Questions for Mike with FargoRate

[David in FL]

That’s absolutely bonkers you think that.

Just shows how many people know absolutely nothing about pool.

There’s a reason why Anton Raga finished 35-58 at the Derby 9 ball…because he’d never played on a Diamond before.

Conditions matter. Specialists are real. Fargo rating can’t account for this because it’s CHOSEN not to.

It would be unbelievably simple to have a combined rating and a rating broken out by game and table size.

FargoRate is lazy and arrogant with their current position in the game. Instead of innovating and working with its fans and members…they tell us to sit in the corner and shut up.

We're not talking about one player who plays exclusively on a bar Valley with 5 inch pockets and no shelf having to play against someone on their own Diamond with 4 1/4 inch pockets.

We're talking about moving from a 7 foot table to a 9 foot table with the size of the table being the only difference.

Yes, some people play a bit better on one or the other, for any number of reasons. But the extent of that difference is much smaller and much less prevalent than you seem to think For people with similar ratings.

Having said that, convince me otherwise. With documentation showing real, verifiable data. Not just your own personal opinion that has no basis beyond that's the way you "feel" because you know more about pool than everyone else.

 

[SEB]

We're not talking about one player who plays exclusively on a bar Valley with 5 inch pockets and no shelf having to play against someone on their own Diamond with 4 1/4 inch pockets.

We're talking about moving from a 7 foot table to a 9 foot table with the size of the table being the only difference.

Yes, some people play a bit better on one or the other, for any number of reasons. But the extent of that difference is much smaller and much less prevalent than you seem to think For people with similar ratings.

Having said that, convince me otherwise. With documentation showing real, verifiable data. Not just your own personal opinion that has no basis beyond that's the way you "feel" because you know more about pool than everyone else.

Everyone knows that when pros play a barbox tournament they are FAR more susceptible to an upset. That should be proof enough to sustain my point.

If Mike Page opened up his data, we’d have real verifiable data to prove my point.

 

[easy-e]

Whoever was a 644 there must have pissed off a bunch of people LOL

I've said before that players that are too good for the majority of locals to want to play with are in a bad area. No one wants them to destroy the average players and discourage them, but they are not good enough to cash in the open events where the 750+ players play. That's where the handicapping tends to save tournaments.

Handicapping is definitely necessary to keep people interested, the capping is what drives people nuts.

 

[David in FL]

Everyone knows that when pros play a barbox tournament they are FAR more susceptible to an upset. That should be proof enough to sustain my point.

If Mike Page opened up his data, we’d have real verifiable data to prove my point.

As far as I know, the data isn't collected by Fargo.

Regardless though, you're relying on your "gut feeling". What "everyone knows".

In my experience that perception isn't always particularly accurate.

Nor is comparing an extremely small subset of the worlds absolutely best players to the rest of us schlubs, even if there was some factual basis for it.

 

[garczar]

We're not talking about one player who plays exclusively on a bar Valley with 5 inch pockets and no shelf having to play against someone on their own Diamond with 4 1/4 inch pockets.

We're talking about moving from a 7 foot table to a 9 foot table with the size of the table being the only difference.

Yes, some people play a bit better on one or the other, for any number of reasons. But the extent of that difference is much smaller and much less prevalent than you seem to think For people with similar ratings.

Having said that, convince me otherwise. With documentation showing real, verifiable data. Not just your own personal opinion that has no basis beyond that's the way you "feel" because you know more about pool than everyone else.

To say that Raga finished bad at Derby because of not knowing the Diamond table is ludicrous. He plays on crummy tables in horrible conditions everyday back home. Playing on a new D'mond with fresh cloth would be like paradise. Matches he lost weren't because of the table. I watched the Raga-Labutis match and he just flat got beat by a guy in stroke. Same for the Oi match.

 

[BasementDweller]

Better practice that lag, bring a comfy chair, and say your goodbyes. Pros miss one or two balls a set on the big table, on a bar box... they might never miss.

