People bitching about 7’ tables

[TheBasics]

Lots of expletives from someone calling out "piss poor" attitudes. Caaaaaaaalm down.
That being said. I love all tables. Maybe not equally but they all do the job.
NO ONE BETTER MAKE FUN OF MY NEPHEWS 4' x 2' TABLE EITHER!!!!!!!!!!!!! F'N HATERS. STFU!!!

Didn't B. Stroud mention that that's about what he started on, covered in corduroy?

hank

 

[Fatboy]

But Fargo isn't rating your skills or ability on a certain size table. It is tracking who you on average beat or don't beat, as well as the amount of games you win in proportion to your opponent. It turns out that while a guy may play a lot better on a bar box, so does his opponent who he is playing on that same bar box, and so the ratio at which you win games against your opponent isn't actually much different regardless of table size.

Mike has done a good bit of testing to bear this out, but I am almost certain that if you have examples of players who win at a significantly higher ratio against the same guys on a bar box, not just players who play better on a bar box than a 9 ft (that would be tons of them, maybe even most), but who win at a much higher ratio on 7 ft vs 9 ft playing the same guys, then Mike would be very interested in hearing about those examples to determine if that is in fact the case, and if so if it just an extreme anomaly. So far with lots of looking and testing he has not been able to find any significant pattern of that.

I don’t know anything at all about Fargo.

What I do know is 99% of the time the better player will win on any table. The 1% difference are barbox specialists(which do exist but are rare)

Rating systems are always flawed.

best
Fatboy

 

[smoochie]

Get over yourself. I play on both 9’ and 7’ why? because, both of them help you to be a better pool player. Whether it’s a shorter shot on a smaller table or a longer shot on a big table. Yes I agree it is a more satisfying game on the big table, but you can still learn to play well on a small table and you can you use that to learn how to play smaller/shorter shots or shape by playing on a small table. You can use that knowledge to play smaller/shorter shots or shape on a big table. Don’t get me wrong everyone knows they got to take the longer shot some time but you can learn to shorten that shot If you play on a smaller table. For Fuc$ sake some of you people seem to not like pool at all. Just play on whatever and have fun. Be happy to be able to play on both and put your ego aside. You can still learn and be happy on a smaller table if you don’t have a stick up your ass. Some of you die hards for the 9’ only, I want to play on the small table just to see what you can do on the kids table as some call it. Would you be able to compete with Shane or orcollo in a race to 100 on the little table? That’s what I thought…. then STFU and play some pool on whatever and get better at whatever. Love pool however it is and support it. Otherwise it will die with all the asshole rules here that you can’t play or pool is going to die if you play on a certain table GTFOH. Pool is going to die because of your piss poor attitudes.

7 ft table is a game for kids. very easy and will not help you Jimmy.

 

[Woodshaft]

I'd like to see two different fargoratings-- A "Fargo7", for games on a 7 footer, and a "Fargo9", for games played on a 9 footer. The equipment does make a difference in the overall data. I know Mr. Page tries to pretend that it doesn't, but it does. Take bowling for example. If I bowled exclusively at a high "average" on a shorter-than-regulation 40-foot lane all my life, and then got challenged to bowl on regulation 60-foot lane against a guy with the same "average" that exclusively bowled only on the 60-foot lanes, the 60-foot bowler should easily win. The 60-foot bowler should also be able to compete with or beat with the 40-foot bowler on the shorter 40-foot lanes. EQUIPMENT MAKES A DIFFERENCE.

 

[Poolplaya9]

Big table match between two 600's, one that plays 90% of their pool on a bb against someone who plays 90% on a 9ft is an even game?? Is that what you're saying? If so that's ridiculous.

I'm saying the data shows that in most cases it would be a very close game over the long haul regardless of table size.

Mike has had lots of people claim they play substantially better on one size table over another (in relation to their opponents, because just about everybody plays better on a smaller table), or know so and so that wins at a way higher rate on one table size than another, but every time he investigates this by rating them only according to the games they played on 7 foot tables, and then rating them only by the games they played on 9 foot tables, and comparing the two, what he finds is that the two Fargo numbers are typically very close together. There can be some difference, but it is typically within the margin for error, like ten points of difference or less as opposed to fifty or a hundred points of difference as people perceive or would have guessed.

I agree that on the surface it might sound like there should be a big difference, but it isn't what the actual data has shown, and the data doesn't lie. And when you actually give it some thought, it doesn't sound quite as logical on the surface either. Yes, no doubt about it, Billy Bob shoots way better on a bar box than a 9 ft. But so does his opponent. And so the rate at which you win is reasonably similar on all table sizes. For the record I'm one that feels like I play substantially better on one size table over another, but the data isn't likely to show there is a significant difference in how much I win on one versus the other.

