World Fargo Rating list --place changes from the US Open

[BmoreMoney]

Can you, or anyone else please explain how a rating system can help the Pros earn more prize money?

RKC, I have been inquiring about this to see how accurate Fargo would be creating lines on pro matches. Supposedly it can already be used in the exact same fashion to handicap league matches so this is exactly the same thing, only used in the pro ranks and for gambling purposes. So, no I don't see too much of a benefit to the pros right now other than possible being able to say who can be on a " pro tour " or any specific tournament. Yes I know that's what your system is supposed to be doing. Sorry for your loss brother, hope you get thru it ok.

 

[spartan]

One-year-old games are worth about 80% of a game played today

1 year: 80%
3 years 50%
6 years 25%
10 years 10%

Think about it like this. Suppose you and I played three sets, one today and two yesterday.

today me 10 you 5
yesterday me 10 you 20

Most people (and FargoRate) would say the record is me 20, you 25. Best evidence is you are right now a little better player.

But what if instead it was
today me 10 you 5
three years ago me 10 you 20


Now most of us would say the three-year-old data is less relevant than current data, but how much less? To FargoRate, this case is a wash: 30 games from three years ago degraded by 50% carries the same weight as 15 games played today. So to FargoRate you and I are performing equally here.




Jianbo is an example of a player with just enough games to be included in the list. If we made the requirement more stringent, he'd be about the first to go.
Below is what we have from him over the last few years: it is a pretty stellar record; there's just not really a lot of it...



Again, not all that much recent information (see below). But one interesting thing Jianbo and Ricky have in common is they both beat Jiaqing Wu in recent years ;-)



Again, someone almost off the list for insufficient activity. But then (see below) a few months ago he beat Deuel 8-6, Dechaine 14-10, Thorpe 13-8, and Danny Smith 5-2



In US he played quite a bit and at a high level: Action Pool Tour, US Open, and Gotham City Tournament (see below)

Overall it may be true we are a little lethargic in allowing declining players to drop off. But I am not so sure. And it is a tradeoff. If we are more stringent there, we will less good at identifying up-and-comers emerging on the scene.

And please note, this discussion is all about WHO is and isn't on a performance/ranking list. It is easy to add to such lists any restrictions an organization chooses--must have played in X WPA events this year; must have played in Y Mosconi point events, etc...

Thanks for the detailed breakdown , Mike
Cheers!

 

[AtLarge]

Thanks rich, that seems to be exactly what I was asking. I didn't know how to find out what the spot would be using Fargo. I appreciate the info but honestly I don't think I will be doing all of that. I was kinda thinking Mike already has done this. I would think since he is promoting Fargo he would be advertising this ( assuming the results were favorable for Fargo - if not I'd be quiet about it too lol ), at least thats one thing I would do if it were my product and I was trying to get as many people on board as possible. Maybe AT LARGE may wanna do it, he really seems to enjoy doing that kind of stuff ��. Anyway, thanks again!

For SVB's 12 matches, it looks to me like he lost the fair match (opponent exceeded expectation) in each of his first 3 matches (Hernandez, Morra, and Chang 1st time), then exceeded expectations (won the fair match) in each of his last 9 matches.

I'll let you do the other 326 matches that were played in the event.

[Note: for SVB's opponents' Fargorates, I used those shown in the post that iusedtoberich linked to in post #274 of this thread, with one exception. Frankie Hernandez wasn't on that list, so I used his current rating of .693. I don't know whether results from the event were being entered into the system as the event progressed, so the ratings I used may not be the actual ratings at the start of each of those matches.]

 

[BmoreMoney]

For SVB's 12 matches, it looks to me like he lost the fair match (opponent exceeded expectation) in each of his first 3 matches (Hernandez, Morra, and Chang 1st time), then exceeded expectations (won the fair match) in each of his last 9 matches.

I'll let you do the other 326 matches that were played in the event.

