Guideline for Sandbaggers

[robert]

It is a summary after reading articles from this forum.

For self rated:
Don't beat your opponents too bad, play left hand if you are righty. Let them get 5,6 games to avoid getting DQed until National. No DQ in National.

For B,C rated:
If you are OK to be bumped up at end of year, just play your best in all matches.
If you don't want to be bumped up, it is OK to play your best in the beginning of the season since ntrp rating depends more upon the last couple of matches. Need to tank at the end of season, e.g. have close game in region/playoff/sectional/national. Especially having a close game against low ntrp rating player is very helpful.

[dizzlmcwizzl]

yep just about right .... two additional comments

If you are self rated there are 2 well worn paths to follow.

Path 1) You only need to play 2 regular season matches to qualify for playoffs .. In our section one of those could be a forfeit, so you really only need to play one match to be playoff eligible. .. It is hard to get 3 strikes if you have only played 1 match.

but the problem with path 1 is that you have to keep playoff matches close as to not accumulate strikes.

Path 2) So in path two you play a lot of matches for a team that certainly will make playoffs. In those bunch of matches make sure you throw away a lot of games so your rating is so low at the beginning of playoffs .... if you start playoffs low enough you cannot accumulate strikes. This was one is more certain but harder to achieve.

[schmke]

Originally Posted by dizzlmcwizzl

Path 2) So in path two you play a lot of matches for a team that certainly will make playoffs. In those bunch of matches make sure you throw away a lot of games so your rating is so low at the beginning of playoffs .... if you start playoffs low enough you cannot accumulate strikes. This was one is more certain but harder to achieve.

I don't believe strikes are based on your current dynamic rating, but instead your match rating for a given match. If this is correct, this strategy doesn't help as a given result will be a strike regardless of your rating at the time of the match. e.g. if you are a playing in a 3.5 league and managed to have a "low 3.5" rating, say 3.1, if you go out and win 6-1,6-1 over a strong 3.5 that is about to be bumped, say a 3.55, it is going to be a strike. The fact that your current rating is so low just makes it more obvious that you are sandbagging.

Now, if you are simply referring to how C or B rated players can sandbag, you are correct. You want your rating entering playoffs to be as low as possible so that you can go win matches in playoffs but give yourself a better chance to not get bumped up at the end of the year.

[chatt_town]

dizzl,

I was under the impression that a strike is a strike...not a "kinda of strike thing". In other words, it wouldn't matter if I lost to a low rated player at 4.0. If I turn around and beat 3 bench mark players with a self rating of 4.0...I'm out of there. Woodrow? Others? Do you have any insight on this?

Originally Posted by dizzlmcwizzl

yep just about right .... two additional comments

If you are self rated there are 2 well worn paths to follow.

Path 1) You only need to play 2 regular season matches to qualify for playoffs .. In our section one of those could be a forfeit, so you really only need to play one match to be playoff eligible. .. It is hard to get 3 strikes if you have only played 1 match.

but the problem with path 1 is that you have to keep playoff matches close as to not accumulate strikes.

Path 2) So in path two you play a lot of matches for a team that certainly will make playoffs. In those bunch of matches make sure you throw away a lot of games so your rating is so low at the beginning of playoffs .... if you start playoffs low enough you cannot accumulate strikes. This was one is more certain but harder to achieve.

[spot]

chatt_town and schmke- I believe that you guys are incorrect on what constitutes a strike. How I understand it is that you generate a strike if your rating at the end of the match is outside of the permissible range. So by playing more matches your rating has more "weight" and it is harder for one outlying result to generate a strike for you. This is also part of the reason it is possible to generate a strike even with a loss.

[schmke]

spot, that was my thought at one point too, but I changed my mind after additional research and some information from others on TT.

Some documents from the USTA use language that would seem to imply it is the "current dynamic rating", i.e. the result after the dynamic rating from the match is averaged with the prior dynamic ratings. For example:

"If a player’s dynamics reaches the DQ Zone three times (each dynamic that reaches the DQ Zone is called a strike) then the player strikes out of the level and is moved to the next highest level."

Also:

"24. What is a strike and how do I get one? Each time a player’s dynamic rating exceeds the maximum tolerance for the level, he or she automatically earns a “strike.”"

