Can a player be DQ'd (from 4.0) if he's self rated as 1 level below (3.5)?

[pedrogcr]

I play in a USTA 40+ 4.0 league and one guy from one of the teams is self rated as a 3.5.

He has no previous USTA history prior to 2022 and so far he has only played in the 4.0 level and won every one of his 5 matches, only losing 1 set in the process.

His record looks like this:

Total Matches: 5
Total Wins: 5 (100%)

Total Sets: 11
Sets Won: 10 (90.9%)

Games Played: 90
Games Won: 61 (67.7%)

Match 1: 6/4 - 6/3
Match 2: 6/2 - 6/2
Match 3: 7/5 - 6/2
Match 4: 5/7- 6/1 - 1/0
Match 5: 6/1 - 6/2

I haven't been playing USTA for long enough to know the rules, but it seems pretty clear that this guy is not even 4.0 and maybe self rated as a 3.5 to not have the risk of being dq'd if he rules do not allow a 3.5 to be dq'd from a 4.0 league.

Anyone ever seen something like this?

 

[J_R_B]

The answer to that is yes, he can be DQ'd from 4.0. Regardless of where you self-rate, you start with a blank DNTRP and start building it up from your first match. If those matches generate a DNTRP that DQ's you from 4.0, then you are DQ'd from 4.0. I'd be shocked if this guy isn't "promoted" from 3.5 to 4.0 already, but just looking at the scores, there's far too little to tell if he's in danger of DQ from 4.0.

 

[nyta2]

but just looking at the scores, there's far too little to tell if he's in danger of DQ from 4.0.

was thinking the scores looked competitive, probably belongs at 4.0
the cynical side of me, saw the 5-7, 6-1 score, and thought he was "managing" scores

OP, check out tennisrecord, or tls (not exact, but a good guess)... if the guys he's beating are "high 4.0" also, then probably a good guess he will be dq'd... but the scores alone aren't enough... eg. the last score where he won 1,2... against a very high 4.0 (high chance of dq)... but he could have also played a sacrafice very low 4.0... (score is expected)

either way, if he's also playing 3.5 league, he's definitely getting dq'd from there

 

[pedrogcr]

The answer to that is yes, he can be DQ'd from 4.0. Regardless of where you self-rate, you start with a blank DNTRP and start building it up from your first match. If those matches generate a DNTRP that DQ's you from 4.0, then you are DQ'd from 4.0. I'd be shocked if this guy isn't "promoted" from 3.5 to 4.0 already, but just looking at the scores, there's far too little to tell if he's in danger of DQ from 4.0.

Yeah, I actually never saw him play, just found it strange that a guy with such good results in his first 5 USTA matches ever, would self rate as a 3.5. I'm also not the captain or even in the main lineups for my team, so it's more curiosity about the rules than anything else on my end. So thank you for the explanation!

 

[pedrogcr]

was thinking the scores looked competitive, probably belongs at 4.0
the cynical side of me, saw the 5-7, 6-1 score, and thought he was "managing" scores

OP, check out tennisrecord, or tls (not exact, but a good guess)... if the guys he's beating are "high 4.0" also, then probably a good guess he will be dq'd... but the scores alone aren't enough... eg. the last score where he won 1,2... against a very high 4.0 (high chance of dq)... but he could have also played a sacrafice very low 4.0... (score is expected)

either way, if he's also playing 3.5 league, he's definitely getting dq'd from there

I did check tennisrecord, but I find that they are not so accurate as some guys who they had as 4.0+ were not promoted to 4.5 at the end of the year while other guys I know who they had at around 3.8x were.

Also, I never saw him play, but this is a league with only 1 singles line, so I'd guess most teams are playing their best singles players... I think the guy he beat 6/1 - 6/2 was actually a former 4.5 that got demoted at the end of last year (though his results were not great there).

