What I see as the most promising future for pool trnmnts.

Chopdoc said:
I have heard this reasoning frequently here. But I wonder how people define "many".


Golf? OK


Other than that most handicapping is a gambling thing, no? Not a professional or even amateur sports competition thing as far as I see.


I would say handicapping happens commonly in gambling. Within the sport itself, as part of competition? Not so much/


How many players are typically shorted on the favored football team's offensive line? Ever? How many points does the favored team give up at the Superbowl? Any football game?

Golf? Oh yeah...there is that.


Chess? Sure but that is a sport. And handicapping in chess has more to do with gambling than with playing chess.


Nonetheless, perhaps it is the most promising future for tournaments. Personally, I love pool and have little interest in tournaments.

,





.
Click to expand...

Bowling and darts are commonly handicapped as well. I think handicaps in sports played individually rather than teams makes sense. You can have such a wide range of skill levels in individuals and there is no team to offset that. Most teams have superstars so they balance each other out. That isn't the case in sports like pool, golf, bowling, and darts when you have singles tournaments.

The best players are heads above everyone else in some areas. When the same 3 players win all of the money every single time a tournament is held, people just quit showing up. When most people enter a tournament, they don't want to feel like they are completely donating. They might do it for a month or two, but it can get old fast.
 
Mark Griffin said:
The original poster GETS it. That is one of the advantages of Fargo Rate. It is not a handicapping system - it is a rating system.

If you want the masses involved, there has to be a FAIR and accurate method of determining the different skill levels. That is what FargoRate does.

jTaylor996; doesn't understand the FargoRate system very well.

Mark Griffin
Click to expand...

Like he said. More players, more everything...

Having a tournament for 150 won't pay anything, but for 500-1000, the money will be lots better.

I'm for it...
 
Last edited:
Sorry guys but handicapping is the future. One poster says the system can be gamed and that is true. However, implementing a minimum number of games to qualify would offset the likelihood of this. What's more is to make the prize pool insufficient enough to squelch that type of behavior.

I truly feel that having a system of various levels that you achieve thru competing is the future. A system where you could actually graduate to the next level with a national tourney and increased prize pool at each level.

I would like to see leagues move in that direction. I know most don't like the idea of leagues supporting pros but it's likely the only way to support pool from the top down or bottom up.

I also think more is required of the pros if they are to be supported financially by such a system. During their travels, they should be required to give back thru exhibitions/instruction in order to maintain pro status. They should be required to visit any pool room that is supporting the system while geographically close.

In the business world, we use metrics to keep sales people motivated to grow and work diligently. The same could be done for pros on the payroll so to speak. 1099 contracts allow them to deduct expenses from their taxes as well.

I realize this is all "pie in the sky" talk but to establish legitimacy and a solid foundation requires a bit of dreaming beyond the current state of the game.


Gary
 
alphadog said:
How about autoracing?
Click to expand...

Do you mean like NASCAR and taking spoiler height away from Chevy or Ford because they are winning too many races?

Or drag racing where the Harleys get to use a bigger cubic inch engine than Jap bikes
Or boost pressure or nitro percentage being adjusted to even out the 2 engine options?
 
Mark Griffin said:
The original poster GETS it. That is one of the advantages of Fargo Rate. It is not a handicapping system - it is a rating system.

If you want the masses involved, there has to be a FAIR and accurate method of determining the different skill levels. That is what FargoRate does.

jTaylor996; doesn't understand the FargoRate system very well.

Mark Griffin
Click to expand...

You're right, I don't understand FargoRate completely, but I still stand by my point. If it's based off of past performances at all (and it has to be unless it can also predict lottery numbers), then it can be intentionally manipulated giving a player a much bigger handicap than they deserve. It has nothing to do with FargoRate in particular, just with all handicapping systems.
 
AtLarge said:
If pool matches are reduced to a coin flip (by using a full handicap differential), why would good players compete?

[An event using partial handicap differentials might appeal to some.]
Click to expand...

I do not think the matches are a coin flip. The better player will usually have the advantage because they are more consistent in general. This will make a difference in close matches where they weaker player may be more susceptible to succumbing to pressure.

Good players should still want to compete because the fields would be bigger and higher payouts. If they don't, then that is their choice/loss.

This is the most reasonable way to get more players to participate.

Say someone organized a tournament with Fargo ratings. $100 entry with guaranteed first place of 20k. Players would come from all over to play in that. The weaker players would see handicaps and want to play because it is a small investment relative to what they can possibly win. I do not see why the pros would choose not to play. They should be willing to give weight if they can possibly win 20k.