[Note: for SVB's opponents' Fargorates, I used those shown in the post that iusedtoberich linked to in post #274 of this thread, with one exception. Frankie Hernandez wasn't on that list, so I used his current rating of .693. I don't know whether results from the event were being entered into the system as the event progressed, so the ratings I used may not be the actual ratings at the start of each of those matches.]

Thanks Large, so what would the number be as far as accuracy of the system for SVB matches? I'm not looking for who was expected to win, I'm looking for example Fargo saying Hernandez should get say 4 games or whatever it is from SVB then compare that to actual outcome.

 

[AtLarge]

Thanks Large, so what would the number be as far as accuracy of the system for SVB matches? I'm not looking for who was expected to win, I'm looking for example Fargo saying Hernandez should get say 4 games or whatever it is from SVB then compare that to actual outcome.

12 matches that went 9-3 in terms of exceeding expectations doesn't really say much because it is way too few matches. With lots of matches it should come out about 50/50.

What you said about Hernandez is what I did. He won 7 games but the ratings gap (131 points in the ratings I used) put him at only about 28.7% likely to win each game, or about 4.4 games by the time Shane got to 11. So Hernandez beat the expectation.

 

[BeiberLvr]

Can you, or anyone else please explain how a rating system can help the Pros earn more prize money?

You keep asking this silly question, but have continued to refuse to answer mine. So I'll ask again.


Why does Fargo Rate need to help pros earn more prize money? Be specific.

 

[336Robin]

If it doesnt then what

You keep asking this silly question, but have continued to refuse to answer mine. So I'll ask again.


Why does Fargo Rate need to help pros earn more prize money? Be specific.

Well If it doesn't then what? If someone is making money off of it and the pros who are participating in it don't make something from it, do the players have a right to say....no you cant fargorate my play? If they do then knowing the nature of pool players all of the work thats gone into it might be wasted if players start bucking against the system.

As far as knowing who has what rights, I dont know but I do know human nature.

 

[BeiberLvr]

Well If it doesn't then what? If someone is making money off of it and the pros who are participating in it don't make something from it, do the players have a right to say....no you cant fargorate my play? If they do then knowing the nature of pool players all of the work thats gone into it might be wasted if players start bucking against the system.

As far as knowing who has what rights, I dont know but I do know human nature.

I don't know if Fargo Rate makes money. They should it's awesome. I do know I don't have to pay anything to look up a score or to see the odds of a particular match. I don't believe players are being solicited to have their ratings on the site.

So why should players be entitled to anything when they aren't putting anything in?

As far as players saying "you cant fargorate my play" I thought I heard a rumor that players could opt out, but frankly, I find that hard to believe. Fargo Rate bases its ratings off match scores. Match scores are public domain.

 

[chefjeff]

Besides that, a good conversation might keep me awake, only been able to sleep about 4 hours since Saturday morning anyway.

Sorry, but I had a 4' tube shoved up the wazoo Monday and I'm still spent.

Maybe tomorrow.

Jeff Livingston

 

[336Robin]

True

I don't know if Fargo Rate makes money. They should it's awesome. I do know I don't have to pay anything to look up a score or to see the odds of a particular match. I don't believe players are being solicited to have their ratings on the site.

So why should players be entitled to anything when they aren't putting anything in?

As far as players saying "you cant fargorate my play" I thought I heard a rumor that players could opt out, but frankly, I find that hard to believe. Fargo Rate bases its ratings off match scores. Match scores are public domain.

This is true concerning free information of public events and I can also see when a player enters an event that he might have to sign off on a release that says that your matches might be fargorated if you choose to enter this event. The choice to enter would be theirs to make at that point. Since they are being given the opportunity to enter an event in which they will be hoping to make money and they do so of their own free will I can't see that would be a problem.

Adding to all of that if any monies are realized from the considerable investment in the system it would be nice to see that some of them go into the creation of more events.

I can't imagine that the people involved in this venture wouldn't be willing to do that but the level of that would certainly be contingent on the systems success.

Making money off of anything pool related is always an extremely long shot given the nature of the sport. I would support any effort by anyone that puts a nickel into supporting any end of it. That includes anything that Mark Griffin does and anything that anyone who is associated with him.

