, or anyone involved with Fargo Rate has stated you can't play in any tourney that is Fargo Rate enabled (not including the leagues CSI is associated with). I would think they would collect the data, and you just wouldn't have access to it.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I have read people complaining about a $5 fee, which I don't think any number has been stated by Mike, Steve, and/or CSI. If you can not afford $5 then get your asses out of the pool hall and tournaments.
On another note I doubt CSI, or anyone involved with Fargo Rate has stated you can't play in any tourney that is Fargo Rate enabled (not including the leagues CSI is associated with). I would think they would collect the data, and you just wouldn't have access to it.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Last edited:
I wouldn't mind paying $5 to a group like CSI (Mike Page, USAPL) that does so much for the game.
I just want the App for my phone so I can show people how much I suck.
Anyway, thanks to all who has worked on this. I think it's great.
I just want the App for my phone so I can show people how much I suck.
Anyway, thanks to all who has worked on this. I think it's great.
My point exactly.
With the exception of the top players, world ranking, and potential invitational tournaments (if fargorate positions itself like that), a lot of every day non league pool players could probably care less about their number, and paying money for it.
This all reminds me of when The Capital City Classic, Philadelphia Style, had a whole bunch of strong locals show up to play in that event and how Charlie Williams wanted them all to pay his UPA membership fee, just to play in that one event, when most of them were not going to play in anything else "major" for the rest of the year.
It wasn't a UPA event to begin with.
It was a total joke.
Didn't do anything to promote it.
Didn't add any money.
Didn't have anything to do with it at all.
Shows up, gives it his UPA blessing, and tries to scalp all these locals for some extra cash.
Scott Smith basically laughed in his face and told him he couldn't do that.
Now that is not to say that Fargo Rate is anything like Charlie Williams.
But it's these types of events, and pools history of promoters in general, that leaves a sour taste in everyone's mouth, when someone comes along and decides to monetize something.
And as I said, if it's BCAPL's show, sure, charge everyone you want whatever you want.
But if you try and charge people like i mentioned before, who don't care and who it doesn't effect, scenarios like the one i just mentioned, immediately pop into people's minds.
I realize I am in a gross minority. My positions on many subjects are very unpopular on AZ. That being said, I will state emphatically "Organized point-spread handicapped tournaments and leagues for interactive sports such as pool is strictly taboo in the recreational and professional sports world. We ought not be doing this."
Thirty-five years ago I embarked on a path to develop a handicap system based on interactive performance. My experience and recollection of match results does not parallel with what is explained in the Fargo videos on their web site. I am a pack-rat. I save everything. If I get a chance this week, I will go into my archives, so that I may add something intelligent. It has been a long time.
There is this notion that all the current rating systems and handicap systems are somehow flawed and furthermore, players are able to manipulate them. If only there was one good and accurate system that everyone trusted, everything would be honky-dory. I contend that having a better handicap system does not solve or improve anything. The player thinks it does until he gets what he thinks he wants.
Thirty-five years ago I embarked on a path to develop a handicap system based on interactive performance. My experience and recollection of match results does not parallel with what is explained in the Fargo videos on their web site. I am a pack-rat. I save everything. If I get a chance this week, I will go into my archives, so that I may add something intelligent. It has been a long time.
There is this notion that all the current rating systems and handicap systems are somehow flawed and furthermore, players are able to manipulate them. If only there was one good and accurate system that everyone trusted, everything would be honky-dory. I contend that having a better handicap system does not solve or improve anything. The player thinks it does until he gets what he thinks he wants.
I don't know what you mean by "point-spread handicapped tournaments."
Fargo Ratings is not a handicapping scheme. It rates pool players. It predicts how I would fare against Darren Appleton based on how I fared against people who have played people who have played Darren--with many many such interactions taken into account.
In the end, it is able to predict my chance of winning an individual games (or how many I would win out of 100 games) against any other player with a lot of games in the system.
Jeff Sagarin (of USA today) does something similar for football and basketball.
