How can you find out your "dynamic rating" ?

[Pbarrow]

I tried Schmke's computer model score and found the report very interesting. A few matches that I lost bumped me higher than some of the matches I won handily because of the other players rating. It made me realize how important every game is to the "system" and actually inspired me to play tougher against some opponents. For the price of a grip or two it's worth doing just for fun and he's a nice guy to boot.

[christo]

Originally Posted by andfor

DNTRP info is not supposed to ever be disclosed from those who have access to it to those that don't. If it could be proved someone was giving that information out I have to believe it would be grounds for firing or dismissal from that privilege altogether. However, it would not surprise me that if in some inner circles somewhere in the USTA that info is leaking out from time to time.

This could be bigger than Watergate! Civilizations could tumble, USTA officials could lose their credibility, aaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh!

[andfor]

Originally Posted by christo

No, my behaviour wouldn't change but my awareness would, I for one, don't like the mystery that shrouds a lot of what the USTA does. For instance if I play an NTRP tournament I know EXACTLY how many points I will receive but I can win all my league matches and have NO CLUE about my dynamic rating and now that I am aware that I can thrash a weaker opponent and have that rating decline, well that's typical USTA absurdity. At that point you may as well give every player in a given level, a handicap, like they do in golf.

Yea, you're the kind of player who by looking at the rankings/ratings pre-qualifies and plays out your match before it ever starts. You're my favorite kind of opponent, the one who's more concerned about the outcome before the match even starts instead of planning on how you need to play the next point.

[ChicagoJack]

Some what related questions, regarding how the dynamic ratings are calculated.

Do wins at court 1 matter more than wins at court 3? Most teams around here tend to play straight up early in the season. But lots of teams will stack in a tight playoff towards the end.

Do wins against certain opponents mean more?

Thanks!

[schmke]

Originally Posted by ChicagoJack

Some what related questions, regarding how the dynamic ratings are calculated.

Do wins at court 1 matter more than wins at court 3?

No. What court you play means nothing, only the score and the current rating(s) of your opponent(s) (and partner as well in doubles) matters.

Originally Posted by ChicagoJack

Do wins against certain opponents mean more?

No more weight is given to any specific match based on opponent when calculating dynamic ratings. However, the algorithm does give more weight to your recent matches through the averaging that is used.

Of course, the stronger the opponent the greater opportunity there is to generate a high match rating, but this match doesn't mean more because the opponent is strong.

Now, not to confuse the subject, but year-end ratings do have a component that comes from calculations based on matches against benchmark players and so these matches do mean more for year-end rating purposes. But this benchmark calculation is not part of the dynamic rating calculated throughout the year.

If you are interested in getting an estimate of your dynamic rating, see http://sites.google.com/site/compute...example-report and contact me.

[ChicagoJack]

thanks schmke, much appreciated

[Chelsie1]

Originally Posted by schmke

The USTA only publishes year-end or early-start ratings and only to the half point (NTRP level). However, I can create an Estimated Dynamic NTRP Report for you if you are interested that estimates your dynamic rating to the hundredth and shows you how it changed match to match.

See http://sites.google.com/site/compute...example-report and http://computerratings.blogspot.com/search/label/tennis for more information or contact me at computerratings@techrunning.com.

__________________________________________________ _____

I have found the estimates of this service to be very accurate and the cost very reasonable.

Being 60+, I do not want to be moved up. I have way more opportunities to play at my current level. I do not win all of my matches. Having an idea of my NTRP allowed me to better manage my playing schedule. When I reached the threshold, I just stopped playing.

[NLBwell]

Originally Posted by Pbarrow

I tried Schmke's computer model score and found the report very interesting. A few matches that I lost bumped me higher than some of the matches I won handily because of the other players rating. It made me realize how important every game is to the "system" and actually inspired me to play tougher against some opponents. For the price of a grip or two it's worth doing just for fun and he's a nice guy to boot.

