Yikes. Don't tell me she put that on gene?
no Gene and I bet 740 a piece and it was his idea not mine, we were betting on Justin Bergman who is the favorite, but since he hadnt played in a long time prior to playing Chris he ended up losing.
Top 57 Players on Earth
- Thread starter Rhea
- Start date
no Gene and I bet 740 a piece and it was his idea not mine, we were betting on Justin Bergman who is the favorite, but since he hadnt played in a long time prior to playing Chris he ended up losing.
So the only solution is to input more data for accuracy.
There is no different values for different types of wins or losses correct?
That's fair. I can live with that.
I was just wondering as you have different categories of wins, such as my 1 player, vs 2 player participation per game, with some wins really taking no skill at all if you think about it (Breaking or lucking the 9 in which doesn't happen in other games really)
Iit just made me question if those distinctions could mathematically provide greater accuracy as there has been no mention of them.
I guess they technically could provide info that would help in the long run, but at the same time, that is a lot of specific data to sort through and look for, especially when there is no standard for record keeping to begin with, so I understand the bigger sample approach in the long term.
Thanks again for the response.
I don't get it, you are pretty much straight forward and honest with how good you are. You play and beat some top of the line players, and have done so for years. And still you get people who don't believe it and just have to try you.
I mean I understand placing a bet against you when playing Bergman but after you beat him she wants to stake a girl against you? And was it before or after you beat Bergman that Gene challenged you himself?
Last edited:
Tomoki is listed as semifinalist at US open once
But you are right I am guessing there are probably few hundred players below top 50 who can fight for positions In Lower half of top 100
who are lesser known /unknown or do not have sufficient number of games played yet to show in top 100
I would say there are around 4 to 5 dozen elite top tier and 2nd tier world class player and below then there are probably few hundred to 1000 players who are close to each other and can get into top 100
In Philippines, there are probably couple hundred who are lesser known who do not show up in ranking or ratings for one reason or other . You can see all those monsters during recent few MP Cups. They come out of wood work from provinces all over country and can play . On WCOP commentary recently a European pool player commentating said there are 200+ players playing Eurotour
Those 200+ (Some of whom may be listed ) can also be candidates for lower half of top 100
From Taiwan, China , Japan and rest of world probably another couple hundred
So my guess is close to a thousand other players in world who can get into top 100
Most of these are mostly unknowns and unheralded or below radar
And I think that number may be on low side
When I use to go on the road it was even better for me .
Always got action not so much now days .
You guys are really over complicating this. ELO is about predicting wins and losses based off of prior wins and losses, that's it. It doesn't matter what the specifics of the game are.
If someone doesn't get to shoot and loses, you are viewing it as them getting points taken away even though they didn't get an opportunity to shoot.
In reality, the reduction in the person's ELO rating reflects the possibility of them losing without shooting. There is now a higher percentage chance this person will lose, because of the fact they might not get to shoot, hence a lower ELO with less of a relative chance to win.
You also have to realize that each individual score that affects your ELO rating is rather insignificant when considering all games over time. Your score will become more accurate the more games you play, and will become a very accurate prediction of relative wins and losses.
When you start trying to make adjustments to the algorithm based on the specifics of the game, that's where you get into trouble, and that's what's wrong with many of today's rating systems, like the APA.
If you start saying, well, we'll change the amount of the points given and taken away based on the length of the set and the format of the tournament.... now you're introducing a bunch of subjective factors that can't possibly produce accurate results. What should the point difference be, and how do you come up with it? Just one more excuse for people to say the algorithm is flawed.
The reason ELO works great for chess is not because chess is equal opportunity with no luck. It's because there's no other way to measure skill in chess than based on wins and losses. You can't run out in chess, or tell how good someone is based on individual stats like a straight pool high run, or how many innings it takes you to run out in 8-ball on average. You can only approximate how strong a move is based on brute forcing all possible variations all the way to the end of the game. So really you need an opponent and the result of the game to tell you how good someone is relative to someone else.
The ELO system can work just as well in pool, with enough data. The whole point is to try to predict the probability of a win or loss between two opponents. The best way to do that is to use prior wins and losses, where the more data you have, the more accurate you are.
The simple truth is that there is no system that can accurately predict who will win a match. All you can do is approximate based on past results.
No formula is going to predict those matches where Shane loses to a nobody. On any given day, anything can happen. If you want the perfect formula for approximating the probability of this nobody beating Shane, that's where ELO comes in.
Let me get this straight. Mark isn't allowed to respond to a "naysayer" even when they have bad reasons for their opinions? Why is everyone allowed to criticize Fargo, but then Mark isn't allowed to defend it?
You have a very interesting way of thinking.
Is it 1000? I'm truly curious. If it's 1000, then many many people are missing from Fargorate and we'll just have to wait until the system expands to more tournaments to get a better picture.
I know it's not ready for prime time yet but I think it will be soon. I played a guy last night that's rated at 667 vs my current 574 rating and beat him 10-7 in 9 ball. According to Fargorate, a fair game would have been a 6-10 race. I attribute that to him being overrated and me being underrated (more of the former than the latter) as we know through experience that we are pretty even overall.
In the case of Chen and the rest of the pros, there are many more games in the system so I doubt her rating is that far off.
First off for people to think Fargo should be accurate for everyone on earth, get real. If the best player in the world stays in his basement and runs 20 packs every night, he will be missed-It is what it is-it can only rate those it has data on.
Now let me ask Mike- Do you have to type in the results for each player? Is there any automation possible? Maybe if everyone used a standard bracket that would be somehow downloadable? How can you keep up with the data now and in the future? Does Fargo have employees? Is there a path to profitability/sustainability?
Now let me ask Mike- Do you have to type in the results for each player? Is there any automation possible? Maybe if everyone used a standard bracket that would be somehow downloadable? How can you keep up with the data now and in the future? Does Fargo have employees? Is there a path to profitability/sustainability?
Wtf is this? Shark tank?
So how should we rate people? Ask them if they run 20 packs in their basement, then give them a letter ranking?
Criticizing fargo because it doesn't solve impossible problems is just silly.
Who knows I really don't
But the 1 s I know of over 100 for sure
Who knows how many good players in other country's that I don't know of .
My guess and this is a guess prolly 300 .
I would bet a lot of money it's over 100 .
There was NO criticism of Fargo in my post-ZERO!! None!!
Just trying to figure out if they will be around for a while. I dont wanna get into them and then they disappear on me. It happens often in the pool arena.
First off for people to think Fargo should be accurate for everyone on earth, get real. If the best player in the world stays in his basement and runs 20 packs every night, he will be missed-It is what it is-it can only rate those it has data on.
New York or Arizona!