Bumped up with no explanation from USTA

[felixgun]

Interesting...in my area a player went undefeated at 9.0 and 10.0 mixed, won all 4 of his matches of 5.0 doubles, gets early start 5.5 and is now 4.5. Crazy! He wasn't a 5.5 really, but certainly not a 4.5 either.

Mixed and combo don't count. Only thing that counts is the main season.

OP you said you were 4-2. Was it all singles or doubles? Singles has a much bigger impact on your rating. Also the exact ratings of other players. This system is flawed though. One of the guys I hit with often went to 4.0 Nationals this past year and won matches at state/sectionals/nationals. He didn't get bumped to 4.5. I on the other hand played 4.0 and 4.5 and was asked to go to sectionals on my 4.5 team. I lose all 3 matches (1-1 singles, 2-2 and 3-2 doubles). I get bumped?! Wacky usta rating system...

 

[3fees]

Its about trying to match player will equal skill in a group

 

[schmke]

Mixed and combo don't count. Only thing that counts is the main season.

OP you said you were 4-2. Was it all singles or doubles? Singles has a much bigger impact on your rating. Also the exact ratings of other players. This system is flawed though. One of the guys I hit with often went to 4.0 Nationals this past year and won matches at state/sectionals/nationals. He didn't get bumped to 4.5. I on the other hand played 4.0 and 4.5 and was asked to go to sectionals on my 4.5 team. I lose all 3 matches (1-1 singles, 2-2 and 3-2 doubles). I get bumped?! Wacky usta rating system...

By playing at 4.5 Sectionals, you likely played higher rated 4.5s. If that was the case, even losses could still help move/keep your rating in the range for a 4.5 resulting in the bump. And you didn't mention your 4.0 record so if that was stellar, that would contribute as well.

Your 4.0 friend that went to Nationals didn't have the benefit of playing up at 4.5 to boost his rating, and while you say he won matches in playoffs, I'm guessing he lost some too? If so, these losses apparently evened things out so that he stayed a 4.0.

A full report for either of you would tell you for sure. See this for an example.

 

[sam_p]

Long long time ago, in a far away place, tennis players actually tried to UP their rankings, tried to play at the highest levels possiible.
But that was the ancient past, I guess.

I know, it's crazy! I play tennis to have fun and improve over time. I'd rather have my a**-kicked and play well than beat significantly weaker players.

 

[sam_p]

I personally have not managed my rating at all and would welcome a bump if it happens. I have had a winning record every year I've played USTA (except the one I had tennis elbow), I have played up, played in playoffs, put up bagels and breadsticks when I can. I played in 3 district playoffs, 2 sectionals, and nationals all the way to the finals last year. I won all 6 matches at sectionals, won three more at districts (including one 6-0 6-2), and won two matches at nationals. The computer refuses to rate me up. I'm like 4.0 Typhoid Mary, though, because everyone who beats me gets rated up.

The upper end of 4.5 is very strong, so enjoy your 4.0 time, if you get bumped up things will change on the W-L front, but you will probably improve your game further. I'm still happy I was bumped to 4.5 even though that moved me from being a commodity for 4.0 captains to being a generally 0.500 player over the last three years. The tennis is more stimulating for sure and my top end play is definitely better.

 

[J_R_B]

The upper end of 4.5 is very strong, so enjoy your 4.0 time, if you get bumped up things will change on the W-L front, but you will probably improve your game further. I'm still happy I was bumped to 4.5 even though that moved me from being a commodity for 4.0 captains to being a generally 0.500 player over the last three years. The tennis is more stimulating for sure and my top end play is definitely better.

Yes, I understand that. I know the 4.5 players around here, and I have subbed in a couple matches over the years for the 4.5 team, but I've never won one. It's fine. I'll enjoy the higher competition if/when it happens. I'm playing up this year as part of the move up / split up rule, so we'll see. The one good thing is that the league winner also went to nationals and has to split up, so there is kind of a power vaccuum in the league for a year, although I'm skeptical that my 4.0 move up team would have a realistic shot at winning it.

