
Register  FAQ  Members List  Calendar  Search  Today's Posts  Mark Forums Read 

Thread Tools  Display Modes 
12032012, 11:09 AM  #1 
New User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 55

NTRP WinLoss Adjustment Formula
With the new ratings coming out, I thought I'd share what I forwarded to the national USTA office a few years back. The below is a winloss adjustment formula to be applied to end of year ratings using the current NTRP algorithm and is intended to allow winloss record to be taken into account when publishing final ratings. Under the algorithm below, the maximum adjustment is .1, but this factor can be set to anything. BTW, the national office rejected the proposal because it would "put too much emphasis on winning and losing", even though I explained the .1 constant (maximum impace of winloss record) can be lowered as desired. Regardless, here's one way to integrate winloss into NTRP:
NTRP Win/Loss Adjustment Formula Assumptions:  Used to adjust end of year NTRP ratings as computed by existing formula  Max NTRP adjustment for any player not to exceed .10 (.10 used as an example, can be any number)  Appeal rules for adjusted end of year rated remain asis  No adjustment applies to victories over players with lower overall NTRP or losses to players with higher overall NTRP (4.0 defeats 3.5, or 4.5 loses to 5.0) Variables and values assigned to variables: X = end of year NTRP rating to hundredth point under existing NTRP formula Y = adjusted end of year NTRP rating A = number of wins over players with same overall NTRP rating (.01 adjustment per win; can be any number) B = number of losses to players with same overall NTRP rating (.01 adjustment per loss; can be any number) C = number of wins over players with overall NTRP rating above winner’s overall NTRP rating, e.g. a win by a 3.5 over a 4.0 (.02 adjustment per win) D = number of losses to player with overall NTRP rating below loser’s overall NTRP rating, e.g. a loss to a 3.5 by a 4.0 (.02 adjustment per loss) Formula: X + (A x .01) – (B x .01) + (C x .02) – (D x .02) = Y For X > Y, if X – Y > .1, then Y = X  .1 For Y > X, if Y – X > .1, then Y = X + .1 Examples: Player 1 rated 4.0 during the year has end of year rating of 3.56 using existing algorithm. Unadjusted new year overall NTRP is 4.0 and outside appeal eligibility. Player has winloss record of 1 win and 4 losses to 4.0s, and a record of 1 win and 2 losses to 3.5s. Adjusted rating for player 1 becomes: 3.51; overall 4.0; appeal eligible 3.56 + (1 x .01) – (4 x .01) + (1 x .02) – (2 x .02) = 3.51 Since X > Y and 3.56 – 3.51 < .1, final adjusted end of year NTRP rating remains 3.51 Player 2 rated 4.0 during the year and has end of year rating of 3.96 using existing algorithm. Unadjusted new year overall NTRP is 4.0 and within appeal eligibility. Player has a winloss record of 20 wins and 2 losses, all to players of same overall NTRP rating. Adjusted rating for player 2 becomes: 4.06; overall 4.5; ineligible for appeal 3.96 + (20 x .01) – (2 x .01) = 4.14; however, since Y > X and Y – X > .10, adjusted rating becomes 4.06 (X + .10). Player becomes overall NTRP 4.5 and outside appeal criteria. Player 3 rated 4.0 during the year and has end of year rating of 3.75 using existing algorithm. Unadjusted new year overall NTRP is 4.0 and outside appeal guidelines. Player has win loss record of 6 wins and 4 losses, all to players of the same overall NTRP. Adjusted rating for player 3 becomes: 3.77; overall 4.0; ineligible for appeal 3.75 + (6 x .01) – (4 x .01) = 3.77 Since Y > X and Y – X < .1; adjusted NTRP remains 3.77 
12032012, 11:23 AM  #2 
SemiPro
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 734

does anybody have the cliff notes for this?

tennismonkey 
View Public Profile 
Find More Posts by tennismonkey 
12032012, 11:43 AM  #3 
Professional
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,443

so if you are a 4.0 play a bunch of people who are bad 4.0s during your league season you would have a much higher chance of being bumped just because your opponents happened to be bad.
Sorry but USTA is right to reject this idea, it sucks!
__________________
Völkl PB10 Mid with some strings at some tension 
12032012, 11:55 AM  #4 
New User
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 55

Which is why there is a .1 constant applied to how much your winloss ratio can raise your NTRP in this particular formula. Additionally, this constant could be reduced to .05 or anything else just in case an individual goes 200 and just happened to play all lower end players.

12032012, 12:05 PM  #5  
Professional
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,142

Quote:
It also has issues with doubles in that a weaker player may play with a very good partner and as a result have a very good record because of that, not because of their own play, particularly if the opposition isn't that strong. To be fair, the proposal does provide for limiting the adjustment, presumably to avoid really whacky things happening in these situations, but if you limit the adjustment too much, what is the point of doing the adjustment? If the win/loss adjustment is sound and equitable, it shouldn't need an artificial limit placed on it. To me, this adjustment approach doesn't seem sound. If you want to factor wins/losses in, it should be done as part of the individual match rating calculation, not as some end of year override like this proposal. If I were doing the NTRP all over myself, I'd probably include wins/losses in match calculations, but alas the USTA hasn't asked me to do that, well yet anyway 

12042012, 06:58 AM  #6 
Professional
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,357

Or they could just count every match instead. Naw, that makes to much sense.
8 matches counted toward a DNTRP (over a two month period) out of 55 USTA league matches played. And Level 1 and 2 Tournaments never have any B rated players do they ?
__________________
Wilson Steam 99S  Pacific Tough Gut 16g 57M / Head Hawk 17G 54X 

Thread Tools  
Display Modes  

