Nick Varner is a Fargorate 777

[DieselPete]

I personally would like to see two different fargorates per player:
One, their "lifetime rating", which is shown now,
and Two, their "rating over the past 500 games".
I feel the "past 500 games rating" would be a more accurate rating of how they are playing/trending now, and thus more useful/fair.
Like other people have pointed out, and I have personally seen with the younger players I play with, fargorate's formula has a tuff time keeping up with players who are developing quickly. This gives the younger players a huge advantage in the lower fargo-capped tourneys imo.

I think that is a great idea. I'll go one more step...

Consider:

I look someone up on the Fargo app. Once I find them, it automatically shows their "lifetime" Fargo rating. But I also can select from a dropdown menu that shows their rating only considering their last 100, 250, 500, etc. games. OR, I can use another dropdown that shows their last 12 months, 24 months, five years.

 

[mikepage]

I think that is a great idea. I'll go one more step...

Consider:

I look someone up on the Fargo app. Once I find them, it automatically shows their "lifetime" Fargo rating. But I also can select from a dropdown menu that shows their rating only considering their last 100, 250, 500, etc. games. OR, I can use another dropdown that shows their last 12 months, 24 months, five years.

There isn't a "lifetime" Fargo Rating. Or if we wanted such a thing, we'd need to do a completely different computation.

There is only our best estimate of current skill considering all the information.

You feel like some sort of post-FargoRate assessment of a player's last 500 games would give a more accurate or more fair assessment of their current skill. But whether one would be is testable and doesn't have to rely on our intuition. I recommend looking both at the video from yesterday,

9.6K views · 55 reactions | A lot of FargoRate suggestions sound obvious at first: “Weight the important games more.” “Don’t count league games.” “Separate bar table and big table.” “Use only the cleanest data.” The problem is that FargoRate is not

A lot of FargoRate suggestions sound obvious at first: “Weight the important games more.” “Don’t count league games.” “Separate bar table and big table.” “Use only the cleanest data.” The problem...

www.facebook.com

and also the earlier video that compared using Fargo Ratings and I think it was a "last 400 or 500 games" post-FargoRate performance rating to determine which better predicted future results.

(sorry, meant this to be a reply to woodshaft's post)

 

[DieselPete]

There isn't a "lifetime" Fargo Rating. Or if we wanted such a thing, we'd need to do a completely different computation.

There is only our best estimate of current skill considering all the information.

You feel like some sort of post-FargoRate assessment of a player's last 500 games would give a more accurate or more fair assessment of their current skill. But whether one would be is testable and doesn't have to rely on our intuition. I recommend looking both at the video from yesterday,

9.6K views · 55 reactions | A lot of FargoRate suggestions sound obvious at first: “Weight the important games more.” “Don’t count league games.” “Separate bar table and big table.” “Use only the cleanest data.” The problem is that FargoRate is not

A lot of FargoRate suggestions sound obvious at first: “Weight the important games more.” “Don’t count league games.” “Separate bar table and big table.” “Use only the cleanest data.” The problem...

www.facebook.com

and also the earlier video that compared using Fargo Ratings and I think it was a "last 400 or 500 games" post-FargoRate performance rating to determine which better predicted future results.

(sorry, meant this to be a reply to woodshaft's post)

I'll check it out.

By "lifetime" Fargo rating I simply meant, "Fargo rating as it is currently presented," but to underscore that if a subset of recent games could be presented (last 200 games, for example) that would be not representative of play over that person's total data set.

 

[Chili Palmer]

If so, that would be awesome. Does anyone know his age?

One other thing of note for the high FargoRate, is Varner is not listed on the top 100 US players, even though his rating would put him at #7 in the US. This means he did not play the minimum number of games in the past year or two to be on that list. I believe Mike has said it was 150 games over the past 2 years, but that number is from memory.

Not sure if it's been answered but, the number of games is 300 for the "Top of" lists.

 

[jasonlaus]

I'll check it out.

By "lifetime" Fargo rating I simply meant, "Fargo rating as it is currently presented," but to underscore that if a subset of recent games could be presented (last 200 games, for example) that would be not representative of play over that person's total data set.

I sure miss the days of actually having to judge somebody's speed

 

[DieselPete]

I sure miss the days of actually having to judge somebody's speed

Really?

I'm not a big gambler, so this isn't really my department, but if I had to watch someone play and make a judgment, or live in a world in which you can say, "He's a 609, and counting his 'last 100 games only' he is a 632," I know which I would pick. I'll take data every day. I would only play if we used the 632.