 

[chatt_town]

Dude...you are too brilliant for your own good I think.lol Check this out though...and this is just my IT backround here. Why would you ever be considered a bench mark 4.0 if you are playing 3.5 and have never even played a 4.0 match. Furthermore, your rating is computer rated(which they are trusting the computer rating is more accurate than some of these S ratings). I've never seen a player dq'ed with a C rating. I've only seen S rated players dq'ed. This tells me that once you have a computer rating...it is the gospel...at least for that year. People can biotch and moan all they want....they won't get you until the new ratings come out...yet a S rated player will get burned right out the gate if he's not careful. Have you seen a C rated player get dq'ed for scores being out of range? I do like your points though...I'm just trying to understand fully why you think the S rated players don't get strikes for beating B mark players....not trying to one up you at all here.

More accurate doesn't mean higher. If I'm a 3.52 B (listed as 4.0B from 3.5 playoffs) and someone else is a 3.84 C (listed as 4.0C), beating the 3.84 C player by 6-1 6-1 is far more strike worthy than the 3.52 B. You may have slightly more confidence that a 6-1 6-1 win against a 3.84 B player is really a strike as opposed to a 3.84 C, but that's really splitting hairs at that point.

 

[J_R_B]

Dude...you are too brilliant for your own good I think.lol Check this out though...and this is just my IT backround here. Why would you ever be considered a bench mark 4.0 if you are playing 3.5 and have never even played a 4.0 match. Furthermore, your rating is computer rated(which they are trusting the computer rating is more accurate than some of these S ratings). I've never seen a player dq'ed with a C rating. I've only seen S rated players dq'ed. This tells me that once you have a computer rating...it is the gospel...at least for that year. People can biotch and moan all they want....they won't get you until the new ratings come out...yet a S rated player will get burned right out the gate if he's not careful. Have you seen a C rated player get dq'ed for scores being out of range? I do like your points though...I'm just trying to understand fully why you think the S rated players don't get strikes for beating B mark players....not trying to one up you at all here.

It is true that B & C rated players cannot be dq'd, only bumped at year end. B & C rated players CAN generate match ratings that would be strikes if they were S rated, but there are no dq's for these players.

Benchmark just means you played in the playoffs last year. If you played in the playoffs, you get a B. If you're DNTRP is above level, you get bumped at year end. The next year, you have a B rating at the next level up. If that happens, you're DNTRP is probably at the lower end of the rating that you got bumped to. It's really not that hard to figure out.

Besides your published rating, you also have a dynamic rating that is caculated to the 0.01 accuracy (but never known to you). Beating players with higher DNTRP ratings is what generates strikes, not beating players with a B instead of a C.

 

[wrxinsc]

Nice pick up.

I'm curious about the reason the USTA would do this. Making a player a B that didn't play in playoffs at all doesn't help the benchmark calculations. So it almost seems to be a punishment of sorts on a team for backing out, especially if it is done too late for another team to replace them. Perhaps they think teams were not going to championships to avoid getting Bs so they could still appeal and this is their way to close that loophole. I can't imagine that many teams were using it though.

Possibly also a way of keeping track of players on teams that should have been split up had they advanced and played. To keep the playing field even as it were for teams that did choose to go and play.

 

[felixgun]

By playing at 4.5 Sectionals, you likely played higher rated 4.5s. If that was the case, even losses could still help move/keep your rating in the range for a 4.5 resulting in the bump. And you didn't mention your 4.0 record so if that was stellar, that would contribute as well.



Your 4.0 friend that went to Nationals didn't have the benefit of playing up at 4.5 to boost his rating, and while you say he won matches in playoffs, I'm guessing he lost some too? If so, these losses apparently evened things out so that he stayed a 4.0.



A full report for either of you would tell you for sure. See this for an example.

I was 4-3 in 4.0 so I definitely didn't think I was going to get bumped. The three I lost were all extremely close matches though. And some that I won were blow outs. My friend who went to 4.0 nationals also played 4.5 but he lost all those matches.

 

[Desiiliciouss]

MS or Eastern? There were some strange things that happened between ES and YE ratings in MS this year.

That is old news! I used to hear stories of him (1 in particular) and still do every so often.

(If I had your email ID, I can send you more info. )

 

[rswright]

This system doesn't make sense.

The USTA rules provide for a rating of a player based on the dynamic ratings of the players involved. That no matter what your scores it is the dynamic rating of the players upon which ratings are based.

At the same time the USTA claims that a player deserves disqualification because based on his scores he either knows or should know he has been misrated.

