Siming Chen

As Mike Page explained somewhere else regarding strengths and weaknesses it's the combination of variables that make a player have the skill level that he or she has. A player can be a strong breaker but maybe a weaker banker or vice versa and have the same rating.

Perhaps Siming ALSO played under her rating in that match so if Donny's break had been better and Siming hadn't uncharacteristically missed several easy shots in the match then the score might have been the same.

Mike is also extremely clear that in any given series of games between any two people it's possible to play WAY over one's rating or WAY under one's rating.

For example if I play SVB a race to ten and win 10-2 then I have played at 800 speed and he has played at 400 speed for those 12 games between us. However if that 10-2 score comes in the middle of a race to 100 where I lose 80-20 then the performance rating for those 100 games is reversed.

So at the moment Donny and Siming have played 28 games and the score is 15-13. That's currently in line with their respective ratings. More games (data) will show us whether or not the ratings are accurate between them within the margin of error or whether they are way off. I lean towards accurate.
Well the Siming camp believe they can improve her break and think it will off set Donnie improving his ,, mind you they are putting her in to win and I know for a fact there are players below her they have zero interest in matching up with , if the purpose was to test the Fargo rating the rusults may be far different,

1
 
I think we’re a little off-track here, JB....
...Russ has a considered opinion, whether any of us disagree or not.
I have seen backers and sidebettors that can handicap a pool match wel....
....and can’t hit the end rail themselves.

On the pound for pound boxing argument, I have always argued for Ali over Sugar Ray
Robinson....I say pound for pound works both ways.....
....If I fought any pro boxer, they’d turn me into a punching bag....
...but my boxing opinion can be valid.

Understood. And he is entitled to his opinion. But will he bet on it?

I will bet on mine. Maybe that's the difference between him and I. I have the heart to bet on my convictions as well as the head to consider why I hold those opinions.

I am a big fan of testing things out. Get in the grease and prove what you can prove.

The guy is a pool player and he has a Fargo Rating. I don't know what it is, I forgot his last name so I can't look him up on Fargo. Not doing FB at the moment so won't look him up there. But he can test his idea that women are inherently inferior to men by simply playing them. If he is right then he should break even or win against women around 50 points higher than himself and should almost always win against women rated the same as him.

I know it's a small sample size but at least he would have some anecdotal personal experience to use.

But he won't. We know this. Better to just be misogynistic and act like "science" backs you up while ignoring many of the other variables that COULD factor into why any given subgroup doesn't perform as well as any other group in the same activity.

For example, Scrabble is a competitive activity where there are actually more women who play tournament Scrabble than men. But the women admit that they don't practice as hard as the men. If they did and all the other variables were even then one MIGHT expect to see the top ranks fairly equitable among women and men. But until the day comes when you have actual situations where both genders are equal in everything but their gender you will not really know IF women can compete at the same level on average.

In the meantime, we have Fargo Ratings which now can give us a pretty good indication of skill level regardless of gender. And what that shows us is that yes, some women can compete at the highest levels.

Out of the top 100 Fargo Rated players about 4 of them are female. How does that correlate with the number of women playing overall? How about the number of women actively competing vs. men actively competing? I submit that the number of women competing is far less, surely not 4% of the number of men but significantly less. And the type of competition they encounter is of a lower average meaning they have less opportunity to compete with and learn from the higher skill level group. We can say that this is partially out of their control as they are not given the choice to compete with men in a lot of events and are incentivized to compete with only women by the existence of women-only events.

So the point for me is not that 4% of the top 100 are women showing that women are not as strong as men but instead that it shows that SOME women CAN be as strong as the top men players despite the various factors that hold them back such as social stigmas, unequal treatment, inability to compete in all tournaments and discriminatory events with lower average players.

If you started with 1000 men players in any given city the number of them who would make it into the top 100 in the world would be relatively small EVEN IF that city happened to be populated with a lot of top 100 players already. So just looking at a woman as a person it's remarkable that any given person is in the top skilled 100 humans on the planet. What are the odds that a country bumpkin from South Dakota would become the highest rated player on the planet?