One never knows when they do anything pool related whether or not they have a winner. I hope that this system with as much thought as been given to it, will be a winner for the pro players because. Its kind of like the Big Leagues for Pool.

Having the little leagues and pathway from them to the Big Leagues enhances the whole of it and makes dreaming to be one of the Big Players a much more worthwhile dream.

When people have a dream, a passion and an ideal then things start to happen. A lot of ideas don't make the cut for the times, but then again some do. Those are usually the ones that are on the cutting edge or outside of the box and the time for them has finally come.

So expecting people to roll out their extended plans is something that isn't going to happen because no one knows if their long shot is going to pay off just yet. I would imagine that a harmonious relationship of revolving door money that helps the players have events to play would create a nice circle of business.

I don't see that Rkc's /Glenns ideas are in opposition to what is being done with Fargorate, its another end of something that would be a private enterprise that would prop up another end of the industry. More collective strength is better I would hope.

 

[one stroke]

I don't know if Fargo Rate makes money. They should it's awesome. I do know I don't have to pay anything to look up a score or to see the odds of a particular match. I don't believe players are being solicited to have their ratings on the site.

So why should players be entitled to anything when they aren't putting anything in?

As far as players saying "you cant fargorate my play" I thought I heard a rumor that players could opt out, but frankly, I find that hard to believe. Fargo Rate bases its ratings off match scores. Match scores are public domain.

Where do you find previous matches

1

 

[BeiberLvr]

Where do you find previous matches

1

There is this site you may have heard of.

It's called AZBilliards.

Probably a good place to start.

 

[mikepage]

[...]

I'll let you do the other 326 matches that were played in the event.

slacker...

Playing a match is like flipping a bent coin repeatedly until somebody gets to 11. Any score where one is at 11 and the other fewer than 11 is possible. FargoRate estimates how bent the coin is for a particular pair of players. That's the hard part. Analyzing the expected outcomes and their probabilities for the bent coin is the easy part.

So when Shane plays Corey in a race to 11 (a 50 point gap), Shane's chance to win a particular game is 58.6% (and Corey's is 41.4%). Again this is the hard part. Then based upon this it is easy to find the chance of any particular match outcome. The results look like the following.

The height of each column (each score) shows how likely that score is. These are all Corey's wins-Shane's wins. When fairmatch says 8-11 is a fair race, it is not saying 8-11 will be the score or even is the most likely score. But it is saying the sum of the heights of the columns to the left of 8-11 matches the sum of the heights of the columns to the right of 8-11.

To get ONE of these column heights, say the chance Corey wins 11-8, here is what you have to do. For Corey to win 11-8, Corey MUST have won the last game, and the score MUST have been 10-8 before that game. So you first have to count how many different ways a 10-8 score can be achieved. Here are a few:
CCCCCCCCCCSSSSSSSS
SSSSSSSSCCCCCCCCCC
CSCSCSCSCSCSCSCSCC
...
There are 43758 of these

Then you have to recognize the coin came up "Corey" 11 times [0.414^11] and it came up "Shane" 8 times [0.586^8]

Multiply these three things together and you get a 3.7% chance Corey wins by the specific score 11-8 (the height of that column)

 

[pmac666]

