Seeing FARGORATE stuff makes me wonder

[nine_ball6970]

I think your issue has EVERYTHING to do with her gender. If Siming Chen was a man, there is no way you would be saying this.

If Siming Chen was a man, it is doubtful we would even be having this conversation. Then she would be rated by competing against the top men in the world and we would be able to see results vs those players in tournaments.

As is she does beat the top women in the world but are there any results against 790+ men?

People want to see how she will do vs players Fargo sees as being her equal.

 

[hang-the-9]

"Could" win, maybe. Has a real chance to win, probably not. Even the most severe handicap selection of the fair-match system deliberately favours the stronger player. So my money is still on Shane, Alex, Dennis etc.

A 500 playing an 800 only has to win like 2 or 3 games to 10. A low B or B player should be able to get 2 or 3 games in a race to 10 if they have their head on right and get a few rolls. I'm a 550 an I've had 2 packs in 9 ball and 8 ball quite often. Just one of those is just about enough to beat a pro using Fargo handicapping.

 

[sbpoolleague]

I don't know what your deal is, but I can tell by your fondness of the capslock button that it's not worth exploring.

I have to deal with a lot of racist and sexist assholes in my league. So nothing is new with you.

 

[hang-the-9]

If Siming Chen was a man, it is doubtful we would even be having this conversation. Then she would be rated by competing against the top men in the world and we would be able to see results vs those players in tournaments.

As is she does beat the top women in the world but are there any results against 790+ men?

People want to see how she will do vs players Fargo sees as being her equal.

Without the top women actually competing against the men enough this is the same thinking as the "would SVB beat Efren/Greenleaf/Mosconi, etc.. in their prime".

I think given enough events, any woman with a Fargo rating same as men at the same level, would end up very near a 50% win ratio. Fargo is not something you get from playing 3 sets, even if they are to 50, good stats take time to gather, the longer you do it from more sources, the better the rating will be.

 

[AtLarge]

... Why would a fairmatch race deliberately favor the stronger player? How is it fair if it favors one player over another?

If two players' FargoRates differ, just about any handicapped race of reasonable length will still favor one player or the other. The Fairmatch system provides choices of various possible handicapped races that are dubbed "hot," "medium." and "mild." The three categories of choices give the better player (the one with the higher FargoRate) the lowest chance of winning that is still above 50% (hot), 60% (medium), or 70% (mild).

 

[KMRUNOUT]

Your post does nothing but reinforce the difference between men and women pool players and Fargo Rate. A 600 player should be the same ability regardless of their sex. Otherwise we have nothing but the APA 7 from New York City and the APA 7 from East Podunk, South Dakota. They're the same ability correct? Incidentally, we are not talking about average ability. We are discussing two players with the same Fargo Rate but different sexes.

Lyn

Lyn,

I think your confusion may stem from no seeing the difference between a relative rating and an absolute rating. The APA system is an absolute rating system, meaning the performance of other players is irrelevant to one's rating. There are objective performance standards. For APA 8 ball it is innings per game. Fargo, on the other hand, is a relative rating system. What that means is that your objective performance is irrelevant. For example, if I beat Shane Van Boening 9-0 in a match, but we both drank heavily before the match so that most innings at the table we both missed, and the match was a total wreck but somehow resulted in me winning 9-0, it would have the identical impact on my rating as if I broke and ran a 9 pack on him. Fargo only rates you *relative* to other players.

As such, the meaning of a Fargo rating is not how well someone plays, but how they perform against other players of a given level. The reason a 600 fargo player is a 600 fargo player is because that is how they have performed against other rated players.

Thus as already stated, a man, woman, ostrich (good one Lazar haha!), or anyone else rated at 600 will perform at 600 level, and if they don't their rating will change.

All that said, if tourneys were based on Fargo rates AND HANDICAPPED, you would see plenty of women competing with men. You really only see the segregation of women and men in open tournaments. I will say, however, that it is odd of the BCA to maintain separate men and women's events when both sets of events are subdivided by Fargo ratings.

Anyway hope this helps clear things up for you.

KMRUNOUT


Sent from my iPhone using AzBilliards Forums

 

[GideonF]

A 500 playing an 800 only has to win like 2 or 3 games to 10. A low B or B player should be able to get 2 or 3 games in a race to 10 if they have their head on right and get a few rolls. I'm a 550 an I've had 2 packs in 9 ball and 8 ball quite often. Just one of those is just about enough to beat a pro using Fargo handicapping.

But to win the event the 500 player will have to beat a bunch of great players and their odds against doing that are very poor. It’s the same reason that the pros in the 700-750 range can and do beat the top players in a tournament from time to time but don’t go on to win the US Open - they can get a few rolls and play their very best and beat the odds once or twice, but not six or seven times in a row.

