After watching the Kenny Pagulayan match, which was quite entertaining, I wondered what Alex's snooker fargo would be.If Judd Trump was an 840 I'm guessing Alex would be around 730. Nobody has a higher opinion of Alex's cuemanship than I do but my God the top 5 in snooker are at a stratospheric level. It would be interesting to see a power index like Fargo applied to snooker. Comments?
Snooker and Fargo
- Thread starter thebark
- Start date
A 110 difference seems a little too low, I would expect the gap to be more. 110 means that on average, Alex would win 1 frame for every 2 that Trump wins. It's definitely plausible and in the ballpark, but I wouldn't bet on it.
For reference, Trump's record vs Mitchell Mann (#118 ranking) is 7-2, vs Ken Doherty (#121) is 14-6, and Alex is probably not better than those at the bottom of the WST.
For reference, Trump's record vs Mitchell Mann (#118 ranking) is 7-2, vs Ken Doherty (#121) is 14-6, and Alex is probably not better than those at the bottom of the WST.
not even that close. Pag's gets BAR-B-Q'd by any of the top WST guys.
George the Greek
Well-known member
I would have to agree and I like Alex! Any of the top pool players you'd think would take a shot at Q-school with the amount of money in snooker.
for reference FSR beat martin o'donnell in a spanish snooker tournament.
i would guess o'donnell is around rank 60. but the difference between a 60 ranked snooker player and judd trump is gigantic. according to cue tracker they have played 7 times and judd has won all 7. o'donnell has won as most 3 frames against trump.
i would guess o'donnell is around rank 60. but the difference between a 60 ranked snooker player and judd trump is gigantic. according to cue tracker they have played 7 times and judd has won all 7. o'donnell has won as most 3 frames against trump.
I don't think snooker would fit into the FR paradigm very well as snooker frames just have too much performance data baked into single frames. Sort of like a single 3 cushion race to 25 or something similar. It's just too binary for measuring pros and amateurs together. Maybe you could just measure the pros, but if including amateurs -- at some point an amateur could play a professional 100 frames and never win a single one.
So what would Alex be in snooker? I think you're really close when just thinking about his aptitude, but how he would fare against the big boys is way beyond just a 100 point differential.
So what would Alex be in snooker? I think you're really close when just thinking about his aptitude, but how he would fare against the big boys is way beyond just a 100 point differential.
Fargo Ratings would work fine for Snooker. But if we were doing snooker, we would not use frame wins as the basic unit; we would use points. And where we only had frame scores, we'd convert to some canonical point score that left it apples to apples. Then a 100 point gap would not be 2-to-1 in chance of winning the frame but rather a 2-to-1 chance of scoring a point.
Imagine the basic unit of 9-Ball was a race to 3, that when someone said "do you want to play a "game" of 9-Ball?" they meant a race to 3. With that longer session as a "game," a 53 point gap (rather than a 100 point gap) of current Fargo Ratings would be 2-to-1.
We essentially like the scoring unit to be as small as possible--single rack of 9-Ball, snooker point, straight-pool point, etc.
Flakeandrun
Well-known member
FSR Vs Pagulayan - I'd watch that
The most important run in snooker is 73 from the start…..it gets a bit complicated if you use anything but ‘games won’.
Alex finished 11th ….only 8 qualified….Chris Melling qualified.
I
On the smallest possible scoring unit -- You do use a one-pocket rack and that certainly has more info than an individual rack of 9 ball. Does that about reach the limit of the usable scoring limit?
The points thing makes sense but I can't quite picture how it would play out with actual ratings. Could you create 2 hypothetical players for me, by chance?
On the smallest possible scoring unit -- You do use a one-pocket rack and that certainly has more info than an individual rack of 9 ball. Does that about reach the limit of the usable scoring limit?
Snooker players and fans are probably some of the most resistant to change people around. Introducing something like a Fargo rating to the game will definitely garner opposition from the land of Elkmaster tips and Master chalk.
I think that less than 10% of the top snooker players use Master (or Triangle) now. Nearly all have changed to Taom.
Maybe the pros who don't pay for them Bob.. But snooker rooms still have Master and Triangle mostly.
Have they switched to CF yet?
There was a very brief appearance a few months ago but all wood now. Ash seems to be the most popular.
Yes, room-supplied chalk is not going to change until the price is about the same.
My suspicion is that if you were able to put snooker players on a relative Fargo rating to compare standards, someone like Judd would be in the 870s or 880s. There has been a lot of coaching and money making opportunities (relatively speaking) for a while now that it wouldn’t be surprising if it drove competition levels higher.
The gap between the top 50 and top amateurs is so much more pronounced. You will see guys at the IBSF or WSF Championships record 5 centuries and a dozen 50+ breaks during the event and then struggle to win a match on the WST.
So I think a 730-750 snooker rating for Alex is reasonable if he is in practice, but that would mean that Trump would have to be well over 100 points higher than Alex.
The gap between the top 50 and top amateurs is so much more pronounced. You will see guys at the IBSF or WSF Championships record 5 centuries and a dozen 50+ breaks during the event and then struggle to win a match on the WST.
So I think a 730-750 snooker rating for Alex is reasonable if he is in practice, but that would mean that Trump would have to be well over 100 points higher than Alex.