as much as i want to see cobras tourney and as much as i like his big thinking, as much i think its not makebale without big sponsors! lot of work to do.......lol also as mentioned somewhere else that skilltest is bit like fargo, it would never show the best 64, only the best 64 shooters, no defense and no mindset included.......wont show the reality!
which brings me to fargo which is as much real! as said theres so much more to a match than the final endscore! lets say player a cruises to the tourneys with impressive scores but regulary hits the ko, shaw, shane wall last 8 or 16 will still have a good rating while player b grinds his way through the tourneys, but is actually able to beat EVERYONE and win the cup! who is the better player now?
lets say u would have made a huge moneytourney based on fargo for the best 32 players with that list in the op,efren would have been in, wpa nr 205, busti wpa nr 108 or justin bergmann wpa nr 122 (i know thats also not the truth, but who should i believe now?), but the current world 9 ball champ and the world straigh pool champ (i know straight pool isnt tracked) wouldnt be in? nothing against justin bergamann, hes a fine player for sure and would very likely beat albin and mika both in a race to 100.000, but please, which bartable tourney equals a worldtitle? (i know mike will come up now with a bunch of numbers but sry, im not interrested) only that someone can win high doesnt make him the better player......not by far!
and still i see in fargo rather a future than in cobras skilltest, it only would need some improvements (but please dont ask me how, i have no idea lol)! probably it would be best when all forces who wish to have a good ratingsystem meet for a pow wow!
btw team europe and team USA are only separated by a few points according to fargo.......so 11 - 10 then! (i dare to doubt team USA gets to 10, please nail me after the cup :thumbup: )

 

[mikepage]

[...] (i know mike will come up now with a bunch of numbers but sry, im not interrested) [...]

Oh, you're killing me pmac666

Does anybody find it interesting that

despite FR never caring about or noting whether a player can make a ball or run a table
despite FR never noting in any way whether a player won or placed in any tournament
despite FR paying no attention to $$
despite FR using results from different table sizes
despite FR using results from regional as well as international competitions

The top 4 US players by FR are on the USA Mosconi Cup team
The top 3 EUR players by FR are on the EUR MC team

The remaining MC team members are all within a few points of being in the top 5 by FR

For instance, the top 6 EUR players by FR are

1 Feijen 812.0
2. Shaw 807.3
3. Gray 795.4
4. Ruiz 794.0
5. Ouschan 791.8
6. Appleton 790.6


and the bolded players comprise the EUR team.

and once again, the top 4 US players by FR are 80% of the USA team...

 

[BeiberLvr]

Would love to play poker against anyone that truly doesn't think FR is legit.

 

[pmac666]

Oh, you're killing me pmac666

Does anybody find it interesting that

despite FR never caring about or noting whether a player can make a ball or run a table
despite FR never noting in any way whether a player won or placed in any tournament
despite FR paying no attention to $$
despite FR using results from different table sizes
despite FR using results from regional as well as international competitions

The top 4 US players by FR are on the USA Mosconi Cup team
The top 3 EUR players by FR are on the EUR MC team

The remaining MC team members are all within a few points of being in the top 5 by FR

For instance, the top 6 EUR players by FR are

1 Feijen 812.0
2. Shaw 807.3
3. Gray 795.4
4. Ruiz 794.0
5. Ouschan 791.8
6. Appleton 790.6


and the bolded players comprise the EUR team.

and once again, the top 4 US players by FR are 80% of the USA team...

hehe its not intended to kill u........and i never said its complete bs, but there are clearly wrong spots in it CAUSE of the points u have made, somehow these factors should be involved to get a better result....... its naive to believe that JB has the same pressure in a quarter in a 2k bartable tourney than albin in world quarters, no matter who the opp is!
and btw u dont need to be necessarily the most skilled player to be the best player (ivan lendl f.e.)! esp when its close like it is in pool and everyone is almost equally skilled i always would take the mindset over skill (jup, shane is most likely the most skilled player, and albin f.e. is very likely not on shanes skill level, but he is skilled enough + has the mindset to win big......dam even daryll peach did it lol)
really hope fargo can improve, so far its a nice mathgame!

 

[mikepage]

[...]. its naive to believe that JB has the same pressure in a quarter in a 2k bartable tourney than albin in world quarters, [...] [...]

lol. We don't need or suggest JB feels the same pressure in a regional tournament as Albin feels in a world event.

Though it really helps if when Albin plays in a world event under the lights, his opponent does too... Pretty sure we can arrange that...

 

[GideonF]

lol. We don't need or suggest JB feels the same pressure in a regional tournament as Albin feels in a world event.

Though it really helps if when Albin plays in a world event under the lights, his opponent does too... Pretty sure we can arrange that...

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.

 

[mikepage]

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.

All fair.....