Siming Chen vs Donny Mills

one stroke said:
she is only getting this game because its 9 ball on the spot break box rules that favor her ,


1
Click to expand...

Horseshit. The 9 ball on the break doesn't favor ANYONE. Even those who play with those break rules on the Eurotour. With a template rack and 9 on the spot, the balls go just as automatically on the break as with the 1 on the spot. You just have to break from the right location and cut across the 1.

It doesn't take that long to learn how to break with the 9 on the spot. It only took me one set to learn the break when I play Shaw at DCC. And at the end, it was Aranas and Woodward at the end of the DCC 9 ball event, both of which have had little to no experience playing tournaments with the 9 on the spot.

They are pros. it does't take them long to figure out the breaks anymore. The cloth is so slick that there is always a dead ball or two, you just need to figure out the break methodology. There is no special advantage to the break conferred by possessing either a penis or vagina between one's legs.

If anything... Breaking with the 9 ball on the spot should give Donny Mills more of a chance than using a template with the 1 on the spot.
 
ShortBusRuss said:
The point is that if they are "at her speed", then their break is roughly equivalent. If they are "at her speed", but they shoot straighter, then she will likely have a better break.

So, all in all, if they play "at or near" her speed, then they play at or near her speed, period. There is absolutely no validity to the idea that some dude is gonna crop up out of nowhere with the same Fargorate but a much better break and crush her. If he's the same Fargorate and breaks much better than her, then his position play/shotmaking will be crap, and it will only be his break that allows him to stay close with high Fargorate competitors.
Click to expand...
Well its clear what the backers believe , and they are the ones putting up the cash , and its fact not fiction that there is not enough data in 10 ball for there to be accurate ratings they being the money know that ,


1
 
ShortBusRuss said:
The point is that if they are "at her speed", then their break is roughly equivalent. If they are "at her speed", but they shoot straighter, then she will likely have a better break.

So, all in all, if they play "at or near" her speed, then they play at or near her speed, period. There is absolutely no validity to the idea that some dude is gonna crop up out of nowhere with the same Fargorate but a much better break and crush her. If he's the same Fargorate and breaks much better than her, then his position play/shotmaking will be crap, and it will only be his break that allows him to stay close with high Fargorate competitors.
Click to expand...

Thank you!
Jason
 
one stroke said:
Well its clear what the backers believe , and they are the ones putting up the cash , and its fact not fiction that there is not enough data in 10 ball for there to be accurate ratings they being the money know that ,


1
Click to expand...

You do realize there's backers on BOTH SIDES.

Feel free to post up and take my money.
Jason
 
one stroke said:
Well its clear what the backers believe , and they are the ones putting up the cash , and its fact not fiction that there is not enough data in 10 ball for there to be accurate ratings they being the money know that ,


1
Click to expand...

Whuuuuttttt??? You mean backers are not in a huge rush to play even games by putting up their female horses against people of the same rating? Say it ain't so!!!!!!


Let me illustrate a little example from a few years back at Derby City.... Jeanette Lee was hunting for some action, and Strong Arm John was backing her. Jeanette could see John was just dying to get her into some action trying to convince her to take a tough game, and Jeanette told him, "Be patient... We don't have to take even games. Guys are gonna give up the nuts just to say they beat Jeanette Lee out of her money."

So you seem to be taking the stance that just because Siming Chen has a vagina, that she somehow is inherently inferior to someone at her same Fargorate, and THAT'S why she doesn't play those people. When the real truth is that when there are misogynistic dudes like you out there, there will always be guys willing to give up the nuts, such as, oh... I don't know... Trying to play her even when they are 50 points below her Fargo rating?
 
cleary said:
What does 12% translate to for a money line? 7:1?
Click to expand...

Yes, 7:1. It always seems to me that those fargo odds are exaggerated; if you made money lines based on the fargo "match odds" I'd take the underdog almost every time. I wonder if Mike Page has done an analysis on how such a betting strategy would come out in the long run if someone had used it on all the matches in their database.
 
Andrew Manning said:
Yes, 7:1. It always seems to me that those fargo odds are exaggerated; if you made money lines based on the fargo "match odds" I'd take the underdog almost every time. I wonder if Mike Page has done an analysis on how such a betting strategy would come out in the long run if someone had used it on all the matches in their database.
Click to expand...

The odds work out fine.

Here, as an example, are 101 matches from the Eurotour this past year for which the rating gap was (within 3) 67 points. That suggests 5-to-1 odds for a race to 9. So the expectation is 85 wins for the stronger player and 16 for the weaker player. The actual is 88 to 13.

Of course here if we have some people overrated by 10 points and others underrated by 10 points, there is some cancelation, whereas if, for example Siming is overrated by 5 points and Donny is underrated by 10 points, that makes some difference.

In general these odds work out fine unless you start getting high fraction of table runs. Then in effect players are scoring multiple games per swing, and the match acts statistically like a shorter race.
 

Attachments

  • ss.jpg
    ss.jpg
    225.3 KB · Views: 697
odds

mikepage said:
The odds work out fine.

Here, as an example, are 101 matches from the Eurotour this past year for which the rating gap was (within 3) 67 points. That suggests 5-to-1 odds for a race to 9. So the expectation is 85 wins for the stronger player and 16 for the weaker player. The actual is 88 to 13.

Of course here if we have some people overrated by 10 points and others underrated by 10 points, there is some cancelation, whereas if, for example Siming is overrated by 5 points and Donny is underrated by 10 points, that makes some difference.

