This years US Open 9 ball is has the strongest field ever assembled in history

mikepage said:
Wait a minute...

Did you high-roll Rhea--who you have no reason to believe is into wagering at all

and then get called on it by a few others?

and you're suddenly bored?
Click to expand...

Yes Mike, I did high roll himy I guess . Tired of the bus threads with XXL is # 1 cause of Fargo so I say put it money were your mouth is. Guess really I got the horse by the mouth now, SO WHAT U WANNA DO? This could be an end all discussion on your system , or you could end up ooking very foolish.Many matches I probably would agree with but....... some...... but that's not the point right. Let's have a little fun.
 
stevelomako said:
It would be interesting to see what the results would be for the whole tournament.

I would have to guess at least 80% to the good. Should be over 300 matches total.
Click to expand...

Funny, about a week ago, I said I could bet blind on a tournament using FargoRate...
...I offered to bet the whole US Open that way....he hasn't agreed yet.

Where the hell is my cue?...:grin:
 
BmoreMoney said:
So whatcha wanna do anyway???
Click to expand...

It appears you completely disregard the Fargorate. As I said, I'll take the Fargorate favorite in every match. Should be about 300+ matches. I'll do $5-100 per match on every match. This assumes any player with no rate is lower for purposes of unranked players.
 
Last edited:
BmoreMoney said:
On a side note to this; I'd really like to see Rhay put the money where the mouth is .... ugh, like as in betting on every single Fargo favorite for this tourney. Not $5 buck either, keep it friendly at $100 a match. You SOOOO believe in Fagro, what say you Rhay?
Click to expand...
I think you misunderstand FargoRate (And what Rhea is saying).

FargoRate tries to predict the odds of how often someone will win a match. IT doesn't mean that the higher number will win.

For instance, FargoRate says this about a Oscar Dominguez vs Dennis Hatch in a race to 9. Note that it DOESN'T say that Oscar is the highest rated and will win all the time. It does say that Oscar would win 58.6% of the time.
 

Attachments

  • !Lenovo 10-21-2017 0038.jpg
    !Lenovo 10-21-2017 0038.jpg
    32.6 KB · Views: 237
When they say in “History”....?

Are we comparing it to the Visigoths? ...,and adjusting for inflation?
 
I will withdraw SOME of my reviews post. I did not clarify nor did I realize 300 + matches. Fiesta and foremost I want to bet with Rhay, only because he is the most outspoken proponent of Fargo in the most annoying way. At this point I will not, knowing Rhay can not really gamble and any bet would be backed by someone else. I have rcvd and sent some pms regarding the action so I WILL be doing something regarding this.

What I would like to do is this : I would like to bet on certain matches where Fargo says xxx is the dog and I take the dog. I really would like to bet the whole thing at $100 a match but I'm a in the process of buying many toys and I'm not gonna do that. My pics will be however at least $100 per match. To Mike : just for fun I propose this - I'll bet the whole thing fav/dog per Fargo with me taking the dog for a preset total amount ( 151-149) kind da thing . Pm me to set up.
 
stevelomako said:
I'd like to get in on this on Ibas end.

All we have to do is look at the whole chart when the tournament is over and start passing blues (100s) back and forth.
Click to expand...

Silly! Blues are 30's lol. Hundreds are honeys and hondos, ten of them are a stack , and a 100 is a rack lol.
 
BmoreMoney said:
Silly! Blues are 30's lol. Hundreds are honeys and hondos, ten of them are a stack , and a 100 is a rack lol.
Click to expand...

Lol. When you put a bundle (5,000) together it's such a nice blue color. It's nice collecting blues.

A rack is also a boodle. Hundreds are also beans.
 
So ... no bets here?

I get barking at Rhea, edit: nevermind.
 
Last edited:
mikepage said:
Chess has some serious inflation problems, and in some ways we are more sophisticated than they have been.

With that said, we don't have the longitudinal problem solved. 800 five years from now may not mean the same thing as 800 today. There are some things we could do the fix this, but they would come at the expense of rating players accurately relative to one another today--a tradeoff we are at this point not now willing to make.

So things may change in the future (we have all the raw data, so it'd just a matter of re-analysis) but at this point assume we say nothing about changes in the overall level of play in time.

I will say, though, that in every activity I can think of with an ABSOLUTE measure of performance--running--jumping--swimming--weightlifting... performance now is better that performance a few or several decades ago. My daughter in high school swam better times than did Johnny Weismuller--Tarzan and 1930's Olympian. To imagine activities like pool without an absolute measure are somehow different is romantic fantasy, imo...
Click to expand...

Mike -- I think you could get some idea of whether/how players' skill drifts over time by using a fixed metric like Accustats rating. Have you done a scatter of Accustats TPA vs. Fargo ratings? What's the correlation? If the relationship is strong, then you could normalize Fargo ratings such that an 800 is always equal to, say, a 900 TPA (or whatever reference point is implied by the data).

This wouldn't be perfect. For example, if safety play has improved over time faster than kicking skill has improved, then average TPAs may be falling over time. Or changes in table difficulty or cloth could move TPAs up or down over time. (You could use a regression model to adjust TPAs for table type and any other factors that are recorded for a large set of matches, but that would be a big project.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top