I've beaten 750+ players on the bar table as I can play a perfect set on one. I think the key on the bar table is to increase the variance with the break, like playing with crappy balls, or a crappy rack. Hoping they get dry breaks or unrunnable tables while you get lucky on yours.

I'm not really saying anything new, just reiterating that not all data is created equal. Some of us understand this.

 

[BasementDweller]

As far as I know, the data isn't collected by Fargo.

Regardless though, you're relying on your "gut feeling". What "everyone knows".

In my experience that perception isn't always particularly accurate.

Nor is comparing an extremely small subset of the worlds absolutely best players to the rest of us schlubs, even if there was some factual basis for it.

I know Mike has covered this several times before and I also think it's worthwhile to lump all the data together and just have one rating, so I wouldn't argue otherwise like SEB may be here.

However, think about it the other way too. Do you think top players are all confused about their intuitive take on the game, when almost all of them would rather play a high-stakes match on a big table versus a bar table?

Guess my take isn't even necessarily about the data being wrong in any real sense, but just understanding that you can be savy with your usage of Fargo Ratings.

 

[BasementDweller]

Sorry for derailing Tin Man's thread. Hopefully, he's already gotten out of it what he was looking for.

Here's an example:
You have a regional 8 ball race to 5 barbox tourney and Dennis Orcullo shows up. Other than him, the field has 20 guys in it around the 700 level and all the others are over 600.

You paying the same amount for him in the calcutta as you would if it was a 10 ball race to 5 on Diamond 9 footers?

If your answer is no then congrats on not being a degenerate gambler and/or understanding the difference between the two games.

 

[skip100]

BTW despite my busting his balls here Mike is the best. FargoRate is an amazing product that has changed pool forever, for the better.

 

[Gatz]

If I played SVB 50 matches in a race to 5 or 7 on a bartable I know I could win a set or two. I would probably lose every set on a 9ft lol. Bartable definitely equals out the skill.

 

[DeadStick]

Sorry for derailing Tin Man's thread. Hopefully, he's already gotten out of it what he was looking for.

Here's an example:
You have a regional 8 ball race to 5 barbox tourney and Dennis Orcullo shows up. Other than him, the field has 20 guys in it around the 700 level and all the others are over 600.

You paying the same amount for him in the calcutta as you would if it was a 10 ball race to 5 on Diamond 9 footers?

If your answer is no then congrats on not being a degenerate gambler and/or understanding the difference between the two games.

I’m still emptying my wallet on him. He’s an 826 playing a group of guys less than half his speed. Not saying he’ll win for sure, and maybe I’m a bit of a degenerate, but still.

Plus I got drunk with him in Vegas several years back and there are few guys I’d rather sweat.

 

[The_JV]

Back to the point of the thread...

I'll also echo the request to discover if there's any plans to improve the stale mobile app.

• I'd love to see data point values on the line graph. Otherwise, what's the point.
• Match history entries stamped with player ratings. Nice to know what a player's rating was at the moment of the match.

 

[mikepage]

The subtlety people miss is contained here.

If I played SVB 50 matches in a race to 5 or 7 on a bartable I know I could win a set or two. I would probably lose every set on a 9ft lol.

Yes, agreed. And yes Dennis should go for less in the Calcutta on the easier tables.

Bartable definitely equals out the skill.

No, it doesn't. Dennis is still 126 points above those 700s on the bar table. He still wins more than 2 games for every one the 700s win. And the average score after many races to 7 will be about 7 to 3 on either table. Nothing is "equalizing" here. The difference is on the easier tables there are more table runs, more games that don't access a difference in skill because they don't have a skill-based inning change. The result of this is more VARIANCE. You will lose 7-0 more often on the easier table and you also will win a set occasionally.

