People bitching about 7’ tables

Poolplaya9

Tellin' it like it is...
Silver Member
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.
So does the rest of the world which would obviously include your opponents, which is apparently why your win rate doesn't change much going from 9 foot to 7 foot tables even though your (and your opponent's) level of play goes up. And vice versa. Except for maybe when you haven't yet learned/remembered what adjustments you need to make to your game to get the most out of it on the new table size, where until that point you may perform below your potential for a bit until you learn to adjust which happens relatively quickly after putting in a little time on it.
 
Last edited:

jtompilot

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
So does the rest of the world which would obviously include your opponents, which is apparently why your win rate doesn't change much going from 9 foot to 7 foot tables even though your (and your opponent's) level of play goes up. And vice versa. Except for maybe when you haven't yet learned/remembered what adjustments you need to make to your game to get the most out of it on the new table size, where until that point you may perform below your potential for a bit until you learn to adjust which happens relatively quickly after putting in a little time on it.
None of what you wrote makes any sense. My win rate definitely goes up on a bar box. The game is much easier on a bar box, I just don’t care to play on them. The last two 9 ball bar box tournaments I played in I took a first and second.
 

buckshotshoey

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
None of what you wrote makes any sense. My win rate definitely goes up on a bar box. The game is much easier on a bar box, I just don’t care to play on them. The last two 9 ball bar box tournaments I played in I took a first and second.
I'll ask my previous question directly to you...


Which table would be easier to play 15 ball rotation on? 7 foot? Or a 9 foot? AND why?
 

garczar

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I'll ask my previous question directly to you...


Which table would be easier to play 15 ball rotation on? 7 foot? Or a 9 foot? AND why?
The amount of traffic would add to difficulty on a bb but it would still be easier than on a 9ft. especially for better players. Less skilled position players have a rough time playing full-rack rotation regardless of tables used. BTW, in 40yrs of playing i've never seen 15b rotation on anything but 9fts so why is this important? Any takes on this are nothing but conjecture, my lordship included. ;).
 

garczar

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I actually own an 8 footer and prefer them. 👍🏻
Nothing wrong with a 'good' 8ft table. My experiences with 8fts have almost always been on crappy Imperials or lower-end B'wicks. An oversized 8ft. GC is a very nice table to play on especially if its been tightened a little.
 

buckshotshoey

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Nothing wrong with a 'good' 8ft table. My experiences with 8fts have almost always been on crappy Imperials or lower-end B'wicks. An oversized 8ft. GC is a very nice table to play on especially if its been tightened a little.
I could never understand the concept of an 8 foot oversize. Might as well just have a 9 foot.
 

Poolplaya9

Tellin' it like it is...
Silver Member
None of what you wrote makes any sense. My win rate definitely goes up on a bar box. The game is much easier on a bar box, I just don’t care to play on them. The last two 9 ball bar box tournaments I played in I took a first and second.
Nothing will make sense when you summarily dismiss anything that doesn't correlate with your preconceived notions and beliefs instead of actually allowing yourself to think and objectively look at evidence that is now available to more accurately ascertain what is actually true.

What do you think would be more accurate? Trying to estimate how much money you spent in the 2020 calendar year, or writing down every penny you spent that year every time you spent it as you went along and then adding it up at the end? Your guesses here are like the former, and FargoRate is like the latter. Mike Page has spent a ton of time and effort, looking at an enormous amount of actual black and white data rather than guesses and perceptions, looking for people that have a significantly better win rate on one table size over another. He isn't finding that pattern. People have repeatedly claimed to know of exceptions, and when he looks to see what the data actually shows for those supposed exceptions that the referrers were oh so certain about, well they didn't turn out to be exceptions either. I (or any smart person) can only go by where the large amount of data leads you even if it isn't what you would have intuitively expected.

The sample size of your example above is pretty small. It could just be a coincidence that you played better in those tournaments, got more rolls, opponents having more off days, etc. You could have been facing less skilled competition than you normally face. Your memory about your win rate against the same level of players on 7 foots and 9 foots could be selective or misremembered. There are a billion other reasons that could explain your likely misconception. But even if it were true that you have a significantly better win rate against the same level of opponents on one table size over another, you would be an outlier, an anomaly, a wild exception, and your contention that this is the norm or at least extremely common would still be untrue.

We can find out for sure though, so let's do it. If you think you have enough games in the FargoRate system on both 7 foot tables and 9 foot tables to offer a reliable comparison of your win rate against the same opponents between the two table sizes (or know of one), then post your (or their) name here or send it to Mike at support@fargorate.com privately so if if he is still willing he can look at the actual data and see if you (or another person you have in mind) really are the four leaf clover or not. Garczar was too scared of being proven wrong to be willing to do it, what about you?
 
