(Un)Popular Opinion on Fargo Rate

I have a question about how Fargo ratings are calculated.

Does the Fargo rating just look at who won/lost and their Fargo ratings or does it also look at the score.

For example, let's say two 500 players played each other 3 sets and one of the players won all 3 sets 10-9 (30-27). IMO, that would suggest that even though one player won all 3 sets, they were in fact very close.

Now let's the same two 500 players played 3 sets and the scores were 10-2; 10-2; and 9-10 (29-14). In this case the sets were 2-1; but one of the players was actually pretty dominant.
 
Last edited:
As to the problem posed by the original poster, the answer is to have mostly capped Fargo tournaments. Years ago, some local tournaments in Queens NY used to exclude A players even though they were also handicapped. It would be something like that.

You could use any range you want, but it might be something like this.

Open
max 750
max 700
max 650
max 600

If you are a weaker rated player you'd still have the option of trying better opponents, but let's say you are a 725 player, you may not want to waste your time and money in an open tournament you know is going to draw a bunch of players above or close to 800 and enter the 750 instead.

Of course, sponsors and purses are still an issue, but that's the approach that should be taken.
 
Last edited:
I have a question about how Fargo ratings are calculated.

Does the Fargo rating just look at who won/lost and their Fargo ratings or does it also look at the score.

For example, let's say two 500 players played each other 3 sets and one of the players won all 3 sets 10-9 (30-27). IMO, that would suggest that even though one player won all 3 sets, they were in fact very close.

No let's the same two 500 players played 3 sets and the scores were 10-2; 10-2; and 9-10 (29-14). In this case the sets were 2-1; but one of the players was actually pretty dominant.
It's per game, Fargorate doesn't care who won the sets.
 
It's per game, Fargorate doesn't care who won the sets.

Thanks, IMO that's clearly the superior approach of the two, but I personally might put a little weight on winning a set. I've known players that seemed to play just well enough to lose (choke?) and others that seemed to find a way to win more often than you would think when it was close.

So let's A plays B and wins 10-9 and that deserves a 500, then C plays D and loses 10-9 and that deserves a 500, I think A should be rated a hair better than C even though they both had 500 caliber performances.

I also think there should be at least some attempt to break Fargo ratings out by game. Granted sample sizes would be smaller, but that doesn't mean the information shouldn't be calculated.
 
Last edited:
I also think there should be at least some attempt to break Fargo ratings out by game. Granted sample sizes would be smaller, but that doesn't mean the information shouldn't be calculated.


Mike Page has done videos on this a couple of times. If you take any number of players with a lot of games in the system and compare their 8-ball only, 9-ball only and 10-ball only ratings then they tend to be within a couple of points regardless of game played.
 
Mike Page has done videos on this a couple of times. If you take any number of players with a lot of games in the system and compare their 8-ball only, 9-ball only and 10-ball only ratings then they tend to be within a couple of points regardless of game played.
Can you link the videos I can't find them. Thanks
 
if a 750 player wont play in an open because he feels he wont win against better players. then why should he be allowed to play in a tournament with weaker players than him so he can walk away with the money.

that is exactly why they try to have cutoffs in the ratings that are allowed to play.
 
if a 750 player wont play in an open because he feels he wont win against better players. then why should he be allowed to play in a tournament with weaker players than him so he can walk away with the money.

that is exactly why they try to have cutoffs in the ratings that are allowed to play.
This is a pretty common problem across sports for people who are really really good but not world class. They can’t beat the sharks but are locked out from playing against the guppies - as they should be.

They’ll just have to be satisfied with being good enough to be 99.5th percentile and find their playing opportunities as they come.
 
they can also go in the pool room and make a game with anyone who will gamble. and if they go to an action place or let it be known they will find someone to play at a game that is relatively fair.

i know everywhere i go, where i am not a stranger, i can make games for at least a 100 a game with multiple people.
and feel i have the best of it with them after negotiations.

and negotiating is just like shopping for the best price for you non gamblers.
 
I have a question about how Fargo ratings are calculated.

Does the Fargo rating just look at who won/lost and their Fargo ratings or does it also look at the score.

For example, let's say two 500 players played each other 3 sets and one of the players won all 3 sets 10-9 (30-27). IMO, that would suggest that even though one player won all 3 sets, they were in fact very close.