A LOT better if that player puts in up to 18 hours a day working on his game as Shane Van Boening has done. What are the odds that some woman from China is in the top 30 rated players out of all humans who play pool competitively? A lot better if she has top coaching and structured training for 10 hours a day or more.

In fact, the Chinese and Taiwanese are great examples of how helpful crazy amounts of deep, structured training and coaching are to bring up one's skill level. As have been the snooker programs that produced Allison Fisher, Karen Corr, and Kelly Fisher.

So the bottom line is that we can all have our opinions but the fact is that the men have had the advantage of a misogynistic paternal culture and women have only been able to be openly assertive and competitive for the past 30 years really. Yes there were brave and pioneering women throughout history but they were the outliers. Because of them the Siming Chen's are going to be more expected than treated as anomalies.

The day will come when Siming Chen isn't regarded as a great player "for a woman" but instead will just be another name among the great players of whom a larger percentage will be women.
 
Well the Siming camp believe they can improve her break and think it will off set Donnie improving his ,, mind you they are putting her in to win and I know for a fact there are players below her they have zero interest in matching up with , if the purpose was to test the Fargo rating the rusults may be far different,

1

What players below her will they not match up with? The fact is that playing anyone her speed or close to it even is a coin flip. So backers generally don't have that much interest in betting on coin flips where they are giving up odds on the money. Flipping coins where you take 100% of the loss on each flip you lose but only a percentage of the win when you win is a good way to go broke.

Playing Donny even the odds are in her favor. Also, I don't know if you have seen Siming break but her break is pretty strong as it is. She can hold her own when it comes to the break. I am not sure IIRC but I think she put a three pack on Donny at one point in the match.

And yes, I know that there are those who look at Fargo Ratings among the top players and think that there are 750s who could easily beat 800s and think that the 750s have standing offers to play the 800s and that the 800s are scared to play....and the same for 720s and 770s etc.....

My only response to that is prove it and post the money. I have yet to see the lower rated players 50 or more points lower stepping up to play in rotation games.

Tony Chohan 760 swung at Dennis Orcullo 810 and they had a great battle in one pocket. In rotation games though I am just not seeing people challenging high above their rating. If so then I will be happy to stand corrected if shown the challenges I have missed.
 
U
If you started with 1000 men players in any given city the number of them who would make it into the top 100 in the world would be relatively small EVEN IF that city happened to be populated with a lot of top 100 players already. So just looking at a woman as a person it's remarkable that any given person is in the top skilled 100 humans on the planet. What are the odds that a country bumpkin from South Dakota would become the highest rated player on the planet?

This is where China as a country is the tell-all of the debate...they have a billion people to choose from and a men's and women's national sponsored pool program.....and it has produced some stellar women and men....however there are more men rated in the top 100 than women.

Why is this?

That's where Russ was coming in. You hinted at his point with the scrabble analogy.
And that's where the paradox lies.
 
This is where China as a country is the tell-all of the debate...they have a billion people to choose from and a men's and women's national sponsored pool program.....and it has produced some stellar women and men....however there are more men rated in the top 100 than women.

Why is this?

That's where Russ was coming in. You hinted at his point with the scrabble analogy.
And that's where the paradox lies.

John Barton: "B-b-but I'l back a woman against you who plays 8 hours a day and is sponsored by her country, and is 100 points above you!"

Hey John... Not that I think any ill of women's pool in general..... How do you like your bet if we go 50 points over my rating? Hmmmmmmm?

Yer not really taking ANY chance whatsoever by making it a 100 point gap, because yer basically backing the best women in America against a guy who practice MAYBE 2-3 hours a week. Because I WORK for a living, instead of paying Chinese workers 1/4 what I would pay American workers to make my product. What a risk-taker you are, sir..

Maybe we can make yah sweat a little, John. Pick a lady rated at my Fargo rating with a sufficient robustness and back her at Derby this year against me. I'll make sure to actually practice this year before I come to DCC, and have your horse do the same. She might beat me, but at least I get to make you sweat a little.

But I have a feeling you have no interest in an even game. You are just a shit-talking blowhard who is looking to steal. Just remember, sir.. The last time you thought you had a fish... You WERE the fish. You were incapable of putting up a fight.
 