Either a rating is based on the dynamic rating and not scores and if not based on scores the USTA cannot claim that a player should know he has been misrated based on his scores. One cannot have it both ways.

 

[schmke]

The USTA rules provide for a rating of a player based on the dynamic ratings of the players involved. That no matter what your scores it is the dynamic rating of the players upon which ratings are based.

At the same time the USTA claims that a player deserves disqualification because based on his scores he either knows or should know he has been misrated.

Either a rating is based on the dynamic rating and not scores and if not based on scores the USTA cannot claim that a player should know he has been misrated based on his scores. One cannot have it both ways.

Wrong. Dynamic ratings are based on the dynamic ratings of the players involved and the scores. They are not having it both ways.

There are guidelines a player should follow when they self-rate and players are also encouraged to rate at the higher level if there is doubt. If the results of their matches indicate they are playing at a level well above the top of the range for the level they self-rated at, they get DQ'd.

 

[rswright]

Maybe I missed something in the USTA regs. Is there a definition of dynamic rating which states it is based on the scores of players? I have been told by the USTA reps that the USTA does not disclose the basis for determining a dynamic rating as it would allow players to game the system.

 

[gmatheis]

Maybe I missed something in the USTA regs. Is there a definition of dynamic rating which states it is based on the scores of players? I have been told by the USTA reps that the USTA does not disclose the basis for determining a dynamic rating as it would allow players to game the system.

What do you think they would base your dynamic rating on? how many monkeys flew by while you were playing?


Based on the players DNTRP the USTA has an expected result in terms of game scores. Deviation from that expected result causes an adjustment of the players DNTRPs.

What the USTA will not disclose is specifics about the algorithm or players actual DNTRP.

 

[beernutz]

Maybe I missed something in the USTA regs. Is there a definition of dynamic rating which states it is based on the scores of players? I have been told by the USTA reps that the USTA does not disclose the basis for determining a dynamic rating as it would allow players to game the system.

http://www.usta.com/Archive/Leagues/1481_Frequently_Asked_Questions_About_Dynamic_NTRP/

See the answer to Question 4. I guess you did miss something, assuming you actually looked for it.

 

[schmke]

http://www.usta.com/Archive/Leagues/1481_Frequently_Asked_Questions_About_Dynamic_NTRP/

See the answer to Question 4. I guess you did miss something, assuming you actually looked for it.

Naw, he is trolling and I made the mistake of forgetting and replying earlier today.

 

[J_R_B]

Naw, he is trolling and I made the mistake of forgetting and replying earlier today.

Not trolling. Old, bitter, and senile. LOL.

 

[heninfan99]

Were you losses close? If you play higher rated players well, even if you lose, it makes a difference.

My advice would be to find the worst 4.0 team and join it. You'll have a good chance at getting playing time. Sometimes newly formed teams tend to be bad.

 

[rswright]

"After each match, the captain will enter the scores online in TennisLink. These results will be calculated in the dynamic NTRP computer program. "

This does not say the dynamic rating is calculated on scores. It says the results (the dynamic rating)is calculated based on the dynamic NTRP computer program. This is not evidence that the USTA determines the computer rating on scores. If you think does read it again.

 

[beernutz]

"After each match, the captain will enter the scores online in TennisLink. These results will be calculated in the dynamic NTRP computer program. "

This does not say the dynamic rating is calculated on scores. It says the results (the dynamic rating)is calculated based on the dynamic NTRP computer program. This is not evidence that the USTA determines the computer rating on scores. If you think does read it again.

You are beyond dense. Say hi to the other blockheads in my Ignore List.

 

[rswright]

Ask yourself why doesn't the USTA state in its definition of dynamic rating that the results are based on or reflect scores. Because they aren't. The scores are the raw material to which the USTA applies it's algorithm. The resulting rating reflects the application of the algorithm not the scores.

The problem is that you who maintain, that ratings are based on both scores and the algorithm, that when players who complain that their scores don't reflect their rating you say that the rating system is not based on scores but on the algorithm.
But conversely when players complain the rating system is wrong because their rating is too high (and they get dq'd) you say they should know either know or should have known they are playing out of their rating based on their scores.
You can't have it both ways. Scores do not reflect a rating. Period. The USTA defines dynamic rating on the basis of application on its algorithm it does not base ratings on scores. And as no one knows the algorithm you cannot argue that scores are the basis for a rating. You, nor USTA reps, cannot shift from scores to the algorithm to fit your convenience But I have heard it from the USTA reps and you have obviously use it to justify a result no matter what the fact situation. If the complaint is he is being dq'd, they use scores to justify being dq'd. If the complaint is that the rating is too low, he is told the rating is not based on scores.
It seems to imply their maybe a financial reason to defending the system.