Now let's the same two 500 players played 3 sets and the scores were 10-2; 10-2; and 9-10 (29-14). In this case the sets were 2-1; but one of the players was actually pretty dominant.
Fargorate looks at racks won and lost. I actually just posted about how to calculate the win ratio from given fargorates. In any case, you can read about very detailed info here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system. Fargo is basically Elo rating system (not for chess) for pool. How they update players' rating after a match ended I'm not too sure. But they definitely compare the actual scores against the expected scores (as calculated from current ratings) and adjust. So a 29-14 game definitely will have more impact than a 30-27 game, even though the outcomes are both 2-1.
 
... How they update players' rating after a match ended I'm not too sure. ...
They do a global error minimization based on every game in their database. They calculate all the ratings every day. That is very different from the way Elo ratings are maintained. In FargoRate your rating can change without you playing because your opponents have new games entered.
 
While I am sympathetic to Kollegedave's position, I can't summon the will to care about Fargo ratings much one way or another. Fargo tells me I am currently a 645. My feeling about this is neutral. Pool is a hobby, as such I strive to be better and improve and all that jive, but I'm just not gonna sweat my activities outside of my actual job. If one doesn't like Fargo ratings, the price of ignoring it is zero. The list of things that I genuinely care about is diminishing with age. I'm not about to sweat the small shit after the most traumatic year of my life. F it boyz.

Oh yeah, wear sunscreen dammit. It prevents skin cancer. Had a recent sobering experience involving a dermatologist and a razor blade. That did rise to the level of something I gave a shit about. Turns out pre-cancer is not as bad as actual cancer. Bullet dodged.
 
When Fargo Rate first appeared, my initial internal reaction was something like, “This is super. Over time, Fargo Rate will allow me and others to better understand nuanced grades of skill in players, including where I fit into the pecking order…even if it’s way down the line.”

Right now, I view FargoRate as an almost perfect assassin for much of the joy I used to find in pool.

The accuracy with which FargoRate grades the skill of players is shocking…to me. Maybe everyone else knew this was going to happen and they don’t care, and I am late to my own observation.

When a tournament starts, the list of guys who will play at the end is fairly small. Even though players like Jesus Astencio, Tyler Styer, and John Morra are ridiculously talented compared to 99.9% of pool players, in a tournament that is well attended by players on the top 100 list, we now understand that they are “dead money” or almost "dead money" to win the event. There is no one who wants this last statement to be 100% wrong more than me. However, when one scans the banners at the DCC, the pictures are dominated by very few players and there is an outsized representation of Efren, SVB, and Fedor.

Prior to FargoRate, a player’s standing in the pecking order of skill was more of a mystery. In addition, I think it was less clear how much a player’s special expertise in a game contributed to a win or a loss prior to FargoRate. For example, prior to FargoRate, if a “Eurobot” player drew “Established Pro One Pocket Specialist”, this might be viewed as an interesting match-up.

Now, provided the “Eurobot” player has even a rudimentary understanding of One-Pocket and a sufficiently high advantage in FargoRate, it’s clear that (in many instances) the match is over before it starts in favor of “Eurobot”.

Finally, I think FargoRate makes clear that perhaps the most important part of becoming a world class player, is time at the table competing against other world class players. If you look at what countries occupy the top 100 Fargo Rates in the world, what jumps out to me is the percentage of players who come from locations where there is a custom to regularly compete (Philippines, Poland, Taiwan, China).

If you thought you could practice your way to greatness in the basement prior to FargoRate (I realize this might have always been a minority opinion), FargoRate has destroyed that misapprehension.

I am under no illusions. The FargoRate genie will not go back into its bottle, but sometimes it makes sense (to me) to notice the good and the bad.

I think the answer is finding new ways to enjoy pool in a new environment. For example, I may consider becoming a tournament director for tournaments capped at 590, where all the matches will be streamed, for free, with commentary from players whose skill level does not exceed 590, where the entry fee will be $1500.00 and the Calcutta will last 9 days, creating a purse of 3 million dollars. Obviously, the tournament will take place on bar tables with 3-inch pockets—we can’t have balls go that shouldn’t. Since the tournament is single elimination, there will be a second chance poker event. I promise to run my events as slowly as possible. Hopefully, no one is able to sleep.

The dress code for my events will be called, "Homeless Adjacent". We will encourage sports jerseys and pajamas. We will ban collared shirts as those are associated with "nits", but we will definitely not enforce this rule, because the best rules are meant to be ignored. Clearly, bathing is optional, and all disputes will be settled with loud shouting matches.

I resolve to embrace the future.

kollegedave
100% true. I have felt the same thing. The mystery is taken out and replaced with somewhat boring accuracy. As well the idea that you know exactly where you stand in the pecking order means that you know pretty clearly when you're straight donating. Before you could match up and sometimes play over your head because you weren't scared of someone 50 points higher than you.

