The unestablished fargo player

[mikepage]

Isn't it true that a tourney winner will play well in the event?

Dumping and dogging look similar, so do winning and coming off the stall.

Yes, this is true

As an example, look at Damian, who won the elite. He is a well established 710. But in winning the event he played at 780 speed for 62 games.

If it was an unestablished 610 in another division who played at 680 speed for 62 games, people would say "Ahah!"

Selecting a person for evaluation based on being the tournament winner is a milder version of selecting yesterday's winning lotto number and then marveling about ho unlikely it was that it won.

 

[jason]

Well Fargo , BCA, APA all of it is a joke . Always gonna be that way that's why I don't play any of it ....

You don't even know what you're talking about.

 

[sixpack]

Yes, this is true

As an example, look at Damian, who won the elite. He is a well established 710. But in winning the event he played at 780 speed for 62 games.

If it was an unestablished 610 in another division who played at 680 speed for 62 games, people would say "Ahah!"

Selecting a person for evaluation based on being the tournament winner is a milder version of selecting yesterday's winning lotto number and then marveling about ho unlikely it was that it won.

Additionally, people who don’t play as frequently as they used to or would like to can really jump their game by immersing themselves in a big tournament environment for a week.

 

[nine_ball6970]

I’ve played on a Bca league for two years now, almost every week. And I only have 186 games in Fargo. I don’t know if my LO isn’t entering everything or Fargo hasn’t processed the entries yet. I just know that I’ve paid my dues and played my games and it wouldn’t be right to keep me out of a bca tournament if I showed up.

Sounds like your LO isn't entering everything. I believe Fargo enters all scores submitted in a timely manner. You should find out.

Make it 100 games. The goal should be to keep unknowns from playing in tournaments where most everyone else is established.

Fargo has been around a long time now. Players really shouldn't be sneaking in under the radar anymore. I play in tournaments all the time but my rating comes from two tournaments a year. Not much is ever entered here.

 

[mikepage]

I’ve played on a Bca league for two years now, almost every week. And I only have 186 games in Fargo. I don’t know if my LO isn’t entering everything or Fargo hasn’t processed the entries yet. I just know that I’ve paid my dues and played my games and it wouldn’t be right to keep me out of a bca tournament if I showed up.

They get processed the night they are entered into LMS. Your league operator just needs to enter the scoresheets. Of course your division has to be using LMS... Is it?

 

[garczar]

Well Fargo , BCA, APA all of it is a joke . Always gonna be that way that's why I don't play any of it ....

I don't know where you play but in my neck-of-the-woods if it wasn't for FargoRate and leagues there would be little or zero play. Almost all the tournaments are now FR events with big turn-outs and good payouts. I agree there are some flies in the ointment but overall FR is the best system yet.

 

[Pete]

First I would like to point out that everyone can go into a rut, and have a bad season. Perhaps it was there first season after a long layoff. I personally have had this. When I stopped playing and training in 2009 I was around a B player (Tor's test I was a strong favorite with 5 balls and could n high gear beat 6), though I thought I was a C player. Anyway.

So I have had moments of shooting at my former capability but often not. So I don't look like I'm very good. But n the playoffs I played at a reasonably mid range of my former capability. So it would be tough to hold me to a rating (that would be fair for me or others).

N I w the "Sandbaggers" referred to in this post should be looked at and rated from th u s point on. If they just had great days, I don't think they should be put at a higher handicap than their normal daily play abilities.

I do think they should be put on the radar and carefully observed from a distance then rated accordingly.

Mike from Fargorating is doing a great service for the Pool community, it's not perfect but as more and more are entered in, the more accurate it can become I think.

Just would be nice if it was marketed to even small in-house leagues like in Northern MA and Southern NH...

 

[jason]

Mike from Fargorating is doing a great service for the Pool community, it's not perfect but as more and more are entered in, the more accurate it can become I think.

TAP TAP. I agree with this.

The pure nature of any handicapping system will be flawed. And it should be. Handicapping is not ment to make everything equal. The better player should still win the majority of the time. All a handicapping system can do is try to make a competition competitive.

 

[Black-Balled]

I have been Damien.

I won a sort of big event once and manhandled about 5 people I'd expect are 100+ Fargo dots ahead of me.

it does happen.

Yes, this is true

As an example, look at Damian, who won the elite. He is a well established 710. But in winning the event he played at 780 speed for 62 games.

If it was an unestablished 610 in another division who played at 680 speed for 62 games, people would say "Ahah!"

Selecting a person for evaluation based on being the tournament winner is a milder version of selecting yesterday's winning lotto number and then marveling about ho unlikely it was that it won.

 

[sixpack]

They get processed the night they are entered into LMS. Your league operator just needs to enter the scoresheets. Of course your division has to be using LMS... Is it?

I don’t know. Our LO is an early adopter but there has been a lot going on with him since LMS came out and I don’t think we have made the switch yet. I think if we haven’t we will be starting next session with it.

 

[BasementDweller]

Something not mentioned yet and to FargoRate's credit is -- players are seeing the handwriting on the wall and they are getting their last few big tourney opportunities in before Fargo totally takes over. I sort of have mixed feelings on this as I sort of like players getting the opportunity to earn their way up the ladder in these big events as opposed to losing out on these chances just through good league play. For years I've seen great players work their way up but now guys like me that don't play many big tourneys can lose out by just playing league. I wouldn't really say this is sandbagging either but it's just the way it has always been around here (Michigan). I see both sides though and wouldn't ever purposely attempt to keep my rating low to play in a certain division.

 

[skip100]

Sandbagging can never be fully eliminated since you can't stop people from losing on purpose in low-stakes events in the run-up to high-stakes events.

