People are funny. Everyone sandbags until the rating system makes more sense. Now that a system is here that makes sense, the egos explode!
I’m overrated.
Post your fargorate;
- Thread starter mvp
- Start date
People are funny. Everyone sandbags until the rating system makes more sense. Now that a system is here that makes sense, the egos explode!
I’m overrated.
Another 200 racks and you'll be established until then....nothing. Your rating is put out there by the guy submitting your data. It's his guess at this point. Huge difference between 600 and 650. Same thing for 550 to 600. 600 pretty much marks the starting point for an "A" player.
I find this pretty accurate.
https://billiarduniversity.org/documents/BU_Rating_Comparisons.pdf
I don't know where I stand know. I just got back to playing after years of not playing. I was somewhere at a high C to low B player I believe only due to the people I would play (APA 6 and 7s 8 Ball and 7 - 9s 9 Ball). But that doesn't' mean much.
Hope Fargorate comes local as I get my old game back. Then To Infinity And Beyond...
Hope Fargorate comes local as I get my old game back. Then To Infinity And Beyond...
626 Preliminary
Starter Rating 576
Robustness 166
Starter Rating 576
Robustness 166
I have teetered between a 525 and 549 depending on how much I am playing. Right now I am a 528 which I would say is spot on to how I am playing. I'm considered a B- to a B by my peers so the rating sounds right to me.
In over 20 years of league play I would have to say this is the best, most accurate rating system I have ever seen.
In over 20 years of league play I would have to say this is the best, most accurate rating system I have ever seen.
I have about 30 games in the system so it's to early to tell. Fargorate is based on tournament play so it takes several games to get a accurate rating. Everybody has good and bad performances in tournaments. For me it's the setting for 2hrs between sets, it's hard to get up and be in dead stroke.
Does the starter rate change?
I have 0 robustness and a starter rate of 525. I looked it up a couple years ago and thought I had a higher rating.
Idk, don't have any matches that have affected my score so the rating is pretty meaningless to me.
I have 0 robustness and a starter rate of 525. I looked it up a couple years ago and thought I had a higher rating.
Idk, don't have any matches that have affected my score so the rating is pretty meaningless to me.
I have an evil rating of 666. My robustness is 1918 so I'm guessing that rating is pretty accurate.
Who ever thought of robustness? Why don't they call it games played?
Who ever thought of robustness? Why don't they call it games played?
Starter rating 400 - Robustness 39 (not sure why it's not 40 as I've played 40 games in league?) - Current 448.
Actually, Fargo rate is based on any game(s) that are recorded and entered into the system. My rate is strictly based on league at this point.
Actually, Fargo rate is based on any game(s) that are recorded and entered into the system. My rate is strictly based on league at this point.
JC
Coos Cues
I haven't found access to the data to prove this but in our western BCA we had about 1100 players enter the 8 ball singles event last year. Less than 100 had a fargo greater than 600.
So I concluded if you have an established fargo of 600 you're probably in the 90th percentile or slightly higher of all the people running around with a case full of cues and a love for the game.
Nothing to sneeze at and your mileage may vary.
Pool is not an easy game.
JC
735 currently. My high water mark was 743 a year ago and it's edged down since then. It might continue to drop as this still seems pretty high, but it's probably not off that much.
One thing I've learned is that there is a lot of range in my actual performance. Some matches I might turn in a 600 performance, others I might turn in an 800. I think elite players are very consistent but when you look at anyone under 770 or so there seems to be a huge gap between their good and bad days. I definitely feel it. So I've learned to take this rating with a grain of salt. It doesn't matter what the number says, if I hook myself or dog a ball I will lose!
One thing I've learned is that there is a lot of range in my actual performance. Some matches I might turn in a 600 performance, others I might turn in an 800. I think elite players are very consistent but when you look at anyone under 770 or so there seems to be a huge gap between their good and bad days. I definitely feel it. So I've learned to take this rating with a grain of salt. It doesn't matter what the number says, if I hook myself or dog a ball I will lose!
You are entirely correct about this. I had forgot a league play but I've never played in a league in my life. IMO league play is kind of like a mini tournament so basically the same concept but I could be wrong (I usually am)
You do realize that you are in the top 100 in the USA. #100 is a 709. Shane is #1 at 821.
743 you and John Schmidt play even.
consistency
Thanks Mike. Interesting video.
I understand that top players have the same range of performance. I think that what creates the illusion of consistency is that they simply have a higher level bad game. When SVB's bad performance is still ranked in the 730-750 range and at times he performs at nearly a 900 FR level, well, that is pretty impressive. That means if you played him a lot of sets he'd quite often play near flawlessly, and even on that rare 'bad' set he'd still play championship level pool.
Meanwhile players that are < 770 can often play championship level pool, but can at any time turn in sets that are mediocre at best.
Pool is a tough game!
Thanks Mike. Interesting video.
I understand that top players have the same range of performance. I think that what creates the illusion of consistency is that they simply have a higher level bad game. When SVB's bad performance is still ranked in the 730-750 range and at times he performs at nearly a 900 FR level, well, that is pretty impressive. That means if you played him a lot of sets he'd quite often play near flawlessly, and even on that rare 'bad' set he'd still play championship level pool.
Meanwhile players that are < 770 can often play championship level pool, but can at any time turn in sets that are mediocre at best.
Pool is a tough game!
Fr
Yes, I'm proud of some of the results I've achieved and being rated where I am (which is 735 currently, not 743). But in no way would I match up with JS! Maybe my overall skill level and win rate against other players compares with his on paper, but there are differences that FR might not measure. JS is much more likely to deliver the top of his range in big pressure sets due to his confidence and track record. And should we ever play straight pool he clearly has a monstrous edge that isn't reflected due to the lack of competitive straight pool data. Finally, JS has been semi-retired from the pro pool scene for years which clearly impacts his rating. If he were to compete full time again I have no doubt his FR would be in the 770+ range.
Yes, I'm proud of some of the results I've achieved and being rated where I am (which is 735 currently, not 743). But in no way would I match up with JS! Maybe my overall skill level and win rate against other players compares with his on paper, but there are differences that FR might not measure. JS is much more likely to deliver the top of his range in big pressure sets due to his confidence and track record. And should we ever play straight pool he clearly has a monstrous edge that isn't reflected due to the lack of competitive straight pool data. Finally, JS has been semi-retired from the pro pool scene for years which clearly impacts his rating. If he were to compete full time again I have no doubt his FR would be in the 770+ range.
Last edited: