Updated FargoRates are out

[cardiac kid]

So what does the top 100 list really tell us? My bet is, if you stop 1,000,000 people at random on the streets of America, the only pool player they will mention is "The Black Widow", Jeanette Lee! So who is number one? You know my answer. Fargo be damned.

Lyn

 

[vapoolplayer]

So what does the top 100 list really tell us? My bet is, if you stop 1,000,000 people at random on the streets of America, the only pool player they will mention is "The Black Widow", Jeanette Lee! So who is number one? You know my answer. Fargo be damned.

Lyn

Well, that's a whole different topic.

 

[hang-the-9]

Since this list is not very complete, my rating dropped 2 points from last week for those keeping track.

 

[Black-Balled]

I haven't missed a ball in a week+.

How am I doing?

 

[philly]

Since this list is not very complete, my rating dropped 2 points from last week for those keeping track.

Mine did too and I deserved it. Anyone here compare their own fargorate with others in your poolroom? I think Fargorate is pretty accurate when I do the comparisons.

 

[Poolplaya9]

He claims there are thousands of games between men and women in which Fargo rate uses the connections. I rarely hear of many matchups between men and women. He uses Corr as an example, but she is one of the few that you hear about. So I’d be curious where all of these thousands of games come from, unless they come from a very small pool(no pun intended), of women who compete against men. If so, I would think that would be a very fragile number to be basing the connections on.

Just how many connections do you think you need? Even one is enough to tell you plenty. Lets say that in races to 9 in 9-ball, it is an even game when you spot Bob a game on the wire (which means you are obviously better than Bob by X amount). When you spot Bob a game on the wire he wins half the time, and you win half the time. Now let's say Bob and Charlie play dead even when Bob spots Charlie a game on the wire (which means that Bob is obviously better than Charlie by X amount). You and Charlie have never played each other though. In fact you have never even met Charlie. In fact, Charlie lives on the other side of the world in Slovakia where he plays Bob one weekend once a month when Bob travels there monthly for business. Even though you have never played or even met Charlie and he lives on the other side of the world, you already know you play better than Charlie, and you know by about how much, and you know this because of your single connection--Bob.

In the same way you can pretty accurately know how you play compared to everybody else that Bob has played too, not just Charlie. And if you have played against somebody else besides Bob who has also played Charlie, then you can know with even more accuracy how you and Charlie compare because you have played against two people that have played Charlie, and so on the more and more connections there are between you and Charlie, but even having only one connection (Bob) between you and Charlie tells you pretty accurately how you would play against him.

And it goes further than that. Let's say Charlie plays dead even with Dean when he spots Dean a game on the wire. Well now you have a pretty accurate idea how you play against Dean even though you have never even met him either. Let's say Dean plays dead even with Edward with no spots at all. Well now you have a pretty accurate idea how you play against Edward too even though you have never met him. And you can go on and on and on like this.

Karen Corr has played everybody. Siming Chen has played Karen Corr. Therefore you have a pretty accurate idea how Siming Chen plays against all the people that Karen has played (and all the people that they have played against and so on) with just that one connection. To use a specific example, let's pick Mika. Since you know how Karen does against Mika, and you know how Siming does against Karen, you can pretty accurately deduce how Siming would do against Mika just from that one connection. There is usually more than one connection though and Siming has probably play several or many people that have played Mika so you can be even more precise about how she would play him even though one connection was really all you needed to know with a fairly high degree of accuracy. And you can also know how Siming would play against all the people Mika has played, and all the people those people have played, and so on. In these ways there is a massive web of connections between everybody that plays pool and everybody can be accurately compared to everybody else.

 

[jasonlaus]

Hmmm, so according to Fargo rating she plays just as good as Thorsten and Earl, and should be spotting a game or two to Dennis hatch, Amar kang, and Billy Thorpe.

I was fairly well a fan of Fargo rating.......but that just doesn’t sound right. Of course I don’t have any concrete proof of it otherwise.

He claims there are thousands of games between men and women in which Fargo rate uses the connections. I rarely hear of many matchups between men and women. He uses Corr as an example, but she is one of the few that you hear about. So I’d be curious where all of these thousands of games come from, unless they come from a very small pool(no pun intended), of women who compete against men. If so, I would think that would be a very fragile number to be basing the connections on.

Again, no proof. But if that were the case, I think you see more women turning out for events like the Open, since according to Fargo, they should have a shot of placing fairly high.

You got action between her and Amar.
Jason

 

[jasonlaus]

Mine did too and I deserved it. Anyone here compare their own fargorate with others in your poolroom? I think Fargorate is pretty accurate when I do the comparisons.