On the other hand it's also neat to know where you stand and to be able to see what players above your are doing differently at different levels.

But for the most part I do agree that the mystery has been erased. That's why even those who knock Fargo won't put their money up against players 100 points higher in even races. They are fully clear that they have zero chance no matter how much they whine about Fargo not being accurate.

I used to see 700 speeds claiming they could easily beat 750s until I stepped up to say I will take that action. Or in one case a 720 in Florida said he would play any woman for as much as could be stacked. I said ok freeze up 100k and I will provide the player.

He said who is the player and I said it doesn't matter because you said you would play any woman. Needless to say no match was played because the is claiming Fargo isn't accurate and actually betting life changing on that premise against someone 80 points above you.
 
I wish I shared your optimism.

Sure before FargoRate we knew some favorites, but you didn't know how much of a favorite. At least I didn't. Maybe others did.

Also, in the olden days where Tommy Kennedy won, I think pocket sizes were bigger, and the pocket shelf on GCs are shorter, and there is no doubt in my mind this helped in evening the playing field for some underdogs.

You'll note in my first post I mocked the shrinking modern pocket in suggesting that we play tournaments with 3 in. pockets.

Difficult conditions favor better players. Maybe this is "just" in that many people (sometimes myself included) want to see the best players play each other and the "best" player win. One cost of difficult conditions (I think) is outcomes that are more predictable. For me, that's less entertaining.

If there is a bright side to FargoRate, I like that you took note of Jeffrey Roda...whoever that guy is...that also plays 821 pool from the Philippines. The Philippines produces 815 players every 9 minutes. It's ridiculous, and I would assert proof that some magic sauce exists in competition that we may not fully understand, but FargoRate is letting us see it.

kollegedave
John Schmidt said that if all of America's top players moved to South Florida and played each other every day then we would be as competitive as the Filipinos. Over there they play reach other constantly and are basically playing to get sponsors.

With that many great players in close proximity the chances of more players becoming high rated is much higher I think.
 
100% true. I have felt the same thing. The mystery is taken out and replaced with somewhat boring accuracy. As well the idea that you know exactly where you stand in the pecking order means that you know pretty clearly when you're straight donating. Before you could match up and sometimes play over your head because you weren't scared of someone 50 points higher than you.

On the other hand it's also neat to know where you stand and to be able to see what players above your are doing differently at different levels.

But for the most part I do agree that the mystery has been erased. That's why even those who knock Fargo won't put their money up against players 100 points higher in even races. They are fully clear that they have zero chance no matter how much they whine about Fargo not being accurate.

I used to see 700 speeds claiming they could easily beat 750s until I stepped up to say I will take that action. Or in one case a 720 in Florida said he would play any woman for as much as could be stacked. I said ok freeze up 100k and I will provide the player.

He said who is the player and I said it doesn't matter because you said you would play any woman. Needless to say no match was played because the is claiming Fargo isn't accurate and actually betting life changing on that premise against someone 80 points above you.
So it appears Fargo rate has created problems to rival the ones it solved in the pool world. Much like the internet itself has done in the rest of our lives. Whether these are actual problems or a boon depends on what you're trying to accomplish.

Good perspective John and accurate.
 
This is a pretty common problem across sports for people who are really really good but not world class. They can’t beat the sharks but are locked out from playing against the guppies - as they should be.

They’ll just have to be satisfied with being good enough to be 99.5th percentile and find their playing opportunities as they come.
It's stunning the difference between excellent players (in anything) and professionals. The skill gap to world class talent is immense.
 
It's stunning the difference between excellent players (in anything) and professionals. The skill gap to world class talent is immense.
Yeah, the one that shocked me was the test where they put impact tape on putter faces of tour players vs scratch golfers. Impact dispersion was significant- seemed like slug vs buckshot. How do you train that fine a skill? Really good players aren’t having seizures when they putt. But the tour pros made it seem like that. Maybe the pros are robots and the ams very good humans.
 
Yeah, the one that shocked me was the test where they put impact tape on putter faces of tour players vs scratch golfers. Impact dispersion was significant- seemed like slug vs buckshot. How do you train that fine a skill? Really good players aren’t having seizures when they putt. But the tour pros made it seem like that. Maybe the pros are robots and the ams very good humans.
When i was bowling in college i got to share lanes with some guys that ended up being pros. They just don't miss.
Was reminded of that when i saw the PBA strike contest on (at the pool hall, of course). Belmo threw like 10 shots in a row at exactly 18.3mph and <1% variation in RPM. In a timed event where he wasn't fully setting himself before each shot. Absurd.
 
Back
Top