I do know who is who on the thread. It’s clear to me that handicapping has not been good to pool.
Pool in Europe vs USA: 7-foot vs 9-foot tables
- Thread starter mikepage
- Start date
More people playing, cue/table/access. sales are thru the roof. So what is so bad about a h-cap system??? Not everyone, VERY few in fact, have any desire to be pro-level players. If its 'clear' that h-capping has not been good to pool i gotta ask, again, how??? I live in the midwest and there are more people at tournaments now than in the last 30+ yrs. If the h-capping went away most events would be gone and the few that survived would have puny turnouts. We still have the oh-so-awesome open events at Shooter's in Olathe 2-3 times a yr but everything else is Fargo and full. Fargo has done a LOT more to save pool than harm it.
Except for the straight up pros, pool has always been handicapped. Fargo just does it better.
I don’t like handicapping. Others do. That’s what helps make the world go around. People differ in their thought. Merry Christmas.
Not true everywhere. Before the internet we just played until we went broke every day then got good enough to bust others. Everyone played everyone else stone cold even. You got better or went broke every day.
ok then i thought maybe calling someone garbage and bogus and no good to their face was a mistake
but as you say, people differ in their thought
you don’t like handicapping, that’s great
but remember, there is no more
‘before the internet’
I'm wearing a thick Christmas suit...
I never called anyone garbage. I never did that!
I never said one word about any one person so maybe you need to learn how to read.
I said the systems are bogus and not good for pool and I believe that.
But be clear, I NEVER called anyone anything. I don’t like handicapped competition and I don’t like the systems. It’s really that simple. I don’t like them. Others do. I respect everyone who has a different opinion. Relax. Mr. Page has heard way more tough language than I even pretended to use.
my mistake white, i am sorry for doing that
i meant that you called his life’s work
garbage
i do apologize for, as you say,
not being able to read
and i will be more careful in the future
please accept my apology and we can
agree to disagree about the rating,
because i, like you, respect everyone’s opinion
we can also agree that he has heard
much worse
And therein lays the major weakness of American pool. It is tied to gambling as a means of improvement and income, which has become completely untenable due to the egregious gulf between middle class worker pay, and cost of living. There's neither time, nor money to dedicate one's self to playing at a high caliber, as gambling is not an intelligent way to handle money when one's monthly nut only has about $400 to spare past rent, utilities, groceries.. The suckers gotta meet this nut, so there is very little money feeding the base of the gambler's pyramid.. The age of the road player is dead in America, for many reasons, but the biggest being the speed at which information moves. A road agent will get outed after the first few cities.
So.. America better figure out a way to get people playing again, so pool halls can be more profitable, and can introduce more people to the game. Pool in America was on absolutely death's doorstep in the late 2000's. It was a scary time, as at it's height, my area had at least 8 tournaments that could be spread across a week, with there being many, many more within a 30 minute drive.. To there being ONE weekly tournament within a 50 mile radius, with 7 players showing up.
Now, after Fargorate, I see a resurgence in interest, with many of the players having been younger during the golden years, ~1995-2000, showing back up to events and doing well. There is such a gulf between a beginner with talent, and the top players in a state, it really does help drive our improvement to have "some" measure of our improvement relative to the best in the area. Rated play, when applied broadly, equals engagement. It works for chess. Many thousands of mini tournaments go on in chess every day of the week, and kids train and compete relentlessly to gain 200 ratings points.
Most of what is holding Fargorate back, and keeping it from really generating traction to improve American pool, is simply resistance of the old gambling crowd. The truth of it is, the minute American pool players start seeing each other as partners in bringing up the overall level of play in America, rather than potential gambling marks... That's when you start seeing cooperation amongst players, which is always a plus when it comes to organizing a massive group of people towards common goals.
To the old gambling crowd: Your time is gone. It's time for America's player to come to grips that gambling with money that can be directed to training and improving one's game.. Is not very smart. If the action is the only reason to get you on a table... Then you are not the players we are looking to help, and promote.