If there was a Fargo rating for a recency number (like last 100 games), I would only use that number to arrange a spot if it was trending up. If it was trending down I would insist on using the actual Fargo rating. In other words, if it said, "He's a 609 but over his 'last 100 games only' he is playing at 556," I'd say, "sorry about your struggles, but you're a 609."

Watching the arguments about whether to make a game on Fargo or "Recent Fargo" would be a hoot. Maybe that's why it is better to only have Fargo (as it is) and NOT introduce a sub-metric like a "recency" or "trending" number.

 

[easy-e]

Really?

I'm not a big gambler, so this isn't really my department, but if I had to watch someone play and make a judgment, or live in a world in which you can say, "He's a 609, and counting his 'last 100 games only' he is a 632," I know which I would pick. I'll take data every day. I would only play if we used the 632.

If there was a Fargo rating for a recency number (like last 100 games), I would only use that number to arrange a spot if it was trending up. If it was trending down I would insist on using the actual Fargo rating. In other words, if it said, "He's a 609 but over his 'last 100 games only' he is playing at 556," I'd say, "sorry about your struggles, but you're a 609."

Watching the arguments about whether to make a game on Fargo or "Recent Fargo" would be a hoot. Maybe that's why it is better to only have Fargo (as it is) and NOT introduce a sub-metric like a "recency" or "trending" number.

I miss the old days too. I think with Fargo rating we have the ability to match up more evenly, but that isn't always a good thing. Players put too much faith in the numbers and not how they're feeling. It curbs the action a bit, IMO. And when people DO match up because of Fargo ratings, many of them complain about sandbagging when they lose.

Improving at pool is heavily based on playing under pressure. Playing under pressure mainly happens when playing outside of your comfort zone. Matching up too "evenly" makes people too comfortable. Just my opinion...

 

[kingwang]

Really?

I'm not a big gambler, so this isn't really my department, but if I had to watch someone play and make a judgment, or live in a world in which you can say, "He's a 609, and counting his 'last 100 games only' he is a 632," I know which I would pick. I'll take data every day. I would only play if we used the 632.

If there was a Fargo rating for a recency number (like last 100 games), I would only use that number to arrange a spot if it was trending up. If it was trending down I would insist on using the actual Fargo rating. In other words, if it said, "He's a 609 but over his 'last 100 games only' he is playing at 556," I'd say, "sorry about your struggles, but you're a 609."

Watching the arguments about whether to make a game on Fargo or "Recent Fargo" would be a hoot. Maybe that's why it is better to only have Fargo (as it is) and NOT introduce a sub-metric like a "recency" or "trending" number.

Last 100 games is an insanely small sample size. You could see swings of 100+ points in that time frame. I checked my own history and I've found 100 game stretches where I was 60 points over my Fargo and stretches where I was 50 points under. That range is the difference between Moritz Neuhausen and someone like Russian Kenny.

 

[DieselPete]

Last 100 games is an insanely small sample size. You could see swings of 100+ points in that time frame. I check my own history and I've found 100 game stretches where I was 60 points over my Fargo and stretches where I was 50 points under. That range is the difference between Moritz Neuhausen and someone like Russian Kenny.

That's fine. I don't disagree. In my first post on this I wrote that it could be from a dropdown in which you select "last 100" or 200, or 500.

But for the record, I am generally fine with Fargo as it is, even though in cases like Nick Varner (the subject of this thread) it clearly is holding onto a rating beyond the sell-by date. And as I wrote above, it is better to hold the number high (which could hurt that player) than to drop it too fast (which could hurt everyone in a league or tournament).

 

[easy-e]

That's fine. I don't disagree. In my first post on this I wrote that it could be from a dropdown in which you select "last 100" or 200, or 500.

But for the record, I am generally fine with Fargo as it is, even though in cases like Nick Varner (the subject of this thread) it clearly is holding onto a rating beyond the sell-by date. And as I wrote above, it is better to hold the number high (which could hurt that player) than to drop it too fast (which could hurt everyone in a league or tournament).

I watched Nick play a lot of pool in November. I don't think his number is as inflated as this thread is making it seem. The guy is still amazing.

 

[DrCue'sProtege]

FYI here,
Nick turned 78 yesterday. 14 May.

 

[Nature Boy]

Would a “trend” feature help?

I come from a golf background, and it was certainly used there.

Also, any tournament score counts more, good or bad, than the Wednesday game with the boys.

 

[CocoboloCowboy]

Before Fargo became in Vogue, we had the Arizona Rating System, it was as perfect a handicapping system as Fargo. Plus as broken as Fargo.

If a Player only played on Bar Boxes, 8 & 9 Ball. How could their Rating equate to being fair on Big Tables, or Player 14/1, Banks, or One Pocket? They did not play?

