Top 57 Players on Earth

[mikepage]

[...]
The thing about all those games, is that there were two active participants that each had opportunity.

Pool isn't always like that.
In rotation pool, you have situations where only one player is at the table for a game won, when they break and run out. How is it fair to take away points from the loser of that game if they were never at the table?
Is it really fair to give that game the same value as a game where both players were at the table and had opportunities to win?[...]

What you are addressing is what we refer to as the run-length issue. Effectively, when an inning between two players spans more than a scoring unit, the information content in the score is reduced. This is not a problem, but it is something to be understood and addressed.

Imagine two very weak players playing straight pool. Though one player is 100 points better than the other, they are both sufficiently weak that neither is likely to make two balls in one turn at the table. Mostly they bat a ball around until somebody makes it for each point.

For these two, a single race to 10 in straight pool is sufficient to establish who is the better player. The information content in the score is pretty high.
If the match was played six times, the scores might be
10-5
10-4
10-5
10-6
10-4
10-6

For SVB and a low-level pro (also 100 points apart), a single race to 10 in straight pool contains almost no information. If that match is played six times the scores might be

10-0
10-2
8-10
2-10
10-0
10-6

I use straight pool because it is an extreme example. For rating players playing rotation games, this is relevant in two ways. First because innings (skill-induced changes in control) span games (whether with winner breaks or with alternate breaks) the information content in the score is reduced. This is not itself a big deal. It just means more total games are required to establish a reliable rating.

Where it matters, though, is comparing different games:
Suppose PRO1 beats PRO2 11-6 playing 9-ball on a 7-foot table today,
and then PRO2 beats PRO1 tomorrow 11-6 playing 10-ball on a 9' table.

We intuitively see more "information" in the 10-ball on a 9' table score. That is, if we had to guess from this overall 17-17 score who is the better player, most of us would put our money on PRO2.

This distinction is real. And it can be incorporated using information theory and run-length (break & run) statistics. Essentially a race to 7 on a 9' table can for example be given the equivalent weight of a race to 9 on a 7' table.

Be aware, though, that for weaker players, this distinction goes away.

 

[jburkm002]

Do Fargo ratings count the lag? Apparently winning the lag in winner breaks format is very important. Two evenly matched players and one has the edge because he lags better.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[Poolplaya9]

Yawn......:boring2:

Well, I guess I can understand the response. It is easier than having to say "You are right, I said a lot of incorrect and even some down right silly things because I was misinformed or didn't think things through. Thanks for taking the time to correct me."

 

[BeiberLvr]

It's the core concept that counts.
Games that only involve one player. Or situations where one player has more opportunity then another.
That's all.

Fair enough. Thanks

 

[BeiberLvr]

You do know Carl is backing me now days .
She could play a set for a lot of money .
It would be worth it if she can win .

Would love to see this.

I think you'd come away with it, but it might not be as easy as you think.

 

[(((Satori)))]

Fargo has the potential to change pool. The more it is utilized, the more accurate it gets. It will provide a great tool for knowing a players abilities.

The naysayers don't understand the potential or the plan.

I only wish more people would actually embrace the concept of a standard rating system. I just don't get where all the animosity comes from. The goal should be to improve the world of pool - and FargoRate will do that. The more widely accepted it is, the more accurate it will be and the better it will be for all of pool.

I applaud Mike Page and Steve Ernst and all their efforts. CSI endorses the whole concept and will hopefully be helpful in making it become the 'gold standard' of rating players.

And hopefully some of the critics will be just a little more patient, a little more understanding, and maybe do a little soul searching as to what they are trying to accomplish with all their negative attitudes.

FargoRate is the best thing to happen to pool in years.

Mark Griffin, CEO
CSI

A serious question... What is the potential or the plan?

 

[SUPERSTAR]

What you are addressing is what we refer to as the run-length issue. Effectively, when an inning between two players spans more than a scoring unit, the information content in the score is reduced. This is not a problem, but it is something to be understood and addressed.

Imagine two very weak players playing straight pool. Though one player is 100 points better than the other, they are both sufficiently weak that neither is likely to make two balls in one turn at the table. Mostly they bat a ball around until somebody makes it for each point.