 

[J_R_B]

Yeah, I actually never saw him play, just found it strange that a guy with such good results in his first 5 USTA matches ever, would self rate as a 3.5. I'm also not the captain or even in the main lineups for my team, so it's more curiosity about the rules than anything else on my end. So thank you for the explanation!

For new players who are eligible to rate a level lower than the level they intend to play, I advise them to rate themselves at the lower level, especially if they are not really familiar with USTA levels. The reason for that is that, if they try the level they intend to play and get wiped off the court in the first couple matches, they can register for the lower level without doing anything else. If they choose the higher level self-rating even though the lower one is available, moving down requires a self-rating appeal, which may or may not be granted depending on the section. If they self-rate at the lower level and play at the higher level and are winning, then it's no issue to just not play at the lower level, and they will get the higher rating at the year end rating calculation.

 

[pedrogcr]

For new players who are eligible to rate a level lower than the level they intend to play, I advise them to rate themselves at the lower level, especially if they are not really familiar with USTA levels. The reason for that is that, if they try the level they intend to play and get wiped off the court in the first couple matches, they can register for the lower level without doing anything else. If they choose the higher level self-rating even though the lower one is available, moving down requires a self-rating appeal, which may or may not be granted depending on the section. If they self-rate at the lower level and play at the higher level and are winning, then it's no issue to just not play at the lower level, and they will get the higher rating at the year end rating calculation.

Makes sense, but I don't think his captain had this doubt, since he's been playing as their singles line since week1, and played in 5 out of the 7 matches his team had this season.

 

[nyta2]

I did check tennisrecord, but I find that they are not so accurate as some guys who they had as 4.0+ were not promoted to 4.5 at the end of the year while other guys I know who they had at around 3.8x were.

Also, I never saw him play, but this is a league with only 1 singles line, so I'd guess most teams are playing their best singles players... I think the guy he beat 6/1 - 6/2 was actually a former 4.5 that got demoted at the end of last year (though his results were not great there).

usually folks play their best singles player... but not always, especially if they have a deep/strong doubles team lineup, or if they are sacrificing someone
if he badly beat a former 4.5 (now a high 4.0), maybe the guy is really a 4.5

For new players who are eligible to rate a level lower than the level they intend to play, I advise them to rate themselves at the lower level, especially if they are not really familiar with USTA levels. The reason for that is that, if they try the level they intend to play and get wiped off the court in the first couple matches, they can register for the lower level without doing anything else. If they choose the higher level self-rating even though the lower one is available, moving down requires a self-rating appeal, which may or may not be granted depending on the section. If they self-rate at the lower level and play at the higher level and are winning, then it's no issue to just not play at the lower level, and they will get the higher rating at the year end rating calculation.

ditto.
don't want to get into NTRP rating purgatory (rated so high that no one will play you on their team at that level, so you can't get matches in, to prove you're not really at that level). i've also seen folks from other countries come in, unsure of where they belong and intentionally rate low, not to sandbag with the intent of winning, but because they are genuinely being humble (especially when "interclub" play in europe often has atp guys on it ).

side note, i've also rated myself lower in the past, just to get more matches at both levels.

 

[nyta2]

Makes sense, but I don't think his captain had this doubt, since he's been playing as their singles line since week1, and played in 5 out of the 7 matches his team had this season.

captain's gonna do what a captain's gotta do...
personally i look forward to playing sandbaggers/underraters... it's like a free lesson!

 

[pedrogcr]

usually folks play their best singles player... but not always, especially if they have a deep/strong doubles team lineup, or if they are sacrificing someone
if he badly beat a former 4.5 (now a high 4.0), maybe the guy is really a 4.5

True, and my experience is most teams have more doubles specialists than singles ones. Especially at 40+ and over.

ditto.
don't want to get into NTRP rating purgatory (rated so high that no one will play you on their team at that level, so you can't get matches in, to prove you're not really at that level). i've also seen folks from other countries come in, unsure of where they belong and intentionally rate low, not to sandbag with the intent of winning, but because they are genuinely being humble (especially when "interclub" play in europe often has atp guys on it ).

side note, i've also rated myself lower in the past, just to get more matches at both levels.