Look at BCA Nationals from 2010. There were 1,291 players in the Men's Open division. There were 402 players in the Women's Open division. Almost 1,700 players between the two divisions. The players are out there and want to play. Most need to feel like they will be competitive to travel and take time off from work. I think that feeling is gone for most players.
 
Interesting

The Fargo rating system is a tool that can be used to rate players. It can be used to get a idea of how players compare to one another. The problem with any rating system is they can never be 100% accurate.
As for a system drawing in more players doubtful.
 
jtaylor996 said:
You're right, I don't understand FargoRate completely, but I still stand by my point. If it's based off of past performances at all (and it has to be unless it can also predict lottery numbers), then it can be intentionally manipulated giving a player a much bigger handicap than they deserve. It has nothing to do with FargoRate in particular, just with all handicapping systems.
Click to expand...

We just saw it happen in the Nationals the exact senerio I said could happen and was called a hater for happened ,, guy dropped down out of platinum where he had zero chance and won the gold you can't stop it the best you can do is minimize it. ,

1
 
In reality most handicapped trnmnts cant compute the "better player bias". What is that?
A better player makes fewer mistakes,is better able to capitalize on mistakes by a lesser player. So even if the stats say that the player going to 9,and the lesser player goes to 6,the better play gets to 9 before the other guy can win a disproportionate amount.
 
alphadog said:
In reality most handicapped trnmnts cant compute the "better player bias". What is that?
A better player makes fewer mistakes,is better able to capitalize on mistakes by a lesser player. So even if the stats say that the player going to 9,and the lesser player goes to 6,the better play gets to 9 before the other guy can win a disproportionate amount.
Click to expand...

Aaaaahhhh....without going into detail, a better player's better ability to capitalize on mistakes by a lesser is all built into the Fargo formula.
 
jtaylor996 said:
You're right, I don't understand FargoRate completely, but I still stand by my point. If it's based off of past performances at all (and it has to be unless it can also predict lottery numbers), then it can be intentionally manipulated giving a player a much bigger handicap than they deserve. It has nothing to do with FargoRate in particular, just with all handicapping systems.
Click to expand...

Fargo is based 100% on past performances. The way to manipulate it is to enter games into the system where you lose. So what's stopping people from doing that? Well only a limited number of people can enter games into Fargo. League operators. Tournament directors. So you would have to get them to do it.

An easy way to minimize the effects of someone entering false game results is to require a high minimum number of games to qualify for a tournament. That way, if someone enters a few losses into the system, they do not have a large impact.

I keep focusing on how this all works in golf. People join a club, which gets them registered for a handicap. They enter their scores into a computer, and supposedly the club's handicap chairman keeps an eye on score cards and entries to make sure members are not trying to enter bogus scores.

The policing of the Fargo entry has to lie with league operators. And the folks at Fargo should definitely have a tight reign on who can enter games into the system.
 
sbpoolleague said:
Golf has the USGA Handicap System, which is universally accepted and used at all amateur tournaments. Once your game is good enough to reach the top of the heap then all play is done without handicaps (US Amateur). But 99.9% of golfers compete in leagues and tournaments using a handicap. And handicaps are easily used in social matches.

Fargo ratings have same potential as the USGA Handicapping system. The rating system is mathematically sound. We all need to demand that our leagues get their members rated by Fargo. You do not have to USE the ratings if you don't wish. But once the entirety of the pool world adopts a common rating system, pool will naturally become stronger.

The biggest obstacle to Fargo is the APA. They have absolutely no reason to want to use it. They have their own proprietary rating system. So those of you with business sense (Mark) need to come up with a plan to get the APA on board such that they do not lose any money out of the deal.

I have terrible business sense....but in my opinion the best way to make Fargo universal is to give it away for free to all the other leagues for a while (APA/VNEA/TAP/ACS/UPA/etc). Fargo is such an excellent system that it can be refined to be the backbone of some of the other handicapping systems. You could easily transform a range of Fargo ratings into a 2 thru 9 handicapping system for the APA. And how happy would the APA players be when they realize that they do not have to count every stinking inning and defensive shot anymore!!!
Click to expand...

What about the APA sandbaggers? How can Fargo work for the APA players with all of the sandbagging that goes on in that league? Please forgive my ignorance if I am missing something about the way that Fargo Rate works. I can understand how it works well for the pro level players, because they are all playing on an even level, without handicaps most of the time, and they do not sandbag (at least I do not imagine they would, most of the time, unless they were throwing a match for some reason). I just do not believe that the FargoRate system is a good system for handicapping (at least not on an amateur level).
 