Last edited:

garczar

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Nothing will make sense when you summarily dismiss anything that doesn't correlate with your preconceived notions and beliefs instead of actually allowing yourself to think and objectively look at evidence that is now available to more accurately ascertain what is actually true.

What do you think would be more accurate? Trying to estimate how much money you spent in the 2020 calendar year, or writing down every penny you spent that year every time you spent it as you went along and then adding it up at the end? Your guesses here are like the former, and FargoRate is like the latter. Mike Page has spent a ton of time and effort, looking at an enormous amount of actual black and white data rather than guesses and perceptions, looking for people that have a significantly better win rate on one table size over another. He isn't finding that pattern. People have repeatedly claimed to know of exceptions, and when he looks to see what the data actually shows for those supposed exceptions that the referrers were oh so certain about, well they didn't turn out to be exceptions either. I (or any smart person) can only go by where the large amount of data leads you even if it isn't what you would have intuitively expected.

The sample size of your example above is pretty small. It could just be a coincidence that you played better in those tournaments, got more rolls, opponents having more off days, etc. You could have been facing less skilled competition than you normally face. Your memory about your win rate against the same level of players on 7 foots and 9 foots could be selective or misremembered. There are a billion other reasons that could explain your likely misconception. But even if it were true that you have a significantly better win rate against the same level of opponents on one table size over another, you would be an outlier, an anomaly, a wild exception, and your contention that this is the norm or at least extremely common would still be untrue.

Let's find out. If you think you have enough games in the FargoRate system on both 7 foot tables and 9 foot tables to offer a reliable comparison of your win rate against the same opponents between the two table sizes (or know of one), then post your (or their) name here or send it to Mike at support@fargorate.com privately so if if he is still willing he can look at the actual data and see if you (or another person you have in mind) really are the four leaf clover or not. Garczar was too scared of being proven wrong to be willing to do it, what about you?
Not scared of shit pal. I know what i see. Fargo is not the set-in-stone infallible system you seem to believe. You can post all these painfully long responses you want.
 
Last edited:

westcoast

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I have no problem with Diamond 7 or 9 footers. But it does bother me that most fargorated players (bca bar players) have achieved their established ratings on the easier 7 footers. I take these ratings with a grain of salt lol. Also, the APA uses the ridiculously easy bar Valley tables with the bucket pockets and slow cloth. To me, Valley bar-boxes are toys.
It is easier to pocket balls on standard valleys- that’s for sure. However, in the league I play in the tables can be challenging because they roll off or have overly bouncy or dead cushions- very difficult to judge speed.

I have a valley in my garage (can’t fit a 9 footer- need short cues for some shots even with the 7 footer). However, the guys at west state billiards in Fullerton did a great job with the table- rolls true and has 4 inch pockets- if you don’t concentrate you can miss almost any shot. I’d prefer a 9 footer, but can’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good (to paraphrase Voltaire)
 

Poolplaya9

Tellin' it like it is...
Silver Member
Not scared of shit pal. I know what i see. Fargo is not the set-in-stone infallible system you seem to believe. You can post all these painfully long responses you want.
Because you are the infallible one and your guess about what the win/loss records would be is more accurate than the actual win/loss records. Got it. Laughable, but got it.

And then, because the walls are closing in, you add in the back up excuse of "well if the data does show I'm wrong, it would only be because FargoRate is a bad system that didn't have the players rated accurately so it would be FargoRate that was wrong, not me".

You aren't the first person who has believed something that sounded intuitive, and even looked to be true based on their own experience, but that just turned out to simply not be true. In fact it is fairly common and has happened to all of us because as humans our perceptions are often greatly flawed, even when we can't tell that they are and would swear that they aren't. The difference is in how you choose to handle it, and whether you choose to adjust your beliefs according to the evidence because you value truth and knowledge over ego, or whether you lie to yourself and hold onto those beliefs in spite of the evidence because you find saving the ego of being wrong/mistaken/fallible is more important than truth and knowledge. Every day you have a choice of which guy you want to be, and your choice yesterday doesn't have to be your choice today.
 

fastone371

Certifiable
Silver Member
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. ;)
Yeah, I wouldn't want to chart fabrications either. You don't like BB's so you dismiss everything anyone says about them. Point taken.
 

mikepage

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
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.
Imagine bowling used Fargo Ratings rather than an average of pins knocked over. So when you and I play on the 40-ft lane and you knock over 185 pins and I knock over 160 pins, that's recorded as Woodshaft over Mikepage by 15. Let's say we do that over and over again with that as a typical gap. Now suppose I go and bowl against Garczar on the longer 60-foot lane. We play a lot of games, and I tend to get 130 and he tends to get 145, i.e., 15 more than me.