This happened to me in 2019. I had moved from Brazil the year before and hadn't played tennis in over 20 years, so after only seeing me hit a couple groundstrokes a team captain invited me to his team. He offered to set-up my USTA account and I just so happened to get a 3.0 rating.

I had no idea what that meant, but they knew there was no risk of DQ as I only played in a combo league that year. After 3 months I self rated to 3.5 and (after a 9-1 record that year) got invited to join 2 other teams in the region, but decided to self rate again to 4.0 where I now sit as a middle of the pack player.

 

[Creighton]

Makes sense, but I don't think his captain had this doubt, since he's been playing as their singles line since week1, and played in 5 out of the 7 matches his team had this season.

Unless the captain also has a 3.5 team, it's doubtful that captain was the one who had him self rate at the 3.5 level.

The guy probably self rated incorrectly, but this captain knows he's a legitimate 4.0 (maybe 4.5) and is playing him the way he should be played.

 

[pedrogcr]

Unless the captain also has a 3.5 team, it's doubtful that captain was the one who had him self rate at the 3.5 level.

The guy probably self rated incorrectly, but this captain knows he's a legitimate 4.0 (maybe 4.5) and is playing him the way he should be played.

Makes sense! And I'm not saying he is a sandbagger as haven't even seen him play.
Just trying to learn the rules as I think the whole self rating situation is a huge grey area. Especially for people who, like me, came from other countries and have no idea how USTA leagues work when they start playing.

 

[Lazuras_Long]

I will note that USTA offers an experience based guide for olds coming back to tennis called “General and Experienced Player Guidelines”

Even If the guy played Junior/Community college tennis, once they hit the age of 36 the USTA suggests self rating at 3.5.

So The guy could be a decent former highish level player who is sticking to the letter of the USTA guidance by self rating at a 3.5

 

[pedrogcr]

I will note that USTA offers an experience based guide for olds coming back to tennis called “General and Experienced Player Guidelines”

Even If the guy played Junior/Community college tennis, once they hit the age of 36 the USTA suggests self rating at 3.5.

So The guy could be a decent former highish level player who is sticking to the letter of the USTA guidance by self rating at a 3.5

I have never heard about that! So I guess the guy who set my rating as a 3.0 knowing I was 39, out of the game for 20+ years, and never being a high level player wasn't so crazy after all.

 

[J_R_B]

I will note that USTA offers an experience based guide for olds coming back to tennis called “General and Experienced Player Guidelines”

Even If the guy played Junior/Community college tennis, once they hit the age of 36 the USTA suggests self rating at 3.5.

So The guy could be a decent former highish level player who is sticking to the letter of the USTA guidance by self rating at a 3.5

The USTA suggests a minimum self-rating level. There are cases where the player knows he is several levels above the minimum generated by the questionnaire. If you think you are 4.0 and intend to play 4.0, you can't take a level less than 3.5 or else you can't play 4.0. The best advice (if possible) is to self-rate only one level below where you intend to play (i.e. 3.5) so that you can move down one level if you find that the you severely misjudged your ability to handle 4.0 competition.

 

[Lazuras_Long]

The USTA suggests a minimum self-rating level. There are cases where the player knows he is several levels above the minimum generated by the questionnaire. If you think you are 4.0 and intend to play 4.0, you can't take a level less than 3.5 or else you can't play 4.0. The best advice (if possible) is to self-rate only one level below where you intend to play (i.e. 3.5) so that you can move down one level if you find that the you severely misjudged your ability to handle 4.0 competition.

oh absolutely!

at the same time, all I’m pointing out is that as others have noted, it’s safer for all involved for some to rate lower AND then play up than to overshoot the rate from the outset.

at least in regards to the USTA. I’m completely unfamiliar with the UTR

 

[Purestriker]

Yeah, I actually never saw him play, just found it strange that a guy with such good results in his first 5 USTA matches ever, would self rate as a 3.5. I'm also not the captain or even in the main lineups for my team, so it's more curiosity about the rules than anything else on my end. So thank you for the explanation!

He will probably get DQ'd from 3.5, but still able to play 4.0.

 

[TennisOTM]

I did check tennisrecord, but I find that they are not so accurate as some guys who they had as 4.0+ were not promoted to 4.5 at the end of the year while other guys I know who they had at around 3.8x were.

What rating numbers does Tennisrecord give him for those 5 matches? Agreed that it is not always accurate, but it should still give a much better idea than just his match scores alone. If Tennisrecord has him near 4.00 or higher, a DQ to 4.5 is a definite possibility if he continues beating high-end 4.0 players.

 

[pedrogcr]

What rating numbers does Tennisrecord give him for those 5 matches? Agreed that it is not always accurate, but it should still give a much better idea than just his match scores alone. If Tennisrecord has him near 4.00 or higher, a DQ to 4.5 is a definite possibility if he continues beating high-end 4.0 players.

The match ratings on Tennisrecord are as follows:

Match 1: 3.78
Match 2: 3.82
Match 3: 3.93
Match 4: 3.92
Match 5: Not yet available, but the guy he beat had a year-end rating of 3.87, but lost his other match this season and is now at 3.78

 

[Uncoil]

Welcome to USTA League

 

[J_R_B]

The match ratings on Tennisrecord are as follows:

Match 1: 3.78
Match 2: 3.82
Match 3: 3.93
Match 4: 3.92
Match 5: Not yet available, but the guy he beat had a year-end rating of 3.87, but lost his other match this season and is now at 3.78

Tennisrecord would need to be off by about 0.3 for him to be in danger of DQ from 4.0. It's possible, but not likely. TR is not accurate, but it's not typically THAT far off, either. At the same time, his "promotion" from 3.5 to 4.0 should be imminent any day now, which is kind of irrelevant if he doesn't ever intend to play 3.5.

 

[pedrogcr]

Tennisrecord would need to be off by about 0.3 for him to be in danger of DQ from 4.0. It's possible, but not likely. TR is not accurate, but it's not typically THAT far off, either. At the same time, his "promotion" from 3.5 to 4.0 should be imminent any day now, which is kind of irrelevant if he doesn't ever intend to play 3.5.

Can you explain how you got to that value of 0.3? No questioning it, just want to understand how it works.
Thanks

 

[schmke]

Yeah, I actually never saw him play, just found it strange that a guy with such good results in his first 5 USTA matches ever, would self rate as a 3.5. I'm also not the captain or even in the main lineups for my team, so it's more curiosity about the rules than anything else on my end. So thank you for the explanation!

It could be the player answered the self-rate questions and it spit out 3.5. But he knows he isn't a 3.5 so is correctly playing 4.0. He could have appealed his self-rating up so he shows as a 4.0S, but doing that or not changes nothing about his dynamic rating, and perhaps he wanted the safety net of being able to play 3.5 if it turned out he wasn't really a 4.0.

 

[schmke]

Tennisrecord would need to be off by about 0.3 for him to be in danger of DQ from 4.0. It's possible, but not likely. TR is not accurate, but it's not typically THAT far off, either. At the same time, his "promotion" from 3.5 to 4.0 should be imminent any day now, which is kind of irrelevant if he doesn't ever intend to play 3.5.

And sometimes it seems like some sections/district ignore the DQ in this case and figure they aren't playing 3.5, so why do the paperwork to make them a 4.0D.