What players below her will they not match up with? The fact is that playing anyone her speed or close to it even is a coin flip. So backers generally don't have that much interest in betting on coin flips where they are giving up odds on the money. Flipping coins where you take 100% of the loss on each flip you lose but only a percentage of the win when you win is a good way to go broke.

Playing Donny even the odds are in her favor. Also, I don't know if you have seen Siming break but her break is pretty strong as it is. She can hold her own when it comes to the break. I am not sure IIRC but I think she put a three pack on Donny at one point in the match.

And yes, I know that there are those who look at Fargo Ratings among the top players and think that there are 750s who could easily beat 800s and think that the 750s have standing offers to play the 800s and that the 800s are scared to play....and the same for 720s and 770s etc.....

My only response to that is prove it and post the money. I have yet to see the lower rated players 50 or more points lower stepping up to play in rotation games.

Tony Chohan 760 swung at Dennis Orcullo 810 and they had a great battle in one pocket. In rotation games though I am just not seeing people challenging high above their rating. If so then I will be happy to stand corrected if shown the challenges I have missed.

JB , I didn't just pluck that out of the air , and yes I have seen her break I watched that match also ,, Just remember even with the cross over numbers between girls and boys it's still a very small sample size and almost exclusively in Tourney play ,, as to Toney and Dennis if you were rating only one pocket games that gap would be much much closer and at this moment Toney might be higher rating ,,

1
 
John Barton: "B-b-but I'l back a woman against you who plays 8 hours a day and is sponsored by her country, and is 100 points above you!"

Hey John... Not that I think any ill of women's pool in general..... How do you like your bet if we go 50 points over my rating? Hmmmmmmm?

Yer not really taking ANY chance whatsoever by making it a 100 point gap, because yer basically backing the best women in America against a guy who practice MAYBE 2-3 hours a week. Because I WORK for a living, instead of paying Chinese workers 1/4 what I would pay American workers to make my product. What a risk-taker you are, sir..

Maybe we can make yah sweat a little, John. Pick a lady rated at my Fargo rating with a sufficient robustness and back her at Derby this year against me. I'll make sure to actually practice this year before I come to DCC, and have your horse do the same. She might beat me, but at least I get to make you sweat a little.

But I have a feeling you have no interest in an even game. You are just a shit-talking blowhard who is looking to steal. Just remember, sir.. The last time you thought you had a fish... You WERE the fish. You were incapable of putting up a fight.

Translation:

Blah blah blah....I don't really think women are inferior when I have to play them....blah blah blah...play the china card.....blah blah blah of course a woman can be better than me if she practices 10 hours a day....blah blah blah I work for a living but I am great.....blah blah blah....Lou.

You're right, I don't have ANY interest in backing someone in an EVEN game with you because you are an __________ and an even game is a coin flip so the idea of watching you play an even match where you have a chance to win is not interesting to me.

I want to watch you try to win against a woman rated above you and IF you manage to outrun the nuts then kudos to you and if you don't it will be fun watching you get drilled.

But we both know that you won't play anyone rated above you for anything significant if at all. I already said you have NO CHANCE playing someone 100 points above you. You know it and I know it.

I also made you an offer to play any woman that is 50 points above you. I guess you missed that part so I will answer the question you posed...I like it A LOT if you match up that way. If you play any woman who is 50 points above you a race to 100 I will bet up to 20k on the woman without hesitation.

I found your name Chewning. You're currently a 582. So yeah, if that rating holds then any woman that's a 630+ is who I will bet on against you.

As for me, I am happy to play you anytime. Any game. You're an average player and I feel ok playing you. But you have to bet something. Since you want to be nasty and play the "lou" card you get the opportunity to win big off of me....I will play you 10 ahead at DCC for $10,000.

Post the money with a neutral third party. Stephen Framstad would be fine with me.

So you got to lip off and you got a game. Do you have the nutsack to play that game though?
 
This is where China as a country is the tell-all of the debate...they have a billion people to choose from and a men's and women's national sponsored pool program.....and it has produced some stellar women and men....however there are more men rated in the top 100 than women.