Like I said, if you you are that positive that you have a good example of a guy who would win at a significantly different rate against the same opponents (not just shoot better, but would win at a significantly higher rate, because everybody shoots better on a 7 ft which is the part I don't think you are fully taking into consideration), then forward their name on to Mike so he can look into it. Assuming that person has enough games in the system under each table size to give an established rating for each, there is a decent chance Mike would be willing to share what his rating would be on each table size (although if he did, for that player's privacy, he may prefer to do it without making the guy's name public). He's done it before, several times.

Here is but one example exactly like you are talking about of a guy who was at the time was specifically known as a bar box specialist, where many people had the very strong perception that he performed significantly better against his opponents on bar boxes than on 9 foots. Turns out is is usually our perception that is off.

 

[sellingboe]

Agree. I have access to 13 9ft's at my home spot so i guess i'm spoiled. If i only had bb's to play on i'd probably quit. I've played on them a lot yrs ago and have zero desire to do so now.

You both can bitch about whatever you want, table size notwithstanding, but why? That is the point of the post. The OP was just saying live and let live. The problem it seems is the 7ft Joes have no problem with that, but the 9ft snobs continually run their mouths against anything that isn't a 9ft table. Does the average BB player know who SVB is? No! How do you make more average players care about who SVB is? Increase the number of average players...period. Many won't care, but some will. But once a critical mass is achieved, voila!, pool becomes a relevant media sport, maybe even overtaking Cornhole (sad tongue-in-cheek). There may be a lot of good/great pool players on this site, but not many savvy business minds.

 

[fastone371]

Big table match between two 600's, one that plays 90% of their pool on a bb against someone who plays 90% on a 9ft is an even game?? Is that what you're saying? If so that's ridiculous.

What changes besides the length of the shot?? If you shoot straight on a 7' table odds are you will shoot straight on a bigger table. Both tables are 2:1 so routes are the same. That leaves speed, if you cant compensate for the difference in size how do you compensate for different brand tables with different cloth and cushions???? I have yet to see someone who is great on 9' table suck on a 7' table nor have I seen someone great on a 7' table suck on a 9' table. I get to compare players on both frequently since all of my tournament and league play is on 7' tables and all of my home play is on a 9' table.

 

[Cuedup]

The longer the distance, the smaller the margin of error.

 

[Texas Carom Club]

yeah its only way way harder for true bangers to go from 7 to 9s
the rest of us manage fine

 

[garczar]

What changes besides the length of the shot?? If you shoot straight on a 7' table odds are you will shoot straight on a bigger table. Both tables are 2:1 so routes are the same. That leaves speed, if you cant compensate for the difference in size how do you compensate for different brand tables with different cloth and cushions???? I have yet to see someone who is great on 9' table suck on a 7' table nor have I seen someone great on a 7' table suck on a 9' table. I get to compare players on both frequently since all of my tournament and league play is on 7' tables and all of my home play is on a 9' table.

See it all the time. Under tournament/gambling conditions the longer shots on a 9ft become a BIG deal to someone who spends all their time on bb's. A lot of what you say is nothing but guesses. I know what i see. Seen lots of 550-600 FR's on bb's that play at least 50pts lower on a 9ft. Quite a few wouldn't bet the sky's blue if they had to play on a big table. Look, i used to play a lot on bb's 30yrs ago 'cause that's where all the action was. Still is but i rarely play enough to be gambling. I don't like them and i don't play on them. I have 13 nice 9fts to play on so i don't have to worry about it. Some people have to play on the little box. Sucks to be them i guess.

 

[Poolplaya9]

See it all the time. Under tournament/gambling conditions the longer shots on a 9ft become a BIG deal to someone who spends all their time on bb's. A lot of what you say is nothing but guesses. I know what i see. Seen lots of 550-600 FR's on bb's that play at least 50pts lower on a 9ft. Quite a few wouldn't bet the sky's blue if they had to play on a big table. Look, i used to play a lot on bb's 30yrs ago 'cause that's where all the action was. Still is but i rarely play enough to be gambling. I don't like them and i don't play on them. I have 13 nice 9fts to play on so i don't have to worry about it. Some people have to play on the little box. Sucks to be them i guess.

Everybody is going to play less than their capability right at first on a new to them table size, regardless of that table size, so if that is all you really mean even though it isn't what you have been saying then that is a very obvious given but it doesn't last very long as people very quickly adapt. Of course people would suck more at brand new things the first time lol.

But if you are confident that you know of players who over time have a significantly different win rate depending on the table size, which is what you have actually been saying, then post their names here in this thread so Mike can look to see what the data, as opposed to your theory and perceptions, actually shows. He has already done this many, many, many, many times over the years and the actual performance data repeatedly shows that you will have a similar success rate regardless of table size (mostly because everybody tends to perform better on smaller tables and worse on bigger ones, and since your opponent is also playing on the same table size as you your win rate doesn't actually change much with table size).

