Nick Varner is a Fargorate 777

[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.[/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.

Good point I'd like to see that as well !!

 

[pt109]

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.

I played Garcia in a 9-ball tournament in Kalamazoo in the 90s...
...got lucky as hell and won hill-hill....
..said to Wiseman after “I think I just beat the best player in the tournament.”
Next time I saw him play, he lost to Alex in the US Open...hill-hill.

I was told his best game was 14.1

 

[mikepage]

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).

That's pretty much right. It doesn't actually freeze. It changes every day like everybody else's rating. But it stays more or less the same. Like take Chris Bartram, for instance. He's got 1800 games in the system with none more recent than about 5 years and lots about 10 years old.

Because there is no recent data Chris won't appear on any ranking-type lists. And as the data ages, the system loses confidence the rating is a relevant reflection of how he plays now. You don't see that loss of confidence in the rating itself, but you would see it in how the rating reacts to new information.

If Chris played a few tournaments for a month or so now performing at 650 speed, he'd probably plummet down into the 600's. Whereas if one of the currently active 750 players had the same stretch of tournaments, they'd just drop a few points and they system would see it as a bad swing.

And yes, wait another decade or two and that's even more pronounced.

 

[Island Drive]

That's pretty much right. It doesn't actually freeze. It changes every day like everybody else's rating. But it stays more or less the same. Like take Chris Bartram, for instance. He's got 1800 games in the system with none more recent than about 5 years and lots about 10 years old.

Because there is no recent data Chris won't appear on any ranking-type lists. And as the data ages, the system loses confidence the rating is a relevant reflection of how he plays now. You don't see that loss of confidence in the rating itself, but you would see it in how the rating reacts to new information.

If Chris played a few tournaments for a month or so now performing at 650 speed, he'd probably plummet down into the 600's. Whereas if one of the currently active 750 players had the same stretch of tournaments, they'd just drop a few points and they system would see it as a bad swing.

And yes, wait another decade or two and that's even more pronounced.

How much has my rating changed since the later 90's after life got in the way of my game????? And don't tell me, because I used to ''know'' Shanes mom before he was borne, does that hurt my rating?

 

[BasementDweller]

I would probably go ahead and delete that last post.

 

[CaptainBly]

Mike,

I really wish that Fargorate was patterned more off the way that the U.S. Chess Federation handles it's ratings... Any individual player can buy their own membership, and any games they play in a rated event are rated. No need to get an entire league to sign on.. Players can hold their own 8-man tournaments without a league license, etc....

I understand your goal is to get large groups of people paying into the system at once, so you can make a profit, so you are going after the leagues, but it leaves international players who play at more of a regional level, and already have well-developed league systems in place, out in the cold.

We need some kind of option for an individual to register as a tournament director, and be able to hold any size tournament they wish (including two-man), and report to Fargorate. I just don't see that option when I look at the LMS site, and I feel it's purpose is to try to get area leagues to adopt en masse. That simply will...not...happen... in Europe, because their league systems, websites, and reporting, are already FAR better than anything the U.S. has in any of it's major leagues...

Am I missing this option somewhere? The more tournaments that are held at a local level here in Europe, that we can get Fargo-rated, the more European mid-level players will have a FargoRate.. And the more that have a FargoRate, the more likely it is that the larger area Liga systems will mandate Fargorating across the board, and start charging the yearly fee.

Of course, to get off the ground, every local Fargorated tourney would require the yearly Fargorate fee from each participating player. Is there some option for this?No fee required

Also, in the USCF system, I can look up any player in the system, and look at every single game/match they've played, since they were a USCF member. This allows me to see if they've made a recent improvement to their game, I can predict what my rating change will be if I will/lose/draw to them, etc. The system is extremely addictive, and pushes people to improve.

You can do this with Fargo as well.
You don't need any membership to submit results to Fargo. We run a small weekly tournament and submit all the results. We use IngenPool software and it submits it automatically. Pretty easy.

 

[Tin Man]

Those who ridicule Fargo Rate seem to follow the same thought process. They seem to think a rating system should ranks all players exactly the same way they would personally (in all games simultaneously), predict the score of future matches, have temporary rating dips for players that are sick or worked out their biceps too hard, and that Mike Page must personally be willing to bet stacks of cash on any and all matches between players of different ratings because otherwise it's a sham. Then when it doesn't live up to their expansive ideas they dismiss it.

Mike, I guess you're in good company. Pool players often hold our top performers up to the standards of perfection and then nit pick them and knock them down. Look at how Dennis was criticized after he lost to SVB last weekend.

Mental game tip for the masses- perfection isn't a useful standard. People have the mistaken idea that if they set their standards higher than anyone else they will become better than anyone else. That isn't how it plays out. It leads to nothing but self criticism because it focuses the view on only the difference between reality and perfection. There is no 'good shot' because it should have been better. It takes the fun right out of pool. Then you see someone like Filler come along and become bitter because 'hey, he's not perfect, why does he think he can smile and knock balls in the hole and win' and they say it won't last or that life isn't fair. In reality Filler demonstrates that being proud of what you can do is much more important than who can conjure the most unrealistic standards.

If there was a FargoRate for ratings systems than FargoRate would have a FargoRating of about 830.

 

[misterpoole]

Those who ridicule Fargo Rate seem to follow the same thought process. They seem to think a rating system should ranks all players exactly the same way they would personally (in all games simultaneously), predict the score of future matches, have temporary rating dips for players that are sick or worked out their biceps too hard, and that Mike Page must personally be willing to bet stacks of cash on any and all matches between players of different ratings because otherwise it's a sham. Then when it doesn't live up to their expansive ideas they dismiss it.

