Nick Varner is a Fargorate 777

[King T]

Well...,

does nick have a 777 or not

is the fargo thing for 9 ball,one pocket,or what
i am unfamiliar with the whole thing

josh roberts is rated higher than tony chohan

as is jj

yet i thought tony beat them both

i honetly don't know how it works

Tony has no chance against Josh in 8 ball, 9 ball or 10 ball, its not even close. Tony is the King of One Pocket or at least one of the top 3.

 

[jay helfert]

Here is the list of top USA only players, for comparison to Nick's Fargo. Nick's 777 would put him at #7, ahead of a bunch of well known and currently active pros.

View attachment 534080

I don't like Nick's chances playing 9-Ball currently with too many on this list. At One Pocket he could still beat some of them. He's still a threat playing Banks and Straights as well.

 

[jay helfert]

You think so? My buddies from Philly from his age group, said he was only a tourney player, and players like Jimmy Fusco would have beaten him for the cash.

Oh, I guess Hopkins would have been an 800 level or above also.

Jimmy Fusco was a good friend of mine and a damn good player, His strongest game was actually Banks with Straight Pool and 9-Ball his next two best. He was worshiped in Philly where he reigned supreme for decades. Not too many players wanted any part of him playing on his home court - Boulevard Billiards, or anywhere else in South Philly for that matter. But get him on a neutral court and he was vulnerable. Not soft by any means, but vulnerable.

Rempe meanwhile could play anywhere and be right at home. He handled different conditions well. Not so many people know that Jimmy R. made his bones traveling all around the East and Midwest as a youngster playing anyone who wanted a game, and playing all games! He was already a legendary gambler when he was a teenager!

I think there was mutual respect between Rempe and Fusco, two old school warriors. But did Fusco want to gamble with Rempe, I doubt it. Jimmy R. was the superior player at Straight Pool and One Pocket and it was a toss up at 9-Ball (I'd have to bet Rempe though). Only in Banks did Jimmy F. have an advantage.

There is a reason that Rempe had such a stellar tournament record. He was a great pool player. Jimmy Fusco was also very good but never reached those heights, more by choice than anything else. Jimmy F. chose not to travel all over the country and follow the tournament circuit everywhere. He was content to stay close to home and let players come to him. A pretty smart decision I would say. When he did travel though he had some surprisingly good results. He won the Sands tourney with all the top players the one year he went all the way to Reno, and he won quite a few of the big regional events on the East Coast. He was Eastern States champion more than once.

In conclusion it's not clear cut who would win if they played, but I have a feeling any time they matched up in a tournament (9-Ball, 14.1 or One Pocket) the line had Rempe favored slightly. Maybe he was a 6-5 (or 7-5) choice to win. Bottom line you are talking about two of the best players of their generation. But one of them was an International champion (Rempe), winning tournaments all over the globe (he was several times the English Eight Ball champion and went further in Snooker than any other American before or since). His record speaks for itself. It's no accident he is in the billiards Hall of Fame.

 

[Island Drive]

Mutual Respect....common sense

Fusco would never play Rempe even in any rotation game for cash, never!

Many top players had someone, somewhere that played so close to their speed, so they just became great friends, this had a similar feel. How can yah not like hanging around JF? GREAT LIFE ATTITUDE like Liscotti.

What's also Good about the relationship Was this...you knew the EXACT speed of Many players that you had never played before, $weet Information.

 

[jay helfert]

Many top players had someone, somewhere that played so close to their speed, so they just became great friends, this had a similar feel. How can yah not like hanging around JF? GREAT LIFE ATTITUDE like Liscotti.

What's also Good about the relationship Was this...you knew the EXACT speed of Many players that you had never played before, $weet Information.

True that. Many times these guys would tangle once and that would be it, for life! After they had each other's mutual respect the only times they would play would be in a tournament.

 

[mikepage]

8 years is a long time.

I know you've said that games in the past aren't given as much weight as current games..

If a win today has a value of 1. How far back do you have to go before that value decreases,

A day. Yesterday's games are not worth as much as today's.

and is there a hard stop? For example, if the answer to the first part of the question is 2 years, and the value of a win decreases to 0.8. Would it always be 0.8, or it would decrease again after another 2 years?

There is not a hard stop. It keeps decreasing.

Do you know what Nick's speed would be if you only looked at the last 3 years?

Yeah, it would not be an established rating. Performing a little over 800 speed with large uncertainties.

 

[Pacecar]

from Mike Page in 2016:
One-year-old games are worth about 80% of a game played today

1 year: 80%
3 years 50%
6 years 25%
10 years 10%

 

[KRJ]

I don't like Nick's chances playing 9-Ball currently with too many on this list. At One Pocket he could still beat some of them. He's still a threat playing Banks and Straights as well.

And that's pretty strong comment that at 71 he can still at least hang at 9b, but win at 1P and straights. And I don't doubt your assessment for a second. Just shows how good Nick played in his "youth", and still does in retirement. He played all games at world championship speed Not many players today can say that, I don't think. A few, not many,

 

[Island Drive]

777. I thought that was the number of cigarettes he smokes a week.

He quit yrs. ago....

 

[Island Drive]

I don't like Nick's chances playing 9-Ball currently with too many on this list. At One Pocket he could still beat some of them. He's still a threat playing Banks and Straights as well.[/QU

I would like to see one of the younger players match up with Nick in 9 ball....with the old style, nappy, thick cloth of 60's.
I'd have tah bet with Nick in those conditions. If he can choose the conditions, I think he'd be a tough turtle.

 

[BeiberLvr]

A day. Yesterday's games are not worth as much as today's.



There is not a hard stop. It keeps decreasing.



Yeah, it would not be an established rating. Performing a little over 800 speed with large uncertainties.

Thanks Mike!!

 

[misterpoole]

Is he a 777? Probably not. That number is pretty brittle and relies on a bunch of old data. But there's good evidence he plays pretty sporty...

So 777 is inaccurate because of 'brittleness'. Can you make that a factor for the rest of us who have high 'brittleness' and are at a large disadvantage with so many matchups now based on fargo?

 

[DecentShot]

Stop right there iutbr before you cause anymore FargoRate trouble.

Several years back (around 5) I watched Varner play quite a bit on the bar table and his game was just about perfectly suited for the BB with his tight position, banking, and crafty shooting -- like playing rail first shots. I wouldn't doubt he could play close to that speed on a bar table just a few years back but there's NO WAY he could play anywhere near that speed on a 9 footer then and definitely not now.

I know.. I know... all games and all tables are the same they say.

Are you sure all table sizes are the same? I've seen charts from Mike where it shows the difference is size, so it must matter. I mean, it sure as hell should matter.

 

[mikepage]

So 777 is inaccurate because of 'brittleness'. Can you make that a factor for the rest of us who have high 'brittleness' and are at a large disadvantage with so many matchups now based on fargo?

I am not understanding your comment/question. When I say a rating is brittle, I am referring to how open it is to being informed by new data.

When a rating is supported by a lot of data, it doesn't move so much with a good or bad tournament or week or season.

When it is based on less data, like just a few hundred games, it moves more.

And if is based on a few hundred OLD games, it moves more still.

 

[iusedtoberich]

I am not understanding your comment/question. When I say a rating is brittle, I am referring to how open it is to being informed by new data.

When a rating is supported by a lot of data, it doesn't move so much with a good or bad tournament or week or season.

When it is based on less data, like just a few hundred games, it moves more.

And if is based on a few hundred OLD games, it moves more still.

I think you might have talked to this before, but could you elaborate on what would happen to an old Champion's rating (Varner, Efren, etc), if they were to quit the game for good? Would their rating freeze?

And maybe if they decided to enter a tournament 20 years later, at age 90, and performed at a 500 level, would that bring them way down in a hurry? But in that 20 year period of zero play, their rating would stay high? 777 in Varner's case (if he were to never play again for 20 years).

 

[pt109]

I think you might have talked to this before, but could you elaborate on what would happen to an old Champion's rating (Varner, Efren, etc), if they were to quit the game for good? Would their rating freeze?

And maybe if they decided to enter a tournament 20 years later, at age 90, and performed at a 500 level, would that bring them way down in a hurry? But in that 20 year period of zero play, their rating would stay high? 777 in Varner's case (if he were to never play again for 20 years).

Pretty sure the rating doesn’t freeze...it fades...like the Cheshire Cat

 

[Curt]

JAY, I remember watching Jimmy play Jose Garcia some 14.1 exhibition matches years ago. I don't think Jimmy ever won one. A hell of a player though

 

[misterpoole]

I am not understanding your comment/question. When I say a rating is brittle, I am referring to how open it is to being informed by new data.

When a rating is supported by a lot of data, it doesn't move so much with a good or bad tournament or week or season.

When it is based on less data, like just a few hundred games, it moves more.

And if is based on a few hundred OLD games, it moves more still.

I understand the concept but i am not seeing the results. The only thing i have in common with nick varner is a brittle fargo rating i.m.o. My fargo is made up of mostly older 8 ball small table results. I am now playing more 9 ft 10 ball tournaments and expecting my fargo to fade faster than it is. I will keep at it.
I like fargo and know it will never be perfect but i would like to see it work better, for me. There are inputs you dont have control over but this briittleness i was thinking you could have more control over.

 

[jay helfert]

JAY, I remember watching Jimmy play Jose Garcia some 14.1 exhibition matches years ago. I don't think Jimmy ever won one. A hell of a player though

Jose Garcia was a great undercover player. I think he owned his own poolroom and didn't bother too much with tournaments, although he finished third in one of the big ones in Atlantic City at Resorts.

 

[TheLoneSilencer]

Yet even more proof how much of a sham & plain idiotic FargoRate is. Only complete idiots believe in this garbage but not surprising considering a lot of the bs I see posted here.