Why is this?

That's where Russ was coming in. You hinted at his point with the scrabble analogy.
And that's where the paradox lies.

Actually there is no national sponsored women's pool program. China doesn't have massive pool schools where 1000s of kids are being turned into players. They do have some regional government support for pool through some of the sports federations but it's rather small. Siming however did benefit from that support.

The amount of women playing in China is still way lower than the amount of men.

I didn't hint at his point I addressed it with the clear REASON why women don't finish at the top of scrabble tournaments as much as the men, they don't practice as much and as such are not as good as the men on average. IF they did practice just as much then most likely the proportion of women finishing at the top would be higher.
 
It's a darn shame we have nothing even close to that here in the states.

:frown:


Actually there is no national sponsored women's pool program. China doesn't have massive pool schools where 1000s of kids are being turned into players. They do have some regional government support for pool through some of the sports federations but it's rather small. Siming however did benefit from that support.

The amount of women playing in China is still way lower than the amount of men.

I didn't hint at his point I addressed it with the clear REASON why women don't finish at the top of scrabble tournaments as much as the men, they don't practice as much and as such are not as good as the men on average. IF they did practice just as much then most likely the proportion of women finishing at the top would be higher.
 
Actually there is no national sponsored women's pool program. China doesn't have massive pool schools where 1000s of kids are being turned into players. They do have some regional government support for pool through some of the sports federations but it's rather small. Siming however did benefit from that support.

The amount of women playing in China is still way lower than the amount of men.

I didn't hint at his point I addressed it with the clear REASON why women don't finish at the top of scrabble tournaments as much as the men, they don't practice as much and as such are not as good as the men on average. IF they did practice just as much then most likely the proportion of women finishing at the top would be higher.

And that was what his point was on his take on the whole thing...that women (by and large) don't have the competitive drive asv the men (by and large).
I just thought your scrabble analogy was in agreement with Russ's point towards pool..."IF the women did practice as much"...but they don't, even when put into the same boat as men (your scrabble take), so why?

Also, from what I understand, in China the advertising money is a good pay day...xiouting Pan and others have made a pretty penny advertising for pool, perfume, etc.....
This is a monetary advantage the men really don't have.
I could be wrong...I just remember Jay Helfert talking about money to be made by female players in China.
So the incentive to be great as a female pool player is there.
 
I did not. I quoted books that just happened to have been scanned into books.google.com. And I quoted columbia.edu article. Both of which reference the original research.

See, this is where I chose to be different, and actually spoonfed you the names, dates, and organizations, plus the source books/articles.

I chose not to be intellectually lazy such as yourself, and not just say "google it", so I don't have to do any work. The point IS, Mike Page challenged me to tell which "scientists and researchers" acted in direct opposition to scientific impartiality, and I did so.

Now, hurry up and response with some little non-sequitur or another...

Okay I won't be "intellectually lazy" as some idiot accused me of (not mentioning any names) and I will list out some of the researchers who did the studies where women came out better than men (it would have been much easier if the idiot knew how to google).

One of the studies was done by Gallop taking 4 decades and research of 27 million employees.

Another was done by professors around the globe analyzing data going back 250 years and spanning 7 populations.

Another study involved 104,000 operations over a 9 year period. Done by researchers at Harvard, Houston Medical, Canadian Institute of Health Research,
Healthcare Ontario, etc.

So there you go Short Bus (but I still believe it would have been easier to just Google it as I suggested).
 
Wow, 40 pages and 593+ posts starting from an innocuous statement about Chen's ranking!

I wish Rhea would start more posts.
 
I like her fundamentals, especially the way she lets her shooting arm finish the stroke naturally, without tension. That's how I was taught: tension in the bridge hand, but no tension in the shooting arm.
 
I like her fundamentals, especially the way she lets her shooting arm finish the stroke naturally, without tension. That's how I was taught: tension in the bridge hand, but no tension in the shooting arm.

Me too. It's really great to watch how effortless she looks.


You are a beast and a rock. I hope someday you post a book of all the stats you have collected or a website where they are all searchable.