 

[PhilosopherKing]

A 500 playing an 800 only has to win like 2 or 3 games to 10. A low B or B player should be able to get 2 or 3 games in a race to 10 if they have their head on right and get a few rolls. I'm a 550 an I've had 2 packs in 9 ball and 8 ball quite often. Just one of those is just about enough to beat a pro using Fargo handicapping.

If you look at the brackets of a Turning Stone or US Open, the opening rounds usually show how hard it can be for even strong open players to get to 2 or 3 against the top guys.

 

[RiverCity]

....We went gender blind at our last regional event here in the Western BCA and guess what? Prejudices lost and Fargo won. Things went as expected by Fargo, not by the haters.

JC

I think this one bears repeating.

...Some people seem to be equating the player with the higher Fargo rating as the better player, and I don't believe that's always accurate or right.

And you seem to think Fargo measures someones skill level, when in reality what it does is track their win/loss results, and provide statistical probabilities against other players win/loss results with data in the system.

Are skill and results tied together? Most definitely. Are they the same? Nope.

SVB, arguably one of, if not the best skilled players on the planet. It seems he does not play as well at certain events, especially some of the overseas tournaments. His win/loss record at the world tournaments in Qatar probably isnt as strong as his US Open record (dont have stats in front of me). Maybe he doesnt travel well on long trips. Maybe the food gives him issues. Whatever, who knows why? But is that a reflection of his skill? No. Its just the win/loss record.

 

[ctyhntr]

I think we left out robustness, another factor in Fargorate.

Predicting the outcome for 600 rated man with 1000 game robustness shouldn't be statistically different 600 rated woman with 1000 game robustness.

Predicting the outcome for a 600 rated player with 1000 games versus another 600 rated player with 10 games could differ.

There is no difference between a 600 man or woman. There can't be any more than 2 plus 2 equaling 5. If a 600 man consistently beats a 600 woman badly one of them will no longer be a 600. Continuous closed loop feedback.

We went gender blind at our last regional event here in the Western BCA and guess what? Prejudices lost and Fargo won. Things went as expected by Fargo, not by the haters.

JC

 

[jasonlaus]

Fargorate doubters = the math's is hard
Jason

 

[marek]

Fargorate doubters = the math's is hard
Jason

Well I think that Fargorate is actually amazing idea. But there MAY be very few connecting matches between men and women which MAY make the system inaccurate to a certain degree when it comes to comparing numbers between sexes. Like I wrote in another thread - I have seen Siming Chen play against men at Eurotour and I like her game but she DEFINITELY didnt look like Fargorate 790 player, more like 730-740 to me. It would be very useful if Mike presented Fargorate performance of Siming Chen at mens Eurotour vs womens Eurotour, that would compare her performance in the same conditions only few days apart with the only difference being men opponents vs women opponents - that may tell an interesting story, just hard numbers which would prove one side of the argument or the other. Mike?

 

[hang-the-9]

But to win the event the 500 player will have to beat a bunch of great players and their odds against doing that are very poor. It’s the same reason that the pros in the 700-750 range can and do beat the top players in a tournament from time to time but don’t go on to win the US Open - they can get a few rolls and play their very best and beat the odds once or twice, but not six or seven times in a row.

Yes winning a full tournament going through top players is not easy even with handicapping, but it is way more even. The better players also have to play at near their top game also since one mistake can cost someone a game, which could be 1/3rd of what they need to win. I have lost league matches where the opponent pocketed maybe 1/5th the number of balls I did, but due to me missing the game ball or second to last ball or something, they won the few games they needed.

It may still be tough for a B player to beat a pro player a 3-10 race, but I feel that is a fairly even game, on average. Which is all that Fargo does, gives you an average.

 

[JC]

IMO Fargorate is right now in it's adolescence. Mostly due to too many players without adequate games logged in the system. As it continues to mature it will fully blossom and doubters will see the light.

JC

I think we left out robustness, another factor in Fargorate.

Predicting the outcome for 600 rated man with 1000 game robustness shouldn't be statistically different 600 rated woman with 1000 game robustness.

Predicting the outcome for a 600 rated player with 1000 games versus another 600 rated player with 10 games could differ.

You are absolutely correct. I did address that in my first post in this thread, quoted above. Right now there is too much pool being played that is not being reported to Fargorate. As this matures things will reach mathematical balance and gender will melt away like snowflakes at a trans rally.

JC

 

[hang-the-9]

You are absolutely correct. I did address that in my first post in this thread, quoted above. Right now there is too much pool being played that is not being reported to Fargorate. As this matures things will reach mathematical balance and gender will melt away like snowflakes at a trans rally.

JC

Some players that are less than honest in their ability may be trying to avoid having a Fargo Rating... Just sayin...

Had a few people in my weekly tournaments turn down my offer or reporting our scores to Fargo so they can get a rating. I can only think or one reason why they would.

 

[JC]

Some players that are less than honest in their ability may be trying to avoid having a Fargo Rating... Just sayin...

Had a few people in my weekly tournaments turn down my offer or reporting our scores to Fargo so they can get a rating. I can only think or one reason why they would.