Who is the we in the last sentence? Who are these helpers? Short Russ
Late to this party, but that was a wholly unsatisfying video.
In similar populations, given how Fargo is constructed, shouldn't we expect to see similar #s of people at each rating bracket? Conceivably, if one population plays wholly on 7ft tables and another wholly on 9 ft tables you could have the same number of, say, 720+ players, but the 720+ players in one population are better than the ones in the other (or, at least, better on 7ft in one case, and better on 9ft in the other). Since this is data driven, how do the populations compare when Minnesconsin players play Swedish players? And on which table type?
Secondly, comparing a thin segment of the strongest local players (10th best, 15th best, etc) doesn't quite tell the whole story because more serious players are more likely to have pursued instruction, engaged in dedicated practice, worked extensively on their fundamentals, and traveled and played more on 9ft tables, or even own one themselves. Some sort of comparison more towards the middle of the curve could have been interesting.
Thirdly, using "tournaments on 7ft tables" as a proxy for how much play people get on those tables vs 9ft is disingenuous. Most places in the US do tournaments solely on 7ft tables at the amateur level simply because that is the most common table. But many places also offer 9 ft tables. Anecdotally, most of my play is on 9ft tables, but 100% of my tournament play has been on 7ft tables. I know others who are similar. But amateur tournaments are 7ft almost exclusively due to availability. So ultimately, the underlying premise that these players primarily experience 7ft tables seems flawed (although, again, very believable at least as one goes down the skill level chart--but no data about those folks was ever presented).
Finally, despite the video seemingly trying to lead to the conclusion that there is no difference in the skill development between players who play largely on 7ft table and those that play largely on 9ft tables, it ends with the note that only 8 of the top 100 players are American, while 28 of them are European. Wouldn't it stand to reason that if playing primarily on 7ft tables stunts one's pool development then it would show up pretty radically in the tippy-top echelon of world-class pool? Particularly since the overwhelming majority of top pool is played on 9ft tables? The video seems to try to explain the discrepancy with the fact that the Swedish top players play each other 4X as often. Perhaps that is the cause, but at this point it seems as though we are randomly assigning causes to various effects. Like most of these videos, this one seems to be another exercise in data cherry-picking.
I'd be interested to know if there's an actual difference or not in players who develop on 7ft tables vs 9ft tables. Personally, I think there are differences (9ft players will be better at moving the cue ball around and making longer shots, 7ft players will be better at breakouts/navigating clusters and more finesse cue ball control) that would show most starkly in lower-ranked players who switch from their familiar medium to the other. I also think that from an individual perspective playing on harder equipment will help to develop one's skills better.
But what I "think" doesn't matter, as there's probably enough data in the FargoRate archives to at least give a good estimate of the answer. However, this video, and the methodologies employed, give me no confidence that any answer has been reached, or even that any methodologies employed by the folks in charge of that data would be appropriate to attempt a legitimate answer to the question.
In similar populations, given how Fargo is constructed, shouldn't we expect to see similar #s of people at each rating bracket? Conceivably, if one population plays wholly on 7ft tables and another wholly on 9 ft tables you could have the same number of, say, 720+ players, but the 720+ players in one population are better than the ones in the other (or, at least, better on 7ft in one case, and better on 9ft in the other). Since this is data driven, how do the populations compare when Minnesconsin players play Swedish players? And on which table type?
Secondly, comparing a thin segment of the strongest local players (10th best, 15th best, etc) doesn't quite tell the whole story because more serious players are more likely to have pursued instruction, engaged in dedicated practice, worked extensively on their fundamentals, and traveled and played more on 9ft tables, or even own one themselves. Some sort of comparison more towards the middle of the curve could have been interesting.
