Guideline for Sandbaggers

[asimple]

Originally Posted by OrangePower

It's kinda funny that you made these two posts one after the other, because there are some ironic juxtapositions there:

The teams you are on are 'legit', and yet you are a self-admitted sandbagger (albeit unintentional).

It's more fun to win than to lose, but it's depressing making a deep playoff run 2-3 notches down from your old or goal level.

Not accusing you or your teams of cheating, but it's clear that the system attracts some teams and players who are motivated by making playoff runs rather than enjoying a competitive regular season, but then at the end of the day winning at a lower level ends up feeling kinda hollow for many.

The teams that I play on are legit, as I am a computer rated player who did not intentionally control my rating. The teams that I mentioned that aren't marginal are 4.5 teams. The marginal team is not related to me but other things.

Yes, the whole thing is a bit ironic for me though. This is not cheating or even ethically wrong as I really am playing within the system, but I hate the concept of sand-bagging, and hate wasting my time.

[chatt_town]

Yea, whatever, they have yet to take one plate back from anyone for doing it and you know just like I do it goes on...so the rule is useless. It would be useless even if were individual ratings...that's how the whole thread started. USTA hasn't figured out how to stop it so how do you expect Alta to? I think it's just going to boil down to what you are willing to deal with...I can deal and work with both...but I like Alta rules better even though they aren't perfect. They are a hell of a lot more transparent.

I've heard people talk about one of the Jensen brothers playing alta and talking about how he played something less than AA. I honestly don't know how true that was but the reality is this. Plenty of people are going to sandbag...no matter how you set the rules up. The thing I think one has to be able to accept is can they look themselves in the mirror.

Originally Posted by spot

The rule LITERALLY is that you may not play stronger pairs below weaker pairs. Maybe you should take a look at the rules before you say what the rules are.





That is the real issue. There isn't much of a way to police it except for using the movement rules. Again this is why I wish that ALTA would start to give people an individual rating. In playoffs there are stricter rules about who can play what line but its based only on what line you played in the regular season. (losing badly at line 1 always gives you a higher ranking than winning easily at line 2) I think it would be more effective if you had an individual rating that spanned several seasons.

[chatt_town]

Spot, you are right about this....100 percent. It's a waste of time because at the end of the day, the only way you can win nationals is to game the system. You think about it...If you ever play the Ga State at say 4.0.....or are just able to be there at the finals. Look at the teams and tell me those guys are really 4.0 players....and that is at the state level...now you take that to the sectional winners...wow...no telling what kind of so called 4.0's are playing there. So I won't even discuss Nationals. I know what I ran into in Rome last year and it was not pretty but I'm also not going to complain. It's not that serious to me. I have a choice...either get better or run to the 40's league(which I did).lol I'm sure I'll get my @$$ handed to me some there as well but it won't be as often and I certainly won't have to see second serves hitting the T and then the fence on a regular basis.lol

Originally Posted by spot

This is the best way for me to explain why nationals are a bad idea. I think that most of us can agree that having a national championship for 2.5 tennis is sort of ridiculous. An award for being the best terrible tennis players in the nation? There is no doubt that the team that wins 2.5 would do just fine at 3.0 but they were simply the team that managed their levels the best.

But when you think about it every other level is the same. Its not that you are the best at anything other than being able to manage your ratings the best to keep good players from being bumped up. I really don't see the point and I think it causes a TON of problems across USTA tennis. Teams have to decide if they want to stack a team to try and make a run at nationals and they build a team differently than the rest of the teams in the league. Get rid of that incentive and teams would be built more with the regular season in mind which would make things run smoother all the way around.

[chatt_town]

Goober is right. I'd be willing to bet that 90 percent if not all of the teams that get to sectionals and nationals have players that are far better than the level they are suppose to be playing at. It's no getting around that. It's pretty much the only way you can win.

To show you how screwed up the system is. I remember when i first started. It not only left a bad taste in our mouth about what happened to our team, we watched a mixed team go to Nationals and lose in the finals(hardly anyone got bumped and a few got bumped down). They went back to nationals the next year and won the nationals and none of them got bumped. that is some serious gaming of the system going on some way. That happened.

Originally Posted by asimple

I think you are exaggerating this a bit. It is probably true that the winning teams are known before the start of the season for the most part, but this doesn't necessarily mean those teams are "cheating". I was currently just on a playoff bound combo team, and will be on 2 40+ playoff bound teams. Out of those teams, one is on the marginal side, but in the case of the other 2 there is none of this activity. It is much more fun to win then lose so in general good players are attracted to winning teams.

[schmke]

Originally Posted by chatt_town

Goober is right. I'd be willing to bet that 90 percent if not all of the teams that get to sectionals and nationals have players that are far better than the level they are suppose to be playing at. It's no getting around that. It's pretty much the only way you can win.