To get some intuition on this, think of a 400 playing a 300 many races to 40 in straight pool. The 400 will win all of them, and the 300 won't be all that far from 20 in the individual games and will average 20

If a 750 plays a 650 many races to 40 in straight pool, the average score will still be 40 to 20. But some will be 40 to 0 and some will be won by the 650. There are far fewer skill-based changes in control when the players can run balls (or racks). That makes it act statistically like a shorter race.

 

[Willowbrook Wolfy]

I don’t know after reading all these comments here. With a ball made on the break I’m 20% to break and run a 9 ball rack on a 9 footer, but only 10-15% on a bb. Has to do partially with getting a shot on the 1 and partially because I need to work on my bb break. I tend to cluster balls on the bb cause I break the same speed on both. So sometimes the bar box is worse for players. I play by myself with the 3 ball rule in mind. So a lot of times on barbox will have 5 past headstring in a nasty clutter

8 ball same B&R percentage on both. More balls to choose from off the break.

And actually after watching the ladies 9 ball tour a couple weeks ago the 3 ball rule makes more sense to me. They barely satisfied the 3 point rule and their tables looked way easier off the break.

 

[nicksaint26]

I don’t know after reading all these comments here. With a ball made on the break I’m 20% to break and run a 9 ball rack on a 9 footer, but only 10-15% on a bb. Has to do partially with getting a shot on the 1 and partially because I need to work on my bb break. I tend to cluster balls on the bb cause I break the same speed on both. So sometimes the bar box is worse for players. I play by myself with the 3 ball rule in mind. So a lot of times on barbox will have 5 past headstring in a nasty clutter

8 ball same B&R percentage on both. More balls to choose from off the break.

And actually after watching the ladies 9 ball tour a couple weeks ago the 3 ball rule makes more sense to me. They barely satisfied the 3 point rule and their tables looked way easier off the break.

A 475 Fargo that runs out 20% of his racks on a 9 footer when he makes a ball on the break LOL. I will be looking out for you to rob all the big 550 and under tournaments this year. Shit with that runout percentage maybe even the 650 and under tournaments too. Good luck brother!

 

[Willowbrook Wolfy]

A 475 Fargo that runs out 20% of his racks on a 9 footer when he makes a ball on the break LOL. I will be looking out for you to rob all the big 550 and under tournaments this year. Shit with that runout percentage maybe even the 650 and under tournaments too. Good luck brother!

I just placed 4th in a tournament the other day. Beat a 600 a 580 and should’ve beat the 610 I played in the last match. Figures was a tournament that doesn’t get reported to fargorate

 

[Willowbrook Wolfy]

A 475 Fargo that runs out 20% of his racks on a 9 footer when he makes a ball on the break LOL. I will be looking out for you to rob all the big 550 and under tournaments this year. Shit with that runout percentage maybe even the 650 and under tournaments too. Good luck brother!

For the record I usually beat the 520’s to 580’s I play. I tend to lose to the sub 500’s and the 620’s to 650’s. There is one guy I always pull in tournaments that’s my kryptonite though. He’s a 650. I’m 4-28 against him in tournament play. Played a $500 set with him to 30 he won 30-20. It was tied up at 15-15 before I drank too much and everything went to shit. If you don’t believe me I’ll send you the link to our match. That’s where my Fargo should be at least 550-600. Don’t know why, but I always lose to that f’er in the tournaments.

I could understand you doubting I am a 700. I’d be skeptical myself. I just don’t understand why anybody would question me being a 600. That’s an average player in my book. I’m just saying I’m an avg player. But I do have a big gear since I used to be around a 650 20 years ago and it comes back out occasionally. Guess our definitions of avg are different

 

[nicksaint26]

For the record I usually beat the 520’s to 580’s I play. I tend to lose to the sub 500’s and the 620’s to 650’s. There is one guy I always pull in tournaments that’s my kryptonite though. He’s a 650. I’m 4-28 against him in tournament play. Played a $500 set with him to 30 he won 30-20. It was tied up at 15-15 before I drank too much and everything went to shit. If you don’t believe me I’ll send you the link to our match. That’s where my Fargo should be at least 550-600. Don’t know why, but I always lose to that f’er in the tournaments.