Mike, I guess you're in good company. Pool players often hold our top performers up to the standards of perfection and then nit pick them and knock them down. Look at how Dennis was criticized after he lost to SVB last weekend.

Mental game tip for the masses- perfection isn't a useful standard. People have the mistaken idea that if they set their standards higher than anyone else they will become better than anyone else. That isn't how it plays out. It leads to nothing but self criticism because it focuses the view on only the difference between reality and perfection. There is no 'good shot' because it should have been better. It takes the fun right out of pool. Then you see someone like Filler come along and become bitter because 'hey, he's not perfect, why does he think he can smile and knock balls in the hole and win' and they say it won't last or that life isn't fair. In reality Filler demonstrates that being proud of what you can do is much more important than who can conjure the most unrealistic standards.

If there was a FargoRate for ratings systems than FargoRate would have a FargoRating of about 830.

What prompted this? There was one dumb responder that has been ignored. The rest have acted respectfully. There is no perfect rating system. We know that, which means there is always room for improvement. I think mike also knows that.

 

[Tin Man]

This thread

What prompted this? There was one dumb responder that has been ignored. The rest have acted respectfully. There is no perfect rating system. We know that, which means there is always room for improvement. I think mike also knows that.

Fair point. There should be constructive conversation around FargoRate and as a billiard community of course we can offer feedback and ask questions. Sometimes tone is easy to misunderstand online as well. Maybe I overreacted to one post, misunderstood the tone of another, layered it on top of my memory of former threads. I certainly meant no disrespect to those who are constructively trying to enhance our pool community.

 

[mikepage]

[...]

If there was a FargoRate for ratings systems than FargoRate would have a FargoRating of about 830.

Well thank you for being kind.

But with so many factors involved, the idea that you could rate rating systems with a single number is just kind of ridiculous.

 

[BasementDweller]

mikepage,
You win.

As someone who has asked a lot of FargoRate questions -- that was funny.

Lol funny.

 

[Tony_in_MD]

Question I have been meaning to ask. Is table size factored into Fargo rate formulas?

Well thank you for being kind.

But with so many factors involved, the idea that you could rate rating systems with a single number is just kind of ridiculous.

 

[BasementDweller]

Just think what would happen if there was an island where the mother of all rating systems was used to rate all the other rating systems for every conceivable game. And then -- that island had it's MOARS system coupled to all the other systems throughout the world simply through the Parcheesi Rating system. Imagine that for a second.

Now forget all about that.

 

[JB Cases]

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.

If I understand this it means that according to the data you have the rating is unlikely to move much if the requisite number of games to establish a rating are recent but if the system gives a rating mostly based on older games then new data can far more easily swing the rating.

So if Nick were to suddenly start playing a lot more and you got in 400 games in a couple months then it would show what his current skill level is with those older games being pretty much of no consequence any more?

 

[BRussell]

Question I have been meaning to ask. Is table size factored into Fargo rate formulas?

In case he doesn’t get back to you, he has answered this many times - no. Your opponent is playing on the same table. I know he’s showed some analyses comparing small vs. big tables, so he must code that in the data, but he has said it doesn’t affect the rating.

 

[alstl]

I don't care about Nick Varner's Fargo rating but one thing I remember about Nick was he gripped the cue farther up on the handle than most players. He was almost at the top of the wrap.

 

[DelawareDogs]

I don't care about Nick Varner's Fargo rating but one thing I remember about Nick was he gripped the cue farther up on the handle than most players. He was almost at the top of the wrap.

I like that little sway in his back arm too. I'm sure that drove in the 'customers':thumbup:



As to his fargorating, keep in mind that it's recorded the last 706 or so games, and they can go back in time!!

When I went live on FargoRate, my robustness was like 96 - there were games on there from 2012 and from an event I played down in Jacksonville 7 years ago. I just went live this year!

So, imagine how many recorded events that Fargo could track that Nick Varner have been in? They probably have accu-stats scores from back when bell bottoms were in style.

 

[iusedtoberich]

4.5 year bump!

Varner climbed from 777 at the start of this thread to 788 today. Plus 11 points.
Robustness climbed from 706 to 744. Plus 38 games.
Born May 15, 1948, he is now 75 yrs 10 months. Plus 4.5 years.

My hypothesis is in the 38 games he played in the last 4.5 years, he played them jam up to maintain his rating, and the 11 point increase in his fargorate came mostly from the fargorate "creep" that has affected nearly all the top pros.

Current "active" top 100 USA list for comparison. He'd be at #6 if he maintained this level for the minimum # of games to be considered "active".

 

[Bob Jewett]

4.5 year bump!

Varner climbed from 777 at the start of this thread to 788 today. Plus 11 points.
Robustness climbed from 706 to 744. Plus 38 games.
Born May 15, 1948, he is now 75 yrs 10 months. Plus 4.5 years.

My hypothesis is in the 38 games he played in the last 4.5 years, he played them jam up to maintain his rating, and the 11 point increase in his fargorate came mostly from the fargorate "creep" that has affected nearly all the top pros.

Current "active" top 100 USA list for comparison. He'd be at #6 if he maintained this level for the minimum # of games to be considered "active".

It's important to remember that recent matches have more weight than older matches. His games from 6 years ago count only 1/4 as much as a game today.

 

[justadub]

Also note that Mike Dechaine is still ranked as the number 4 US player, and he hasn't played much in several years now, as well.