New Rating System
- Thread starter cardiac kid
- Start date
This made me laugh pretty hard. Greenie for you.
This is what I mean:
I am glad for you, Mike. I can only think that you must be doing something different than every other tournament operator is doing. I think that these tournaments are the worst of the worst. From what I know and what I have seen, nobody is satisfied with this kind of competition. The player going to 8 does all the shooting while the player going to 2 sits and watches. Should the weak player win, he gets little out of it and feels little sense of accomplishment. When this happens, the better player feels cheated some how. When the better player wins, the two players feel as though they should not have even bothered to play. It is as exaggerated as an NFL team playing a high school football team. They are not supposed to be on the same field together and neither should these two pool players be on the same table together.
You said a lot in your posts. I disagree with most of your comments. I don't care to aggravate you and your followers. No one needs to agree with me. We all have a genuine and sincere interest in this game and I recognize that to be the most important thing. After all, we are doing recreation!
I will comment at some point (for what it's worth) on an interactive based rating.
Last edited:
Paul -- between your "modified straight pool," which we have modified and incorporated, your "no conflict rules", and your "modified double elimination" you have established yourself as an independent thinker....
Bottom lined is you have earned our respect, and we are always interested in your perspective...
Wow.
See this is something that I never ever would have thought of simply because I don't play league.
Very enlightening info.
Not if you understand the rating system. You are not dealing with a couple of games here. With the amount of data and inter web of people the effect of is minimal.
If you look at the other side of the coin should one remove the games where you play completely above your rating since it isn't the norm?
By the way, the Biggest excuse for losing a game is I dumped. A fictitious statement to make you feel better.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I wouldn't worry about the APA thier not going to let that happen ,, it could undermine thier rating system
1
Maybe it's small compared to the volume of data in the system as a whole, but it's the ONLY data pertaining to most of these players, since they don't play in tournaments or any other competitive environment. If the goal is to measure everyone's "norm", then you certainly don't want to mix league data with tournament data. The effort simply isn't always there in league play, another reason why you need some amount of subjectivity.
In any case, we've hijacked this thread enough with discussion of what makes a system accurate or inaccurate. My take on the OP's question is yes, if there's a system that works for and is adopted by everyone, the inventor(s) of that system deserve to be paid if they wish, but ONLY by those who personally profit from the use of that system. For-profit leagues, for-profit tournament promoters (is that an oxymoron?), etc. Keep in mind, though, that every price greater than zero creates a buy / no buy decision, and presumably somebody would make the "no buy" decision. So inevitably, the decision to charge is a choice to exclude some who would otherwise use the system, making it less universal (and less accurate, right?).
One question
Is your league free or is there a charge?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There is a charge. Players make a "buy / no buy" decision every session. We try to provide a price / value combination that helps them make that decision, but every session 10% to 15% of them decide not to buy. Why do you ask?
This is only one scenario (of many). Sandbagging is an administration issue. No rating system fixes sandbagging.
Paul,
Bagging can not only be an administrative issue. Both captains are probably aware of what was going on. Nothing the LO can do if both conspire to deceive. I've seen it happen in both the APA and BCAPL leagues I play in. Sad commentary but true.
The handicapping systems I've seen and played under only seem to promote bagging. If a player works hard and gets better, Their handicap gets shorter. Why practice and learn when it costs you something. Both league and tournament. Easier to just accept the lower rating and wait to pounce! Again nothing a LO can do to change it.
Lyn
The more games you play the higher your robustness is, which make the effect less and less when you use a system like Fargo Rate. I have seen a new player come into a the system for a Sunday handicapped tournament and their rating adjust a lot each game. Now take a player with a few hundred games and the effect is less.
Can you get rid of sand bagging? No.
If you came to Fargo and spent time you would find Fargo Rate does not promote sandbagging, in fact, it does the opposite
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Can you get rid of sand bagging? No.
If you came to Fargo and spent time you would find Fargo Rate does not promote sandbagging, in fact, it does the opposite
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Lyn,
There is an answer and something that can and should be done. Too busy to post now.
Many smart people, with good intentions, have tried, in vain, to prevent sandbagging by choosing the “right” statistics, the “right” mathematics and the “right” match-making methods. The best handicapping system possible cannot eliminate the incentive to sandbag when winning the prize depends on playing better than your rating indicates you should. And, the best system of policing (disqualifying) sandbaggers is likely to punish players for honest, rapid improvement. The statistics and mathematics used have little or nothing to do with whether or not people sandbag. It’s about the incentives.