And that was what his point was on his take on the whole thing...that women (by and large) don't have the competitive drive asv the men (by and large).
I just thought your scrabble analogy was in agreement with Russ's point towards pool..."IF the women did practice as much"...but they don't, even when put into the same boat as men (your scrabble take), so why?

Also, from what I understand, in China the advertising money is a good pay day...xiouting Pan and others have made a pretty penny advertising for pool, perfume, etc.....
This is a monetary advantage the men really don't have.
I could be wrong...I just remember Jay Helfert talking about money to be made by female players in China.
So the incentive to be great as a female pool player is there.

You are correct that the women have more opportunity to get sponsorship money in China for mainstream products. BUT sadly, only if they look pretty enough. The ones who don't fit the "beauty mold" have a harder time landing sponsorship.

Ok now lets tackle the don't practice as much concept. The Scrabble example was given because a study was done to figure out why women in Scrabble don't excel as much as men and that was the given reason. That doesn't mean that this same reason applies to any other sport where men and women compete on equal terms. In pool they simply don't compete on equal terms yet. There are many events where women are NOT allowed to play in even if they chose to renounce playing in any women's events. Even the US Open was only opened up to women in the past five years or so.

But let's stick with China and consider the following scenario. For the sake of argument let's say that there are 200 Chinese women who practice every day. But of them only the top 10 get the type of sponsorship that allows them to go around the world and compete. The rest are kind of "stuck" trying to break into the top ten and tournaments that they do play in are in China and not submitted to Fargo Ratings.

Contrast them with say 1000 dedicated men around the world who practice as hard as they can and who can compete as much as they are able to afford. Out of these 1000 men the top 100 male players by Fargo Rating will be rated.

What are the odds that the 10 women who have everything they need to reach the highest physical skill levels that they personally can would also make it into the top 100 of players worldwide? So that the top 100 players would consist of 90 men and 10 women?

Should we expect that those 10 women are all over 800 speed? Should we expect the same from the men?

Or is it possible that the ratings are so close that four or five of those women are in the top 100 and the rest are in the top 200? And also possible that IF the other 180 women were able to compete in ways linked to the rest of the world that they too would take up more space in the top 200 players?

The point I am making is that that you can pick any subgroup, say male players in Germany, the top 200 in Germany, and of those players only a handful are likely to be in the top 100 in the world. But that subgroup has no restrictions on travel and competitive opportunity other than money and time. They aren't subject to a hierarchy that requires them to first come up through a rigid system in order to be allowed to compete at the highest levels. They can go to any open tournament in the world and compete. They can go to any open qualifier to compete.

So in this hypothetical you have a handful of ultra-dedicated women against a ton of ultra-dedicated men. In that situation we can see based on the fact that 4% of the top 100 are Chinese women out of a pool of 200 possible candidates of whom only 10 are highly active outside of China I think it's a pretty good result. What might the result be if there were truly a 1000 women in China who were as dedicated as the 1000 men around the world and who also had the same unrestricted ability to compete where and when they wanted to?

To me, in pool, the only way we will ever see parity in results is when we have parity in numbers of competitors who have the same opportunities to learn and compete. Until then there will always be many variables that pollute the results. And because of that pollution it's not correct to say that women are inherently inferior to men which is why that they will never be close to a larger percentage of the elite players.

What Fargo Ratings do for us, however, is to show us exactly where people stand in relation to each other in an objective way that only takes performance into account and nothing else. It proves that there are women who CAN reach the elite level.

Go back and look at Jay's posting about Siming Chen 7 years ago. I haven't gone back to that thread but I would guess that there are more than a few people who were ready to put up their local shortstops/lower level pros against her with the idea that NO WOMAN could beat them.

Now with Fargo Ratings we have objective ratings that show us where any two rated players are in skill level relative to each other. Ratings that come with the ability to predict the likely outcome for any even where the outcome gets increasing accurate when the ratings disparity gets larger. Ok no surprise there but when we consider a 700 speed male player who plays at a semi-pro level vs. a 770 speed female the 700 has virtually no chance to win if both play to the ratings. But pre-fargo ratings, in the absence of any such connected performance data, there would be a LOT of speculation that the 700 was equal to any female alive.

