It is the USTA, so you may be right, but they announced this 3 years ago and certainly have the matches in their system, so why on earth would they still be adding data? They already delayed the launch repeatedly, why launch prematurely and just open themselves up to criticism due to WTN being out of whack?
You answered your own question already.It is the USTA
...you have to pay $95 per year to get the 2 decimals for your opponent's rating.
It is the USTA, so you may be right, but they announced this 3 years ago and certainly have the matches in their system, so why on earth would they still be adding data? They already delayed the launch repeatedly, why launch prematurely and just open themselves up to criticism due to WTN being out of whack?
You should be able to see your own rating to two decimal places for free. You have to pay to creep on other people though.UTR is still the best product so far (it consolidates USTA and UTR results every week and for all matches) except that you have to pay $95 per year to get the 2 decimals for your opponent's rating.
I hope that WTN has just a temporary data issue otherwise it will be totally useless (imagine this mess for the 100 countries which have adopted this global rating...) and they would have missed a great chance to compete against the UTR system. To me this data issue is pretty basic so I am not sure it's a great first signal to launch this important project in that manner...
Unlike UTR, WTN doesn't change when you don't play. Your rating deviation increases meaning your rating becomes less reliable as time goes on without new results. If rating deviation is tied to Game Zone then your game zone should increase but that's just me speculating.I see what mistake I made. My singles level was about midway so I thought the upper range 19.2 was my doubles and my lower range 22.9 was my singles. The people that I thought had no rating just had no singles rating. I see they do have a rating in doubles and the rating I posted for doubles is wrong. Doh!
Have people's WTN ratings been changing even when they haven't played?
I typed in a buddy of mine who is a 5.5, UTR 13 and he is a 29.1 singles, 7.4 dubs :lol:
I'm just typing in some random guys I hit with and this thing is all over the map.
Once more analytics are added to WTN (September I believe), I'll likely cancel my UTR membership.UTR is still the best product so far (it consolidates USTA and UTR results every week and for all matches) except that you have to pay $95 per year to get the 2 decimals for your opponent's rating.
I hope that WTN has just a temporary data issue otherwise it will be totally useless (imagine this mess for the 100 countries which have adopted this global rating...) and they would have missed a great chance to compete against the UTR system. To me this data issue is pretty basic so I am not sure it's a great first signal to launch this important project in that manner...
You should be able to see your own rating to two decimal places for free. You have to pay to creep on other people though.
Unlike UTR, WTN doesn't change when you don't play. Your rating deviation increases meaning your rating becomes less reliable as time goes on without new results. If rating deviation is tied to Game Zone then your game zone should increase but that's just me speculating.
Nice work.I've been looking deeper into some of the outlier WTNd players to get more specific evidence of algorithm flaws or errors. I mentioned one guy earlier who is a 4.0C and UTR 6.XX doubles and yet somehow has a WTNd of 7.1 (blue checked). He has played a lot of doubles with several different partners, so I looked up the WTN of his recent partners and opponents to see if the outcomes make sense.
As you can imagine, with a WTN of 7.1, with just about any partner his doubles team is going to be favored (according to average WTN) against nearly all opposing teams playing as a 4.0, and often heavily favored. Does this match up with the actual outcomes?
I found 47 sets he played so far in 2022 in which all four players have the blue check for doubles. His team was the underdog by WTN in just 3 (6%) of those sets, yet his team lost 15 (32%) of the 47 sets outright, and lost 42% of the games in those sets.
There were 23 sets in which his team was favored by more than 7 WTN units (average of him and his partner more than 7 better than opponents' average). According to the GameZone ranges, a difference of 7 should be an extreme mismatch, i.e. a bagel with high probability. Yet they lost 3 (13%) of those sets outright and lost 34% of the games played in those sets.
Yes this is just one example, but he was not too hard to find just browsing around players in my circle, so I imagine there are quite a lot of examples where the predictive value of WTN appears to be quite poor, especially for doubles.
I've been looking deeper into some of the outlier WTNd players to get more specific evidence of algorithm flaws or errors. I mentioned one guy earlier who is a 4.0C and UTR 6.XX doubles and yet somehow has a WTNd of 7.1 (blue checked). He has played a lot of doubles with several different partners, so I looked up the WTN of his recent partners and opponents to see if the outcomes make sense.
As you can imagine, with a WTN of 7.1, with just about any partner his doubles team is going to be favored (according to average WTN) against nearly all opposing teams playing as a 4.0, and often heavily favored. Does this match up with the actual outcomes?
I found 47 sets he played so far in 2022 in which all four players have the blue check for doubles. His team was the underdog by WTN in just 3 (6%) of those sets, yet his team lost 15 (32%) of the 47 sets outright, and lost 42% of the games in those sets.
There were 23 sets in which his team was favored by more than 7 WTN units (average of him and his partner more than 7 better than opponents' average). According to the GameZone ranges, a difference of 7 should be an extreme mismatch, i.e. a bagel with high probability. Yet they lost 3 (13%) of those sets outright and lost 34% of the games played in those sets.
