Trouble with consistency

Pro Player Mark Tad is 690 and Nick Varner's average over his life is 731. Anything in the 600s is pretty sporty. 700s is a blistering speed (Varner, Hall, Sigel, Reyes in their primes).



Yep. I play a 730 all the time, 200 points better than me. Playing in Fargo, ND at Mike's poolhall, everyone I play is rated. I play people at every level.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
I agree with you rob, but i know guys in there 80s with mental and physical problems who were good players and now not so much. They still are above 500.

Like I said extenuating cicumstances. Im thinking more along the lines of karate schools that give out black belts after 2-4 years.

I could be way off, im very ignorant on the subject.
 
First of all, thanks a lot for all the responses!
There were a lot of useful tips.

Some things to clear up:
1) As much as I'm sure it would help, I'm not planning on getting an instructor. Even if I was, I'm not in the US so I'm guessing all those suggested are a little too far for me (just an ocean and half a continent away) and I'm sure a little too pricy for me.
2) I do have a PSR which include my chalking before every shot, visualising the angle and the desired result and the practice strokes...


I have noticed tho that the things that work one week doesn't work the next week.
Eg. It was one of those weeks where i couldn't pot a ball. I descovered that if I hold the cue tighter than normal, I was playing decently again. For the rest of the week I played with a tighter grip and everything was fine. After a week or so potting with a tight grip became imposible..
But even if i don't change a single thing, I can't play consistently the entire month.... One day my stroke is dead straight, the next is not, no matter what I do. One week my eyes see the potting angle clearly, the other I can't aim a single shot. There are weeks that I get the feeling that the margin of error on aiming is very big and no matter where I hit the OB (near the potting angle) it will go in the pocket, the other week I feel that the smallest detail can throw the ball out...

It's getting at the point where I'm starting to feel like a woman, in the sence that I seem to go throu "my time of the month"... I sould mark my calendar and avoid playing in tournaments in those weeks.
 
I, like many others, apparently,have those days. I play at least 20 hours a week

and right now I have been waiting for the next job to start (construction) so I have

been playing about 35-40 hours per week. So, I get plenty of play but just certain days

I can't hit anything literally,not even straight ins.

I have a friend of mine that's almost 70 and we play at least weekly for a few hours

He can tell right away how I've been playing and he always says the same thing

when I'm not shooting well. Boy, you've got too many minds. Meaning, my mind

is somewhere else besides the pool table. I have almost began to believe him.

When things are all good in my mind, I play decent and vice-versa. When other

things have my mind occupied , I miss plenty of shots that I always make.

Just keep on with your PSR as everyone says and you'll your game slowly coming

back to you.

I don't think anyone asked, or I didn't notice. How long have you played?

best of rolls to you
 
It's what keeps a lot of people from being much better players.
Usually it is caused by breaks in the game . You play 25 hours a week for a couple of months , then work or family or something starts taking more of your time and you go down to 0 to 5 hours a week for a few months.
The hardest thing for me , is regaining speed control.{which in turn means you will be shooting a lot of tough shots, or ducking when you should have run out}
I used to start by hitting the balls too soft when I came back or too hard.
I found over the years, that it is easier to start hitting the balls too hard right away, and work down in speed , than vice versa.
 
Pro Player Mark Tad is 690 and Nick Varner's average over his life is 731. Anything in the 600s is pretty sporty. 700s is a blistering speed (Varner, Hall, Sigel, Reyes in their primes).

I don't think a 700 rating is as good as you believe it is and how would you know what Varner's average over his lifetime is? If Varner is currently rated a 731 then that is his CURRENT rating.

A 700 player would be considered a short stop in my book (or maybe not even quite), but certainly not world class.

Varner, Hall, Sigel and Reyes would have been 750+ in their prime.
 
Stan -- Are you familiar enough with the Fargo Ratings to give us an idea of what you think of your current rating? I think it's a bit low and will get much higher as more data comes in.

I know very little about the Fargo rating system but I do suspect that it is quite good, probably excellent.

I question the motivation behind the presentation of the chart within this thread. Something is a little fishy!

Stan Shuffett
 
Last edited:
I don't think a 700 rating is as good as you believe it is and how would you know what Varner's average over his lifetime is? If Varner is currently rated a 731 then that is his CURRENT rating.

A 700 player would be considered a short stop in my book (or maybe not even quite), but certainly not world class.

Varner, Hall, Sigel and Reyes would have been 750+ in their prime.



Take Skylar Wooward, a 774 vs a 700. A fair race is 13-8. That tells me a 700 is a very strong player

I don't know what defines World Class.

I am sure if Mike reads this, he could tell you where a 700 sits in the FargoRate standings, if not I will ask him tonight.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Sometimes little things in life outside of pool infuence my consistency. Diet, significant other, work, kids, etc.