But neither of these is perfectly clear that it is in fact the averaged dynamic rating and not the match dynamic rating, the language is a bit ambiguous.

Then there is this TT thread where the subject is discussed. http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=420009

In it J_R_B clearly states that it is the individual match rating that is used. We also know from this thread and others that 6-0,6-0 wins can count as strikes and while there is evidence now that 6-0,6-0 matches are counted for rating purposes, we know they weren't in the past and if they weren't used and it is the averaged dynamic rating that results in a strike, that wouldn't make sense.

Last, because we know the USTA does try to avoid making it so players can game the system, it wouldn't make any sense to use the averaged dynamic rating for strikes for the very reason that someone could throw a match to get their rating low so they could win their next match and not get a strike.

But, I could be wrong.

[chatt_town]

What I said came directly from a usta official...but it was years ago. We exchanged a bunch of emails because they had dq'd our best player at the time. She informed me at the time that if you beat a bench mark player and you are self rated, you would get a strike. In this case, he beat the same guy twice at locals. So he had 2 strikes going into state. What I didn't like was they let him play the whole state tourney and he got his 3rd strike at the first round of state. Then they went back and took 1 line from each of our matches...but because we had beat everyone down 5-0 and 4-1 we still won state. So it may not be that way now, but it sure as hell was back then. If I didn't get an understanding of nothing else I did that strike nonsense. We even opted not to go to sectionals because she told us that we could be dq'd there as well. We weren't willing to take vacation and pay them 200 something bucks to attend only to get there and possibly have 3 or 4 more guys dq'ed. We were new to the sport back then so it was all new to us, but we had enough sense to see that it was a f'ked up system and not to put any more money into it at that time.

Originally Posted by spot

chatt_town and schmke- I believe that you guys are incorrect on what constitutes a strike. How I understand it is that you generate a strike if your rating at the end of the match is outside of the permissible range. So by playing more matches your rating has more "weight" and it is harder for one outlying result to generate a strike for you. This is also part of the reason it is possible to generate a strike even with a loss.

[spot]

Last, because we know the USTA does try to avoid making it so players can game the system, it wouldn't make any sense to use the averaged dynamic rating for strikes for the very reason that someone could throw a match to get their rating low so they could win their next match and not get a strike.

What makes you think that people do not do this? THis is my biggest problem with going off of "team wins" rather than individual wins for deciding playoffs- there are too many matches where someone could lose on purpose to manipulate their rating.

It is possible to lose a match and still generate a strike. How would that be possible to do if it went only on the individual match result?

[spot]

Originally Posted by chatt_town

She informed me at the time that if you beat a bench mark player and you are self rated, you would get a strike.

I would bet serious money that this has never been the rule.

[schmke]

Originally Posted by spot

What makes you think that people do not do this?

I know people do this to keep from being bumped up, and if the system worked as you describe (strikes only when the averaged dynamic rating exceeds the threshold) I'm sure they would do it to avoid strikes.

But that is my exact point, that because it is such an obvious loophole to avoid strikes, I doubt the USTA would implement it this way. A more reasonable way to do it is to have strikes occur when individual match dynamic ratings exceed a threshold. That way, it is harder to game the system.

[asimple]

What is the actual meaning of a bench marked player?
Are they the best in that division.

[spot]

Originally Posted by asimple

What is the actual meaning of a bench marked player?
Are they the best in that division.

They made playoffs the previous season.

[chatt_town]

People do this. The difference in what he is talking about here and strike appear to be two different things. If you are computer rated, you can game the system with this, but if you are self rated, you can't game the system like this the way it was explained to me.

For example, A self rated person could lose matches 1 ,3, 5...but if he wins 2 4 and 6 against bench mark players he is done. Matches 1 3 and 5 don't matter. You basically beat 3 bench mark players...furthermore, matches 2 4 and 6 could have been the same guy, you will still get dq'ed.

Originally Posted by spot

What makes you think that people do not do this? THis is my biggest problem with going off of "team wins" rather than individual wins for deciding playoffs- there are too many matches where someone could lose on purpose to manipulate their rating.

It is possible to lose a match and still generate a strike. How would that be possible to do if it went only on the individual match result?

