grenv: They are only hurting themselves by delaying a lose game - since as I understand ratings, if you win a game, then lose a game - you will end up with a worse rating then if you would lose a game first, then win a game.

So if you know you are going to lose, it's beter for your rating to get them over and counted as quickly as possible. (At least this is what I've been told - I haven't done the math myself to back it up)

BIG BAD WOLF: But if they delay long enough in every game that they are sure to lose, they may end up with a win by getting their opponent to time out first!

BIG BAD WOLF: I actually don't think it matters that much, opponents ratings being more important. Point is you can delay all your losses by months on end and effectively engineer a good rating, albeit temporarily.

grenv: The effect can be quasi-permanent if you make a policy of accelerating wins and delaying losses -- at any point in time, as long as you keep playing the same number of games or a larger number, your finished games will include a disproportionate number of wins and your unfinished games will include a disproportionate number of losses.

alanback: And I imagine there's a few people that are willing to do such a thing to have an inflated rating to match their inflated ego? What's the point? If someone has to bend the rules to achieve something, have they really achieved it? And who are they fooling? What does having a higher rating get one as compared to having a lower rating? Especially in a rating system used here that is flawed for Backgammon? I play to win. I play the same speed, winning or losing. Why hold up one game of a pair against the same opponent? This seems very discourteous to me.

If you're right that losing your game first and winning the other will give you a higher rating, why do these people do the exact opposite? Maybe they don't really care about the rating, but want an inflated win/loss record?

Walter Montego: It's much easier to understand the logic of deferring losses than it is to understand the BKR effect of losses preceding wins or vice versa. Also, the BKR effect is more attenuated if both losses and wins are recognized than if losses are deferred. However, I'm with you all the way on the meaninglessness of it all.

Walter Montego: If you go to the statistics of wins/losses, you´ll see someone whose rating are due to time out of opponents...

He has such an inflated ego that he even put in his enemies those who dare to defeat him in a game... LOL