 

[schmke]

The match ratings on Tennisrecord are as follows:

Match 1: 3.78
Match 2: 3.82
Match 3: 3.93
Match 4: 3.92
Match 5: Not yet available, but the guy he beat had a year-end rating of 3.87, but lost his other match this season and is now at 3.78

Tennisrecord would need to be off by about 0.3 for him to be in danger of DQ from 4.0. It's possible, but not likely. TR is not accurate, but it's not typically THAT far off, either. At the same time, his "promotion" from 3.5 to 4.0 should be imminent any day now, which is kind of irrelevant if he doesn't ever intend to play 3.5.

So, I found the player and TR is off from my ratings quite a bit (they are low), but not enough that he is DQ danger. Might be bumped up at year-end if he keeps this up or improves though.

And if the DQ from 3.5 to 4.0 doesn't happen in a few days (I have and included the match yesterday in my analysis), I'd say someone in the section/district isn't doing their job and is ignoring 3-strike DQs (or choosing to overlook this one as "it doesn't matter" since he isn't playing 3.5 as I noted earlier)

 

[Creighton]

So, I found the player and TR is off from my ratings quite a bit (they are low), but not enough that he is DQ danger. Might be bumped up at year-end if he keeps this up or improves though.

And if the DQ from 3.5 to 4.0 doesn't happen in a few days (I have and included the match yesterday in my analysis), I'd say someone in the section/district isn't doing their job and is ignoring 3-strike DQs (or choosing to overlook this one as "it doesn't matter" since he isn't playing 3.5 as I noted earlier)

This guy maths so hard. Impressive.

 

[J_R_B]

Can you explain how you got to that value of 0.3? No questioning it, just want to understand how it works.
Thanks

From Schmke's work, he's estimated the strike threshold for 4.0 to be somewhere around 4.20. The guy's TR ratings are about 0.3 less than that.

 

[J_R_B]

And sometimes it seems like some sections/district ignore the DQ in this case and figure they aren't playing 3.5, so why do the paperwork to make them a 4.0D.

Yeah, there were two guys in our section last year who rated 3.5 S but only played 4.0 because they were actually pretty decent 4.0s. One got his "promotion notice" almost right away. The other took months until near the end of the season. There's no way in hell either one wasn't "DQ'd" from 3.5 by the 3rd or 4th 4.0 match. Neither ever intended to actually join a 3.5 team and both got 4.0 C ratings at year end.

 

[pedrogcr]

It could be the player answered the self-rate questions and it spit out 3.5. But he knows he isn't a 3.5 so is correctly playing 4.0. He could have appealed his self-rating up so he shows as a 4.0S, but doing that or not changes nothing about his dynamic rating, and perhaps he wanted the safety net of being able to play 3.5 if it turned out he wasn't really a 4.0.

I didn't know that was an actual acceptable strategy, but thanks to everyone in this thread I understand that now.

And sometimes it seems like some sections/district ignore the DQ in this case and figure they aren't playing 3.5, so why do the paperwork to make them a 4.0D.

Makes total sense.

So, I found the player and TR is off from my ratings quite a bit (they are low), but not enough that he is DQ danger. Might be bumped up at year-end if he keeps this up or improves though.

And if the DQ from 3.5 to 4.0 doesn't happen in a few days (I have and included the match yesterday in my analysis), I'd say someone in the section/district isn't doing their job and is ignoring 3-strike DQs (or choosing to overlook this one as "it doesn't matter" since he isn't playing 3.5 as I noted earlier)

Thanks for that! Can you tell me what's your calculated Dynamic Rating for him?

 

[pedrogcr]

From Schmke's work, he's estimated the strike threshold for 4.0 to be somewhere around 4.20. The guy's TR ratings are about 0.3 less than that.

Got it! Thank you!

Yeah, there were two guys in our section last year who rated 3.5 S but only played 4.0 because they were actually pretty decent 4.0s. One got his "promotion notice" almost right away. The other took months until near the end of the season. There's no way in hell either one wasn't "DQ'd" from 3.5 by the 3rd or 4th 4.0 match. Neither ever intended to actually join a 3.5 team and both got 4.0 C ratings at year end.