For these two, a single race to 10 in straight pool is sufficient to establish who is the better player. The information content in the score is pretty high.
If the match was played six times, the scores might be
10-5
10-4
10-5
10-6
10-4
10-6

For SVB and a low-level pro (also 100 points apart), a single race to 10 in straight pool contains almost no information. If that match is played six times the scores might be

10-0
10-2
8-10
2-10
10-0
10-6

I use straight pool because it is an extreme example. For rating players playing rotation games, this is relevant in two ways. First because innings (skill-induced changes in control) span games (whether with winner breaks or with alternate breaks) the information content in the score is reduced. This is not itself a big deal. It just means more total games are required to establish a reliable rating.

Where it matters, though, is comparing different games:
Suppose PRO1 beats PRO2 11-6 playing 9-ball on a 7-foot table today,
and then PRO2 beats PRO1 tomorrow 11-6 playing 10-ball on a 9' table.

We intuitively see more "information" in the 10-ball on a 9' table score. That is, if we had to guess from this overall 17-17 score who is the better player, most of us would put our money on PRO2.

This distinction is real. And it can be incorporated using information theory and run-length (break & run) statistics. Essentially a race to 7 on a 9' table can for example be given the equivalent weight of a race to 9 on a 7' table.

Be aware, though, that for weaker players, this distinction goes away.

Thank you for this answer.
I will try to address it and ask questions at lunch later today.

 

[Spimp13]

You do know Carl is backing me now days .
She could play a set for a lot of money .
It would be worth it if she can win .

In poker Chris just made a call to Rhea's bluff

I've got a couple of players not on that list that I would put a good chunk of change down against her. I don't know why people act like it is 100% accurate or even close to it.

 

[Alex Kanapilly]

In poker Chris just made a call to Rhea's bluff

I've got a couple of players not on that list that I would put a good chunk of change down against her. I don't know why people act like it is 100% accurate or even close to it.

I'd pay to watch that. I'll also bet a bit against Chris to help make it happen and see how it turns out. I'm with Mike and Rhea on this. I think Fargorate is pretty accurate as it is now and will only get better with more data.

There's no guarantee, she could just choke under the pressure but I doubt it. She wouldn't be where she's at if she had a tendency of choking under pressure.

The only problem I have with it is I'd like to see Fargorate move down to lower level regional and local tournaments, I'm sure that's in the works so I'll just sit tight and wait for it to happen.

 

[Spimp13]

I'd pay to watch that. I'll also bet a bit against Chris to help make it happen and see how it turns out. I'm with Mike and Rhea on this. I think Fargorate is pretty accurate as it is now and will only get better with more data.

There's no guarantee, she could just choke under the pressure but I doubt it. She wouldn't be where she's at if she had a tendency of choking under pressure.

The only problem I have with it is I'd like to see Fargorate move down to lower level regional and local tournaments, I'm sure that's in the works so I'll just sit tight and wait for it to happen.

The problem with lists Alex is they are based off of only reported data (tournaments etc). In pool some of the really good players don't hit tournaments intentionally and or maybe hit a few but prefer to just match up and gamble. Now she may do well in this area, but like I said (not blowing smoke) I have a couple of guys in our area that I would bet against her that aren't on the list. I just say while the list is nice to have, don't buy into it that it is totally accurate.

 

[iusedtoberich]

In poker Chris just made a call to Rhea's bluff


...snip....

No bluff has been called because this is all hot air. Do we know #1 if Chen ever gambles? #2 We know from Rheas admission she doesn't have stake horse money. #3 Would Chen even play the match if the money was put up for her?

 

[real bartram]

Would love to see this.

I think you'd come away with it, but it might not be as easy as you think.

I never said it would be easy .
I think she plays good and I always play tuff action .
What I did say is she is not 57 in the world not even use to that .
I'm not picking on her I'm just letting you guys know she is not close to 57 in the world .

 

[iusedtoberich]

I never said it would be easy .

I think she plays good and I always play tuff action .

What I did say is she is not 57 in the world not even use to that .

I'm not picking on her I'm just letting you guys know she is not close to 57 in the world .