 

[J_R_B]

Ask yourself why doesn't the USTA state in its definition of dynamic rating that the results are based on or reflect scores. Because they aren't. The scores are the raw material to which the USTA applies it's algorithm. The resulting rating reflects the application of the algorithm not the scores.

The problem is that you who maintain, that ratings are based on both scores and the algorithm, that when players who complain that their scores don't reflect their rating you say that the rating system is not based on scores but on the algorithm.
But conversely when players complain the rating system is wrong because their rating is too high (and they get dq'd) you say they should know either know or should have known they are playing out of their rating based on their scores.
You can't have it both ways. Scores do not reflect a rating. Period. The USTA defines dynamic rating on the basis of application on its algorithm it does not base ratings on scores. And as no one knows the algorithm you cannot argue that scores are the basis for a rating. You, nor USTA reps, cannot shift from scores to the algorithm to fit your convenience But I have heard it from the USTA reps and you have obviously use it to justify a result no matter what the fact situation. If the complaint is he is being dq'd, they use scores to justify being dq'd. If the complaint is that the rating is too low, he is told the rating is not based on scores.
It seems to imply their maybe a financial reason to defending the system.

This has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever seen written on here. Congrats. LOL.

 

[rswright]

When facts come into MSNBC or Fox both networks subject the facts to their individual algorithm that is, how each network chooses to interpret the facts. The USTA is the same. It uses a computer to apply its own interpretation of the scores to obtain the result it wishes. In the case of Fox news Fox interprets the facts according to its algorithm and the story results. With the USTA it applies its algorithm and a rating results. The rating may or may not reflect the scores just as the Fox story may not reflect the facts as they received them. The result reflects only the algorithm. The USTA tells you thins in its definition of dynamic rating. It is described as follows: "the results will be calculated in the NTRP computer program". It says nothing about scores and those who say the rating is based on both scores and the algorithm are simply wrong. The rating has nothing to do with the scores and everything to do with the interpretation put on them by the algorithm.

 

[beernutz]

When facts come into MSNBC or Fox both networks subject the facts to their individual algorithm that is, how each network chooses to interpret the facts. The USTA is the same. It uses a computer to apply its own interpretation of the scores to obtain the result it wishes. In the case of Fox news Fox interprets the facts according to its algorithm and the story results. With the USTA it applies its algorithm and a rating results. The rating may or may not reflect the scores just as the Fox story may not reflect the facts as they received them. The result reflects only the algorithm. The USTA tells you thins in its definition of dynamic rating. It is described as follows: "the results will be calculated in the NTRP computer program". It says nothing about scores and those who say the rating is based on both scores and the algorithm are simply wrong. The rating has nothing to do with the scores and everything to do with the interpretation put on them by the algorithm.

10 black helicopters

 

[rswright]

a personal attacks always substitute for logic with the ignorant.

 

[gameboy]

I read the above post several times, and have no idea what the poster is talking about. What is he trying to say? It seems like he is saying what 2+2 equals to depends on what algorithm you use. Is that what he is saying? Because if it is, that is just idiotic...

 

[gmatheis]

Ask yourself why doesn't the USTA state in its definition of dynamic rating that the results are based on or reflect scores. Because they aren't. The scores are the raw material to which the USTA applies it's algorithm. The resulting rating reflects the application of the algorithm not the scores.

You don't even understand what you yourself are saying.

If the resulting rating does not reflect the scores then if the only variable you were to change were the scores the result would be the same.

However that is not true, and changing the scores would indeed alter the result then the result IS based on the scores.

 

[rswright]

The USTA takes the scores, feeds them into the computer which uses the algorithm to interpret the scores and achieve a rating. The rating is a reflection of the algorithm and is not a reflection of the scores. Converselly scores are not a reflection of one's rating. You will have to answer (as posters above do) to startled players who argue based on their scores they should have a higher or lower in rating so long as you believe the rating will be reflected by the scores. The rating is based on the USTA's interpretation of those scores based on the algorithm. Until you accept that concept you will always trying to rationalize to players why they got dq'd or level not raised based on his scores.
The answer is the scores do not reflect the rating nor does the rating reflect the scores. The rating reflects the interpretation placed on those scores by the algorithm and not the scores.