You are right. And many times these players are bumped up at the end of the year confirming they are now better than the level they played at the previous year. But unless you are going to DQ any player that improves during the year and plays better than they are "supposed" to for their level, this is unavoidable.

Certainly, there are players that self-rate and manage their rating, or manage their rating the previous year to stay down a level, but there are also a lot of players that simply dedicate themselves to practicing/playing more and improve naturally and their level of play goes up. Of course it is teams with these players that are going to do well in local league, playoffs, sectionals, and nationals. This is going to be particularly true at 3.0 and 3.5, and even 4.0, as there is ample room for rapid improvement if someone dedicates themselves to doing so.

But it is certainly possible to do well and go to Nationals without gaming the system or having an entire roster playing above level. I was on a 3.5 team that went to Nationals and finished 4th in 2011 and only about half our roster was bumped up. We had 2 self-rated players but only one of them was bumped at the end of the year. And we only had one player on the roster that had been bumped down from 4.0 the prior year. We were also all from the same club, not cherry picked from other teams/clubs in our area.

Now, our captain did hand pick the best 3.5s from our club, and we made a concerted effort to have regular team practices and play more, and several of us played up at 4.0 which provided better competition and helped us improve our games. But we did not game the system nor do anything to manage ratings in any questionable way.

So it is certainly possible to do well and go to Nationals without gaming the system or violating the spirit of the rules. But the players on the team do need to improve during the year and play very well for their level, perhaps even above their level to do so.

Originally Posted by chatt_town

To show you how screwed up the system is. I remember when i first started. It not only left a bad taste in our mouth about what happened to our team, we watched a mixed team go to Nationals and lose in the finals(hardly anyone got bumped and a few got bumped down). They went back to nationals the next year and won the nationals and none of them got bumped. that is some serious gaming of the system going on some way. That happened.

Well, the problem here is that it is likely that these players played mens/womens league too, not just mixed. So their rating and lack of being bumped is based on their play in these leagues, not the mixed league. So if someone wants to game the system, they play poorly in mens/womens so they can stack a mixed team and doing well at mixed doesn't get them bumped up.

Might this happen? Sure, but it is also possible that some players just do well at mixed and the nature of the system not using mixed results is unable to reflect that in their rating.

[spot]

Originally Posted by chatt_town

so the rule is useless. It would be useless even if were individual ratings...

I don't think that it would be useless if there were individual ratings. USTA has a problem because people have SO MUCH incentive to game the system. There is a massive difference between levels and if you get bumped then often you have to find a new team. For ALTA an individual rating would be a source of pride and would pretty much only be about making the lineup. For self rates there would be virtually no reason to underrate since your rating would only count as 10% of the team. In most situations then underrating by a level wouldn't even move the team up at all. Certainly the risks of getting the player DQ'd would mean that people would be better off overrating rather than underrating.

THe big thing is that if a team was getting killed at line 1 and rolling at line 2 then eventually the system would make those line 1 players move down the lineup. THat would be a huge step.

[chatt_town]

At the end of the day though, you pretty much have to stack a team to get passed state at 4.0 and above. I remember for about 3 years we were the laughing stock of the 4 teams. The other teams were basically 4.5 guys that were playing down in 4.0 for various reasons. Some of them had laid out for a while...some gamed the system at 4.5 and got moved back down etc....I've played at enough states to know this. The teams that win "most" of the time have players that are playing below their level and most are managing their scores and rating. Your team may not have but I've seen tons of teams that do.

Originally Posted by schmke

You are right. And many times these players are bumped up at the end of the year confirming they are now better than the level they played at the previous year. But unless you are going to DQ any player that improves during the year and plays better than they are "supposed" to for their level, this is unavoidable.

Certainly, there are players that self-rate and manage their rating, or manage their rating the previous year to stay down a level, but there are also a lot of players that simply dedicate themselves to practicing/playing more and improve naturally and their level of play goes up. Of course it is teams with these players that are going to do well in local league, playoffs, sectionals, and nationals. This is going to be particularly true at 3.0 and 3.5, and even 4.0, as there is ample room for rapid improvement if someone dedicates themselves to doing so.

But it is certainly possible to do well and go to Nationals without gaming the system or having an entire roster playing above level. I was on a 3.5 team that went to Nationals and finished 4th in 2011 and only about half our roster was bumped up. We had 2 self-rated players but only one of them was bumped at the end of the year. And we only had one player on the roster that had been bumped down from 4.0 the prior year. We were also all from the same club, not cherry picked from other teams/clubs in our area.

Now, our captain did hand pick the best 3.5s from our club, and we made a concerted effort to have regular team practices and play more, and several of us played up at 4.0 which provided better competition and helped us improve our games. But we did not game the system nor do anything to manage ratings in any questionable way.