In general these odds work out fine unless you start getting high fraction of table runs. Then in effect players are scoring multiple games per swing, and the match acts statistically like a shorter race.
Click to expand...

Amazing. I would've been tempted to offer 5 to 1 on these matches with all those that think Fargo Rate is off and just cleaned house. You're a good man Mike!
 
mikepage said:
The odds work out fine.

Here, as an example, are 101 matches from the Eurotour this past year for which the rating gap was (within 3) 67 points. That suggests 5-to-1 odds for a race to 9. So the expectation is 85 wins for the stronger player and 16 for the weaker player. The actual is 88 to 13.

Of course here if we have some people overrated by 10 points and others underrated by 10 points, there is some cancelation, whereas if, for example Siming is overrated by 5 points and Donny is underrated by 10 points, that makes some difference.

In general these odds work out fine unless you start getting high fraction of table runs. Then in effect players are scoring multiple games per swing, and the match acts statistically like a shorter race.
Click to expand...

Cool!

So basically, I and others like me overestimate the rate of upsets between high-level and low-level pros. One could probably make a profit by taking the favorites and laying odds a little lower than the ones Fargorate suggests, since pool players love odds on their money and are always saying things like "a single tournament race between pro players is basically a coin flip".
 
Andrew Manning said:
Cool!

So basically, I and others like me overestimate the rate of upsets between high-level and low-level pros. One could probably make a profit by taking the favorites and laying odds a little lower than the ones Fargorate suggests, since pool players love odds on their money and are always saying things like "a single tournament race between pro players is basically a coin flip".
Click to expand...

OR, you could just bet it even and quit giving odds on the $$$. Never understood why people want to give up odds when it's not necessary.
Jason
 
jasonlaus said:
OR, you could just bet it even and quit giving odds on the $$$. Never understood why people want to give up odds when it's not necessary.
Jason
Click to expand...

Why wouldn’t it be necessary? If the proper odds are 7:1, that’s what the line should be. Clearly not much of a gambler...


I’ll take 7:1 and I might bet more than I’m comfortable. Snap me off.
 
cleary said:
Why wouldn’t it be necessary? If the proper odds are 7:1, that’s what the line should be. Clearly not much of a gambler...


I’ll take 7:1 and I might bet more than I’m comfortable. Snap me off.
Click to expand...

Why would you after odds if you can bet even? Clearly YOU are not much of a gambler.

Plenty of people think DM can win and dont believe for a second that Fargo is accurate when it comes to Women.

Offering odds when it's not necessary is just plain ignorant.
Jason
 
jasonlaus said:
Why would you after odds if you can bet even? Clearly YOU are not much of a gambler.

Plenty of people think DM can win and dont believe for a second that Fargo is accurate when it comes to Women.

Offering odds when it's not necessary is just plain ignorant.
Jason
Click to expand...

That’s the equivalent of going into a Cleveland Browns bar and getting people to bet with their emotions before the game instead of actually betting the line like a human... like I said, not much of a gambler, just another nit locksmith.

Fargo is accurate and I’ll take 7:1. Snap me off.
 
cleary said:
That’s the equivalent of going into a Cleveland Browns bar and getting people to bet with their emotions before the game instead of actually betting the line like a human... like I said, not much of a gambler, just another nit locksmith.

Fargo is accurate and I’ll take 7:1. Snap me off.
Click to expand...

Who's the NIT?
Jason
 
jasonlaus said:
Who's the NIT?
Jason
Click to expand...

No chit... lol.

The NIT is ALWAYS the one that is NEVER willing to gamble.

I'm not sure NITs know what "to gamble" means.

To me, gambling is:

A toss up.
We have know idea what's gonna happen.


NOT:

I'm gonna be VERY comfortable with the game or I'm not playing.

The second version is what most consider:

Being a good match maker when in fact, its..... most of the time, a LOCK!!!!
 
jrctherake said:
No chit... lol.

The NIT is ALWAYS the one that is NEVER willing to gamble.

I'm not sure NITs know what "to gamble" means.

To me, gambling is:

A toss up.
We have know idea what's gonna happen.


NOT:

I'm gonna be VERY comfortable with the game or I'm not playing.

The second version is what most consider:

Being a good match maker when in fact, its..... most of the time, a LOCK!!!!
Click to expand...

This attitude that gamblers in Pool have, makes me belly laugh everytime I hear it. Nothing personal against you, just a general statement.

I'm in a "betting industry" and can tell you this about "professional gamblers"; pro gamblers are not taking as much gamble as suckers gamble, when gambling.


Eric
 
jasonlaus said:
Plenty of people on here think DM is gonna win. You can bet a thousand right now if you want him even.
Jason
Click to expand...

I’ll bet a thousand with the correct odds.

Fargo doesn’t lie. If he has a 12% chance to win, the odds should reflect that. Of course the sleezy poolroom bums wanna steal... 7:1 and I’ll ship it. Your girl is gonna win so take the money.
 
Eric. said:
This attitude that gamblers in Pool have, makes me belly laugh everytime I hear it. Nothing personal against you, just a general statement.

I'm in a "betting industry" and can tell you this about "professional gamblers"; pro gamblers are not taking as much gamble as suckers gamble, when gambling.


Eric
Click to expand...

Pros are not gambling, period!

Now, if you and some stranger plays a set well, ONE of you would most definitely be gambling. Which one?.....

BTW, your post has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. Nodda....

Another BTW, this is a POOL forum and people that play pool AND gamble are "GAMBLER'S IN POOL".

Just because money is bet does not mean it is a gamble for both parties.

Sometimes, sometimes..... it's more of a calculated risk, not gambling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top