Siming Chen
- Thread starter Rhea
- Start date
I'm sure Mike will be along to explain it.
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.
I too thought Jasmin who played more like men and had a coach by her side would do better.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHLhDgYQA9E
nice, beiber ;-) and Bohn Jarton--icing on the cake.
Bohn Jarton is an expert at pool in China, CTE and...
Beiberlover did a nice job explaining.
But I will make a point. Suppose you score a 5 on a par-4 golf hole, and we want to know how good that is.
The answer is it depends
Is it a long or a short par 4
straight or doglegged
uphill? downhill?
water?
traps?
wide or narrow fairways?
length of grass in the fairways? in the rough?
hard ground or soft ground?
windy? which way?
raining?
slope of the green?
trees?
and on and on. These things are CURSE of absolute measures of performance. Accustats is an example of an absolute measure.
So what is the alternative? How about...we don't care about any of the above. We also don't care what you scored on the hole.
The only thing we care about is how many strokes did it take YOU compared to Tiger Woods on the same day. Are you plus 1? plus 2? That is what we would record. And that whole big list of things above goes away.
So when we rate you as a pool player, we don't care whether you've ever
won a match,
made a spot shot,
run a table,
made money.
We also don't care how you kick or bank, or how your fundamentals are, or your speed control, or whether you choose sensible patterns.
None of that matters to us at all. We use RELATIVE and not ABSOLUTE performance and only ask whether you won or lost a game against an opponent of known rating.
Wouldn't absolute performance, or at the very least a combination of absolute and relative performance be a better indicator of someone's ranking? Is the ease in which you are able to obtain and input the data the only reason you choose to go with relative performance?
I think this is where people have qualms with Fargo Rate. If we went only by absolute performance, then perhaps Siming's rating wouldn't be as close to Skylar's.
It's simple to say that if Skylar beat Archer 11-8 and Siming beat Archer 11-5 that Siming is as good or better than Skylar. But there are so many other variables that get ignored with this method. Conditions, where they are in the tournament, player health, player mental and emotional condition at the time, etc.
No. At first blush, it may seem that adding some absolute performance information couldn't possibly be wrong--more information can only help; it can't hurt. But that absolute performance you're looking at is already folded into the relative performance measure--so there would be a double counting of sorts that you couldn't unwind. Sticking to relative performance isn't just easy; it is the right thing to do. The exception is predicting the results of a particular match when you have some reason to believe the performance will deviate from the average--like one player's dog just died.
I think generally our judgment is worse than we thing it is, and confirmation bias is rampart https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias. So if we watch a match with a point of view, we will usually find a way to confirm that point of view (OK, that 8-ball shot you pointed out was downright weird on any level ;-)). So I don't know the answer here --except that--for me--more data is always the answer. With more date either the current view will be supported or it won't. And if it isn't, the new updated ratings will be better. Either way we're better with more data.
For just a few matches, yes. But if those numbers hold for many matches over a variety of conditions, then the conclusion is fine.
This is interesting, and I agree in part. It is possible Siming is world-class for a narrow range of skills, and our data for her happens to emphasize those skills. But I don't think loose pockets where many good players run out lots of tables deemphasizes safety skills. In fact I think it might be just the opposite. Under these conditions you are looking for what causes changes in control and in particular a change in control that leads to a game win. I think safeties are more important here. With tight pockets I think shotmaking and runout ability are more important.
Since I am more interested in the battle of the sexes aspect of the discussion, I will leave the numbers crunching to Mike P..
Last night I was talking to a great player and a guy I respect and I was relating to him the dust up on AZ over male vrs female players.
He shared a story with me about a female Chinese player named Chen, that played a Pinoy pro, for the money, at a San Fernando Valley CA., pool hall that no longer is extant.
The Pinoy pro was "Santos ", the woman was " Jennifer Chen ", a top ten rated female pro.
To get JC into the match Santos had to give up weight which he did, the action was 2k a set.
JC loses the first set and asks for more weight and Santos grants the request. Then JC loses the next set.
JC petitions Santos for even more weight. Santos decides to roll with it. JC loses the third set.
At this point JC is in a state of emotional discomfort. She starts crying, the match is over. Santos is a very fine player but he is not an elite world competitor or in the top rank of male players.
Jennifer Chen was a top ten in the world ranked female, at the time of the action match.
These are the fact as related to me. What does this all mean? You be the judge.
Last night I was talking to a great player and a guy I respect and I was relating to him the dust up on AZ over male vrs female players.
He shared a story with me about a female Chinese player named Chen, that played a Pinoy pro, for the money, at a San Fernando Valley CA., pool hall that no longer is extant.
The Pinoy pro was "Santos ", the woman was " Jennifer Chen ", a top ten rated female pro.