I wrote this some time ago when a partner and I started working on a system we will introduce soon. Hope you'll like it.
Regards,
Don
I wrote this some time ago when a partner and I started working on a system we will introduce soon. Hope you'll like it.
Regards,
Don
Good thread, even though it got completely hijacked. But let's separate the issues...
1) Are handicapped tournaments/leagues/events a good or bad thing?
2) Is there an effective way to rate players, that can't ever be manipulated?
3) Would pool players pay for such a rating, directly or indirectly?
4) Are Mike Page and Mark Griffin doing good things for pool or are they evil-doers trying to trick us, and possibly steal our souls to use in their evil soul-powered mega-gun!?
Personally, I happen to think Fargorate is good stuff, and I'd pay a small fee for it if it's proven to work so let's try it. I also love change in pool, change it all, it ain't working. Not nearly enough people play regularly, there's obviously no money anywhere to be found unless you're the best players on the planet, no one cares about this game except us, no one wants to watch it....it's not failing, it's failed. Change it all, let's get creative here until it's the most played game/sport in the world and we're all rich.
1) Are handicapped tournaments/leagues/events a good or bad thing?
2) Is there an effective way to rate players, that can't ever be manipulated?
3) Would pool players pay for such a rating, directly or indirectly?
4) Are Mike Page and Mark Griffin doing good things for pool or are they evil-doers trying to trick us, and possibly steal our souls to use in their evil soul-powered mega-gun!?
Personally, I happen to think Fargorate is good stuff, and I'd pay a small fee for it if it's proven to work so let's try it. I also love change in pool, change it all, it ain't working. Not nearly enough people play regularly, there's obviously no money anywhere to be found unless you're the best players on the planet, no one cares about this game except us, no one wants to watch it....it's not failing, it's failed. Change it all, let's get creative here until it's the most played game/sport in the world and we're all rich.
Last edited:
This is an interesting discussion and one we likely will be talking about for a long time.
In our area, it used to be almost a badge of honor to be a "B" rather that an "A," or an "A" rather than a "AA," when everyone knew you were more the latter... It's like... 'cool dude, how do you manage to fly under the radar...' ...'Hey did you hear Bubba got into the B division?' He's going to ROB it!, and so forth.
But when you think about this, a few things need to be in place to have the above. People need to not really BELIEVE the labels. They need to see them as having a subjective component that can be manipulated. They need to be ready to accept the idea that each of has a REAL speed and an ASSIGNED speed.
An interesting thing happens when people start believing the ratings. I can tell you this from a lot of experience. Note that in the above scenario, the players had the respect of their peers. Their peers KNEW they played better than their assigned speed... When people around you start believing the assigned speed, things change A LOT.
I get contacted every week by pro players, by short-stop-speed players, by regional amateur players. EVERY SINGLE TIME the player seems to want to make sure he or she has gotten credit for the good tournaments or the good matches.... "You have me as a 660 when I KNOW I play at 700 speed.... What tournaments do you have for me ?.... "You have this person above me, and I don't believe that's right." "I double-dipped Sylver Ochoa back in 2009. Do you have that? This happens over and over again. I have yet, ever, to have someone wanting to make sure we got in the tournament where they went two and out.
Around here players are very interested in which players are 10 or 20 points higher than them... And Bob who is a 472 really wants to go above Pete, who is a 478. I ask people to give it some time to become entrenched in your area before becoming too attached to a view on this issue.
That being said, there are some things that we or others could do wrong that might contribute to creating a problem.
For instance if someone ran a very big national tournament limited to players XXX and below with a first prize of $10,000, that could encourage problematic behavior. But nobody--at least nobody that listens to us--is going to do that. Chess does this, and they get burned by it on occasion.
If you want systemically to prevent the possibility of sandbagging manipulation, you are going to find yourself disappointed. A player with a true speed of 600 can, if he chooses, perform at 500 speed or 400 speed or at any speed under 600 for a period. Anyone can move to a new town and spend three years playing opposite handed only to come alive at the big annual event that is either handicapped or limited to players assessed to be under a certain skill.
You can choose instead to reward players for improving. But recognize that the 600-speed player can play month 1 at 400-speed, month 2 at 405 speed, month 3 at 410 speed and like this can improve continuously for three years.
Again what we have found is the important thing is players believe the system is unbiased and accurate. They should. And our experience is they do. So again, rather than speculate about what COULD happen or looking at what may have happened in your area in the past when players are rated in part by different criteria from what they are rewarded for, or when players are rated based only on league performance, give it some time, and have an open mind.