So it is certainly possible to do well and go to Nationals without gaming the system or violating the spirit of the rules. But the players on the team do need to improve during the year and play very well for their level, perhaps even above their level to do so.



Well, the problem here is that it is likely that these players played mens/womens league too, not just mixed. So their rating and lack of being bumped is based on their play in these leagues, not the mixed league. So if someone wants to game the system, they play poorly in mens/womens so they can stack a mixed team and doing well at mixed doesn't get them bumped up.

Might this happen? Sure, but it is also possible that some players just do well at mixed and the nature of the system not using mixed results is unable to reflect that in their rating.

[chatt_town]

I don't understand. How do you figure there is a big difference in the levels in USTA. You have basically 3.0 3.5...4.0 4.5 etc..In alta you have everything from c-9 all the way to AA-1 30 something different levels.

Also, what makes you think the incentive isn't there. You know just as I do people take that Alta just as serious as they do USTA and some take it more serious.

Originally Posted by spot

I don't think that it would be useless if there were individual ratings. USTA has a problem because people have SO MUCH incentive to game the system. There is a massive difference between levels and if you get bumped then often you have to find a new team. For ALTA an individual rating would be a source of pride and would pretty much only be about making the lineup. For self rates there would be virtually no reason to underrate since your rating would only count as 10% of the team. In most situations then underrating by a level wouldn't even move the team up at all. Certainly the risks of getting the player DQ'd would mean that people would be better off overrating rather than underrating.

THe big thing is that if a team was getting killed at line 1 and rolling at line 2 then eventually the system would make those line 1 players move down the lineup. THat would be a huge step.

[spot]

Originally Posted by chatt_town

I don't understand. How do you figure there is a big difference in the levels in USTA. You have basically 3.0 3.5...4.0 4.5 etc..In alta you have everything from c-9 all the way to AA-1 30 something different levels.

USTA has basically 4 functional levels. 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, and 4.5. With only 4 levels their own algorithm is set up so that the top 4.0 could double bagel the weakest 4.0 player. That is a HUGE level and 4.5 is a massive jump. I greatly prefer ALTA's method where there are more levels because teams don't jump through hoops to avoid moving up 1 level. People DO NOT WANT to move up in USTA (at least for guys...) because getting bumped sucks. In ALTA no one cares about moving up a level.

Also, what makes you think the incentive isn't there. You know just as I do people take that Alta just as serious as they do USTA and some take it more serious.

In USTA for Atlanta teams there are 7 rounds of regular season and at least 15 rounds of playoffs to get to nationals. It makes sense for teams to jump through whatever hoops are necessary to go that far. In ALTA there are 7 weeks of playoffs and just 3 weeks of playoffs. Teams do game the system but nowhere near the level that they do for USTA. ALTA is trivially easy to game the system if you wish to- you can take all the line 1 players from every team a single level below you and add them for free. If there were a "nationals" for alta there would be FAR more incentive to stack a team.

[goober]

Originally Posted by asimple

I think you are exaggerating this a bit. It is probably true that the winning teams are known before the start of the season for the most part, but this doesn't necessarily mean those teams are "cheating". I was currently just on a playoff bound combo team, and will be on 2 40+ playoff bound teams. Out of those teams, one is on the marginal side, but in the case of the other 2 there is none of this activity. It is much more fun to win then lose so in general good players are attracted to winning teams.

I find the concept of good and bad players in an artificially stratified ranking system rather arbitrary. If you have a 3.99 rating you are a good 4.0 player. If you are a 4.01 you are a bad 4.5 player. In reality they are the same player. Good players are not attracted to winning teams, players who put a high priority on winning are attracted to winning teams. Many of these "good" players are actually bad players at their proper higher level. But they like playing at the lower level because it is fun to win as you put it.

[asimple]

Originally Posted by goober

I find the concept of good and bad players in an artificially stratified ranking system rather arbitrary. If you have a 3.99 rating you are a good 4.0 player. If you are a 4.01 you are a bad 4.5 player. In reality they are the same player. Good players are not attracted to winning teams, players who put a high priority on winning are attracted to winning teams. Many of these "good" players are actually bad players at their proper higher level. But they like playing at the lower level because it is fun to win as you put it.

I think I agree with everything you are saying about the system, but just don't believe that people and teams are conspiring to control their ratings that much. I am guessing it does happen, but not to the degree people seem to think. What I know is happening is teams are formed around people around the same level, and there is an extra incentive for teams to be formed around the top of the range.

In terms of ratings though I also don't fully believe they are completely artificial. Their are actually playing characteristics which seem to form a delineation to some degree. I think this also leads to some false characterizations as sometimes (a lot of times), people that look like they can play really can't. This seems to be especially true at the 4.0 level. At the higher end their seem to be players who have good strokes, but in match situations completely over hit.