You are correct sir! Looking to come down one of these weekends. Dinner and a game or 2 on me. Maybe your wife can come, great lady, lucky lady - great man! I know I give you crap, but you are really a great guy!
I hope everybody understands this forum stuff is for fun(mostly) Philly and I have completely different views, but I would fight to the death for him - he is a great man! There are a few other guys I will always protect. They don't need it.
Jason

 

[vapoolplayer]

Just how many connections do you think you need? Even one is enough to tell you plenty. Lets say that in races to 9 in 9-ball, it is an even game when you spot Bob a game on the wire (which means you are obviously better than Bob by X amount). When you spot Bob a game on the wire he wins half the time, and you win half the time. Now let's say Bob and Charlie play dead even when Bob spots Charlie a game on the wire (which means that Bob is obviously better than Charlie by X amount). You and Charlie have never played each other though. In fact you have never even met Charlie. In fact, Charlie lives on the other side of the world in Slovakia where he plays Bob one weekend once a month when Bob travels there monthly for business. Even though you have never played or even met Charlie and he lives on the other side of the world, you already know you play better than Charlie, and you know by about how much, and you know this because of your single connection--Bob.

In the same way you can pretty accurately know how you play compared to everybody else that Bob has played too, not just Charlie. And if you have played against somebody else besides Bob who has also played Charlie, then you can know with even more accuracy how you and Charlie compare because you have played against two people that have played Charlie, and so on the more and more connections there are between you and Charlie, but even having only one connection (Bob) between you and Charlie tells you pretty accurately how you would play against him.

And it goes further than that. Let's say Charlie plays dead even with Dean when he spots Dean a game on the wire. Well now you have a pretty accurate idea how you play against Dean even though you have never even met him either. Let's say Dean plays dead even with Edward with no spots at all. Well now you have a pretty accurate idea how you play against Edward too even though you have never met him. And you can go on and on and on like this.

Karen Corr has played everybody. Siming Chen has played Karen Corr. Therefore you have a pretty accurate idea how Siming Chen plays against all the people that Karen has played (and all the people that they have played against and so on) with just that one connection. To use a specific example, let's pick Mika. Since you know how Karen does against Mika, and you know how Siming does against Karen, you can pretty accurately deduce how Siming would do against Mika just from that one connection. There is usually more than one connection though and Siming has probably play several or many people that have played Mika so you can be even more precise about how she would play him even though one connection was really all you needed to know with a fairly high degree of accuracy. And you can also know how Siming would play against all the people Mika has played, and all the people those people have played, and so on. In these ways there is a massive web of connections between everybody that plays pool and everybody can be accurately compared to everybody else.

To make this short......would you take Siming even against Sky Woodward, Rodney Morris, Ralph Souquet, Nick Vandenberg, Corey Deuel, Thorsten, Earl, Mika, Archer, John Morra, Kiamco, Billy Thorpe.........etc??

They are all within 10 points of Siming's fargo rate.

According to your post, you have a lot of faith there are enough connections in which to accurately asses her rating, therefore she's even money against all those players. So would you honestly be comfortable wagering a large amount of money(hypothetically, I'm not making this about action) on her against all those within 10-20 fargo points?

 

[RiverCity]

To make this short......would you take Siming even against Sky Woodward, Rodney Morris, Ralph Souquet, Nick Vandenberg, Corey Deuel, Thorsten, Earl, Mika, Archer, John Morra, Kiamco, Billy Thorpe.........etc??

They are all within 10 points of Siming's fargo rate.

According to your post, you have a lot of faith there are enough connections in which to accurately asses her rating, therefore she's even money against all those players. So would you honestly be comfortable wagering a large amount of money(hypothetically, I'm not making this about action) on her against all those within 10-20 fargo points?

Typically speaking, I never bet "large" unless I know I have the best of it. But I would throw a c note at it. :thumbup:

That said, are you so sure that she is NOT even money, that you would be willing to give up a spot to get action?

 

[philly]

You are correct sir! Looking to come down one of these weekends. Dinner and a game or 2 on me. Maybe your wife can come, great lady, lucky lady - great man! I know I give you crap, but you are really a great guy!
I hope everybody understands this forum stuff is for fun(mostly) Philly and I have completely different views, but I would fight to the death for him - he is a great man! There are a few other guys I will always protect. They don't need it.
Jason

Thanks for the props. You have my contacts.

 

[Cardigan Kid]

Karen Corr has played everybody. Siming Chen has played Karen Corr. Therefore you have a pretty accurate idea how Siming Chen plays against all the people that Karen has played (and all the people that they have played against and so on) with just that one connection. To use a specific example, let's pick Mika. Since you know how Karen does against Mika, and you know how Siming does against Karen, you can pretty accurately deduce how Siming would do against Mika just from that one connection. There is usually more than one connection though and Siming has probably play several or many people that have played Mika so you can be even more precise about how she would play him even though one connection was really all you needed to know with a fairly high degree of accuracy. And you can also know how Siming would play against all the people Mika has played, and all the people those people have played, and so on. In these ways there is a massive web of connections between everybody that plays pool and everybody can be accurately compared to everybody else.

And this is the problem I have with Fargo rate that I'm still trying to wrestle with.
To say Karen played Mika is not placing it in the right context. She most likely played him on the joss tour.
When Karen defeated Earl Strickland at the Turning Stone Classic in the quarterfinals, I watched her charge through the field for 4 days, and then go through the one loss bracket which means more matches played (and remember, this is wooden rack, opponent racks and winner breaks). It was an example of her persistence, fitness, and skill that she could get there. When she took down Earl, at that point, on a Sunday at turning stone, that was a HUGE accomplishment.

