6.5 year bump! Nick is now a 772 (down from 777), still with 706 games. He hasn't played a single fargorate game in 7 years. His rating must be super fragile now, and any new play will be highly weighted.
Nick Varner is a Fargorate 777
- Thread starter iusedtoberich
- Start date
No response from [mention]Mike Page [/mention] ? Inquiring minds want to know!
That's a ranking system. A rating system is very different from a ranking system.
And in effect, FargoRate uses the last three or four years of games played because old matches count less.
They sure aren’t counting less for Mr. Varner.
I’m sure someone will call this an edge case but it’s really not. 770 is bad data but it stays in the system, unflagged. Totally legitimate ratings with 150 games have a scary “preliminary” or “starter” tag but this obvious raspberry remains with no warning.
I identify as a Fargo 869.
I identify as a Fargo 869.
Just join the chat for any online stream. Everyone over 900 Fargo.
The only Fargo I know is the one in North Dakota, and where the the City know as Moorhead , MN is across the river from Fargo.
I don't know the answer. Some tournament he was in at some point in his career must have been removed from the system most likely. Today, for instance, we realized the 2025 SBE pro event was duplicated, and so we removed one instance. Those players will see a reduction in robustness and won't know why. Doesn't happen a lot but does happen. Nick has a lot of old games, and likely we judged some old tournament data was not sufficiently clean to keep.
Golf is not a network-constructed measuring instrument. It is literally counting strokes.
I don’t think those events go into Fargo - I don’t know why. Maybe Mike can explain because it would be useful data.
He probably still plays that speed on a bar box probably not so much on the nine footer.
I watched those matches, he played alright but not 770 speed and his hands are shaking that it’s amazing that he can actually pocket a ball.
I don’t think he can win a 650 and under tournament
DieselPete
Active member
On one hand we could make a case that an inactive player should have a Fargo that declines more quickly. Or that for active players the older games should drop off faster or have even more reduced weight in the system, so it shows "recent speed" more readily.
On the other hand, that could mean that a super player (700 for example) could sit out of tournaments and just practice and gamble for months on end, then enter a 650 and under tournament (because their Fargo hasn't had an update in months and thinks they are inactive). Then they win the tournament and we all complain like crazy.
Damned if ya do, damned if ya don't.
I'd rather have one-time world beaters have a high Fargo well after they play to that level.
Last edited:
Nope. Ultimate Pool uses its own rating system. UPScore. Your initial score can be derived from Fargo or APA.
I agree
Every system has its flaws
Eventually with any system, the top 100 will mostly be made of the same names but the order might be a bit different
DieselPete
Active member
Thinking about this a little more... from a "who is hurt?" perspective.
If the system holds a player's Fargo high for too long, as they don't play a lot or age, who is hurt? Only that player, and only if they play handicapped events.
If the system lowers Fargo rates too quickly when it thinks someone is inactive (when they actually could be playing all the time), who could be hurt? Everyone else when they are able to enter tournaments they should not be in, or get handicapped inaccurately against everyone else.
A "least damage" approach means the system should hold the Fargo high.
I noticed the shaking too- it definitely is amazing how well he shoots with such a tremor