As Rickey Recardo would say, Please Splain how that all comes together & works fairly.

In G.O.D., aka good old day before any rating system, people just played, if they got tire of being eaten, they practiced, got better, or moved on to something easier to maker like Golf Frisbee, or Bean Bag toss, now called CornHole.

This worked fine in small local tournaments, as Pro or Road players would not travel on purpose to local tournaments, for dinky payouts.

IMHO

 

[fastone371]

Before Fargo became in Vogue, we had the Arizona Rating System, it was as perfect a handicapping system as Fargo. Plus as broken as Fargo.

If a Player only played on Bar Boxes, 8 & 9 Ball. How could their Rating equate to being fair on Big Tables, or Player 14/1, Banks, or One Pocket? They did not play?

As Rickey Recardo would say, Please Splain how that all comes together & works fairly.

In G.O.D., aka good old day before any rating system, people just played, if they got tire of being eaten, they practiced, got better, or moved on to something easier to maker like Golf Frisbee, or Bean Bag toss, now called CornHole.

This worked fine in small local tournaments, as Pro or Road players would not travel on purpose to local tournaments, for dinky payouts.

IMHO

Here we go again with the 7 and 9 foot table ratings just cant be the same. How many times does it have to be proven that an 800FR on a big table will be an 800FR on a little table and vice versa?? Maybe its time to leave the G.O.D. in the rearview mirror, its not coming back.

 

[iusedtoberich]

I play a ton of pool on both 7' and 9' tables. The same opponents win on both sizes. Both players play worse on the 9', and both players play better on the 7'.

 

[easy-e]

Before Fargo became in Vogue, we had the Arizona Rating System, it was as perfect a handicapping system as Fargo. Plus as broken as Fargo.

If a Player only played on Bar Boxes, 8 & 9 Ball. How could their Rating equate to being fair on Big Tables, or Player 14/1, Banks, or One Pocket? They did not play?

As Rickey Recardo would say, Please Splain how that all comes together & works fairly.

In G.O.D., aka good old day before any rating system, people just played, if they got tire of being eaten, they practiced, got better, or moved on to something easier to maker like Golf Frisbee, or Bean Bag toss, now called CornHole.

This worked fine in small local tournaments, as Pro or Road players would not travel on purpose to local tournaments, for dinky payouts.

IMHO

The AZ rating system moved players ratings up or down based on the opinions of the local "board" of representatives. Some of them couldn't run 3 balls. Glad it's gone.

 

[CocoboloCowboy]

The AZ rating system moved players ratings up or down based on the opinions of the local "board" of representatives. Some of them couldn't run 3 balls. Glad it's gone.

Like Fargo, as I explained, it was not perfect. Also most of the People on the AZ Committee, it was called Rating Committee, NOT BOARD were Bar Room Owners, who had an interesting in penalizing better players. If you got past a Seven or Eight there were not many tournament for 9's, 10's, 10-1's, or 10-2. Becoming an 8, or 9 was like being on DEATH ROW........Few opportunities to compete.

Bar & Room Owners knew 7's and below were the people they want in their businesses, as these were most the recreation player, who had Jobs, spent money, and last also were attracted to LEAGUE with Pin & Trophies. For being Top Players. Or the Big Trip to LAS VEGAS BCA, where is you won, you lost really. Because of the expense to get to Vegas, and cost of Hotel etc.

Bar & Room Owners wanted to keep better players, 8's and higher out of their Tournaments by moving consistent winner up, and out of opportunity..........Fargo does the same thing. As your Fargo goes up, opportunities to compete go down.

 

[iusedtoberich]

Wow, a committe to determine ratings?! Reminds me of the baseball movie Moneyball meeting room scene discussing the merits of a player whom was newly married, etc. That's about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. FargoRate isn't perfect (mostly because of professional sandbaggers attending high entry capped events, and TD's being stupid by making nearly every event in every city an x99 cap), but it's better than anything that's ever come before, by a mile.

 

[skip100]

"Arizona Rating System, it was as perfect a handicapping system as Fargo. Plus as broken as Fargo"

If you think the idea of a self-appointed cabal of bar owners being at all comparable to a high-end statistical model pulling from a database of millions of games is a dumb one, you'd be right.

 

[fastone371]

Bar & Room Owners wanted to keep better players, 8's and higher out of their Tournaments by moving consistent winner up, and out of opportunity..........Fargo does the same thing. As your Fargo goes up, opportunities to compete go down.

Fargo does not keep better players out of tournaments, its the TD's and how they set up the tournament, it has absolutely nothing to do with Fargo.