I think the list is missing players, both male and female, simply because it's new. So for sure she is not 57 in the world.

The better question is of the players on this particular top 100 list (not counting players absent from the list), is she #57? My opinion is no way

 

[Spimp13]

No bluff has been called because this is all hot air. Do we know #1 if Chen ever gambles? #2 We know from Rheas admission she doesn't have stake horse money. #3 Would Chen even play the match if the money was put up for her?

I'm going to make an assumption that Rhea would not put up weeks/months of paychecks on a side bet with Chris like she said if he played Chen so I definitely stand by my statement.

I do agree it is hot air most likely.

 

[real bartram]

I'm going to make an assumption that Rhea would not put up weeks/months of paychecks on a side bet with Chris like she said if he played Chen so I definitely stand by my statement.

I do agree it is hot air most likely.

She did bet 740 against me and lost .
Maybe just maybe .

 

[Alex Kanapilly]

The problem with lists Alex is they are based off of only reported data (tournaments etc). In pool some of the really good players don't hit tournaments intentionally and or maybe hit a few but prefer to just match up and gamble. Now she may do well in this area, but like I said (not blowing smoke) I have a couple of guys in our area that I would bet against her that aren't on the list. I just say while the list is nice to have, don't buy into it that it is totally accurate.

I understand the sentiment here completely. I just think Chen is as good as the stats show she is. I'm not arguing that it's 100% accurate now or that it ever will be, just that the system is a strong indicator of ability based on statistics... much stronger than anyone's "gut feel" for who's better than who.

I know there are plenty of people missing from the system currently but it will get filled in over time. I also think it's accurate enough for me to bet on Chen against most people well below her in the ratings (say 50 points below her).

I doubt there are too many "sleepers" out there that can beat Chen straight up in 9 or 10 ball. I'd love to see you or anyone throw a local short stop up against her. In that case I'd bet more than a little bit on Chen.

I'm just curious, how many men do you guys think are better than Chen and could beat her in standard races to 10 or even 15 in 9 or 10 ball? 100, 200?

 

[real bartram]

I understand the sentiment here completely. I just think Chen is as good as the stats show she is. I'm not arguing that it's 100% accurate now or that it ever will be, just that the system is a strong indicator of ability based on statistics... much stronger than anyone's "gut feel" for who's better than who.

I know there are plenty of people missing from the system currently but it will get filled in over time. I also think it's accurate enough for me to bet on Chen against most people well below her in the ratings (say 50 points below her).

I doubt there are too many "sleepers" out there that can beat Chen straight up in 9 or 10 ball. I'd love to see you or anyone throw a local short stop up against her. In that case I'd bet more than a little bit on Chen.

I'm just curious, how many men do you guys think are better than Chen and could beat her in standard races to 10 or even 15 in 9 or 10 ball? 100, 200?

Over 100 for sure .

 

[Masayoshi]

I understand the sentiment here completely. I just think Chen is as good as the stats show she is. I'm not arguing that it's 100% accurate now or that it ever will be, just that the system is a strong indicator of ability based on statistics... much stronger than anyone's "gut feel" for who's better than who.

I know there are plenty of people missing from the system currently but it will get filled in over time. I also think it's accurate enough for me to bet on Chen against most people well below her in the ratings (say 50 points below her).

I doubt there are too many "sleepers" out there that can beat Chen straight up in 9 or 10 ball. I'd love to see you or anyone throw a local short stop up against her. In that case I'd bet more than a little bit on Chen.

I'm just curious, how many men do you guys think are better than Chen and could beat her in standard races to 10 or even 15 in 9 or 10 ball? 100, 200?

Tomoki Mekari is only a few points behind Chen, but is listed as the 4th best Japanese player. No offense to Mekari-san, he is a good player, but I would be utterly shocked if he were even the 20th best player in Japan. Japan is not even a nation known for pool. Imagine what kind of reserves actual pool playing countries like the Phillipines and Taiwan have.

 

[iusedtoberich]

Dear Mike:

How many matches do you have coupling the women to the men? Which women?

 

[Ron Swanson]

She did bet 740 against me and lost .
Maybe just maybe .

Yikes. Don't tell me she put that on gene?