So that's where we are. Yes from a performance standpoint women, a group, are still inferior to men as a group. This is easily seen in the ratings. But why that is has more to do with several variables that MUST be accounted for long before we start saying it's genetic.
 
"...BUT sadly, only if they look pretty enough. The ones who don't fit the "beauty mold" have a harder time landing sponsorship..."

Siming?
 
This battle of the sexes Bobby Riggs vs. Billie Jean King thing has been overdone. I would estimate the VERY BEST FEMALE on the planet would have no chance with a legitimate Top 100 male pro (long race to 50 or better playing 10 ball) and a severe underdog in anyone above top 250. That's just the truth. Yes I know Karen Corr etc...etc. Fine player but in the long run no chance. Stealing a set here and there doesn't make it so. Statistical anomaly because she can play but is not top tier men speed.

I remember when Allison F battled a way past his prime Grady in that battle of the sexes thing. Allison was Queen of the female universe and Mr. Mathews best before date had long gone (not that he was ever a Top Tier Pro...great student, thinker and gambler). Throw out your female champion against SVB, Alex, Dennis or Jayson S plus 20 others in a long race and you'll need to call a coroner.

Anything else is just silly.

You can literally get as much action as you want if you will let me pick the players in the top 250 for Chen to play long races even against. I mean whoever wants to bet can keep me broke. I will bet every penny I have, my business and all my kid's dolls.

Just to be clear. The top 50 CRUSH her (and I was referring to the BEST female regardless of Fargo). The Top 250 beat her well done on 9-10 nights.

See above. I get the pick the players in the top 250, races to 50 for 10-20k per set, I will put up 200k CASH for up to ten matches. Thing is that you will NEVER EVER EVER EVER NEVER EVER find any backers to bet that. Nope, NO CHANCE.

Siming is legit as a player and is herself among the top 50 players on the planet, #30 right now in fact. and the ratings range is 781 for #50 790 for Siming up to 818 for #1. So no, she doesn't get "crushed" by any of those players but she will have it tough to beat the ones 20+ points above her because of statistics. The ones around her speed are all pretty much coin flips.

And if you start to go down to the 250 level - since the bottom of the world top 100 is 761 and the bottom of the USA men's top 100 is 709 - so let's just say that the #250th best player is 700speed. Siming CRUSHES him all day every day in a races to 50. I will borrow another 200k to bet against you if you would ever dare to dream of letting a 700 speed player play her in a long even race.

And for exactly that reason there are women today already pushing the envelope in Pool, more so than has been the case in the past. The best women players are already a pretty good match for ANYBODY in a tournament setting, with normal length races. I don't care who you're talking about, they better get up there and play if they are matched up against one of the top women. I saw what Karen did to Ko at the U.S. Open two years ago.....DESTROYED him! She took on a pretty strong field (128 players) at Turning Stone and went to the finals! And what I'm saying is that there are a dozen or more women right now in Asia who play as good or better than Karen.

The second level pros in this country are NOT favorites over these women in a tournament setting. It's a toss up at best. I can see where I will make some money in the future, off all the guys who think a player like Siming can't beat a good man player in a tournament match. PLEASE keep thinking exactly what you're thinking now!

You know it. I lived in China for seven years and have seen it first hand.

You're right, I just don't understand this debate. I really think you should get on the GAL so you can bet on matches. That would be a lot of fun for you since you know so much about how players match up. And you could make a lot of money too. Believe me, there are a lot of uninformed people like me betting on there every day! :thumbup:

You know full well that no one is going to bet a quarter on this proposition. If they had to bet their mouths then they would be broke.

lol... I help the $$ for his match with Lou F.

Here is my email string. Let's just say you guys only saw the top of the iceberg

that was at least 30 emails from me and 3 from Lou. They did a great job of keeping me typing and not practicing.

The Sampson and Delilah analogy that you have offered above has been disproven beyond andoubt in the world of golf. Male golfers have vastly superior "short games" than female LPGA due to superior strength. They are better able to control their clubs and have superior "touch" due to this difference.
If you watch Siming Chen or any other top female, their speed control is nowhere near a top male pro. In fact, that may be the thing that stands out the most as a difference in their games.