Another phenomenon that has come out of this is the opposite. I was amazed at how many players I talked to at our Western BCA event about Fargo who felt that they were underrated by the system. Almost like they're embarrassed about their rating.

"Yeh I'm a 510 right now but ask so and so I play much stronger than that!" "I play a lot better for this stake or that format" "I don't try in league to hold down my score" So I play them a couple of sets and win 6-3, 6-2 (I'm a 595). And they go out in 2 in their bracket.

JC

 

[marek]

Another phenomenon that has come out of this is the opposite. I was amazed at how many players I talked to at our Western BCA event about Fargo who felt that they were underrated by the system. Almost like they're embarrassed about their rating.

"Yeh I'm a 510 right now but ask so and so I play much stronger than that!" "I play a lot better for this stake or that format" "I don't try in league to hold down my score" So I play them a couple of sets and win 6-3, 6-2 (I'm a 595). And they go out in 2 in their bracket.

JC

I dont think they were exactly embarassed, I guess some players just hunt a certain number at Fargorate which they want to achieve, they have a goal set for that number and in their heads they feel they really belong higher than they are ranked at the moment, me included :grin:
For example I had a bad start at Fargorate because when I started to play at Eurotour last year I played heavily under my abilities because of the pressure at first. But my goal to break into ranks of 700s got closer recently, with my current FR 688 and relatively low robustness I can do that in the next event I will play in (European championships in July)

 

[Alex Kanapilly]

Well I think that Fargorate is actually amazing idea. But there MAY be very few connecting matches between men and women which MAY make the system inaccurate to a certain degree when it comes to comparing numbers between sexes. Like I wrote in another thread - I have seen Siming Chen play against men at Eurotour and I like her game but she DEFINITELY didnt look like Fargorate 790 player, more like 730-740 to me. It would be very useful if Mike presented Fargorate performance of Siming Chen at mens Eurotour vs womens Eurotour, that would compare her performance in the same conditions only few days apart with the only difference being men opponents vs women opponents - that may tell an interesting story, just hard numbers which would prove one side of the argument or the other. Mike?

I wonder about this too. I think I remember seeing Mike address this in a thread but I am curious about how much data is required to make sure the data linking male/female performance is enough to get accurate ratings for female players... I just don't know enough about how it's actually done within fargrate.

 

[nine_ball6970]

Another phenomenon that has come out of this is the opposite. I was amazed at how many players I talked to at our Western BCA event about Fargo who felt that they were underrated by the system. Almost like they're embarrassed about their rating.

"Yeh I'm a 510 right now but ask so and so I play much stronger than that!" "I play a lot better for this stake or that format" "I don't try in league to hold down my score" So I play them a couple of sets and win 6-3, 6-2 (I'm a 595). And they go out in 2 in their bracket.

JC

I do believe format and table size make a difference. I played in a lagger's choice league and my rating was quite a bit higher for 8 ball than 9 and 10. 9 and 10 were pretty close to the same.

I beat a 700+ on a bar table 7-6 in 9 ball. I was talking to him the next day and he was telling me about a tournament which would be good money for guys our speed. Fargo has him rated around 120 points higher than me. I know I am not as good as him but the 120 point gap does not seem close to accurate.

Most players want their rating to be as high as possible due to ego and not cheating the system. Some people try to cheat the system by dumping in smaller events but overall I think most people try.

I think my rating is different sober vs drinking and the entry of the tournament makes a difference too. Only ones entered here are $125 entry which makes me nervous. I play same players in $10 tournaments and then get ran over in bigger ones. Not that they play better but I play worse. Fargo is only taking those big ones into account because smaller ones are not entered.

 

[GideonF]

Well I think that Fargorate is actually amazing idea. But there MAY be very few connecting matches between men and women which MAY make the system inaccurate to a certain degree when it comes to comparing numbers between sexes. Like I wrote in another thread - I have seen Siming Chen play against men at Eurotour and I like her game but she DEFINITELY didnt look like Fargorate 790 player, more like 730-740 to me. It would be very useful if Mike presented Fargorate performance of Siming Chen at mens Eurotour vs womens Eurotour, that would compare her performance in the same conditions only few days apart with the only difference being men opponents vs women opponents - that may tell an interesting story, just hard numbers which would prove one side of the argument or the other. Mike?

I would be interested in the data about Siming Chen, although only one event doesn't give a lot of data. Mike has posted an analysis of Karen Corr's results (she plays in lots of men's events) and her rating is almost identical if you use just her men's results and just her women's results.

On the question of "looking like a 790 player", I wonder how much of that is based on your own perception of how male 790 players would play. What I mean is a male player who plays 790 tends to play a lot of aggressive outs. Most women pros (Centeno excluded) tend to play more conservatively. In other words, are you basing this on things like "Mika would have gone for the out and instead she played safe like a 730 player would". But if she wins the rack she wins the rack as far as Fargo is concerned. Just curious as to your perception.