What you can do is use manual or semi-automated systems to prevent a player's rating from drifting too far away from their performance in important events. In golf, rounds are entered as Home, Away, or Tournament. Your best two tournament scores stay with you for two years and essentially act as a handicap ceiling. Shooting, say, 72-71 in a two-day event means your handicap will be capped at about 5 no matter how poor the scores you post are over the next two years.

This won't prevent the first-time sandbagger from taking down a big tournament but it can reduce the number of repeat offenses.

 

[9BallKY]

I’ve posted this before. It’s hard to get a Fargo rating if your not a touring pro or a league player. Pros are always playing big tournaments where it gets turned in. A lot of leagues turn in their games. People like me who doesn’t have a lot of big tournaments close or don’t play league can go years and never get established.

For example I know a guy who plays somewhere every weekend. He has been doing this for at least 3 years that I know of and he has just over 100 games in the system. He isn’t dodging Fargo rate there just not a lot of tournaments that use it.

 

[mikepage]

I’ve posted this before. It’s hard to get a Fargo rating if your not a touring pro or a league player. Pros are always playing big tournaments where it gets turned in. A lot of leagues turn in their games. People like me who doesn’t have a lot of big tournaments close or don’t play league can go years and never get established.

For example I know a guy who plays somewhere every weekend. He has been doing this for at least 3 years that I know of and he has just over 100 games in the system. He isn’t dodging Fargo rate there just not a lot of tournaments that use it.

This depends on where you are. The number of tournaments going in and areas starting to get tournaments in is growing.

 

[banditgrrr]

Allowing unestablished players to enter regional or national championship tournaments is just a poor decision. The only feasible reason for this would be to allow more people in to generate more revenue but it undermines the validity of Fargo, in my opinion. Obviously, tournament directors can decide how they want to run tournaments and players can decide if they want to participate. My decision is not to participate until they only allow established players. There's been far too many instances of where unestablished players have played WAY above their skill level.

 

[BRussell]

Sandbagging can never be fully eliminated since you can't stop people from losing on purpose in low-stakes events in the run-up to high-stakes events.

What you can do is use manual or semi-automated systems to prevent a player's rating from drifting too far away from their performance in important events. In golf, rounds are entered as Home, Away, or Tournament. Your best two tournament scores stay with you for two years and essentially act as a handicap ceiling. Shooting, say, 72-71 in a two-day event means your handicap will be capped at about 5 no matter how poor the scores you post are over the next two years.

This won't prevent the first-time sandbagger from taking down a big tournament but it can reduce the number of repeat offenses.

I think Mike Page makes a pretty good argument that the tournaments you dump in will not get many games in the system. If you lose a lot, you'll be out quickly, and you won't have played a lot of games. You'd need to lose your money in a whole lot of low-stakes tournaments to really decrease your rating significantly for the one big tournament.

And then you'd probably be able to do it only once, because all the games from the tournament you won would get in the system, and there would be a lot of them because you'd have beaten so many people to win the tournament. It doesn't really seem financially smart, let alone the fact that it wouldn't be very much fun to lose badly in 10 tournaments in order to win one.

 

[sbpoolleague]

Allowing unestablished players to enter regional or national championship tournaments is just a poor decision. The only feasible reason for this would be to allow more people in to generate more revenue but it undermines the validity of Fargo, in my opinion. Obviously, tournament directors can decide how they want to run tournaments and players can decide if they want to participate. My decision is not to participate until they only allow established players. There's been far too many instances of where unestablished players have played WAY above their skill level.

This July, for the first time ever, the BCAPL has introduced a pure Fargo-handicap singles division limited to players with fully qualified Fargo handicaps.

I applaud the BCAPL for doing this. I foresee this becoming the norm over the next few years.

Once the data entry system for Fargo is as robust and omnipresent as the data entry system for golf handicaps, you will see Fargo ratings become known and accepted worldwide.

If the APA were smart they would devise a plan to integrate with Fargo.

 

[skip100]

I think Mike Page makes a pretty good argument that the tournaments you dump in will not get many games in the system. If you lose a lot, you'll be out quickly, and you won't have played a lot of games. You'd need to lose your money in a whole lot of low-stakes tournaments to really decrease your rating significantly for the one big tournament.

And then you'd probably be able to do it only once, because all the games from the tournament you won would get in the system, and there would be a lot of them because you'd have beaten so many people to win the tournament. It doesn't really seem financially smart, let alone the fact that it wouldn't be very much fun to lose badly in 10 tournaments in order to win one.

I was thinking more about league games than tournaments. Presumably most of these amateur players don't enter many tournaments and get most of their Fargo games from the LMS.

 

[alstl]

I've noticed in a system where the rules can easily be manipulated dishonest people tend to do well.

 

[nine_ball6970]

I think Mike Page makes a pretty good argument that the tournaments you dump in will not get many games in the system. If you lose a lot, you'll be out quickly, and you won't have played a lot of games. You'd need to lose your money in a whole lot of low-stakes tournaments to really decrease your rating significantly for the one big tournament.

And then you'd probably be able to do it only once, because all the games from the tournament you won would get in the system, and there would be a lot of them because you'd have beaten so many people to win the tournament. It doesn't really seem financially smart, let alone the fact that it wouldn't be very much fun to lose badly in 10 tournaments in order to win one.

You don't necessarily have to lose tournament matches to keep your rating down. A player could still win matches vs weaker players and keep the score close. Fargo says you are twice as good as your opponent. You play a race to 7 and go up 6-1. You lose 5 in a row and then win hill hill. Your rating would go down some and theirs would go up. Fargo says based on that match you two are close in skill when in actuality the gap might be bigger than two to one.

Player might have a decent rating but not up where it would be if they played full speed every game of every match.