Same problems as you. I am the poster child for inconsistency.

Just 2 examples from this week.

Apa 9 ball. Lost to a 3 by the score of 16-4. Won vs another 5 like me last night by the score of 18-2. That's quite a bit of difference in my level of play just 4 days apart. I have had many weeks like that.

When people make a comment about my level of play on a good day.....it usually goes like this.

Them ....man you shot great...as good as a 7.

Me.... Yea on a good day I have been known to shoot like a 7 but on a bad day I shoot like a 3 so it averages out to a 5 which is my current handicap.

Then we both have a good laugh about that.
 
I know very little about the Fargo rating system but I do suspect that it is quite good, probably excellent.

I question the motivation behind the presentation of the chart within this thread. Something is a little fishy!

Stan Shuffett



Fargo Rate can tell me how you have played, not how good an instructor you are.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Same problems as you. I am the poster child for inconsistency.



Just 2 examples from this week.



Apa 9 ball. Lost to a 3 by the score of 16-4. Won vs another 5 like me last night by the score of 18-2. That's quite a bit of difference in my level of play just 4 days apart. I have had many weeks like that.



When people make a comment about my level of play on a good day.....it usually goes like this.



Them ....man you shot great...as good as a 7.



Me.... Yea on a good day I have been known to shoot like a 7 but on a bad day I shoot like a 3 so it averages out to a 5 which is my current handicap.



Then we both have a good laugh about that.



This happens with most anyone. I find this to be an issue when people complain about a rating. It is impossible to watch every game played by every player. Our perceptions of players come from small data sets, and excuses.

Imagine you do not know a baseball player has a batting average of .328. You watch one day a week for 4 weeks, and that is the only data you have.

Game one he goes 1 for 4
Game two he goes 0 for 3
Game three he goes 2 for 5
Game four he goes 1 for 4

What is your opinion of him?

You are probably missing 12 games of data, and without it your perception is biased and wrong.

You are what you are do to consistency. As my buddy says be brutally honest with yourself


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Take Skylar Wooward, a 774 vs a 700. A fair race is 13-8. That tells me a 700 is a very strong player

I don't know what defines World Class.

I am sure if Mike reads this, he could tell you where a 700 sits in the FargoRate standings, if not I will ask him tonight.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Don't get me wrong -- a 700 player is a "very strong player". The great thing about Fargo Ratings is all these subjective rating terms can be either thrown out or actually defined. So what does being a "very strong player" even mean anymore?

I see a lot of our top amateur players hovering right around 700. So it's definitely not world class. In order to say that though -- I guess I would have to define what world class means. I'm not sure exactly, but I think a good starting point would be the top 100 players in the world. That would be WAY higher than 700. Probably around 750 or so.
 
Don't get me wrong -- a 700 player is a "very strong player". The great thing about Fargo Ratings is all these subjective rating terms can be either thrown out or actually defined. So what does being a "very strong player" even mean anymore?



I see a lot of our top amateur players hovering right around 700. So it's definitely not world class. In order to say that though -- I guess I would have to define what world class means. I'm not sure exactly, but I think a good starting point would be the top 100 players in the world. That would be WAY higher than 700. Probably around 750 or so.



Here is a link to the top 100 in Fargo Rate.

http://www.fargorate.com/Home/TopTen


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
... Imagine you do not know a baseball player has a batting average of .328. You watch one day a week for 4 weeks, and that is the only data you have.

Game one he goes 1 for 4
Game two he goes 0 for 3
Game three he goes 2 for 5
Game four he goes 1 for 4

What is your opinion of him?

You are probably missing 12 games of data, and without it your perception is biased and wrong.
...
He was 4 for 16 in those 4 games or .250 . If I take the normal variability of plus or minus two hits in that small sample into account, I might say to myself, "He's probably somewhere between a .125 and a .375 player."

The same is true of performance at pool. If your normal performance gives you 4 mistakes on average in a match, you should expect to see from 2 to 6 mistakes just from randomness of positions and conditions entirely separated from any real variation in your playing level. On the days when you happen to have 6 mistakes, I think it is wrong to conclude that your game is in the toilet because last week you only had 2 mistakes.

Take the long view.
 
He was 4 for 16 in those 4 games or .250 . If I take the normal variability of plus or minus two hits in that small sample into account, I might say to myself, "He's probably somewhere between a .125 and a .375 player."



The same is true of performance at pool. If your normal performance gives you 4 mistakes on average in a match, you should expect to see from 2 to 6 mistakes just from randomness of positions and conditions entirely separated from any real variation in your playing level. On the days when you happen to have 6 mistakes, I think it is wrong to conclude that your game is in the toilet because last week you only had 2 mistakes.



Take the long view.



That is why I like guys like you and Mike figuring ratings. You understand and look at things from a different angle than most of us.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Back
Top