Makes sense, as schmke explained.

 

[Purestriker]

And sometimes it seems like some sections/district ignore the DQ in this case and figure they aren't playing 3.5, so why do the paperwork to make them a 4.0D.

It is also possible that they self rated 3.5 for combo or mixed.

 

[schmke]

Thanks for that! Can you tell me what's your calculated Dynamic Rating for him?

Contact me (DM here or ratings@teravation.net) about the reports I do.

 

[MarinaHighTennis]

I play in a USTA 40+ 4.0 league and one guy from one of the teams is self rated as a 3.5.

He has no previous USTA history prior to 2022 and so far he has only played in the 4.0 level and won every one of his 5 matches, only losing 1 set in the process.

His record looks like this:

Total Matches: 5
Total Wins: 5 (100%)

Total Sets: 11
Sets Won: 10 (90.9%)

Games Played: 90
Games Won: 61 (67.7%)

Match 1: 6/4 - 6/3
Match 2: 6/2 - 6/2
Match 3: 7/5 - 6/2
Match 4: 5/7- 6/1 - 1/0
Match 5: 6/1 - 6/2

I haven't been playing USTA for long enough to know the rules, but it seems pretty clear that this guy is not even 4.0 and maybe self rated as a 3.5 to not have the risk of being dq'd if he rules do not allow a 3.5 to be dq'd from a 4.0 league.

Anyone ever seen something like this?

Can't you only DQ him if he answered dishonestly and you have proof he lied in his questionaire (college record/junior ranking)? Otherwise it'll go by off the 3 strikes which he pretty much would get striked playing 4.0 to bump him to 4.0 midseason after 3 matches no?


**whoops schmke said this already^

 

[FiddlerDog]

Sandbagger? Great. Here is your chance to play up
Focus on your own game and not the quest for meaningless plastic trophies.

 

[Creighton]

Sandbagger? Great. Here is your chance to play up
Focus on your own game and not the quest for meaningless plastic trophies.

What if you just want to play a fun match?

 

[J_R_B]

Sandbagger? Great. Here is your chance to play up
Focus on your own game and not the quest for meaningless plastic trophies.

He's not a sandbagger if he's not actually playing 3.5. His results are good at 4.0, but there's no indication that he's inappropriately rated at 4.0. His scores are certainly competitive at that level. People are way too quick to make accusations just because a player is winning competitive matches.

Can't you only DQ him if he answered dishonestly and you have proof he lied in his questionaire (college record/junior ranking)? Otherwise it'll go by off the 3 strikes which he pretty much would get striked playing 4.0 to bump him to 4.0 midseason after 3 matches no?


**whoops schmke said this already^

Yeah, you can only file a self-rating grievance if something was misrepresented on the self-rating, but we're talking dynamic DQ here. There is no indication that he did his self-rating inappropriately at all.

 

[Morch Us]

Looks like he belongs in the level of the league he is playing now (4.0 league).
Yes, agree he maybe towards the upper quarter of this level, which is why he is winning.
But the scores absolutely does not indicate anything close to non-competitive matches. I bet he will lose 90% of his matches if he play a level above(4.5 league).

Total Matches: 5
Total Wins: 5 (100%)

Total Sets: 11
Sets Won: 10 (90.9%)

Games Played: 90
Games Won: 61 (67.7%)

Match 1: 6/4 - 6/3
Match 2: 6/2 - 6/2
Match 3: 7/5 - 6/2
Match 4: 5/7- 6/1 - 1/0
Match 5: 6/1 - 6/2

 

[GrassCourtFan]

Given the scores, depends on the quality of his opponents. If some of those wins were against some of the best 4.0s around, then he probably belongs in 4.5. But if he was playing on #2 singles against some low 4.0s, then he might be in the right place, just near the upper end of 4.0.