I could understand you doubting I am a 700. I’d be skeptical myself. I just don’t understand why anybody would question me being a 600. That’s an average player in my book. I’m just saying I’m an avg player. But I do have a big gear. Guess our definitions of avg are different

500 is an average player 600 is an A player. And the reason I doubt your claims is you said Fargo has you at 475. People tend to overrate their game remembering themselves at their highest speed. Again I’ll trust Fargo over any individuals self claimed rating. No offense though just play in them high entry tournaments and prove me wrong.

 

[BasementDweller]

The subtlety people miss is contained here.


Yes, agreed. And yes Dennis should go for less in the Calcutta on the easier tables.

No, it doesn't. Dennis is still 126 points above those 700s on the bar table. He still wins more than 2 games for every one the 700s win. And the average score after many races to 7 will be about 7 to 3 on either table. Nothing is "equalizing" here. The difference is on the easier tables there are more table runs, more games that don't access a difference in skill because they don't have a skill-based inning change. The result of this is more VARIANCE. You will lose 7-0 more often on the easier table and you also will win a set occasionally.

To get some intuition on this, think of a 400 playing a 300 many races to 40 in straight pool. The 400 will win all of them, and the 300 won't be all that far from 20 in the individual games and will average 20

If a 750 plays a 650 many races to 40 in straight pool, the average score will still be 40 to 20. But some will be 40 to 0 and some will be won by the 650. There are far fewer skill-based changes in control when the players can run balls (or racks). That makes it act statistically like a shorter race.

Contrary to popular belief, I think I have a pretty good grasp of Fargo Rate and I defend it waaaay more often than I question it. My questions are only about what's lurking in the margins anyway.

I mean what are the odds that there's a universal constant at play in the pool world, a formula deeply embedded in the universe itself, where no matter the game or the table, the values will always equal out? It's quite hard to believe. That's why there are those of us that would actually have to have access to the data to believe it. There has to be a point at which this falls apart, and that's where I go to "mastery". Mastery would be like solving the Rubik's Cube. Once you reach the point of mastery in a game, it gets more difficult to distinguish between the players. Is that arguable?

So do pool games have different mastery points? They have to and this has to affect the ratings.

To be extreme, what would happen if Fargo Rate started including data from 3 ball tournaments? Can that game be solved? I think it can. So if you had 3 ball specialists with Fargo Ratings and they invited SVB to play with them, once coupled they would have nearly max Fargo's. I believe that this mastery difference between the games has to have an affect on the ratings. Template rack, 1 on the spot, bar-table 9 ball would spit out much different data than Matchroom's version of 9 ball, even if played by the same group of players. One of those games can approach mastery at a much lower overall skill level than the other. I guess the argument is our current games don't have mastery levels that are so extreme from each other that it disturbs the data. But you would think there would be some difference. Or the other argument is -- as long as the 3 ball specialists have a player among them that sneaks off and plays at Turning Stone -- then all of their data would get validated. But it really wouldn't because you could have the least skilled 3 ball specialist playing at Turning Stone and dragging them all down.

I could be wrong or I could be right. I suspect I'm not totally off base, especially since Fargo Rate is even including one-pocket now.

Long live Fargo Rate.

 

[iusedtoberich]

500 is an average player 600 is an A player. And the reason I doubt your claims is you said Fargo has you at 475. People tend to overrate their game remembering themselves at their highest speed. Again I’ll trust Fargo over any individuals self claimed rating. No offense though just play in them high entry tournaments and prove me wrong.

600 is no A, that's for sure! The old way 600 is a B. 670 is about where an A starts. 720 is Open.

That's all moot now as FargoRate has taken over and is consistent.