Recent Facebook banter regarding fargo

[Jerry R]

Admittedly I mostly skimmed this thread so sorry if I get off base, but I'll just make a few comments.

1. You really can't handicap pool. Maybe in a long race you can get close, but it's silly to think you can handicap something that doesn't have equal opportunities for all players.
Imagine bowling where every time your opponent throws a strike or gets a spare before you, you get a 0 for your score in that frame.
In golf no matter what the other guy does, you still get to hit your ball.

2. If you try to handicap pool and actually went with an aggressive enough "game spot" to even up a match between a 450 and a 700 Fargo, the 700 would not play in the tournament, and oddly enough, it'd be for the same reason the 450 won't play in an open event. They wouldn't think they'd have a chance. Fargo says with a 450 going to three games and a 700 going to 13 games the 700 is still 60% odds to win. How many of these "non-pro" 700 Fargo's would sign up for that event? (Would we tell them to "take their skirt off"?)

3. Capped events tend to work better than handicapped because as noted earlier by many people, handicaps don't really work. The guy who needs 2 or 3 innings to get out will rarely beat the guy who needs 1 or 2 innings no matter how many games they get. But if you cap it so everyone in your bracket needs 2 or 3 innings, then everyone feels they have a chance.

I think the closest anyone came to a true handicap for pool was that very short-lived thing Sigel was involved with where they gave lower skill players ball in hand in the middle of their turn. The theory was that with that system "anyone can run a table". But that still didn't solve the lack of opportunity for the player sitting in their chair. It seemed like it was going pretty well, but I believe the Covid shut down killed it, but I could be off on that timeline.
The other solution I thought was interesting was that "placement pool" deal that Earl used to talk about. Take the randomness of the break away and give every player the same layouts using a projector and score them on how many shots it takes to pocket the balls. Possibly with the lower cost of electronics this could still happen. I'm not saying it's the answer, but it is one of those things I would like to see play out. At lease with the "equal opportunity" format you could develop a golf like handicap and run it as an open event.

 

[nine_ball6970]

I follow a lot of the split bracket tourneys and the 760+ players tend to avoid them minus Rob Saez. Roland IIRC won one of the JOB's tourneys but Bergman played last month and I don't think he won (both go to 13, a 600 fargo would go to like 5, 630 6, etc). These tourneys tend to be won by the low side as much or more than the high side which would go against common sense especially when there could be over 6 figures to play for that should aid the pro not the other way around!

The calcuttas can last for 2 - 3 hours alone and the tourney will be all day sat and LATE into sun which the length you'd assume would benefit the better more seasoned players but you'd be surprised! Indy has several smaller 100ish player split bracket tourneys and Beckley got 3rd or 4th in the last one and he ran a 5 or 6 pack on a Diamond bar table right before the final 4! A guy from the low side manipulated his Fargo because he had 2 names in the system like a 515 and a 540 and he split nearly $6000 for 1st/2nd.

Lots of the lower players are underrated and they dont use fargos for calculating ratings normally. This favors the lower players which leads to huge calcuttas. Known pros are never going to have a rating which is lower than their actual skill. They have to bring their A game every match and that still may not be good enough to win.

 

[BasementDweller]

My only remaining FR question is about player variability. My intuition tells me that the better the player, the closer they'll be to playing at their rating. I'm thinking the lesser player will play over a much wider range. Here I guess, we would have to couple FR and TPA. My problem or question is -- when a 700 plays a 550 and the handicap is close to 50/50, if the 550 plays like a 650 the 700 has zero chance to win. This scenario seems more likely than a 700 magically playing like an 800. Now I'm not talking about their performance rating, which can be extrapolated after the fact by looking at the scores. I'm talking about what actually happens on the table during the match.

When the lesser player plays over their rating, the better player can be justified in feeling like they never had a chance. When this happens enough times, the better players give up. This happened all the time in 9 ball tourneys that used ball handicaps and I'm not sure it won't eventually happen to FR tourneys.

Just sort of thinking out loud here about player variability...

 

[maha]

you have to look at the past tournament winners and how often or well they do compared to lower ranked ones.

if lower ranked players in handicapped tournaments are not close in the results then the system is not fair. and anything that isn't fair cannot last over the long run.

some mentioned the other sports. and that is okay, as in most all the other sports, basically the same players or teams don't win or come in the top few every time like pool or chess. so neither has a following from the public.
if they did as those two the sport would die. as your favorites would always fail and so you would lose interest.

 

[maha]

it is easy to handicap pool it doesn't happen though as the good players want to win all the time and the sport doesn't want to upset them.
it happens every day in the pool room.

weaker players need lots more games on the wire to even make it a contest..

or better yet use a system that sees how often they can run to what ball. and compare that to how often the better player often runs to the nine,
and give that ball as the spot. or something similar that works out better. according to each players chances.
basically it gives every weaker player a real chance to run out to win even if its to the three or four ball.

you could have it where both players win on the nine and one may win on the four ball and one one the say seven. might even make the game more fun to watch. although more complicated.