Yes this is just one example, but he was not too hard to find just browsing around players in my circle, so I imagine there are quite a lot of examples where the predictive value of WTN appears to be quite poor, especially for doubles.
Is the guy playing mixed doubles? I think it is pretty clear that women of the same usta dynamic rating are assumed to be the same strength or even stronger than the men at that same rating.
Wow, there are not many (less than 1%) with the same WTNs and WTNd.4.5c
Wtn s 12.0
Gz 10.1-13.8
Wtn d 12.0
I found that interesting too especially since I play at least twice as many doubles matches than singles matchesWow, there are not many (less than 1%) with the same WTNs and WTNd.
Didn't seem like WTN updated today...did anyone see otherwise?WTN updates every Wednesday.
Yep, saw updates as of this morning.Didn't seem like WTN updated today...did anyone see otherwise?
Regardless, that is a remarkably large difference. There are 3.0 and 3.5 men and women with better doubles WTN. Makes you go hmmm.NTRP: 4.5C
Singles WTN: 10.2
Doubles WTN: 25.6
I play mostly singles but have a decent doubles record. Maybe playing a lot of bottom line doubles is why I’m so low there.
ok, I guess there is a little movement for guys in my area. My numbers didn't move, and they definitely should have (e.g., went from two total singles matches to three).Yep, saw updates as of this morning.
I don't think they got your matches. When were they played/entered?So since WTN first published .... in 12 days played 8 league matches. (very unpleasant stretch of really dumb scheduling ... none of these matches were rescheduled) ..... the WTN did not move at all.
I must be very consistent!
So since WTN first published .... in 12 days played 8 league matches. (very unpleasant stretch of really dumb scheduling ... none of these matches were rescheduled) ..... the WTN did not move at all.
I must be very consistent!
From 6/2 - 6/14 ... so the 14th shouldn't be there but the other 7 probably shouldI don't think they got your matches. When were they played/entered?
Neither of mine changed either. Maybe, there is something to feeding the WTN enough data so it feels comfortable in the number, I have plenty of matches singles and doubles for calculation, steadily on a weekly basis.So since WTN first published .... in 12 days played 8 league matches. (very unpleasant stretch of really dumb scheduling ... none of these matches were rescheduled) ..... the WTN did not move at all.
I must be very consistent!
This is certainly what they say, from the USTA FAQ:You should be able to see your own rating to two decimal places for free. You have to pay to creep on other people though.
Unlike UTR, WTN doesn't change when you don't play. Your rating deviation increases meaning your rating becomes less reliable as time goes on without new results. If rating deviation is tied to Game Zone then your game zone should increase but that's just me speculating.
What is the effect of a long time off court?
During time periods in which a player does not compete, his/her rating remains unchanged, but his/her confidence level decreases. This is the way the algorithm captures the increased uncertainty around a player’s rating.
Maybe we'll have some more information when thier website goes live. Should at least be able to track changes.This is certainly what they say, from the USTA FAQ:
But in practice we've seen player's WTNs changing with no apparent additional matches. Perhaps this is just early bugs/process be worked out, but I'm not sure WTNs really won't change.
If you check your USTA profile every Wednesday, you can track your changes too of course. I'm not sure when the ratings are going to show up on the ITF's WTN site but I read something somewhere that it was supposed to be launched and provide more detail than what is on your USTA profile.Maybe we'll have some more information when thier website goes live. Should at least be able to track changes.
That's definitely a new "feature". The players I looked up earlier with assigned WTN numbers are now in the pro zone.I looked into players at the extremes a bit and learned some more.
At the larger number end, I do see a few NTRP 2.5s that are 40.0 WTNs. Not a lot, but a few. I doubt they are exactly 40.0 so they seem to be artificially capping WTNs at 40.0. Note some of these player do have the blue check meaning high confidence.
On the lower number end, I only see a few players in the 1.x range, but interestingly if I find a pro, say Jack Sock, there is no WTN shown, and instead he is simply "Pro Zone". It appears anyone with an ATP or WTA ranking is automatically a "pro" and at least the USTA profile doesn't show the WTN. I don't know if this means it isn't even calculated though. I'd think it is calculated, but perhaps it is not artificially limited to 1.0 and so it would look goofy to show it.
Given where we see some recreational league players WTNs in the single digits, it would seem there is not room for pros to fit, and the approach take is to just call them pros and not publish their WTN.
Oh, really? What were their WTNs before?That's definitely a new "feature". The players I looked up earlier with assigned WTN numbers are now in the pro zone.
The men where between 1 and 3. The only ones I wrote down were in the post below.Oh, really? What were their WTNs before?
All those guys are prozone now.I'm color blind so I thought they actually look different to everyone else.