 

[beernutz]

The USTA takes the scores, feeds them into the computer which uses the algorithm to interpret the scores and achieve a rating. The rating is a reflection of the algorithm and is not a reflection of the scores. Converselly scores are not a reflection of one's rating. You will have to answer (as posters above do) to startled players who argue based on their scores they should have a higher or lower in rating so long as you believe the rating will be reflected by the scores. The rating is based on the USTA's interpretation of those scores based on the algorithm. Until you accept that concept you will always trying to rationalize to players why they got dq'd or level not raised based on his scores.
The answer is the scores do not reflect the rating nor does the rating reflect the scores. The rating reflects the interpretation placed on those scores by the algorithm and not the scores.

The algorithm used by the USTA for NTRP calculations does not only take into account the scores but also the current dynamic rating of the players in the match which generated those scores. The combination of the match scores and the ratings of your opponent or opponents in doubles in relation to your own dynamic rating or the combination of yours and your partner's rating in doubles is what causes your dynamic rating or your team's dynamic ratings to change after a match.

Spin it anyway you want, but I don't believe you have convinced anyone reading what you write that you have any idea what you're talking about. You look pretty silly to me and I am hesitant to even reply to you because you appear to be your own worst enemy when trying to make your case. However, in the small chance that someone reading what you write might assume that everyone agrees with you because no one is responding I'm going to reply.

 

[rswright]

"Incorrect. As noted above, scores along with the ratings of the players in the match are what are used to determine a match rating."

This statement is incorrect. No one argues that the scores are not used. But they are the raw material upon which is placed the interpretation of the scores by the USTA and it is the USTA's interpretation of those scores which determines the rating. Your statement that the rating is based on both incorrect because it does not answer the question to thousands of players who are dismayed by their rating when they look at their scores. (or are dq'd because they should have known known from their scores they are playing above their level). The answer is that the rating does not reflect the scores but the interpretation placed on the scores by the USTA. A player cannot be held to know he is playing above his rating based on his scores as the rating reflects the interpretation placed on those scores by the USTA not the scores themselves.

 

[rswright]

If I have heard it once I have heard it a thousand times over 20 years of league play. i.e. look at my scores and why have I been moved up (or down). In reply come our gods(posters) and say loftily well you should have known from your scores you are playing above (or below) your rating. Easy for you to say. But so long as you say the scores reflect the rating you will be incorrect. The answer to the question is that the rating reflects the interpretation placed on the scores by the USTA and no one knows the algorithm. The scores are merely facts and what counts is how the USTA interprets those facts.

 

[beernutz]

If I have heard it once I have heard it a thousand times over 20 years of league play. i.e. look at my scores and why have I been moved up (or down). In reply come our gods(posters) and say loftily well you should have known from your scores you are playing above (or below) your rating. Easy for you to say. But so long as you say the scores reflect the rating you will be incorrect. The answer to the question is that the rating reflects the interpretation placed on the scores by the USTA and no one knows the algorithm. The scores are merely facts and what counts is how the USTA interprets those facts.

Ok, my understanding of how the NTRP calculation works is this. In a singles match between two computer-rated players each player enters the match with a dynamic NTRP rating value. For purposes of discussion, let's assume this is a 3.5 league match and the dynamic rating of player A is 3.25 and the dynamic rating of player B is 3.45 so that there is a dynamic rating difference of .2 between the two players.

The NTRP algorithm has programmed into it an expected game differential for a .2 dynamic rating difference. Again for purposes of discussion assume that the expected differential is 6 games, which means the higher rated player would be expect to win 6 more games than their opponent which could be accomplished by scores such as 6-3/6-3, 6-2/6-4, 6-2/7-5 or 6-1/7-6.

If the actual score differential was less than 6 then the lower rated player's dynamic rating would move up by some predetermined amount and the higher rated player's dynamic rating would move down by some predetermined amount. If the actual game score differential was more than six then just the opposite would occur and if it was exactly six then no one's dynamic rating would change. Of course if the expected differential was a fractional number then both player's dynamic ratings would change every match.