The Fargo-Rating-type scheme would say you and Garczar would be a pretty even match. You would have the same rating.
The Fargo Rating scheme doesn't care that the 40-foot lane is easier, that I bowl 160 there vs 145 on the longer lane. That doesn't matter.

Though overall this kind of reasoning works well, there are two categories of problems:

(1) It may be there are certain subskills that are more important for success on one length lane than another, and I might be unusually good or bad at that subskill.

(2) Unfamiliarity. If I am simply not used to playing on a 60-foot lane, I might overcorrect and roll the ball too fast or misjudge where the spin is going to take hold, etc (I'm not a bowler so humor me). We view this temporary situation not as being less skilled on this equipment but rather merely as being unable to tap into your skill level. It is fixable with modest (tens of hours or a few hundred hours) of play.

Category (1) is real, but is usually too small to be measured with the amount of data we have. And across the board it is smaller and less important than people think.
 

garczar

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Imagine bowling used Fargo Ratings rather than an average of pins knocked over. So when you and I play on the 40-ft lane and you knock over 185 pins and I knock over 160 pins, that's recorded as Woodshaft over Mikepage by 15. Let's say we do that over and over again with that as a typical gap. Now suppose I go and bowl against Garczar on the longer 60-foot lane. We play a lot of games, and I tend to get 130 and he tends to get 145, i.e., 15 more than me.

The Fargo-Rating-type scheme would say you and Garczar would be a pretty even match. You would have the same rating.
The Fargo Rating scheme doesn't care that the 40-foot lane is easier, that I bowl 160 there vs 145 on the longer lane. That doesn't matter.

Though overall this kind of reasoning works well, there are two categories of problems:

(1) It may be there are certain subskills that are more important for success on one length lane than another, and I might be unusually good or bad at that subskill.

(2) Unfamiliarity. If I am simply not used to playing on a 60-foot lane, I might overcorrect and roll the ball too fast or misjudge where the spin is going to take hold, etc (I'm not a bowler so humor me). We view this temporary situation not as being less skilled on this equipment but rather merely as being unable to tap into your skill level. It is fixable with modest (tens of hours or a few hundred hours) of play.

Category (1) is real, but is usually too small to be measured with the amount of data we have. And across the board it is smaller and less important than people think.
How about someone who plays 95%+ of their pool on a bb and establishes a FR. They are not the same player on a 9ft. Yes, i agree that if they spend enough time on a big table things tend to even out. Almost all the players in my area are bb players ONLY. If they play someone who plays mostly on a 9ft they have little chance of winning. All i can go by is what i've seen on many occasions. The few times that there is a big table event(not often btw) those that play all their pool on bb's rarely do well. Those that are 600+ tend to play ok on both tables but below that i see a big difference in big table skills 'cause the bb folks rarely play on them. Those 'hours of play' you mention rarely happens around my parts. Fear of performing bad stops a lot from even trying.
 

Cameron Smith

is kind of hungry...
Silver Member
How about someone who plays 95%+ of their pool on a bb and establishes a FR. They are not the same player on a 9ft. Yes, i agree that if they spend enough time on a big table things tend to even out. Almost all the players in my area are bb players ONLY. If they play someone who plays mostly on a 9ft they have little chance of winning. All i can go by is what i've seen on many occasions. The few times that there is a big table event(not often btw) those that play all their pool on bb's rarely do well. Those that are 600+ tend to play ok on both tables but below that i see a big difference in big table skills 'cause the bb folks rarely play on them. Those 'hours of play' you mention rarely happens around my parts. Fear of performing bad stops a lot from even trying.
I think that falls in Mikes category 2. Either they play the 10-100 hours to get their skill on the 9 foot table to parity or they avoid the table entirely. In which case their skill level on the 9 foot table is a moot point because they don’t play on it. It would be like bringing up that this or that player can’t maintain a relative 700 level on a snooker table. But since they don’t play on it, it doesn’t really matter.
 

orion21

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Everything around me is 7'. It has ruined my 9' game I get zero time on a 9; table and if I get the chance to play on i'm missing everything
 

mikepage

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
How about someone who plays 95%+ of their pool on a bb and establishes a FR. They are not the same player on a 9ft. Yes, i agree that if they spend enough time on a big table things tend to even out. Almost all the players in my area are bb players ONLY. If they play someone who plays mostly on a 9ft they have little chance of winning. All i can go by is what i've seen on many occasions. The few times that there is a big table event(not often btw) those that play all their pool on bb's rarely do well. Those that are 600+ tend to play ok on both tables but below that i see a big difference in big table skills 'cause the bb folks rarely play on them. Those 'hours of play' you mention rarely happens around my parts. Fear of performing bad stops a lot from even trying.

all sounds about right.
 
Top