 

[Soho78]

match 2 & 5 could earn a strike, but he's playing up so good on him.

 

[pedrogcr]

Can't you only DQ him if he answered dishonestly and you have proof he lied in his questionaire (college record/junior ranking)? Otherwise it'll go by off the 3 strikes which he pretty much would get striked playing 4.0 to bump him to 4.0 midseason after 3 matches no?


**whoops schmke said this already^

Yeah, as I said, I never even saw him play. The reason I asked here is because I never understood what really constitutes a strike and didn't know if he, by self rating as a 3.5 would be protected from being DQd playing as a 4.0.
I now know it doesn't matter the level he self rated, he can be DQd if he gets to the said 3 strikes.

 

[pedrogcr]

Given the scores, depends on the quality of his opponents. If some of those wins were against some of the best 4.0s around, then he probably belongs in 4.5. But if he was playing on #2 singles against some low 4.0s, then he might be in the right place, just near the upper end of 4.0.

This league has only one singles line, and I know that at least one of the guys used to be a 4.5, but got downgraded after some bad results there.

 

[pedrogcr]

match 2 & 5 could earn a strike, but he's playing up so good on him.

My question was exactly because I didn't know if playing up made any difference in relation to the "strikes" situation, but from the answers here, it doesn't.

 

[pedrogcr]

match 2 & 5 could earn a strike, but he's playing up so good on him.

Is there a precise explanation of what constitutes a strike?

 

[Soho78]

Is there a precise explanation of what constitutes a strike?

crushing your opponent. double bagel or breadsticks or combo of both, 1&2 etc.... if a 3.5 is constantly beating 4.0s with those score lines, then there's a good chance for a double bump. I saw it in one of my leagues where a 3.0S got bumped to 4.0

 

[J_R_B]

Is there a precise explanation of what constitutes a strike?

A DNTRP rating of 4.20 or higher for a match is a strike. The USTA doesn't publish their exact ratings, though, and TennisRecord is not accurate, so there is no way to know for sure if he has any.

 

[GrassCourtFan]

Is there a precise explanation of what constitutes a strike?

I think the precise definition of a strike is a match that gives you a match rating that's above the strike threshold.

...it might not be a very helpful precise definition. But it does tell you that - for each match, they calculate what your "rating for that match was" - and there's some line above which it counts as a strike. That line is *higher* than just the boundary between the rating levels, you have to be sort of far out of level to get a strike. So if you're playing in a 4.0 league, and you play a match where it looks like your rating should be 4.2 (well into the next level above), then that would be a strike.

Contrary to what Sho posted, it does NOT have to be a dominating score. You might get a strike if you absolutely crush somebody at your level, but you might ALSO get a strike if you just barely beat somebody who is themselves out-of-level.

 

[J_R_B]

I think the precise definition of a strike is a match that gives you a match rating that's above the strike threshold.

...it might not be a very helpful precise definition. But it does tell you that - for each match, they calculate what your "rating for that match was" - and there's some line above which it counts as a strike. That line is *higher* than just the boundary between the rating levels, you have to be sort of far out of level to get a strike. So if you're playing in a 4.0 league, and you play a match where it looks like your rating should be 4.2 (well into the next level above), then that would be a strike.

Contrary to what Sho posted, it does NOT have to be a dominating score. You might get a strike if you absolutely crush somebody at your level, but you might ALSO get a strike if you just barely beat somebody who is themselves out-of-level.

Correct. We had a situation in Middle States probably 10 years ago now where a guy was playing with his 3.5 captain as a 4.0S in his first match and they beat two high level 4.0C players (probably 3.90-3.99 DNTRP, although there's no way to know exactly). The score was very close, but the way the rating worked for a doubles match, only the 4.0S got a rating for the match and the algorithm looked at 3.3 + X equals about 4.0 + 4.0 and solved for X > 4.50 (i.e. in the 5.0 range). There is no possible way to recover from getting a match rating that high in your first match and he was quickly DQ'd. It was unfortunately as he was nowhere even close to the player that match said he was and it just an anomaly in the way the algorithm works (and a major upset on the court).