Then you have the whole evolutionary reasons that better equip men over women for hand-eye coordination and "aiming" abilities......but that is for another time and place I guess.

I must be watching a different Siming than you because her speed control is on point. As well I spent a lot of time with Kelly Fisher and her speed control is superb.


Does Chen have a stakehorse? Cause if she does she can get ALL the action she wants in many locales in the U.S. My prediction: her 'horse will go flat BUSTED. I don't give a rats ass about Fargo shmargo ratings. Let her tee it up for a couple days against Sky, Justin B., Chip Compton just to name three. Can she play? Hell yes but don't start comparing her to top male pros.

Um, for the record Sky, Chip and Justin are also not running around trying to play each other. Why not? Because they all know that they are literally flipping coins.

If you don't give a rat's ass about Fargo though how about you line up some 700 speed players for her to play even and I promise you that any amount you want to bet is covered.

The fact is, if Allison and Grady played One Pocket which was Grady's real game, Allison would never win a game.

I know I've opened another can of worms with my knuckle dragging point of view.

That's kind of the way it goes you, take the top female player, the dominant one, for like a decade and a half and you make her play an opponent that really is not a Nine Ball player and this is supposed to prove: what?

So you think Allison would have been INCAPABLE of learning how to play one pocket? You do realize I hope that Allison was a multiple-time world snooker champion. It's not like she never learned how to move in similar ways to what one pocket requires.

This brings up something I was thinking about...Fargorate at the top of the chart is not very linear. Here is what I'm thinking...

Example if you are SVB you are making "hard points". You are going deep in a lot of tournaments and thus over half you data points are against Top 20 type opponents. Look at the killer group he faced at the US Open 10 ball & 8 ball this month. If he dropped into the B-side (like he did last year at the US Open 9 ball) he would face even more "world beaters". What if he stopped playing the big events and just played regional softer events. It wouldn't blow my mind if he went up 50 points (ditto with the others like Dennis O, Alex etc). Therefore for the top boys it would be tough to jump up 20-30 points unless they made a big jump in their game.

This is what I see with the female scores. They play more games against "softies" and thus stack their scores....yeah yeah...I know Karen Corr. Tell her to stop playing the girls and only the big male events (DCC, US Opens etc) not just the Turning Stone and then lets see the score.

How about you look up Bibi and Babu?


Fsrgo has shown numerous times and I believe in this very thread that Shanes Fargorate would be dang near identical aginst top players or against chumps..
Jason

Yep.

It's not just about wins. It's about the rating of the opposition as well

As an example (all numbers are purely hypothetical).

Let's use Shane who is an 817. If he plays a match vs Dennis who is an 803, then the expected score of a race to 11 might be Shane 11 - Dennis 9.

Now obviously if Shane loses, then his rating will go down.
But if he only wins 11-9 his rating will not move.
And if he wins 11-10, his rating could go down as he under performed based on his rating.
The larger the difference in games when Shane wins will mean a higher rating increase.




Let's look at the flip side and imagine if Shane only started playing amateurs.

Shane (still an 817) has to play a race to 11 against Bohn Jarton who is ranked 512. The expected score of this match is Shane 11 - Bohn 3. Will Bohn ever win this match? Probably not, but anytime Bohn earns more than 3 games, Shane's rating will drop for under performing.

AND...As you may have surmised, it's going to be even tougher for Shane to increase his rating as even if he managed to shut out Bohn and every player like him, his rating wouldn't go up that much. Since unlike our previous example there's not much room to exceed the expected score.


So that's essentially why Shane's rating wouldn't skyrocket if he just started playing amateurs all the time. Hope that helps.

Bohn Jarton can get a LOT of weight from John Barton. as a 605 I crush 500 speed players.

Put Earl and the top lady player in the world on an "old school" table with slow cloth and rails and I'm taking Earl every day of the week and I don't care if his Fargo score is 12 and hers is 999.

If the lady is 100 points above Earl then she crushes him on any table. If she is evenly rated and has some time to learn the table then it will be about an even game.
 
Back
Top