336Robin said:
The OP got this one right in my opinion.

With the sponsorship of Pool being at an all time low, rating the players according to games played in a live rating system is the only way to find sponsors by putting the players in the position as the sponsors.

There aren't many people that are going to go heads up money matches against a professional player. A rating system gives them some small reason to want to play. Amateurs are the future of pool like it or not. You give them a reason and they will play in Pro Tournament. This is the same function as added money for a Pro Player because the cream always rises to the top.

How many pro players will play a handicapped tournament if its rich with the donor class of players? I think that answer is plenty. Everyone wins in the situation. The venue owner gets more business. The Pro Player can make more money if he prevails and the house gets somewhat of a break on having to dish out added money that they dont usually recoup. Now add in spectator seats the house can charge for and you have the recipe for something bigger, better and more often than what we do now.

Sure occasionally you will have some non Pro Players excel because they are playing better players on a regular basis and a small handicap may at times create a way for one of these players to win. This is no different than getting some weight in a gambling scenario and that happens all of the time based on information we guess at. In the Fargorate those ratings are based on what we know of games played, Big Difference.
Click to expand...

So, what about all of the sandbaggers out there? I do not know, but I imagine that the leagues are filled with them (maybe the APA more then any other league). I would not trust a FargoRate rating of an amateur player, that is based on their win/loss record. When it comes to the elite pro level players, their levels are so close together, that I do not understand why they even need a FargoRate rating (because they never give handicaps to each other, in tournaments).
 
denzilla171 said:
Long races only occur when the difference in player rating is very large. Most races are in the 5 to 7 game range...
Click to expand...

I've ran 5- and more packs many times. I ran one not too long ago and I'm old and blind. Races in any tournament worth playing in should be at least to 11 or more. The 3-race tournaments are a joke. I've put plenty of people out of those tournaments without them ever getting a shot.

FWIW, I prefer to play heads up with anybody in a tournament, even if they play better. To me, winning with a spot isn't winning.
 
Game number

justinb386 said:
So, what about all of the sandbaggers out there? I do not know, but I imagine that the leagues are filled with them (maybe the APA more then any other league). I would not trust a FargoRate rating of an amateur player, that is based on their win/loss record. When it comes to the elite pro level players, their levels are so close together, that I do not understand why they even need a FargoRate rating (because they never give handicaps to each other, in tournaments).
Click to expand...

I dont pretend to understand everything about Fargorate but from what little I do 1. You can check a players rating. 2. You can see how many games he has in the system.

It would be pretty easy to say before you can play this tournament you have to have x number of games in the system.

Sandbagging is only going to last so long. Winning games over time eliminates that.
 
justinb386 said:
So, what about all of the sandbaggers out there? I do not know, but I imagine that the leagues are filled with them (maybe the APA more then any other league). I would not trust a FargoRate rating of an amateur player, that is based on their win/loss record. When it comes to the elite pro level players, their levels are so close together, that I do not understand why they even need a FargoRate rating (because they never give handicaps to each other, in tournaments).
Click to expand...

Just because we don't in baseball say "if you are a weak batter, four strikes and you're out" doesn't mean we should stop recording batting averages.

People like to have a measure about who performs better than who for any of a number of reasons. No need to connect it to handicaps.

I think the culture of TALKING about sandbagging is bigger than the culture of sandbagging. But still, it exists, in some areas more than others.

There are a few things that make a perfect storm for those areas.

(1) Getting rated for one thing and rewarded for another. That is, win the game to contribute to winning the match (reward) while taking some extra innings to do it (protect rating).

(2) Your league rating depends only on league games; That is you are rated a 6 in league even though you've cashed at a few Joss events.

You can play 100 games in 12 weeks of league, and then you can play another 100 games in one good weekend tournament. If that tournament also contributes to your rating, it significantly dilutes any hard-earned efforts to manipulate the league games. I think in most cases it will dilute it enough that the will to do it in the first place goes away.

I am contacted by players all the time wondering if a particular event they played in is going to go in, etc. It is amazing that this is NEVER when they went two and out--never that they want "credit" for a bad day; it is when they play well that they are anxious to make sure they got credit. Our experience is players overwhelmingly want their ratings to be higher...

Perhaps people have seen this in another thread I posted, but I did just explain some of how Fargo Ratings can be used to handicap a tournament if you did want to go that way

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCO5-IBCKWE
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top