I know they played a few years ago and watched it. Jayson gave him a good scare until the last few games. Jayson is a more mature player now and uses his safety game much better. Johnnyt
Shane/Shaw Action Match
- Thread starter Johnnyt
- Start date
I know they played a few years ago and watched it. Jayson gave him a good scare until the last few games. Jayson is a more mature player now and uses his safety game much better. Johnnyt
Tired of your know it all little jabs. You really think you're hot $hit...don't you? Johhnyt
FargoRate predicts Oscar will get to 14 when Mike gets to 17.
Of course that means even according to FargoRate Oscar has as much chance of being above 14 as he does being below 14.
So what you are proposing makes no sense. It's like saying,
"Hey, you think that coin has a 50% chance coming up tails; come on get you're money out and bet big on tails!"
Think about it. Nobody does that. When somebody encourages someone else to get his wallet out, the usual thing is to suggest something the OTHER PERSON thinks is a clear winning proposition and YOU DON'T.
Certainly didn't even imply that people don't improve. But for sure, the thread was made and continued without much concern that they in fact did already play.
But hey, if everyone already knew that, then carry on.
So then you did mean "rematch," right? That's what I was asking, without any "jabs." Thanks for confirming.
And if you don't like my sense of putting a touch of fact and reality into the threads, block/ignore me.
Freddie <~~~ thought I was answering Eric...
You created the Fargo Fair Match. Not me. Why have it if it holds no value? It gives, or is suppose to give the perfect gambling scenario. I'm proposing someone bet on it. Oscar will play Mike, 10 ball on a big neutral table. Oscar goes to 14. Mike goes to 17. Best 3 out of 5 races. Five figures minimum bet.
?
I wasn't sure so I reread the Fargorate description. I didn't see anywhere by Mike that he had created the "perfect gambling scenario". What he has done is create a rating system that reflects historic results across a global playing field, something that has never been done before in pool.
I'm a professional salesman, and sometimes I use what I call the "unicorn close". This is when I have a client that is comparing something I have to sell to something that doesn't exist. I tell them, "You know, you're right, my product isn't perfect. And if you're comparing me to what you WISHED existed I can't compete. You might as well be comparing me to something else that doesn't exist, like a unicorn. And I just don't measure up, because my product can't bound over rainbows and doesn't have a magical horn. But if you look at the alternatives that actually exist you'll see this is best, and I'd hate for you to miss the chance to enjoy a/b/c benefits because it's not as good as what you wished existed. Does that make sense?"
Well, you guys are all correct. Fargorate simply doesn't compare with the unicorn rating system that can measure every shot of every player, keep up with real time improvement while they're practicing in their basement, adjust perfectly based on whether someone was trying their hardest or the humidity in the air the day they competed, and, because it's based on actual results, it has that 'flaw' of reflecting objective data instead of matching the opinions of each and every AZ'er simultaneously. Oh, and what a joke, it doesn't even predict with 100% accuracy future match scores. Pffft.
But until that system exists, ya might want to get behind it, unless we think it's better to stick with a system that has three ratings, A/B/C, where each grade represents a huge range of talent and varies by state.
I wasn't sure so I reread the Fargorate description. I didn't see anywhere by Mike that he had created the "perfect gambling scenario". What he has done is create a rating system that reflects historic results across a global playing field, something that has never been done before in pool.
I'm a professional salesman, and sometimes I use what I call the "unicorn close". This is when I have a client that is comparing something I have to sell to something that doesn't exist. I tell them, "You know, you're right, my product isn't perfect. And if you're comparing me to what you WISHED existed I can't compete. You might as well be comparing me to something else that doesn't exist, like a unicorn. And I just don't measure up, because my product can't bound over rainbows and doesn't have a magical horn. But if you look at the alternatives that actually exist you'll see this is best, and I'd hate for you to miss the chance to enjoy a/b/c benefits because it's not as good as what you wished existed. Does that make sense?"
Well, you guys are all correct. Fargorate simply doesn't compare with the unicorn rating system that can measure every shot of every player, keep up with real time improvement while they're practicing in their basement, adjust perfectly based on whether someone was trying their hardest or the humidity in the air the day they competed, and, because it's based on actual results, it has that 'flaw' of reflecting objective data instead of matching the opinions of each and every AZ'er simultaneously. Oh, and what a joke, it doesn't even predict with 100% accuracy future match scores. Pffft.
But until that system exists, ya might want to get behind it, unless we think it's better to stick with a system that has three ratings, A/B/C, where each grade represents a huge range of talent and varies by state.
Here's your chance to get behind it. Mike Page posts all the time how the system predicts scores. There should be no difference between exhibitions, tournaments or gambling. All of which have data entered into his system.
And I've said I like FargoRate. Just think the line is not straight from top to bottom as Mr Page thinks. The different between a 790 and 760 player is much smaller than it is between a 610 and 580 player.
And I've said I like FargoRate. Just think the line is not straight from top to bottom as Mr Page thinks. The different between a 790 and 760 player is much smaller than it is between a 610 and 580 player.