So to say, Karen beat earl, and Simeng beat Karen, therefore Simeng would beat Earl is not only cheapening what Karen did, but it's frankly misleading to the entire world to where folks believe Simeng is as good as Earl (because Fargo Rate has them identical)

Let's put it this way, Ko pin Yi played at Turning Stone and didn't even make it into Sunday. That's a difficult tournament and Karen has performed well in it, there are times she doesn't do so well. But she plays in it and Simeng doesn't.
How would Simeng fare? We will never know until she plays.

But if Simeng only matches up against Karen in tournaments with magic rack and alternating break, how can any hypothetical of Simeng versus Thorsten or Earl be taken seriously when she doesn't even compete like Karen.

That's where I'm still not all in with Fargo. To lump all pool matches and outcomes together and derive results without proper context is just not valid in my opinion.

 

[vapoolplayer]

Typically speaking, I never bet "large" unless I know I have the best of it. But I would throw a c note at it. :thumbup:

That said, are you so sure that she is NOT even money, that you would be willing to give up a spot to get action?

Yep. Even if I'm wrong, the spot won't matter much as if she does indeed play the same speed, she could get out of most racks after the spotted balls. Games on the wire might be tougher to figure out, but a few games wouldn't matter either.

The only way you'd have the absolute worst of it is if she plays quite a bit better than they do. Otherwise, it would be a coin toss at worst, and in your favor at best.

 

[hang-the-9]

Mine did too and I deserved it. Anyone here compare their own fargorate with others in your poolroom? I think Fargorate is pretty accurate when I do the comparisons.

Mine is a bit off, but most of my rating comes from leagues, and I don't try there as hard as in tournaments. My rating is 20-40 points lower than some others I can play even with or beat.

 

[Rhea]

And this is the problem I have with Fargo rate that I'm still trying to wrestle with.
To say Karen played Mika is not placing it in the right context. She most likely played him on the joss tour.
When Karen defeated Earl Strickland at the Turning Stone Classic in the quarterfinals, I watched her charge through the field for 4 days, and then go through the one loss bracket which means more matches played (and remember, this is wooden rack, opponent racks and winner breaks). It was an example of her persistence, fitness, and skill that she could get there. When she took down Earl, at that point, on a Sunday at turning stone, that was a HUGE accomplishment.

So to say, Karen beat earl, and Simeng beat Karen, therefore Simeng would beat Earl is not only cheapening what Karen did, but it's frankly misleading to the entire world to where folks believe Simeng is as good as Earl (because Fargo Rate has them identical)

Let's put it this way, Ko pin Yi played at Turning Stone and didn't even make it into Sunday. That's a difficult tournament and Karen has performed well in it, there are times she doesn't do so well. But she plays in it and Simeng doesn't.
How would Simeng fare? We will never know until she plays.

But if Simeng only matches up against Karen in tournaments with magic rack and alternating break, how can any hypothetical of Simeng versus Thorsten or Earl be taken seriously when she doesn't even compete like Karen.

That's where I'm still not all in with Fargo. To lump all pool matches and outcomes together and derive results without proper context is just not valid in my opinion.

But siming chen does not just beat karen, she tortures her its the same thing as playing any other 2 players with over a 50 point difference in fargorate

 

[FreeShot]

How do the top 100 lists work?

If I click on the top 100 American players, the lowest is at 707. But there are other American players (e.g. Chris Bartram, Keith Bennett) that have higher Fargo scores and aren't in the top 100.

 

[Cardigan Kid]

But siming chen does not just beat karen, she tortures her its the same thing as playing any other 2 players with over a 50 point difference in fargorate

But would Simeng last to day 4 in a major men's open tournament?
Can you give me her best finish in a men's open tournament?

There's a big difference to torturing Karen in round 2 of the China women's open with alternating break and magic rack....And torturing Earl on day 4 of a 128 person field in a Mosconi cup ranking event.

You are wise to the game of pool so you know CONTEXT is extremely important to the discussion anytime you talk pool.

Example: "I just beat the 9-ball ghost"

Could be either "I just beat the 9-ball ghost on a valley bar box in my basement"....or "I just beat the 9-ball ghost on the 10 foot diamond table at derby while live streamed"

Now there is a difference because of context.

 

[hang-the-9]

How do the top 100 lists work?

If I click on the top 100 American players, the lowest is at 707. But there are other American players (e.g. Chris Bartram, Keith Bennett) that have higher Fargo scores and aren't in the top 100.

Seems to be a database or sorting issue, Bartram is 752, same as these guys

Donny Mills USA752
Jeremy Jones USA752
Scott Frost USA752

So should be there.

 

[vapoolplayer]

How do the top 100 lists work?

If I click on the top 100 American players, the lowest is at 707. But there are other American players (e.g. Chris Bartram, Keith Bennett) that have higher Fargo scores and aren't in the top 100.

I'm assuming here, but maybe they don't have enough games required to be considered a reliable score?

 

[hang-the-9]

Kristina Tkach RUS 686 who is 16 or so, is rated higher than every US female player of any age. I think there is a statement there about other countries organized billiards programs.