Thirdly, using "tournaments on 7ft tables" as a proxy for how much play people get on those tables vs 9ft is disingenuous. Most places in the US do tournaments solely on 7ft tables at the amateur level simply because that is the most common table. But many places also offer 9 ft tables. Anecdotally, most of my play is on 9ft tables, but 100% of my tournament play has been on 7ft tables. I know others who are similar. But amateur tournaments are 7ft almost exclusively due to availability. So ultimately, the underlying premise that these players primarily experience 7ft tables seems flawed (although, again, very believable at least as one goes down the skill level chart--but no data about those folks was ever presented).
Finally, despite the video seemingly trying to lead to the conclusion that there is no difference in the skill development between players who play largely on 7ft table and those that play largely on 9ft tables, it ends with the note that only 8 of the top 100 players are American, while 28 of them are European. Wouldn't it stand to reason that if playing primarily on 7ft tables stunts one's pool development then it would show up pretty radically in the tippy-top echelon of world-class pool? Particularly since the overwhelming majority of top pool is played on 9ft tables? The video seems to try to explain the discrepancy with the fact that the Swedish top players play each other 4X as often. Perhaps that is the cause, but at this point it seems as though we are randomly assigning causes to various effects. Like most of these videos, this one seems to be another exercise in data cherry-picking.
I'd be interested to know if there's an actual difference or not in players who develop on 7ft tables vs 9ft tables. Personally, I think there are differences (9ft players will be better at moving the cue ball around and making longer shots, 7ft players will be better at breakouts/navigating clusters and more finesse cue ball control) that would show most starkly in lower-ranked players who switch from their familiar medium to the other. I also think that from an individual perspective playing on harder equipment will help to develop one's skills better.
But what I "think" doesn't matter, as there's probably enough data in the FargoRate archives to at least give a good estimate of the answer. However, this video, and the methodologies employed, give me no confidence that any answer has been reached, or even that any methodologies employed by the folks in charge of that data would be appropriate to attempt a legitimate answer to the question.
I think no for two reasons. The first is it is a cultural thing how popular pool is as a casual social competition, and that has a big impact on the number of low-level players. The second is many lower and mid level players are invisible to FargoRate simple because we don't get the data for them. So looking at the number of RATED PLAYERS at each skill is not the same as the number of PLAYERS at each skill, and that's why we do comparisons of the top few percent where we roughly see everybody.
Conceivably, if one population plays wholly on 7ft tables and another wholly on 9 ft tables you could have the same number of, say, 720+ players, but the 720+ players in one population are better than the ones in the other (or, at least, better on 7ft in one case, and better on 9ft in the other). Since this is data driven, how do the populations compare when Minnesconsin players play Swedish players? And on which table type?
A 700 is 700 and 750 is 750. The Minesconsin players who enter the US Open and International Open and Turning Stone perform at their Fargo Rating. So do the Swedish players. This is something we have shown many times before.
We can all speculate that if you place ANY player on unfamiliar equipment, the player will underperform compared to their skill. That is a different issue that is not relevant here. The Minnesconsin players who travel to and enter those big table tournaments are all plenty experienced and familiar with 9-foot tables. As an interesting aside, we can't measure for an individual player the size of that "familiarity gap" in the early going because the FargoRate flashlight is powered by data. Imagine Ko Pin Yi popped into the US Midwest and entered some big bar table tournaments. In the first few weeks we can't measure his performance with any confidence to any better that plus or minus 50 points because we don't have enough data. For us to say with confidence that the number we have for "bar table performance" is right within say, 20 points, we need to see about 800 games for Ko on a bar table. The catch-22 is by the time we gather enough data to fuel our flashlight, the effect we are looking for is gone within the ability of our measurement.
As I see in your next few comments, you're interested in whether an individual player develops better playing on a 7-foot table or a 9-foot table. That's both not what we're interested in and not what we're in a position to measure.
Yes of course those top players practice and play plenty on 9-foot tables. We're interested in the system: how many players get engaged, stay engaged, and what is the net effect of the culling process that ends with a certain number of high level players who can compete at a national level.