 

[TennisOTM]

Correct. We had a situation in Middle States probably 10 years ago now where a guy was playing with his 3.5 captain as a 4.0S in his first match and they beat two high level 4.0C players (probably 3.90-3.99 DNTRP, although there's no way to know exactly). The score was very close, but the way the rating worked for a doubles match, only the 4.0S got a rating for the match and the algorithm looked at 3.3 + X equals about 4.0 + 4.0 and solved for X > 4.50 (i.e. in the 5.0 range). There is no possible way to recover from getting a match rating that high in your first match and he was quickly DQ'd. It was unfortunately as he was nowhere even close to the player that match said he was and it just an anomaly in the way the algorithm works (and a major upset on the court).

It's my understanding that as a new self-rated player, your initial dynamic rating is not calculated until after your first few matches, and that strikes are given based on your dynamic rating, not on any particular match rating. So your very first match cannot generate a strike by itself. Am I wrong?

So in this example, if the first match was truly a major upset and the player came back to earth in the next couple matches, he would not necessarily generate any strikes, let alone 3 of them. Say his match rating for matches 2 and 3 were 3.80 (above-average 4.0), then his first dynamic rating would be the average of 4.70, 3.80 and 3.80, which is 4.10 - probably not above the strike threshold.

If he was DQ'd quickly, then his average match rating for his other matches (excluding the first one) was likely above 4.00. So the crazy high first match maybe got him there faster, but still seems like a reasonable DQ?

 

[J_R_B]

It's my understanding that as a new self-rated player, your initial dynamic rating is not calculated until after your first few matches, and that strikes are given based on your dynamic rating, not on any particular match rating. So your very first match cannot generate a strike by itself. Am I wrong?

So in this example, if the first match was truly a major upset and the player came back to earth in the next couple matches, he would not necessarily generate any strikes, let alone 3 of them. Say his match rating for matches 2 and 3 were 3.80 (above-average 4.0), then his first dynamic rating would be the average of 4.70, 3.80 and 3.80, which is 4.10 - probably not above the strike threshold.

If he was DQ'd quickly, then his average match rating for his other matches (excluding the first one) was likely above 4.00. So the crazy high first match maybe got him there faster, but still seems like a reasonable DQ?

You are half right. You don't get a DNTRP until your third match, but the individual match ratings for the first two matches are compared against the strike threshold instead of the averaged DNTRP, so you can get strikes in your first two matches. I have seen several people get DQ'd after 3 matches, so you have to be able to get strikes in your first two.

In the case I referenced, the captain (a 3.5 playing up) kept playing with the S-rate (presumably since they did so well together in that first match), not realizing what the implications of that were on his DNTRP, so when the DNTRP kicked in for the S-rate, the algorithm had to maintain a differential of 0.5 or more between the two when they played together, which just exacerbated the situation.

 

[TennisOTM]

You are half right. You don't get a DNTRP until your third match, but the individual match ratings for the first two matches are compared against the strike threshold instead of the averaged DNTRP, so you can get strikes in your first two matches. I have seen several people get DQ'd after 3 matches, so you have to be able to get strikes in your first two.

In the case I referenced, the captain (a 3.5 playing up) kept playing with the S-rate (presumably since they did so well together in that first match), not realizing what the implications of that were on his DNTRP, so when the DNTRP kicked in for the S-rate, the algorithm had to maintain a differential of 0.5 or more between the two when they played together, which just exacerbated the situation.

Interesting. So if the match rating of your first match is above the threshold, that's always strike one? Then for the second match, is it the match rating that's compared to the threshold, or the average of match 1 and 2? That would make a big difference. If his first match rating was 4.70 and the threshold is 4.20, then second match could generate strike 2 with a 3.71, if they are averaged.