To get JC into the match Santos had to give up weight which he did, the action was 2k a set.
JC loses the first set and asks for more weight and Santos grants the request. Then JC loses the next set.
JC petitions Santos for even more weight. Santos decides to roll with it. JC loses the third set.
At this point JC is in a state of emotional discomfort. She starts crying, the match is over. Santos is a very fine player but he is not an elite world competitor or in the top rank of male players.
Jennifer Chen was a top ten in the world ranked female, at the time of the action match.
These are the fact as related to me. What does this all mean? You be the judge.
You keep going on and on about women that are not Siming, you might as well replace that with APA 6, or any other thing you want cause it has NO bearing on this discussion
Jason
Santos Sambajon and Jennifer Chen are in FargoRate despite their relative inactivity for many years. Santos is 731 and Jennifer 650. If those ratings (or their difference) are anything like they would have been at the time of the match you mentioned, then you can understand why Santos was a huge favorite. And 650 is a long, long way from Siming Chen's current 783.
[Jennifer Barretta is 650 currently.]
Overloard - great story.
Jennifer lost more than that in Asia.
"Jennifer Chen has come forth to explain her alleged debt.
In her latest press conference held on 19th Nov 2006 in Japan, she also explained why she was away from Taiwan, what caused her to disappear, and her plan for her future."
On the brighter side, the Texas Tornado traveled to Hawaiian Brian's and had to mail her thousands $$$ winnings home for fear of customs inspectors.
At Hard Times, Jeanette Lee and Aileen Pippen challenged Butch to play on a bar table and busted him for around a thousand - he later told me that it was child support money. They travelled to Gilroy, CA with Chamat and cleaned up there as well. Allison Fisher, her BFF then and Helena Thornfeldt got their start there as well.
Jeanette showed up at Hard Times flat but after winning against the boys, she was no longer flat - the rest is history.
".According to George, Lee earned approximately $650,000 in 2007. And, with more revenue already contracted for 2008 from existing marketing deals than her total earnings from '07, and nine months to arrange yet more work, George estimates that Lee will likely top the $800,000 mark in '08 earnings.
In fact, George expects Lee to net more than $1 million a year from marketing deals in the near future. ...
http://www.billiardsdigest.com/new_current_issue/apr_08/
Jennifer lost more than that in Asia.
"Jennifer Chen has come forth to explain her alleged debt.
In her latest press conference held on 19th Nov 2006 in Japan, she also explained why she was away from Taiwan, what caused her to disappear, and her plan for her future."
On the brighter side, the Texas Tornado traveled to Hawaiian Brian's and had to mail her thousands $$$ winnings home for fear of customs inspectors.
At Hard Times, Jeanette Lee and Aileen Pippen challenged Butch to play on a bar table and busted him for around a thousand - he later told me that it was child support money. They travelled to Gilroy, CA with Chamat and cleaned up there as well. Allison Fisher, her BFF then and Helena Thornfeldt got their start there as well.
Jeanette showed up at Hard Times flat but after winning against the boys, she was no longer flat - the rest is history.
".According to George, Lee earned approximately $650,000 in 2007. And, with more revenue already contracted for 2008 from existing marketing deals than her total earnings from '07, and nine months to arrange yet more work, George estimates that Lee will likely top the $800,000 mark in '08 earnings.
In fact, George expects Lee to net more than $1 million a year from marketing deals in the near future. ...
http://www.billiardsdigest.com/new_current_issue/apr_08/
Last edited:
justinb386
Banned
Yes, I watched her play, and I think that Skyler is on another level. For example, I seen her miss a bank shot pretty bad. Skyler would have probably nailed that same bank shot 9 times out of 10. His level of skill just seems much stronger I think. Maybe I should not judge though, because I have not seen her play that much yet. I think he crushes her 9 times out of 10, on any day of the week, playing any game on a pool table.
justinb386
Banned
Long races? I think not.
You don't think this might have anything to do with the demise of the WPBA? There really aren't any pro women's events anymore really.
I've watched Karen play for decades. She plays pretty sporty these days...at least as well as before. Her break has improved *dramatically*.
In short, the money list on AZ really tells us *nothing* about Karen's ability level.
KMRUNOUT
Your post reflects vastly more on you than on Fargorate.
No offense or anything.
KMRUNOUT
Hard to imagine you are looking. I've seen footage of Jean from this period. She played good. There are 10 women today that would *destroy* her. Probably more.
Often nostalgia gets the better of the memory. The game has evolved. The players have evolved. The knowledge has evolved. Seem hard to miss this if you're looking.
KMRUNOUT
Wins against higher rated opponents are weighted more than wins against low rated opponents. For Shane's fargorate to go up playing very weak competition, he would have to shut them out pretty much every time. That is not likely to happen.
KMRUNOUT