 

[mikepage]

you have to look at the past tournament winners and how often or well they do compared to lower ranked ones.

if lower ranked players in handicapped tournaments are not close in the results then the system is not fair. and anything that isn't fair cannot last over the long run.

We've done those types of comparisons for long running handicapped tournaments, and the results are as we expect them to be.

Here are the 160 entrants in the "Fairmatch" singles event at BCAPL in Vegas this year. Average rating 492 with a large spread. Matches depend on rating difference and are one of 5-5, 5-4, 6-4, 6-3, 7-3, and 8-3.

I've highlighted the top 32 finishers (all in the $$) and indicated the finish place. These come about one third from players with below average rating and two thirds from players with above average rating.

At first blush, that looks perhaps a little more lopsided toward stronger players than you might expect for "fair" matches where fair means close to 50%/50% expected.

But there are two forces of note at work.

(1) Matchups like 5-5, 5-4, 6-4, 6-3, 7-3 (0, 1, 2, 3, and 4 game spots) don't smoothly blend into one another. You can't give a 2.3 game spot; it's either 2 or 3. So in your effort to make the match close to 50%/50% somebody is going to get an edge when you are forced to lock into one of these matchups. We choose to ALWAYS assign any residual edge to the higher-rated player. That means even these ostensibly 50%/50% matches are in actuality more like on average 55%/45% in favor of the higher rated player. That doesn't sound like such a big difference. But if you look over multiple matches it is bigger. A 55% favorite has twice the chance of winning the next 3-4 matches as does a 45% person

(2) The most lopsided match allowed here, 8-3, is not nearly lopsided enough to get close to 50%/50% when the rating difference is large. A 330-rated player, for instance is at 25% or less chance of winning a match against anybody in the top quarter of the field.

 

[maha]

great mike. thats pretty good.
a 55% chance favorite is to be expected but not for him every match. then as you said its too lopsided over the longer run.
a truly fair result would be for the guy who get the 45% chance to also get some matches where he has a 55% chance of winning.

but in all things, getting it perfectly fair is impossible unless a huge sample size and precise figures for each.
you do a great job and understand expectations as few do that make decisions.

but if you had some way for the super low rated players to win at least some reasonable amount of matches then you keep them from be discouraged.
thanks for coming on here and responding.

 

[maha]

i would like to see some king of rating system where it relates to a persons chances of say running out.

then a spot could be where he could go to a lower numbered ball for the win, so trying to run from the break or from opponents early miss wouldn't be useless

that's why in the pool room as you know, almost all spots are a lower ball or more for the weaker player. most times it isn't enough for him, but that is because it is decided by the spotter.

i like rotate breaks as then the weak player gets to shoot every other game even if getting slaughtered. and then he does get shots after his break rather than only being hooked when he gets to the table.

winner breaks is fair in close or equal match ups. but not quite so for unbalanced ones.

 

[fuggles]

(1) Matchups like 5-5, 5-4, 6-4, 6-3, 7-3 (0, 1, 2, 3, and 4 game spots) don't smoothly blend into one another. You can't give a 2.3 game spot; it's either 2 or 3. So in your effort to make the match close to 50%/50% somebody is going to get an edge when you are forced to lock into one of these matchups. We choose to ALWAYS assign any residual edge to the higher-rated player. That means even these ostensibly 50%/50% matches are in actuality more like on average 55%/45% in favor of the higher rated player. That doesn't sound like such a big difference. But if you look over multiple matches it is bigger. A 55% favorite has twice the chance of winning the next 3-4 matches as does a 45% person

Highlighted is why I prefer "hot" race matchups. Give the edge to the lower rated player.

 

[iusedtoberich]

Highlighted is why I prefer "hot" race matchups. Give the edge to the lower rated player.

I only read your post, might have been covered earlier...

"Hot" also give the edge to the stronger player, never the lower.

If any high rated players see a "mild" or "medium" handicap, they should be running to sign up for those.

 

[trob]

I can tell you in the amateur levels there is a lot of sandbagging going on. In this area if you get above a 650 you’ll struggle to find any tournaments that allow you to play in them so your stuck in a no mans land. The few tournaments you can play in your not good enough to win and the tournaments you have a chance to win they won’t let you play in so you have no choice if you want to play. I see more sandbagging in league I play in on Sundays where it’s all based on Fargo then I ever see in apa because there is no one to watch it or cares.