[spot]

Originally Posted by asimple

I think I agree with everything you are saying about the system, but just don't believe that people and teams are conspiring to control their ratings that much..

Says the person with 29 posts.

[schmke]

Originally Posted by asimple

I think I agree with everything you are saying about the system, but just don't believe that people and teams are conspiring to control their ratings that much.

Take a look at this post from a few months ago where I analyzed a player accused of manipulating their rating. http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showp...5&postcount=50

While it isn't black and white obvious that the fall league matches are used to manipulate a rating down, it is awfully suspicious that for two consecutive years the players worst results, all well below his average for the year and current dynamic rating, were in the fall league in matches played right before year-end ratings come out.

[gameboy]

I don't know why people get so worked up by sandbagging. You get to play against a good player. What is so bad about that?

Who cares about regionals and nationals? Only people who sandbag care about that. Just have fun in your league and leave the playoffs to the cheaters. It is so much less stressful that way. Just let the cheaters have their (ultimately meaningless) trophy.

[asimple]

Originally Posted by spot

Says the person with 29 posts.

Sorry, I forgot that the metric for knowledge about tennis was posting on this forum.

[spot]

Originally Posted by asimple

Sorry, I forgot that the metric for knowledge about tennis was posting on this forum.

When you didn't know what it meant to be a benchmark player made it seem like you are pretty new to league tennis.

[anubis]

Originally Posted by gameboy

I don't know why people get so worked up by sandbagging. You get to play against a good player. What is so bad about that?

Who cares about regionals and nationals? Only people who sandbag care about that. Just have fun in your league and leave the playoffs to the cheaters. It is so much less stressful that way. Just let the cheaters have their (ultimately meaningless) trophy.

Some people only care about moving up in levels. They care about the prestige of post-season play. They want to compete at the highest levels. So when they play against someone clearly superior to them, someone who -- under normal circumstances -- wouldn't even be playing at that level, they feel like they "missed" their opportunity in an unfair manner.

The very nature of USTA means that you're good at your level, can slaughter those under you, and have difficulties with those above you. People masquerading as being lower in rank than they really are are absolutely giving people a chance to face tougher-than-normal opponents. Yes, I agree that people should look at it as an opportunity to really test your strengths and expose your weaknesses. But unfortunately, it's not look at like that.

Even I, who agree with you, would probably be seriously miffed if I lost an opportunity to succeed in the post season due to a sand-bagger. I would be so at first, but later on, after I cooled down, I'd probably look at it as a good learning experience.

[chatt_town]

I agree with this 100 percent. That's why I enjoy Alta more. USTA just sucks money out of you and actually the better the team, the more money you get sucked out of.

Originally Posted by spot

USTA has basically 4 functional levels. 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, and 4.5. With only 4 levels their own algorithm is set up so that the top 4.0 could double bagel the weakest 4.0 player. That is a HUGE level and 4.5 is a massive jump. I greatly prefer ALTA's method where there are more levels because teams don't jump through hoops to avoid moving up 1 level. People DO NOT WANT to move up in USTA (at least for guys...) because getting bumped sucks. In ALTA no one cares about moving up a level.



In USTA for Atlanta teams there are 7 rounds of regular season and at least 15 rounds of playoffs to get to nationals. It makes sense for teams to jump through whatever hoops are necessary to go that far. In ALTA there are 7 weeks of playoffs and just 3 weeks of playoffs. Teams do game the system but nowhere near the level that they do for USTA. ALTA is trivially easy to game the system if you wish to- you can take all the line 1 players from every team a single level below you and add them for free. If there were a "nationals" for alta there would be FAR more incentive to stack a team.

[goober]

Originally Posted by anubis

Some people only care about moving up in levels. They care about the prestige of post-season play. .

LOL@ USTA post season prestige factor. It is right up there with job, where you live and went to school. I know I get a tingly feeling all over when I get to play with someone wearing a 3.5 nationals T-shirt.

[asimple]

Originally Posted by spot

When you didn't know what it meant to be a benchmark player made it seem like you are pretty new to league tennis.

I am a 40+ year old 30 pound overweight guy with a busy career and 2 relatively small kids which take up a lot of my time. My best tennis is long in the past and I am playing to get back into shape and enjoy my time in the sun.

I admittedly don't know the exact rating rules and for the most part don't care. I am currently on a few strong playoff bound teams and know they don't game the system. The other strong teams we have played are admittedly strong, but don't have 5.0s masquerading as 4.0s. In truth I wouldn't care if they did, or foot faulted, got a drink of water at the wrong time, or even had the nerve to go to the bathroom during the match. IMHO these are all lousy excuses for loosing, but don't really compare to I lost because my opponent was unfairly better than me.