Avoiding A Self-Rate DQ

[Cindysphinx]

Say I am a computer-rated 3.5 who is probably rated at the top end of 3.5.

Say I play with a strong, self-rated partner. Say she is not wildly out of level, but she is strong. When we play, we tend to give up 4-6 games on Court One.

Which scenarios are more likely to result in a DQ:

Having her continue to play with me against tough opposition.

Have her continue to play with me against weak opposition.

Having her play with a weaker partner against weak opposition.

Assume of course that everything is above board (she self-rated honestly and in good faith and we play hard to win as convincingly as possible and don't throw games).

 

[raiden031]

Playing against tough opposition is the worst thing you can do.

 

[spot]

Personally I'd say that putting her on a tough court with the weakest 3.5 you have would be what you are looking for. That would give her "average" results more weight.

 

[10ispro]

what does it matter what court she plays on? Last time I checked USTA League arent weighting courts and unless there is an obvious discrepancy between ratings like a 3.0 playing 3.5--then everyone on paper is "equal"

So it doesnt matter if its court 1 or court 3 or singles.

Key is to give up at least 6 games or more per match which equates to "one break" of serve per set, which looks like a close match to everyone.
How she gives up the games are irrevalevant

 

[Cindysphinx]

Around here, most teams still do lineups according to strength, by tradition or habit. It is rare to find the strongest players on Court Three because that is the court that is the first to be defaulted.

 

[10ispro]

when I played mixed and men's in Mid-atlantic my teams always moved the line up around.
While I agree there is some risk in a no show leading default--that is rare. Most captains I know wait until the very last minute to exchange line-ups and gives there players a chance to arrive.

Strongest team usually ended up being on 2 and then either 1 was weakest or 2nd strongest etc...

Playing accordance to strength from my experience having played in leagues since 1999 and having coached several Play off teams is typically something women become fixated on--rarely , if ever, do I recall a guy worrying about play in order of strength line ups.

 

[OrangePower]

Say I am a computer-rated 3.5 who is probably rated at the top end of 3.5.

Say I play with a strong, self-rated partner. Say she is not wildly out of level, but she is strong. When we play, we tend to give up 4-6 games on Court One.

Which scenarios are more likely to result in a DQ:

Having her continue to play with me against tough opposition.

Have her continue to play with me against weak opposition.

Having her play with a weaker partner against weak opposition.

Assume of course that everything is above board (she self-rated honestly and in good faith and we play hard to win as convincingly as possible and don't throw games).

Short answer: Play her with a strong partner against weak competition.

Long answer:

It's really pretty hard to get DQ'd - unless you're *really* above level. Especially playing doubles. So you have nothing to worry about... just play her however you would if she was computer rated.

Last year I had a guy on my team in a similar situation. We decided to just play him without worrying about the potential for DQ and if he got DQ'd, so be it. He ended up with a 8-1 record but no DQ.

Unless of course you *do* think that she is way above level... in which case you should do the right thing and not play her at all.

 

[tom10s]

1) do not play singles at all if she is good singles player
2) pair her with player with highest DNTRP rating(obviuosly this is a guess), put them against weakest opponents.

 

[tom10s]

Around here, most teams still do lineups according to strength, by tradition or habit. It is rare to find the strongest players on Court Three because that is the court that is the first to be defaulted.

So in your area the weaker players suffer the double indignity of being in a caste system where they are summarily relegated to court3 AND they take almost all of the forfeits as well so they play less than everyone else despite paying same league fees?

 

[spot]

In my experience Women tend to be much more heirarchical about their lineups than guys are. You sort of earn the ability to play court 1. You vaguely earn the right to play with stronger players. No matter how many times I point out to the women's USTA team that court 1 and court 3 count the same they routinely put out line 1's that would slaughter their line 3.

How on earth are you people giving her the advice of putting this player with strong players agianst weak competition. IF everyone has the same 3.5 rating and they are routinely slaughtering the opposition then thats a terrible outcome. Put her with a partner where even when she plays her best she isn't going to have to play GREAT to get good results. That will make the scores come out reasonable and after her score has more weight then you have more flexibility.

 

[Eviscerator]

Say I am a computer-rated 3.5 who is probably rated at the top end of 3.5.

Say I play with a strong, self-rated partner. Say she is not wildly out of level, but she is strong. When we play, we tend to give up 4-6 games on Court One.

Which scenarios are more likely to result in a DQ:

Having her continue to play with me against tough opposition.

Have her continue to play with me against weak opposition.

Having her play with a weaker partner against weak opposition.

Assume of course that everything is above board (she self-rated honestly and in good faith and we play hard to win as convincingly as possible and don't throw games).

Depends on whether she foot faults or not.

 

[J_R_B]

How on earth are you people giving her the advice of putting this player with strong players agianst weak competition. IF everyone has the same 3.5 rating and they are routinely slaughtering the opposition then thats a terrible outcome. Put her with a partner where even when she plays her best she isn't going to have to play GREAT to get good results. That will make the scores come out reasonable and after her score has more weight then you have more flexibility.