Yeah right, absolutely, got it. So college football players should take their skirts off a play in the NFL, same with minor league baseball and college, right? They should be playing in the majors too. I always thought it was a sham that golfers needed to tour card to play professionally. When is Augusta anyhoo, I have not picked up my clubs in 20 years and have only played about 15 rounds in my life but I think I have a shot at the green jacket.

I’m not against handicap leagues but your comparison isn’t even close to being the same lol

 

[Cicerone88]

I can tell you in the amateur levels there is a lot of sandbagging going on. In this area if you get above a 650 you’ll struggle to find any tournaments that allow you to play in them so your stuck in a no mans land. The few tournaments you can play in your not good enough to win and the tournaments you have a chance to win they won’t let you play in so you have no choice if you want to play. I see more sandbagging in league I play in on Sundays where it’s all based on Fargo then I ever see in apa because there is no one to watch it or cares.

I’m not against handicap leagues but your comparison isn’t even close to being the same lol

I fall into this category. My desire to practice is completely dependent on my ability to compete. Unfortunately in my area i’m lucky if a tournament comes around once every 2-3 months I can play in. It’s just not enough to light a fire in me to go practice at my pool hall multiple times a week to only compete 4-6 times a year.

Back when it was open and handicapped you could compete in a tournament just about every weekend.

 

[u12armresl]

I fall into this category. My desire to practice is completely dependent on my ability to compete. Unfortunately in my area i’m lucky if a tournament comes around once every 2-3 months I can play in. It’s just not enough to light a fire in me to go practice at my pool hall multiple times a week to only compete 4-6 times a year.

Back when it was open and handicapped you could compete in a tournament just about every weekend.

Wondering if the people in your boat, and there seems to be a lot of them, have ever thought about switching hands.

Not to totally start over, but I grew up around 2 people who were probably 650-700 speed with BOTH hands and that is what they did.

 

[Cicerone88]

Wondering if the people in your boat, and there seems to be a lot of them, have ever thought about switching hands.

Not to totally start over, but I grew up around 2 people who were probably 650-700 speed with BOTH hands and that is what they did.

I doubt Fargo would reset my rating because I emailed and pinky swore i’m going to switch hands from now on lol Not to mention the giant pain in the ass it would be for tournament directors. John Morra switched hands -nobody was letting him play in a <600 tournament.

The other option would be to play opposite hand and let my fargo naturally drop under 600. The problem with that is if you have enough robustness and only 6 events a year, it would take years and hundreds (if not thousands) of dollars of wasted entry fees, travel fees, etc to drop it down below 600.

 

[Sheldon]

Without handicapping, pool would be nowhere in America. The APA, and other league operators like it, are the reason so many compete at pool in this country. With handicapping, most will feel that they have a shot to win and that keeps them coming back.
The idea that lesser pool players should "man up" and start playing stronger players even up is ridiculous. At golf, should the 6-handicapper have to play even against the scratch player? In golf or pool, no handicapping system is perfect, but it sets the stage for players of all levels to have a competitive match when competing against each other, and it greatly stimulates interest in the game.
Yes, it's true that the strong amateurs (perhaps Fargo 650 to 730) are, too often, left without sufficient opportunity to compete in events that give them a chance to cash, and something needs to be done about that, but eliminating the use of handicaps is not the solution.

This was perfectly stated, and straight to the heart of the matter. I wish there was an easy solution to the stronger players losing opportunity, but it's a complex problem that wont go away any time soon.
Eliminating handicaps would kill pool in a lot of places.

 

[u12armresl]

I doubt Fargo would reset my rating because I emailed and pinky swore i’m going to switch hands from now on lol Not to mention the giant pain in the ass it would be for tournament directors. John Morra switched hands -nobody was letting him play in a <600 tournament.

The other option would be to play opposite hand and let my fargo naturally drop under 600. The problem with that is if you have enough robustness and only 6 events a year, it would take years and hundreds (if not thousands) of dollars of wasted entry fees, travel fees, etc to drop it down below 600.

I was just stating what others had done. They viewed it as a journey and in the end not ever having to use a crutch was of great help. Even if you go to 450 speed with your other hand, what an accomplishment.

 

[Cicerone88]

I was just stating what others had done. They viewed it as a journey and in the end not ever having to use a crutch was of great help. Even if you go to 450 speed with your other hand, what an accomplishment.

I hear you. Not many, including myself, are willing to sacrifice years and finances just to go backwards. I understand open handicapped events aren’t perfect, but i think it’s a lot better than knee capping the 600+.

My game improved competing with everyone. It exposed my weaknesses. I don’t think insulating yourself in fargo capped events helps your game. Unfortunately the reality is most players aren’t actively trying to improve - it’s a fun Saturday with the perception that they have a better chance of making the money. Nothing wrong with that, they should still exist. But it’s the sheer amount of capped events taking over that’s demoralizing to the player whos trying to push their game further.