Go watch some of Nick’s old matches. He’s been shaking for decades and it didn’t hurt his game.
Last edited:
Nick Varner is a Fargorate 777
- Thread starter iusedtoberich
- Start date
Go watch some of Nick’s old matches. He’s been shaking for decades and it didn’t hurt his game.
He came to my home room at the time in 1994 or so to give an exhibition, and his arm was shaking then. Made every shot!
yep, only cameras are better and closer now. there are other players and also snooker players that have tremor, it doesn't seem to affect the cue/ball final contact
I think reducing the weight of older games make sense. Right now, games 3 years back are worth 50% weight. I'd move that up to games 1 year back.
Reweighing doesn't have the downside you described. If you don't play, your Fargo won't deteriorate and you still need to perform poorly to get your rating down. If you're a pro that's sandbagging for a year to get into a 650 and under, that's an issue with the state of pool, not with the rating system.
I’m pretty sure the “Top” lists require a certain number of recent games (presumably to deal with people like Nick that aren’t active and whose rating may be innacurate for that reason).
Agreed. Dick Lane shook worse than Nick and ran 100s at straight pool.
This has been mentioned several times. The player needs 150 games in the last two years to be on the TOP lists:
It doesn’t have to be deliberate sandbagging. I know of a player who’s rating was based on old games only and who stopped playing competitive pool for some years for various reasons. When he came back he performed under his old level and dropped pretty quickly (because his previous games were old). The problem is a big tournament came up and he started practicing a lot and once he got back in stroke his rating was now well below his old level and the level he was playing at now, so he was effectively underrated.
This is obviously a rare instance but my point is that the quicker you degrade old games the more likely it is that a hiatus will impact the rating in unintended ways.
This has been mentioned several times. The player needs 150 games in the last two years to be on the TOP lists:
Thanks, Bob. I wasn’t sure what the number was, as some of the lists I’ve seen Mike put out have required 150 and some 300. Maybe the 300 are one off lists and not the maintained top lists.
One solution for this problem (if it is a significant problem) is to have an RR or Recent Rating for players that includes only the last year of games. I suppose a player with fewer than some number of recent games would not have an RR.
I notice now that the quoted thread is from seven years ago. Things might have changed.
The reverse situation can also happen though when you weight past games too heavily though. If you have someone who quickly improves, they will be underrated because their old games drag them down. Regardless, no rating system can (or should!) be a predictor of future performance. They should just be a summary of how the player has performed in the past, and I personally think the algorithm overweights performance from years ago.
IMO, the algorithm is good.
Old players over 60 are generally performing less than their rating.
Teens are generally performing above their rating.
Adults are generally in a 40 year plateau.
Nothing wrong with that. Father times wins all sets.
Old players over 60 are generally performing less than their rating.
Teens are generally performing above their rating.
Adults are generally in a 40 year plateau.
Nothing wrong with that. Father times wins all sets.
I was talking with Nick a few weeks ago about his game. He told me he could still take a set off anyone, but the chances of stringing together that level of play to win a pro tournament probably isn't possible for him anymore.