Siming Chen

[overlord]

once again, ...again...

We keep talking past each other. Your primary function is to defend your rating system, I get that.

I don't really have an issue with your rating system. I really don't know much about it.

I said from the beginning that 25 years ago folks were telling me that women would be playing at parity with the men in pool.

Back then I disputed this notion. Nothing I've seen since makes me feel any different than I did 25 years ago.

There is no straw man argument. Let's reprise: I've been talking about the difference in the sexes and you've been talking about your rating system.


I wish Miss Chen all the success in the world and a long and prosperous career. I would also like to thank her, for her taste in cues as it sure looks like she is playing with a South West.

 

[Get_A_Grip]

Skills versus Executing

My take on this debate is that a Fargo Rating gives everyone a very good idea of someone's skill level. Period. I think that it is safe to say that Siming's very high Fargo Rating proves that she has the skills required to be competitive with the men.

However, it does not mean that she would in fact use those skills when playing a man to actually beat him. Seems like a minor distinction and maybe splitting hairs, but that is what I have gathered from all of the discussion in this thread.

I am a big fan of rating systems or even just using someone's "league" average when determining who can beat who in the long run. There are many intangibles when it comes to a head-to-head gambling match, but someone's rating or "average" gives one a very good starting point for what will likely happen during the match.

 

[one stroke]

My take on this debate is that a Fargo Rating gives everyone a very good idea of someone's skill level. Period. I think that it is safe to say that Siming's very high Fargo Rating proves that she has the skills required to be competitive with the men.

However, it does not mean that she would in fact use those skills when playing a man to actually beat him. Seems like a minor distinction and maybe splitting hairs, but that is what I have gathered from all of the discussion in this thread.

I am a big fan of rating systems or even just using someone's "league" average when determining who can beat who in the long run. There are many intangibles when it comes to a head-to-head gambling match, but someone's rating or "average" gives one a very good starting point for what will likely happen during the match.

All you have to do is go to you tube , Watch Her play than Watch Sky play ,, it's pretty clear who has the better skill set , the rating suggests their even a blind man can see that's simply not the case


1

 

[mikepage]

[...] even a blind man can see that's simply not the case


1

It's a biological fact that blind men see better than blind women...

 

[one stroke]

It's a biological fact that blind men see better than blind women...

Why would anyone think otherwise :grin:


1

 

[Get_A_Grip]

All you have to do is go to you tube , Watch Her play than Watch Sky play ,, it's pretty clear who has the better skill set , the rating suggests their even a blind man can see that's simply not the case
1

What I'm saying is that with her Fargo Rating, she is the best equipped and best skilled woman to be competitive with the men. I'm not saying that she could beat Sky more times than he can beat her. But certainly you agree that out of 10 matches, that she wins a couple of them?

 

[MissippiBrock]

I'm not taking anything away from women, I'm really not. They play amazing and the women pros wouldn't anihilate me, kinda. But in a serious event, with men, with long races going till 3-4 in the morning, women will lose out every time no matter what skill level she is. It's a fact of life that men have more stamina, so in a long tournament or grueling money game she would eventually start to break down. for instance as far as what I heard, reed pierce had an open bet for Allison fisher(she was top at the time) for 10,000. Even though he doesn't play anymore my money would be on reed for sure. Once again, I love the ladies but this boils down species specific attributes

 

[Get_A_Grip]

I'm not taking anything away from women, I'm really not. They play amazing and the women pros wouldn't anihilate me, kinda. But in a serious event, with men, with long races going till 3-4 in the morning, women will lose out every time no matter what skill level she is. It's a fact of life that men have more stamina, so in a long tournament or grueling money game she would eventually start to break down. for instance as far as what I heard, reed pierce had an open bet for Allison fisher(she was top at the time) for 10,000. Even though he doesn't play anymore my money would be on reed for sure. Once again, I love the ladies but this boils down species specific attributes

In a long gambling match, you are probably right. But in a normal "short-race" tournament environment, the data that the Fargo Ratings are generated using, I think that some of the women would certainly win their share of matches.