Everyone doesn't have the same 3.5 rating. The formula contemplates the dynamic rating (i.e. 3.01 - 3.50) of all four players in the match. If the computer looks at a match where her partner is a 3.40 - 3.50 dynamic rating player and the opponents are 3.00 - 3.10 dynamic rating players, then the win won't bump her dynamic rating as much since the difference between the partner and the opponents creates a situation where a win or even a lopsided win is "expected". Your dynamic rating moves the most when you do something that is not expected because of the pre-match dynmic ratings of the players involved.

Of course, the computer also looks at the strength of victory, so this analysis really applies to beating strong 3.5s vs weak 3.5s by the same match score. I couldn't tell you if the dynamic rating is more likely to be affected by beating stronger players by 3-6, 6-4, 7-5 or beating weaker players 6-0, 6-2.

 

[HitItHarder]

Honestly the best way to keep her from getting a DQ is to play her on the courts (and with the partners) where she has the best chance of having competitive matches, meaning games lost so that the set scores are reasonably close. That is all you can do, so don't worry about the rest.

For the most part, I think the DQ system works. Our league has one or two every year or so and I have yet to see one that wasn't an instance of someone clearly playing out of level.

 

[spot]

JRB- i'd say on court 1 you are more likely to face strong players, but because they play court 1 against other solid players all season it doesn't necessarily mean that they will be facing the players with the top ratings. If you are playing her with a weaker partner she isn't likely to blow anyone off of the court there even if she is a strong 3.5. The worst thing she could do is play a lower court and absolutely slaughter someone who has a high rating propped up by playing other weak players at line 3.

 

[cak]

I'd play her where you would play her if she was computer rated. It's easy, and as HitItHarder says, they don't seem to DQ people unless they are clearly playing out of level.

Other reasons why picking partners/opponents to finagle her rating won't work: a) The strength of the opponents is really out of your control, and b) computer ratings are weird, often the folks who you think are at the top of the ratings are not the folks who are at the top of the ratings. You know those folks who you can't believe got bumped? They were at the top of their ratings last year. You know those incredible players that went 8-1 last year and didn't get bumped? They were at the bottom of the ratings last year. I know, weird.

 

[Nellie]

If you want to manage the rating - play against weak opponents. You are supposed to beat weak opponents, and even close wins against weak opponents could even push down the rating. I looked once at the computer rating for a DQ'ed player (the only time you see actual dynamic ratings) and there was one point where the player's rating went down after a 6-0, 6-0 win against a weak team playing up a level.

You are supposed to lose to strong opponents, and and even close loses to strong opponents will push up your rating (and wins will push up the ratings more). I note, for example, that a lot of people who got moved up had bad records but good matches against weak competition.

 

[Cindysphinx]

So in your area the weaker players suffer the double indignity of being in a caste system where they are summarily relegated to court3 AND they take almost all of the forfeits as well so they play less than everyone else despite paying same league fees?

What can I say?

I have some women who flat out refuse to play on Court One. This included one woman who was by far my strongest player, but she didn't think so.

If I put weaker players on Court One, they almost always ask me about it. They view it as being sacrificed, and they don't like it.

I, in turn, like to put myself on Court One if I have a solid partner because I like getting a competitive match. Some of my most boring, least challenging matches have been on Court Three.

That's just the way it is around here.

As for whether guys behave the same way, I have no idea. I have never been on a men's team or captained mixed, so I don't know.

 

[JavierLW]

Say I am a computer-rated 3.5 who is probably rated at the top end of 3.5.

Say I play with a strong, self-rated partner. Say she is not wildly out of level, but she is strong. When we play, we tend to give up 4-6 games on Court One.

Which scenarios are more likely to result in a DQ:

Having her continue to play with me against tough opposition.

Have her continue to play with me against weak opposition.

Having her play with a weaker partner against weak opposition.

Assume of course that everything is above board (she self-rated honestly and in good faith and we play hard to win as convincingly as possible and don't throw games).

Playing against tough competition is the easiest way to get DQ'ed, however it would almost have to be a series of outstanding wins against the top teams in your league to get DQ'd.

It's also the most fairest, if they get DQ'ed then they get DQ'ed. Percentagewise it's pretty rare to get DQ'ed in the first place (especially if you're not playing in the higher level at the same time), so they should feel some sense of accomplishment if they manage to do that.

The odds of it arent really big enough to even worry about. You'd do more harm to your team by sticking your weaker players at #1 (when they could of done well at #2 or #3) for something that wasnt likely to happen anyway.

 

[86golf]

I have a different mindset. I'd put her where she could best help the team. I would monitor matches and note any matches that result in a 2,1 or better wins. If any of those matches had self rated opponents, ignore them. If they were computer rated and at middle of the rating or better, assume that is strike one. You then might want to make some adjustments at that point. If she has another blowout win against computer rated players, especially early in the season then you'll need to come up with a contingency plan. I wouldn't worry about it now because it is not a problem now. Only at strike two does it become a problem.

 

[Joeyg]

This question (thread) makes me sick. How to avoid a self rate DQ? This is what is wrong with USTA tennis.