[chatt_town]

Which is Bshit in and of itself. Just because a team made the playoffs doesn't mean they are great players. They are basically holding everyone to play off standard even though certain players may not have won a damn thing in playoffs or state. Individuals are basically rated according to the success of the team and not your individual play and then they wonder why people game the system.

Originally Posted by spot

They made playoffs the previous season.

[asimple]

I'm not sure that I buy that definition since I am on a team that made the playoffs last year where some guys are benchmark players and others are not. The b players seem better but not by much.

Does it have any implication for C ratings though?
I lost but played extremely even with a B player in a higher division

[chatt_town]

I wouldn't bet any money as no one really knows what the rule is I don't think which is how they want it...but I'll tell this much....she sure seem to have a point. I swear I wish I had those emails or even her name. This conversation went on for the better part of a week and she got so frustrated with me asking questions he had the nerve to ask me how it impacted me that he got dq'ed. She was too stupid to see that A. He was on my team and B. I could get the same d*ck put to me at sectionals. It may not have been but she was the person that was trying to get us to send our 250 or whatever in to cover us at sectionals and we told her to kick rocks...it wasn't that important to us. She was an official at the time and told us exactly what I'm repeating to you now. I took her through it so much that the following year when we went back to state, she comes and finds us and ask for me by name...and wanted a hug and all this nonsense.

Originally Posted by spot

I would bet serious money that this has never been the rule.

[asimple]

Ok, I take back what I said. It looks like all the guys that played in the playoffs have b ratings, and there is no way they could use this to disqualify people as some of the doubles players are by no means the stronger guys in that division.

It sounds like the system worked in the case you are talking about. If you have a team composed of 5+ self rated players who are easily winning their matches you probably are playing in the wrong division

[chatt_town]

I agree with this...because a person that is self rated is wasting his time playing usta. you basically have to watch who you play and beat. If you are self rated and go out and kick in some computer rated bench mark player...you are hosed up. That was part of my arguement to the woman. If it is already decided by computer who should win and who shouldn't, why are we even going to show up in SC or whereever and play. You've already decided who is going to win basically and if it doesn't go that way, you are going to punish the so called underdog. it's bs and that's why people do a lot of things they do, they need to clean their stuff up before trying to tell players to clean their acts up. Personally, I'm not going to go do 3 hours of reasearch on a team to figure out who is bench mark and who isn't but I know a lot of captains and teams that do and that's why they win.

Originally Posted by schmke

I know people do this to keep from being bumped up, and if the system worked as you describe (strikes only when the averaged dynamic rating exceeds the threshold) I'm sure they would do it to avoid strikes.

But that is my exact point, that because it is such an obvious loophole to avoid strikes, I doubt the USTA would implement it this way. A more reasonable way to do it is to have strikes occur when individual match dynamic ratings exceed a threshold. That way, it is harder to game the system.

[chatt_town]

Furthermore, I find it hard to believe that you can get a strike by beating a bench mark player if your rating itself is computer generated. Their own computer has basically said you belong at said level for that year. It would be rediculous to have you paying fees to play say 4.0 and then when you start 3 matches in they say...wait...hold up...you are now 4.5. That would make no sense and I could see them catching hell for doing something like that. The only people I've ever really known to get dq'ed were self rated players. I've never heard of a computer rated player being dq'ed...not for play anyway. I can see you getting thrown out for calling the offical a mfker or something.lol


QUOTE=spot;7197492]chatt_town and schmke- I believe that you guys are incorrect on what constitutes a strike. How I understand it is that you generate a strike if your rating at the end of the match is outside of the permissible range. So by playing more matches your rating has more "weight" and it is harder for one outlying result to generate a strike for you. This is also part of the reason it is possible to generate a strike even with a loss.[/quote]

[chatt_town]

You talking about my team bro?

Originally Posted by asimple

Ok, I take back what I said. It looks like all the guys that played in the playoffs have b ratings, and there is no way they could use this to disqualify people as some of the doubles players are by no means the stronger guys in that division.

It sounds like the system worked in the case you are talking about. If you have a team composed of 5+ self rated players who are easily winning their matches you probably are playing in the wrong division