Originally Posted by Chuck Kennedy
By definition, any round even 3 standard deviations above a player's average is still in their "normal" range. It's only rounds on the low side that are potentially subject to manipulation, injury or abnormal penalties such as a player showing up late and getting par+4 for several holes. If a person is improving, then that very high round rating may be more typical of their current performance so doubling it is not out of line. No rounds are permanently doubled. That very good round will not be doubled after 3-4 months and a player will have to continue with higher rounds to maintain that improvement.
Chuck if this was some kind of process that had an upper and lower limit then 3 SD might make sense but the only limit is the one you impose by assigning a combing effect at 2.5 SD. Sure people have more control over their rating at the lower end but that doesn't mean you skew the data to prevent that. You need to take care of that in other ways. If someone is shooting a round in 10 rounds that is off the SD charts for them in the upper direction why double weight it even for the 3-4 month period. All you are doing is causing a ripple effect in their rating if they can not sustain the hot round every ten rounds and if they do continue it would be included in the ratings but just not at a rate of double the effect until that level of play was within their 2.5 SD mark!
In my experience, people don't tank a round to lower their rating, more often they tank a round to get below the 2.5 SD you impose so that it will not be included in their update. If people were able to tank a round and lower their player rating in hopes to get below some cutoff in the amateur ranks so they can sandbag that division then the next few rounds will more then likely push them above the cutoff again as they try to win another event in Int.
I guess I can't say that I am really trying to change your mind on this, just trying to let you know how someone outside of the ratings systems perceives your method