[...] We're not actually making conclusions about individual player development. Our analysis is a systemic one.
Once again, I don't think we're in a position to weigh in on that.
People i've known for eons still spout the old ' you gotta bet your own cash to get better' line and it gets lamer by the year. Gambling is fine and will always exist but to say its the primary vehicle for pool to get better is ludicrous. Most 'old timers' as you call them that i'm around play FR stuff way more than 'action' pool these days.
Thanks, Mike. I appreciate the response.
Your video starts with comparing "9ft vs 7ft tables" and that it is self-evident that "7ft tables are holding back pool" but you don't actually spell out which aspect of that you are testing or evaluating. Spelling out that "[w]e're interested in the system: how many players get engaged, stay engaged, and what is the net effect of the culling process..." at the beginning would help focus the consumption of the video. However, it also sounds like a red herring because I've quite literally never heard anyone try to claim that 7ft tables somehow inhibit engagement. The only talk I've heard, and the one I responded to given that ambiguous introduction, was that 7ft tables inhibit development of players.
In fact, our viewpoints somewhat overlap with how you end your explanation: "...that ends with a certain number of high level players who can compete at a national level." Is that a question about engagement, or about skill development? I think if you look at the data to compare populations and have the same number of 700-level players, but a serious dearth in 800-level players on one side then there are a lot of possible explanations. One is that the lacking side doesn't develop skills quite as well. This video does not address that in any meaningful way.
To your point that you are not making conclusions about individual players but making a systemic analysis: measuring, if possible, the effects of playing on 7ft tables vs 9ft tables is a systemic analysis. What is the result of populations of players growing up and training on 7ft tables vs 9ft tables? You might not be in position to weigh in on that, but that is the interesting question, not some convoluted reframing of the question to one that no one ever asks.
here is an analogy.
Lets say 10 high schools have a swim team and also club swimming in the off season in which all the top swimmers participate
Another 10 high schools have a swim team but no off-season club opportunities.
I as a swimmer might wonder how important to my development is swimming in the off season. This is a question about individual development. I may use statistics and numbers for many swimmers to gain insight but ultimately my interest is the effect on development of individual swimmers. I can swim in the off season or I can run track and lift weights, for example. Does it matter?
I might note that 100 swimmers from the with-club high schools qualified for the state tournament in the last decade, and only 20 from the no-club high schools qualified for state. It seems reasonable for me to conclude swimming in the off season is important and beneficial. But hold on. The data doesn't say what I think it does because there is a type of survival bias baked in that is steering me wrong.
It turns out that off season is also the soccer season, and soccer is the sexy sport in this state--what the cool kids do. So the most athletic kids if given the opportunity to play soccer will have success and get siphoned off and play year-round soccer. And that's a big reason fewer kids qualify for state in the no-club schools.
Note that if you are the Swimming booster club or the recruiting coach at the local college, it's not merely the individual question that interests you. You're interested also in whether having the swim club leads to more top swimmers, regardless of the mechanism, and it does. This, with the population culling/survival baked is essentially the question we are able to answer.
But that's not necessarily true. In the analogy you gave, having the swim club is a reflection of, not a cause of, having the better swimmers (because the better athletes did not change to another sport). That example demonstrates correlation, not necessarily causation, and doesn't really answer anything about underlying reasons. The recruiting coach would judge each swimmer on their individual merits anyways (hopefully) and the HS administrator trying to determine if having this off-season club would improve their swimming team results would still be left unsure.
You've laid out your critique really well. I think FargoRate has enough data to prove that bar table competition can sort out the players very similarly to how big table pool can. What it can't do is -- know that players that compete on bar tables also exclusively practice on them. So he's only capturing competition data. Sounds obvious, but I think this is being overlooked or ignored. Mike is clearly being dismissive of the idea that bar table pool is holding back U.S. pool, or more specifically U.S. Professional level pool, but I'm not so sure this video defends this attitude.