Yes, I think that is a flaw in the system. There isn't enough weight given to wins and losses. A 4.5 guy with a big serve and not a terrific return game may beat another 4.5 guy in a tiebreaker. He may beat a similar 4.0 guy 6-4, which would dramatically lower his level. He may lose to a 5.0 guy 4-6, which would dramatically raise his level.
If he is rated a 4.0, he would never be bumped up even if he wins all his matches and if he is rated a 5.0 he would not be bumped down even if he loses them all.
A 4.5 level consistent grinder at the same level as the above example may beat the other 4.5 guy in a tiebreaker, but beat the 4.0 guy 6-0, 6-1 and lose to the 5.0 guy 0-6, 1-6. He would quickly be rated properly at the 4.5 level by the computer.

[schmke]

You are right, the NTRP system isn't perfect. I'd certainly do things differently if I were doing it from scratch, particularly around factoring in wins/losses and not just game differential.

But remember, the primary goal of the NTRP system is to try to ensure competitive play. In the case of the first player you mention (the 4.5 with the big serve), his matches are competitive at 4.0, 4.5, and 5.0, so there isn't a need for him to be moved up or down, the goal of competitive matches has been achieved, so he is "correctly" rated.

[NLBwell]

Yes, I see your point. The scores are competitive even if the outcome of the match is never in doubt. Still, someone shouldn't be stuck at a level where they know that they will always win playing weaker players or always lose playing stronger players. I don't think the current system is terrible, but if they ever do re-look at the algorithm, they should put more weight on wins and losses.

[jmnk]

Originally Posted by NLBwell

Yes, I think that is a flaw in the system. There isn't enough weight given to wins and losses. A 4.5 guy with a big serve and not a terrific return game may beat another 4.5 guy in a tiebreaker. He may beat a similar 4.0 guy 6-4, which would dramatically lower his level. He may lose to a 5.0 guy 4-6, which would dramatically raise his level.

which would all even out at the player would stay at 4.5

Originally Posted by NLBwell

If he is rated a 4.0, he would never be bumped up even if he wins all his matches and if he is rated a 5.0 he would not be bumped down even if he loses them all.

I'm confused. What do you mean '4.0 player would win all his matches'? Surely he would not win all his matches against 4.5 or 5.0? Similarly 5.0 would not lose all his matches against 4.5 or 4.0?

Originally Posted by NLBwell

A 4.5 level consistent grinder at the same level as the above example may beat the other 4.5 guy in a tiebreaker, but beat the 4.0 guy 6-0, 6-1 and lose to the 5.0 guy 0-6, 1-6. He would quickly be rated properly at the 4.5 level by the computer.

which would be again correct and expected. So in what scenario is the ranking system flawed?

[NLBwell]

You are misunderstanding - maybe I didn't write it well.

In the scenario, the big-serving player is a 4.5 and would win about half his matches in 4.5.

However, if the player is originally mis-rated as a 4.0, he would not be moved up to his proper rating despite winning all his matches for years.

Similarly, if he is mis-rated as a 5.0, he would never be bumped down to his proper level no matter how often he loses because the scores are close even though he is, and forever will be, winless.

I'm not saying the system is terrible, just that it needs to put more emphasis on who wins the matches.

[NumbersGuy]

Seems like a hypothetical and rather rare player to me – not the “big serve, lousy return”, I see plenty of those, but the guy whose typical result vs. a 4.5 is a 3STB win, typical vs. a 5.0 is a 4 and 4 loss, and typical result against a 4.0 is a 4 and 4 win. I’m not sure such a player exists, but even if he does, I’m OK with any system that works for 95%+ of the population. You really can’t hope for better than that, IMHO.

Nevertheless, I would also favor a change to the system that gives some weight to win/loss, but for other reasons.

[jmnk]

Originally Posted by NLBwell

You are misunderstanding - maybe I didn't write it well.

In the scenario, the big-serving player is a 4.5 and would win about half his matches in 4.5.

However, if the player is originally mis-rated as a 4.0, he would not be moved up to his proper rating despite winning all his matches for years.

I'm sorry, I still don't get it. when you say 'winning all his matches for years' - you mean against similarly rated 4.0 players? If so - he would surely be moved up. having 100% winning record against same-rated players for multiple years would surely bumped him up eventually

Originally Posted by NLBwell

Similarly, if he is mis-rated as a 5.0, he would never be bumped down to his proper level no matter how often he loses because the scores are close even though he is, and forever will be, winless.

I'm not saying the system is terrible, just that it needs to put more emphasis on who wins the matches.