Why not just have her tank a few matches? That way, she can play at her current level and continue to fool the computer!

 

[tom10s]

This question (thread) makes me sick. How to avoid a self rate DQ? This is what is wrong with USTA tennis.

Why not just have her tank a few matches? That way, she can play at her current level and continue to fool the computer!

If going to tank then make sure playing singles against weakest(lowest computer rated DNTRP) opponent you can find. Since women have bizarre obscession with court# then this would most likely be court#2 singles for cindy.

Last season we strongly suspected a team of tanking a match on purpose 6-0 6-1 in order to try to get one of our players DQ'ed. :evil:

PS: i do not recommend tanking matches on purpose. but if you are going that route, do it right :-?

 

[film1]

Why do women care more about court number then men?

 

[tom10s]

JRB- i'd say on court 1 you are more likely to face strong players, but because they play court 1 against other solid players all season it doesn't necessarily mean that they will be facing the players with the top ratings. If you are playing her with a weaker partner she isn't likely to blow anyone off of the court there even if she is a strong 3.5. The worst thing she could do is play a lower court and absolutely slaughter someone who has a high rating propped up by playing other weak players at line 3.

Dude, with all due respect....you appear to be confused about how dntrp works.
"weak players" have low dntrp ratings. almost impossible to earn a strike beating low dntrp players no matter the score. IMPOSSIBLE to have artificially high dntrp "propped up" by beating low dntrp opponents.
the computer takes the dntrp of her partner into account. so if she does better than expected(even losing straight sets) playing with a "weak" partner against "strong" opponents her dntrp WILL go up possible earning her a strike.

this is just the way dntrp works.

 

[OrangePower]

If going to tank then make sure playing singles against weakest(lowest computer rated DNTRP) opponent you can find. Since women have bizarre obscession with court# then this would most likely be court#2 singles for cindy.

Last season we strongly suspected a team of tanking a match on purpose 6-0 6-1 in order to try to get one of our players DQ'ed. :evil:

PS: i do not recommend tanking matches on purpose. but if you are going that route, do it right :-?

See, now there a golden opportunity missed... If you suspected at the time that the opponent was deliberately tanking, you should have instructed your ringer to go into super-double-tank mode and out-tank the tanking opponent! Wouldn't that have been a hoot to watch - seeing who can put on the worst show without being super obvious about it?

 

[tom10s]

This question (thread) makes me sick. How to avoid a self rate DQ? This is what is wrong with USTA tennis.

Why not just have her tank a few matches? That way, she can play at her current level and continue to fool the computer!

the 3 strike dntrp rule is indeed excessively capricious and punitive, imo. i captained a team with lots of self-raters last year and i can tell you we pulled our hair out trying to avoid dq's. opposing captain did everything in his power to get my players dq'ed.

 

[tom10s]

See, now there a golden opportunity missed... If you suspected at the time that the opponent was deliberately tanking, you should have instructed your ringer to go into super-double-tank mode and out-tank the tanking opponent! Wouldn't that have been a hoot to watch - seeing who can put on the worst show without being super obvious about it?

LMAO!!
Yeah, i can just see it now....2 ringers both double faulting away every service game and hitting every return(when opponent accidentally gets a serve in) out or into the net!

Beware, i do know of someone who tanked several games on purpose in order to keep score "close" and ended up losing in a 3rd set tiebreaker against some clowns they would have beaten 6-2 6-2 if they had played straight up from the start! :shock:

 

[Cindysphinx]

This question (thread) makes me sick. How to avoid a self rate DQ? This is what is wrong with USTA tennis.

Why not just have her tank a few matches? That way, she can play at her current level and continue to fool the computer!

My opinion of DQs etc. is that players have two obligations: (1) don't lie about their experience and answer the questions honestly, and (2) play hard and don't throw so much as one point.

If someone does that and doesn't get DQ'd, I don't have a problem with it and am willing to trust the computer to sort it out.

That said, I am asking out of idle curiosity. The person in question is not one of my players. Besides, I'm captaining combo and there is no dynamic DQ for combo anyway.

 

[kylebarendrick]

As others have suggested, I would partner them with someone that I thought had a high DNTRP rating. In essence, that would give their partner the lion's share of the credit for winning matches. The self-rated player's dynamic rating would be whatever it takes to create the final match score. The higher their partner's rating, the lower theirs would be.

As far as lines go, I'd try to avoid having them play anyone at the top of the level (adjusted players in particular). The actual position would depend on the other captain's tendancies and their roster.

 

[J_R_B]

See, now there a golden opportunity missed... If you suspected at the time that the opponent was deliberately tanking, you should have instructed your ringer to go into super-double-tank mode and out-tank the tanking opponent! Wouldn't that have been a hoot to watch - seeing who can put on the worst show without being super obvious about it?

This reminds me of a little league game I played when I was about 10 or so. Our team was winning big, it was starting to rain, and we needed to finish the inning to make it an official game. The coach told me "go strike out so the game counts". So I went up there and swung as weakly as I could at the first pitch while the ball was only about half way to the plate. The coach pulled me back again and said "don't be so obvious".