 

[Get_A_Grip]

I can see it now, the Fargo Rating system becomes "adjusted" to eliminate all biases:

-- If you're a woman, subtract 75 points
-- If you're a transgender woman, subtract 25 points
-- If you're a woman and don't normally play men, subtract 100 points
Etc.

 

[BeiberLvr]

He watched one rack when making that post

In fairness I watched half the match then passed out! ha ha

lol true, but bad decisions can easily be viewed in a vacuum.

it doesn't mean i think either of them is a bad player. i don't.

 

[BeiberLvr]

It is interesting all this talk about a "prime" Karen Corr...

Where does the idea come from that Karen today is performing worse than
Karen of a dozen years ago?

You can probably start with the AZ Money List.

Most of her wins are in small regional events with a bunch of no names.

She can certainly still hold her own, but she's definitely past her prime. To think otherwise is simply being naive.

 

[mikepage]

You can probably start with the AZ Money List.

Most of her wins are in small regional events with a bunch of no names.

She can certainly still hold her own, but she's definitely past her prime. To think otherwise is simply being naive.

Money list is not a good measuring stick

A There used to be a women's tour of note

B No women back then played like the current crop of top Asian players

C It's hard to win a lot of $$ in the US Open 9-ball, Darren's WPS event, Turning Stone when in just the last year you ran into Shaw twice, Feijen, Appleton, Hatch, Mario He, Wilkie, and Donny Mills

Five of the 10 events we have recorded for her in the last year had top men in the field

She has nearly 4000 games in our database from 2007 to now--almost 11 years. When we separate them into the first half and the second half, her performance is the same to within a few points--seemed to dip a bit around 2014 and is back up now as strong as ever.

 

[BasementDweller]

FargoRate is legit! So while having this conversation about the men versus the women, we can no longer doubt the performance of the women since their performance is no longer a subjective measurent.

Now if you are like me and you are still skeptical of a female player's actual skill set in comparison to their male counterparts then you must look beyond their rating. How could it be that a female player like Siming Chen could have the same Fargo Rating as someone like Skyler Woodward? Are they really equally skilled players if you were to measure their overall aptitude on the pool table? These skills would include pocketing balls, playing safe, banking balls, kicking balls, and breaking the balls. If they are rated the same but they don't actually have the skill set, then what in the world could be going on? How could a player who has less overall skill then another player, have an equal or higher Fargo Rating?

My theory is -- it's the game! 9 ball played on fresh cloth, with lively rails, while using template racks, and breaking with the one ball on the spot without a break box creates a game that negates the value of all but one skill and that one skill is straight fundamentally sound cueing. Playing this version of nine ball, a player doesn't need a powerful stroke, nor do they need to exhibit great safety and kicking skills, because the racks tend to spread open more predictably. Add to this, the fact that many of these games are played on looser tables and the game is just so much simplier than other versions of the same game. So if you can cue the ball straight, and remain still throughout the stroke, then a very good female player will play run out pool. Maybe even close to perfect pool. If we were to simplify the game even more we would see the gap between the sexes draw even closer. Let's say we just played 6 ball on loose tables with a wired rack. At some point the game becomes so easy that it becomes more and more difficult to distinguish between good and great.

I know what I see on the table when I compare the overall games of men and women of similar ratings and their overall skill set just isn't that close. So this is my working theory as to what is going on. If FargoRate could seperate ratings based on game types then my theory could be tested.

 

[MissippiBrock]

Ok so, I guess we're using FargoRate now to determine a players skill level? What about the badasses that don't play in Fargo rated events? I guess they don't stand a chance at all. Are higher Fargo-rated players being auctioned off for more money in Calcutta? would people do that? I'm just trying to understand what the function of fargorate is. It's just confusing to me; the numbers don't mean much when a player is having an off day, and any "underdog" has a chance to knock off the whole event. I would say it's about as accurate as flipping a coin in determining the outcome of a match. no offense or anything..