Here is mikepage in the post below from earlier this year specifically asking for examples of people who perform significantly better over time on one table size over another (or in one game over another) if someone thinks they know of an example so he can look into it as he has done many times before and see what the data actually shows for that person/s. You repeatedly keep saying you know of tons of examples of this, so here is the time to post up their names as there is no need to continue to speculate on whether you are right or wrong when we can find out without doubt.

Fargo rating

How strong is a 604?

forums.azbilliards.com

 

[chenjy9]

I guess I will just continue being the peasant that I am and continue to have fun simply shooting pool regardless of table size.

 

[whiteoak]

I guess I will just continue being the peasant that I am and continue to have fun simply shooting pool regardless of table size.

Me too

 

[Nyquil]

I guess I will just continue being the peasant that I am and continue to have fun simply shooting pool regardless of table size.

I am with ya. I dig them all as long as they are installed correctly and maintained.

 

[lorider]

Agree. I know more than a few 600+ bb players that play 100+ points less on a 9ft. There should be a 'table factor' in the rating system imo.

Apa does have a table factor. Every score sheet has several boxes at the bottom and you mark the one that coresponds wity the size of table you played on.

We have played on 7 foot valleys and 9 foot gold crowns. Well also a few 7 foot diamonds but brands of tables are not marked...just sizes.

 

[garczar]

Everybody is going to play less than their capability right at first on a new to them table size, regardless of that table size, so if that is all you really mean even though it isn't what you have been saying then that is a very obvious given but it doesn't last very long as people very quickly adapt. Of course people would suck more at brand new things the first time lol.

But if you are confident that you know of players who over time have a significantly different win rate depending on the table size, which is what you have actually been saying, then post their names here in this thread so Mike can look to see what the data, as opposed to your theory and perceptions, actually shows. He has already done this many, many, many, many times over the years and the actual performance data repeatedly shows that you will have a similar success rate regardless of table size (mostly because everybody tends to perform better on smaller tables and worse on bigger ones, and since your opponent is also playing on the same table size as you your win rate doesn't actually change much with table size).

Here is mikepage in the post below from earlier this year specifically asking for examples of people who perform significantly better over time on one table size over another (or in one game over another) if someone thinks they know of an example so he can look into it as he has done many times before and see what the data actually shows for that person/s. You repeatedly keep saying you know of tons of examples of this, so here is the time to post up their names as there is no need to continue to speculate on whether you are right or wrong when we can find out without doubt.

Fargo rating

How strong is a 604?

forums.azbilliards.com

Don't think i said 'tons'. I live an area that is full of bar-boxes. VERY few of the bb regulars venture on to a 9ft and when they do they don't play near as well. BTW, i have no desire to chart this stuff and notify anybody. I know what i see and that is bb regulars(play 90%+ on the bb) that continually miss long shots and play horrible position on 9ft tables. Done here boys. Time to go hit some balls on a 'real' table.

 

[buckshotshoey]

Never used the word 'tons' pal. I live an area that is full of bar-boxes. VERY few of the bb regulars venture on to a 9ft and when they do they don't play near as well. BTW, i have no desire to chart this stuff and notify anybody. I know what i see and that is bb regulars that continually miss long shots and play horrible position on 9ft tables. Done here boys. Time to go hit some balls on a 'real' table.

And I might say it's just as true that people that play on a 9-foot regularly tend to overhit shots on a 7 foot table.

You are just a pool playing God, AREN'T you? Remind me to genuflect if I ever meet you in person.

 

[garczar]

And I might say it's just as true that people that play on a 9-foot regularly tend to overhit shots on a 7 foot table.

You are just a pool playing God, AREN'T you? Remind me to genuflect if I ever meet you in person.

Just be sure to kiss the ring. Seriously, rarely see that. A good big-table player adjusts FAR quicker to a bb then the other way around. I saw Buddy Hall play a LOT of 9ft pool before i ever saw him hit one ball on a bar-box. Granted he's a HOF'r but it was a joke. Like watchin' a tour golfer play a local par3 course. I've known a lot of really good players and all say they are at least two balls better on a bb.

 

[Geosnookery]

Wow, a rare fumble bro. Or just a rhetorical question? All the traffic precludes the breaker from winning every game but between two good players the breaker wins 65-70% of the time. That's a lot.

This is true,

However one also needs to qualify by recognizing that the breaker is more likely the better player.

This is like NHL hockey playoffs. The home team wind 62% of games. Is playing at home an advantage? Not as much as it appears. The series starts at the arena of the better team and there is often one more game played on their home ice. One would expect the better team to win more often and they play more games at home.

One expects the better pool player to be breaking more racks on the table.

 

[jtompilot]

Everybody is going to play less than their capability right at first on a new to them table size, regardless of that table size, so if that is all you really mean even though it isn't what you have been saying then that is a very obvious given but it doesn't last very long as people very quickly adapt. Of course people would suck more at brand new things the first time lol.

I rarely play on BB, but when I do I play on them I run out way more often and generally just miss less shots.