Conclusive: 6-0 6-0 scores count for generating strikes

[OrangePower]

Just thought I would share, since there have been some recents threads where this came up:

I have 100% conclusive evidence that (in Norcal at least) a 6-0 6-0 score is considered when evaluating strikes for self-rated player DQ.

I know a player that was DQ'd after playing exactly three matches, meaning that each of these was a strike. One of them he won 6-0 6-0. So that definitely was considered and generated a strike.

Note that this does not imply anything as to whether 6-0 6-0 scores are considered in DNTRP calculation, which is another topic of recent discussion.

[kylebarendrick]

Players that receive a DQ are informed which of their matches gave them strikes.

Hopefully your post will help put the myth that "double bagels are ignored" to rest - at least for 3-strikes DQs.

[Mike Y]

Originally Posted by OrangePower

Just thought I would share, since there have been some recents threads where this came up:

I have 100% conclusive evidence that (in Norcal at least) a 6-0 6-0 score is considered when evaluating strikes for self-rated player DQ.

I know a player that was DQ'd after playing exactly three matches, meaning that each of these was a strike. One of them he won 6-0 6-0. So that definitely was considered and generated a strike.

Note that this does not imply anything as to whether 6-0 6-0 scores are considered in DNTRP calculation, which is another topic of recent discussion.

I think I know of the same person you are talking about. I've seen him play just a bit. In my opinion, he's a good player, he would do fine at 4.5, but I didn't think he is worthy of a DQ, there are better 4.0s than him.

[Cindysphinx]

I always knew that 6-0 6-0 scores count for three-strikes.

I thought the question whether double bagels count toward calculating one's rating.

What is the answer to the latter question?

[schmke]

Current thought seems to be that 6-0,6-0 matches didn't count but now do. I'm guessing the change was for the 2012 year but am not sure.

[OrangePower]

Originally Posted by Mike Y

I think I know of the same person you are talking about. I've seen him play just a bit. In my opinion, he's a good player, he would do fine at 4.5, but I didn't think he is worthy of a DQ, there are better 4.0s than him.

Could be same guy - the guy I'm talking about was also 4.0 DQ'd to 4.5.

Anyway, it's part of the quirks of the rating algorithm and self-rating I think. If he had been computer rated 4.0, I don't think his results would have been enough to get him bumped up to 4.5, but as a self-rate, they are enough to DQ him.

[OrangePower]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

I always knew that 6-0 6-0 scores count for three-strikes.

I thought the question whether double bagels count toward calculating one's rating.

What is the answer to the latter question?

Dunno. Conflicting info out there.

[schmke]

Originally Posted by OrangePower

Anyway, it's part of the quirks of the rating algorithm and self-rating I think. If he had been computer rated 4.0, I don't think his results would have been enough to get him bumped up to 4.5, but as a self-rate, they are enough to DQ him.

On the surface it seems like a quirk, but is it? Given that the USTA says there is an allowance for improvement above the top of a given level before a DQ is given, it would seem counter intuitive that someone could exceed the higher threshold and get DQ'd, but not be at a level that would get bumped.

It probably depends on if DQs are based on individual match ratings exceeding the threshold or if it is the computed dynamic rating after a match exceeding it. Also, bumps are done at a specific time (end of year or section dependent time for early start) while DQs are checked after each match.

In any case, you can see how someone might have individual match ratings or computed dynamic ratings that exceed the DQ level, but results towards the end of the year get their rating back down so they don't get bumped. I'd argue that having a system that does DQ this person would be a good thing so as to combat gaming the system, so a good quirk.

[Cindysphinx]

I think the algorithm should have a hair trigger for DQ. USTA advises people to self-rate taking into account how they will improve over the season. So if someone comes in and rates as a 3.5 and has results that would move them up at end of season, I think they should be at serious risk for a DQ.

[schmke]

Originally Posted by Cindysphinx

I think the algorithm should have a hair trigger for DQ. USTA advises people to self-rate taking into account how they will improve over the season. So if someone comes in and rates as a 3.5 and has results that would move them up at end of season, I think they should be at serious risk for a DQ.

Agreed. IMHO, the primary problem with self-rates is that the threshold for DQs is too high and allows "natural improvement" without being DQ'd.

For example, I believe the threshold for a 3.5 to be DQ'd is something like 3.7-3.8 which seems far too high. Yes, it allows for someone to improve without being penalized, but that seems like way too much tolerance given the self-rate guidelines you reference.