Updated FargoRates are out
- Thread starter Rhea
- Start date
OK. I think this is what you want. I've got 380 matches in the last two tournaments (US Open and WPS) between opponents with established Fargo Ratings. I can sort them by rating difference and see how the scores match up with the expectations. Of course if I had 4000 matches instead of 400, things would work out a lot better. But I think you'll get the idea here.
Here is the plan. Look at each score in a race to 11 individually, like for example, 11 to 8.
(1) find the rating difference associated with the score: For 11-8 it is 46 points.
(2) Find the 20 matches with a rating difference closest to 46 points. This includes matches with a rating difference ranging between 40.4 and 52.7.
(3) Find how many games the lower-rated players won for each 11 games the higher-rated players won and compare that to the expectation, in this case to 8. The answer here is 7.6.
Repeat the above for other scores. Here are the results
11 to 3 -- expect 3, get 3.1
11 to 4 -- expect 4, get 3.9
11 to 5 -- expect 5, get 5.9
11 to 6 -- expect 6, get 6.1
11 to 7 -- expect 7, get 6.8
11 to 8 -- expect 8, get 7.6
11 to 9 -- expect 9, get 9.7
11 to 10 -- expect 10, get 8.8
11 to 11 -- expect 11, get 11.1
Here is a plot of these
Attachments
I'm not the one that is trying to make a point about the accuracy of FargoRate, by claiming that I am better than someone rated higher than me, and then turning around and trying to get every match condition advantage in the universe in order to play her.
The fact that he is unwilling to play a neutral and fair game that they both have experience with and that is played under neutral conditions not heavily favoring either of them shows that he doesn't think he can win on pool skill alone. He is showing that he does in fact believe she is better, just like FargoRate says.
Last edited:
And here are the matches for the 11 to 6 case, matches with a rating difference around 87 points. Here the lower-rated player is expected to win about 35% of the games. In fact the lower-rated player wins 110 of 308 games (35.7%).
Attachments
I think you're jumping the gun a bit.
Just because his initial offer may have been under conditions that favor him, doesn't mean he isn't willing to negotiate.
He never said he wouldn't play her (or anyone) under the conditions you put out there.
Seems to me you're just putting words in his mouth because you've taken offense.
His reasons for wanting to use a magic/template rack are valid. Yours for wanting a neutral racker are also valid.
If a neutral racker racked with a wood rack then it's guaranteed we would not be getting the same rack. I'd be fine with a neutral racker using a magic rack.
If you read my last post I named a few other people rated higher than me that I will give weight to and play for whatever you want. And yes I think some of these people rated higher than me is comical.
All the stuff you've said here reminds of an old saying. I think it's Danny dilibertos line and it goes like this. "You don't know what you don't know"
Donny Mills out-performed his Fargo rating in the last Turning Stone more than anyone else, which is good reason to believe that his rating is too low. If that is true, I don't think that means Fargo ratings are inaccurate in general, it just means players might sometimes be on an upswing that the ratings haven't yet fully accounted for.
I think Jayson Shaw had been underestimated for the past year or two, and only recently has his Fargo rating really caught up with his level of play.
I think Jayson Shaw had been underestimated for the past year or two, and only recently has his Fargo rating really caught up with his level of play.
Most of what you're saying makes about as much sense as when a drunk league player gets mad for playing safe or trying to 3 foul him and says "ahh that's chicken shit pool"
Don't let him get to you. He'll only ramble on with more nonsense.
JC
Coos Cues
You can't argue with this guy, he needs to have the last word no matter how ridiculous his positions get and clearly understands no logic and has minimal common sense and even less experience based knowledge. None of this slows his mouth.
He's the guy someone would inevitably punch in third grade to finally shut him up that knows he cant be punched now in the light or day or he calls the cops. He's "I know you are but what am I?" all grown up. And now he's found his home on internet forums where he thrives and annoys.
Here's the end of the last time I was engaged with the know it all formerly known as Poolplaya9. I will not repeat that waste of time here.
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?p=5910863#post5910863
JC
Last edited:
The more data the better.
I was at the Stone last tournament...Mr Mills was one of three men who played good
enough to win it.
But the problem here is a system that can only go by results...not potential...
...it doesn’t make the system incorrect at all.
How can a system determine that if Donnie Mills got rid of his @#$& carlot and played
full time, he would’ve won the US Open a few times?
Never-the-less, I would like to see this match happen...I watched the Riggs-King tennis
match...it was fascinating...even more so by watching an aging Bobby leap the net to
congratulate his victorious opponent.
I’m betting on Carlot because he has shown that he can hang with the best.....
...and I expect the results will be un-Simiingly in America’s favor.
But the critics of FargoRate remind me of a friend...he’s a math major, for Heaven’s sake..
...when the weather report says 30% chance of rain...and it doesn’t rain...he says..
..”See, those guys don’t know what they’re talking about.”
JC
Coos Cues
You can't really be dense enough to think that the racks from two different people will be more similar than the racks from only one person, particularly when one of the two people is known for their ability to manipulate the rack and may have a totally different goal in mind for their racks than the other party does.
You put your offer out specifically because you believe FargoRate is inaccurate, and you wanted a way to offer evidence of that by playing someone higher ranked so that if you beat them it would be evidence to help support your contention. The point you and some others that are a bit slow still seem to be missing is that you are proving nothing about how accurately FargoRate has your or Siming Chen rated if you play only one set. You are proving nothing if you play a game that she doesn't even play. You are proving nothing if rack manipulation can be a factor. If you just want to gamble, by all means do it however you want. But if you want to try to prove something about FargoRate, which was your entire point, then you are going to have to play many sets of a game you both have experience with and in a way that pool skill alone decides the winner and not rack manipulation/reading, or wearing somebody out in a format they have never played, or anything else besides pool skill.
If it were true it would be a compliment. As with much of the other nonsense you believe, whatever sounds good to you is what you latch onto regardless of how out of thin air and silly it may be.
Go ahead and point out anything you think I have said in this thread that is nonsense. As we all know dumb people will often look at facts and truths and see them as nonsense, and so we can know that isn't the case with whatever you point out, go ahead and explain how it is actually nonsense rather than truth that you just couldn't comprehend.
Pretty pathetic of you to quote Donny and leave out the part where he said he would play with a neautral racker if they used a magic rack.
I quoted the part I disagreed with, and explained why he was wrong. There was no need to respond to the part that wasn't out of line, and since you only quote what you are responding to, it wasn't quoted. If you had thought about it just a little more you would have figured that out.