 

[JohnnyOzone]

A There used to be a women's tour of note

B No women back then played like the current crop of top Asian players

I have to disagree with point B.
I have yet to see any woman player that played better than Jean Balukas did in the 70s / 80s. There was a real reason the men pros didn't want her to play in their events.

Thought maybe Jasmin Ouschan would but she has kind of fizzled out a little bit. "The Squirt" as mentioned earlier might get there, though.

BTW, you seem to be doing a lot of extra work in this thread and I, among others i am sure, appreciate it

 

[De420MadHatter]

FargoRate is legit! So while having this conversation about the men versus the women, we can no longer doubt the performance of the women since their performance is no longer a subjective measurent.

Now if you are like me and you are still skeptical of a female player's actual skill set in comparison to their male counterparts then you must look beyond their rating. How could it be that a female player like Siming Chen could have the same Fargo Rating as someone like Skyler Woodward? Are they really equally skilled players if you were to measure their overall aptitude on the pool table? These skills would include pocketing balls, playing safe, banking balls, kicking balls, and breaking the balls. If they are rated the same but they don't actually have the skill set, then what in the world could be going on? How could a player who has less overall skill then another player, have an equal or higher Fargo Rating?

My theory is -- it's the game! 9 ball played on fresh cloth, with lively rails, while using template racks, and breaking with the one ball on the spot without a break box creates a game that negates the value of all but one skill and that one skill is straight fundamentally sound cueing. Playing this version of nine ball, a player doesn't need a powerful stroke, nor do they need to exhibit great safety and kicking skills, because the racks tend to spread open more predictably. Add to this, the fact that many of these games are played on looser tables and the game is just so much simplier than other versions of the same game. So if you can cue the ball straight, and remain still throughout the stroke, then a very good female player will play run out pool. Maybe even close to perfect pool. If we were to simplify the game even more we would see the gap between the sexes draw even closer. Let's say we just played 6 ball on loose tables with a wired rack. At some point the game becomes so easy that it becomes more and more difficult to distinguish between good and great.

I know what I see on the table when I compare the overall games of men and women of similar ratings and their overall skill set just isn't that close. So this is my working theory as to what is going on. If FargoRate could seperate ratings based on game types then my theory could be tested.

Brilliant!! This explains the weaknesses she has, which I detailed in another post.
I believe this to be 100% spot on. :thumbup:

 

[jasonlaus]

Ok so, I guess we're using FargoRate now to determine a players skill level? What about the badasses that don't play in Fargo rated events? I guess they don't stand a chance at all. Are higher Fargo-rated players being auctioned off for more money in Calcutta? would people do that? I'm just trying to understand what the function of fargorate is. It's just confusing to me; the numbers don't mean much when a player is having an off day, and any "underdog" has a chance to knock off the whole event. I would say it's about as accurate as flipping a coin in determining the outcome of a match. no offense or anything..

You do understand averages don't you? If Shane loses to Wilke, does that mean over the long run Shane isn't the favorite?
You have no idea what you are talking about.
Jason

 

[one stroke]

I have to disagree with point B.
I have yet to see any woman player that played better than Jean Balukas did in the 70s / 80s. There was a real reason the men pros didn't want her to play in their events.

Thought maybe Jasmin Ouschan would but she has kind of fizzled out a little bit. "The Squirt" as mentioned earlier might get there, though.

BTW, you seem to be doing a lot of extra work in this thread and I, among others i am sure, appreciate it

Yep Jean was feared in all games , it would have been good to see just how good she could have been ,
Yes Jasmine does complete very well among the men and really Kelly Fisher has a good power game also be interesting to see if she improves after her set back
But really the point is the overall woman's field is far better today with the Asian players
Yes the squirt might just be the best yet however I'm seeing a group of young men that maybe the best crop of all time so we will have to see how that goes for her

1

 

[Nick B]

You do understand averages don't you? If Shane loses to Wilke, does that mean over the long run Shane isn't the favorite?
You have no idea what you are talking about.
Jason

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.

 

[jasonlaus]

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.

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