Of course that is true, but Fargo would rate a 11-7 win by Justin over Albin in a regional event the exact same as a 7-11 loss to Albin in the finals of W9B. As you have admitted (I believe), Fargo does not really rate how well a player plays under pressure or in big time events.
As a thought experiment, let's move to snooker and imagine that Jimmy White beat Hendry more often that not in smaller events, and that Jimmy beat other opponents by much larger margins of victory that Hendry did, but Hendry won every time they played in the finals of a world championship.
In that theoretical model, Jimmy is a higher rated player. The fact that in reality Jimmy never won a world championship (0-6 in finals, losing to Hendry 3x) and Hendry won 7 world titles would not be considered. But would you (in my imaginary world) really argue that Jimmy is the better player?
None of this is a criticism of FargoRate, really. The example I gave is made up (not what they actually did in WC events, but the rest), and of course it is unlikely to be the case that anyone would have numbers that skewed. Fargo does not consider some of these variables that I think have some impact, but nevertheless the end results are pretty close to what most people would think, and trying to factor in these other factors would cause more problems than they fix. But it doesn't mean the factors aren't there. Some players play better under the gun in big pressure situations and some do not and Fargo (or anything like it) will never capture that.