If you DO want to handicap matches in a tournament or limit the total skill of the members of a league team, etc, then Fargo Ratings provides a good way to do it. But you don't have to. The Fargo Ratings are still there. An individual can still track his rating with a goal of cracking 500 this year, or cracking 400, or moving ahead of his buddy Ralph. Or he can be interested in who are the top 10 players in town, ad so forth. Or he can pay no attention to it....
I wish you could spend a week in my area, where these ratings are well entrenched and where everybody know what the numbers mean.
You would find --
--lots of people matching up
--nobody talking about sandbagging or thinking some other players are intentionally under the radar
--an active weekly highly handicapped 8-ball tournament where spots go as big as one player going to 8 and opponent going to 2 for which nobody complains about the ratings.
--leagues nights that are very competitive because the four-player teams cannot--at the beginning of the year--add to more than 2100 (Thursday) or 1800 (Tuesday).
--People talking like they have a meaningful common understanding, as in
"Hey, how does that new guy play?"
"Oh, plays around 540 speed..... no wait, now that I think of it, more like 525-530 maybe..."
--and this is a big one (and you would find widespread agreement about this around here). EVERY 285 wants to be 300; every 385 wants to be 400; every 485 wants to be 500; every 585 wants to be 600; and every 685 wants to be 700. We don't have any 785's, But if we did they would want to be 800 ;-)
We also run big regional tournaments that are open with no handicaps. And we also run a weekly tournament that is not handicapped.
There is a time for every purpose under heaven....
Consider that maybe, just maybe, the cynicism about motivation is unwarranted.
28 years ago, I published a research article with some new ideas about the quantum mechanics of molecules falling apart. Most scientific research articles are cited maybe 10 times by other later research articles--usually in the two or three years following the article.
https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=list_works&hl=en&user=ZiItISUAAAAJ
If you click on the first article here "On Evaluating...," you will see it is cited as frequently now--28 years later--as ever, long after I'm out of the game.
What was my motivation for doing that work?
The instructional videos I put on youtube several years ago have now been viewed collectively over 3 million times. And they are now--several years later--being viewed 2500 times each day, by people all over the world. That is as good a rate as ever.
What was my motivation in doing those videos?
motivation??? I don't know... Maybe I want my children to be proud of me... Maybe I want to create something that lasts and that affects people positively... Maybe I just want to have fun... Maybe I want people to like me...Maybe I want people to think I'm clever... Maybe I want to create something that outlasts my short time on this earth... Or maybe I've been slow-playing the world all my life and have a play to take some kind of advantage of all pool players.....
I guess you have to decide...
Or maybe you're talking about CSI's motivation. Why would the organization that has had its fingers in nearly everything good that's happened in pool in this country in the last decade want to partner with Steve and me? Why would the organization that pioneered large online tournament software, that trains referees, that provides standardized rule sets, that puts on tournaments for pros and amateurs alike, that spearheaded the use of quality tables for amateur play want to partner with Steve and me... Have you walked down the long hallway at the Rio to see the large imposing posters of both amateur and professional pool players--great photos with names and where they are from...
at a huge event that includes amateurs AND pros. Nobody else is doing this.
I am very proud and excited to be working with this organization that across the board has more more foresight and more passion about the future of pool than I've seen anywhere.
But then again, maybe we've all just got everybody fooled...
Attachments
I half agree. Easier to track, yes. More accurate, debatable. In the CSI-sanctioned leagues around here, it is considered good strategy to lose the rest of the games once the winner for the night has been decided. FOR BOTH TEAMS. So you have both players in each of those games trying to lose, and thinking that's just strategy. Feed that into a "games won" system that creates relative ratings for everyone in the world, and see how accurate it becomes.
No system based strictly on measured data will work in a league setting where finishing way better than the rest of the teams in the league might put your team at a "disadvantage" with higher ratings. A league rating system MUST have a subjective component to be accurate, or the cheaters will always win. In fact, the absolute best rating system is completely subjective - one guy who sees every match played by every player and has sole authority to set the ratings. That system doesn't scale well, though.
I don't agree with the notion of lumping league results and tournament results together. I'm not saying Fargo can't generate good results, just that it's only as good as the data upon which it's based, a statement that's true for ANY rating system (including the LAST supposedly "most accurate" system used by CSI).