Looking at the women's chart again, it kinda looks like there's a small blip at 10. Might be an artificial ceiling that was added to the systems when they were showing a bunch of league players rated higher than current tour players. Nathan Ponwith is currently 678 ATP and WTN 3.6. Gabriella Price is women's 662 and is WTN 10. That is good company to be in even for a 5.5 league player.
In other news, @dsp9753 who beat me 4 and 1 the other day and is WTN 11.2, should be able to have a good match with Gabriella. Meanwhile I will have a good battle with WTA 1514 Katya Townsend who's rated 13.5.
Oh, really? What were their WTNs before?
Actually, I found some. A sampling:Oh, really? What were their WTNs before?
Neither of mine changed either. Maybe, there is something to feeding the WTN enough data so it feels comfortable in the number, I have plenty of matches singles and doubles for calculation, steadily on a weekly basis.
This FAQ from WTN themselves will help focus the comments here, I think everyone should read it before guessing about things: https://worldtennisnumber.com/eng/faq
Quick takes that are detailed: They go back 4 years. The Game Zone range is something they mention as what to look at if you signed up at your local club or park for a match and wanted to find someone good to play against, match up the Game Zone ranges. Not a lot of mention of tournaments, if at all in first glance.
Different goals than UTR, also than USTA in my opinion in general, although cross-gender cross-age, and global
is similar to UTR.
Doh, well, the WTN is only used for going to your local public court or club and finding a match, although I don't think any place is actually using it.Well, if they are going back that far and they are not weighting much towards newer data .... that is 8 matches vs +/- 300 matches going back 4 years... won't make much of a dent in my dismal record.
Yeah, the stated idea behind the Game zONe is that if you play someone within your GZ, the probability of the match is 35-65% either way. So presumably if you played an 18.5 you'd have a 35% chance of winning and if you played a 22.0, 65%. In this case you played a 16.0 and your GZ's don't even overlap. Now, if the roughly +/-2 GZ is good for +/-15%, one might extrapolate that the 4.2 point difference should be good for about -35%, so you were supposed to have a 15% chance of winning. Given the score and your experience, yeah, that seems a little low.Well I got my first chance to consult WTN ahead of a match today. I was matched up with a fellow 4.0 player I had never played, for a practice singles match. I'm a blue-check 20.2 (18.5-22.0), and I looked him up before the match to find he's a blue-check 16.0 (14.2-17.7).
If we believed those Game Zone ranges we should not even bother to play this match, right? Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but if he's not even close to the lower end of my Game Zone I think WTN is telling me to expect a thrashing.
I showed up anyway and it was good match. I struggled in the heat but managed to win 9 games and lost 6-3, 7-6 in just under 2 hours.
Consulting UTR and even TR (despite the latter averaging in our doubles matches) would have told me that I was an underdog but close enough to have a decent chance. Very disappointing that WTN seems to be relatively useless so far.
Well I got my first chance to consult WTN ahead of a match today. I was matched up with a fellow 4.0 player I had never played, for a practice singles match. I'm a blue-check 20.2 (18.5-22.0), and I looked him up before the match to find he's a blue-check 16.0 (14.2-17.7).
If we believed those Game Zone ranges we should not even bother to play this match, right? Maybe I'm misinterpreting, but if he's not even close to the lower end of my Game Zone I think WTN is telling me to expect a thrashing.
I showed up anyway and it was good match. I struggled in the heat but managed to win 9 games and lost 6-3, 7-6 in just under 2 hours.
Consulting UTR and even TR (despite the latter averaging in our doubles matches) would have told me that I was an underdog but close enough to have a decent chance. Very disappointing that WTN seems to be relatively useless so far.
They've been working on it for at least three years (it was announced in 2019) and have said in various places that 4 years of data is used, or that they used matches back to 2016. So all your points are valid, but shouldn't they have a sufficient number of games and have done the testing you describe on the 4-6 years of data they already have?These systems are all about probabilities and confidence bands, not absolutes. Think "opponent has an 80% chance of winning, +/- 3%; OTM's expected game count is 4 games with a standard deviation of 2." If you look at it that way, you're still within range but you scored a number of games which was several standard deviations from the mean. It doesn't mean the system is broken, just that the bands are fairly wide. As the system gets more matches [and they tweak the algorithm], the bands should shrink. They likely run all of the results through a backtester and then make changes to see how that would have affected the ratings and would that have narrowed the bands.
Maybe UTR was like this in the beginning?
If this keeps happening, the gap between his rating and yours should narrow.
They've been working on it for at least three years (it was announced in 2019) and have said in various places that 4 years of data is used, or that they used matches back to 2016. So all your points are valid, but shouldn't they have a sufficient number of games and have done the testing you describe on the 4-6 years of data they already have?
They've been working on it for at least three years (it was announced in 2019) and have said in various places that 4 years of data is used, or that they used matches back to 2016. So all your points are valid, but shouldn't they have a sufficient number of games and have done the testing you describe on the 4-6 years of data they already have?