There is also a video Fargorate The Myth Of Consistency that explains this phenomenon in pool.
I don’t know. The video is kind of hard to comprehend. I mean it makes sense. But in the real world I haven’t seen it. That curve has to narrow up higher. I can see a 350 beating a 550 which is a 200 difference, but can’t recall ever seeing a 550 on their best day beating a 700 on their worst day. That’s only a 150 point difference. Unless it was 9 ball and the 550 had a spot, or just kept slopping at the 9 for the win. Then again the rating system seems a bit lax at the lower to mid levels. IMO they should really just have 2-5 and then start getting more specific over 550-600. I don’t want to type a book here. So it’s just a thought and I’ll stop there.
When I was about a 550 I beat a a 700 one time 9-ball race to 10. All it takes is for the 700 to rattle some balls they normally make with 5 or less balls on the table, and the 550 to make some shots they normally don't and it can become close. The 700 is a former lesser known touring pro, an alcoholic and was drunk (He always is drunk). I won't say his name but there are people here who would know it. Either way the odds would still be with the 700 as he would play like a 640 and the 550 would play like a 610. This isn't totally unreasonable, a B player playing like a B+ and an A player playing like a B+.
It’s not though. There’s only 9 balls on the table. Someone who typically runs 2-3 balls vs someone who runs 4-5 balls has a better chance to win than that 4-5 ball against somebody who runs out racks regularly. Some of you will get what I’m saying some of you wont but once you get better you’ll see what I’m talking about. It’s not about making balls anymore at that point. If everyone was well rounded at lower to mid tiers it would be a different story. I’m talking about most in that range.
Yes I get it. Everybody misses! Don’t let it get you down. I was trying to help some out here. And I will now. To break it down. A typical 550 has around a 600-650 offense and probably a 450-500 defense. Typically. Because most 550 are usually offense oriented. A 700 has probably something around a 675 and 725 offense and defense or defense and offense. Less variance and better rounded. So therefore. How is a 700 going to end up without a narrower curve. Any well rounded player will have a narrower curve because the differences in their complete game is less. That’s the variable that science doesn’t consider. It just bases everything on a well rounded player. Most the higher rated ones are the lower are sometimes.
Well, no. A typical 550 has both the offense and defense of a typical 550. Maybe you mean that weaker players are really bad at defense. That I could go along with. The counterexample of this is the many lower-level league players who play great steaming gobs of defense (largely when there is no point to it).
8racks of 10b no less.
I see what you are saying with the averages Bob. But I haven’t seen many great players throwing their real shot out there against a 500 either, and they still win most of the time….I’m not going to worry about locking the cue ball behind 2 balls against a real 500. I’m going to leave them long or with a bank and even if they make it, they aren’t running out anyway. Then I pocket the last 2-3 balls for the win. And right now I’m only up around a true 600. But I’ve been better than that previously and working my way back to good. I would never leave a 700+ with just a long shot or a bank unless it was a mistake.
I’m going off of the fargorate video above that states all players have the same curve no matter their avg ability. You just restated my point which was better players have a more narrow curve, when you said higher avg players have less variance between good and bad days. Anyway what I’ve been saying has been proven by the video anyway and easily with math. Because a 100 point variance for a 550 is a higher percent than a 100 point variance for a 700. But I would personally say it would only be a 50-80 variance on higher skilled players.