The actual winner or loser of the match is not considered in the algorithm. For example there are match game scores where you lose more games than your opponent but win the match, such as where you win a match 0-6, 7-6, 1-0. However, extending this example, if your expected game differential before the match was +6 and the actual game differential was -4 as in my example, you would win the match but see your dynamic rating go down because you did not win as many games as you were expected to win by the algorithm.

I would love to hear how you believe the NTRP actually works since you are so adamant in proclaiming that you know how it doesn't work.

 

[schmke]

"Incorrect. As noted above, scores along with the ratings of the players in the match are what are used to determine a match rating."

This statement is incorrect. No one argues that the scores are not used.

Huh, you are saying my statement that scores are used is incorrect, but then you immediately say no argues they aren't used? I think you are confusing yourself.

But they are the raw material upon which is placed the interpretation of the scores by the USTA and it is the USTA's interpretation of those scores which determines the rating. Your statement that the rating is based on both incorrect because it does not answer the question to thousands of players who are dismayed by their rating when they look at their scores. (or are dq'd because they should have known known from their scores they are playing above their level). The answer is that the rating does not reflect the scores but the interpretation placed on the scores by the USTA. A player cannot be held to know he is playing above his rating based on his scores as the rating reflects the interpretation placed on those scores by the USTA not the scores themselves.

Let's assume you are correct for the sake of argument, and that the score is only the "raw material" which an interpretation is placed on, and it is the interpretation that determines the rating. Even in this case, the score is used to establish the interpretation which is used in the rating, so the score is used, albeit slightly indirectly, in calculating.

You seem to be extending this thread unnecessarily just to argue this fine point that the score may not go directly into the algorithm but instead there is one level of redirection. Even if true, the score of a match does matter in determining one's rating so it is "used".

 

[gmatheis]

"Incorrect. As noted above, scores along with the ratings of the players in the match are what are used to determine a match rating."

This statement is incorrect. No one argues that the scores are not used. But they are the raw material upon which is placed the interpretation of the scores by the USTA and it is the USTA's interpretation of those scores which determines the rating. Your statement that the rating is based on both incorrect because it does not answer the question to thousands of players who are dismayed by their rating when they look at their scores. (or are dq'd because they should have known known from their scores they are playing above their level). The answer is that the rating does not reflect the scores but the interpretation placed on the scores by the USTA. A player cannot be held to know he is playing above his rating based on his scores as the rating reflects the interpretation placed on those scores by the USTA not the scores themselves.

I see the problem ... you don't understand the English language or logic ... but think you do.

I don't think we can get past this.

 

[rswright]

Don't tell a player that 4-2 is a result too good for a 3.5.
You cannot tell from results or scores that a player is playing out of his level. You pundits are never wrong. When he plays above his level and is dq'd you say he is obviously playing above his level from his scores but when his level is not lifted you say the result doesn't matter, it is the algorithm. "The actual winner or loser of the match is not considered in the algorithm.
It is the algorithm that counts, not the scores.
Experienced players are not confused. They know that the USTA computer cannot determine all the factors which go into a performance. They know the USTA computer is therefore fallible and just shake their heads at some of the ridiculous ratings. However, those players who are new to League tennis are confused when there scores do not reflect that they necessarily should be lifted (4-2). Tell them the truth. The rating is determined solely by an interpretation put on those scores by the USTA and not the scores/results of their matches.

 

[dcdoorknob]

It's like saying the amount one owes on his or her personal income tax is not determined by personal income, only by the tax laws which take personal income into account to determine how much income tax you owe.

Raw scores without any context don't soley form a rating. They are used to form the rating. Whatever it's a stupid argument.

 

[kylebarendrick]

That 4-2 record may be good or it may be bad. It only has meaning if you know where the opponents were rated and the scores of the matches. 4-2 against bottom-of-level players means you are below average for the level. 4-2 against people likely to get bumped up means you are at risk for DQ - especially if your wins were blowouts and losses close. It really isn't that hard to interpret the results and see where a player stacks up.

My earlier point, though, is that the captain (if they are competent at all) always knows when their self-rated players don't belong at their level. Why? Because he knows how they compare to the other players on their team. If you see a captain play a self-rate every week, it is usually because they think they are strong. A strong self-rated player, by definition, is likely to have rated themselves too low.