Detecting OTB sandbagging?

How do people infer others are sandbagging, based on their USCF tournament histories? I'm kind of curious after seeing a bunch of the Millionaire Chess discussions and in general I'm bad at detecting sneaky behavior from other people.

(and before anyone asks, I'm not going to sandbag, lol)

In (or near) the doorway entering the playing hall there's a scale built into the floor. As people enter they stop and their weight is recorded. Then after the tournament is over, they're weighed again before they can collect their prize.

During games it's harder to detect. After a game you can check your opponent's seat for sandy debris, but this is no guarantee.

I know you said you're not going to do it, but if you did want to sandbag it's good to have an accomplice. Have them bring the sand in, then during one of the rounds they transfer it to you. Later the accomplice can withdraw from the tournament. Usually when this happens they're not weighed again. This is not without risk however. When people withdraw weighing much less it's very suspicious and a good way to have a geologist get all up in your stuff.

Thanks for the advice. It sounds really tempting.

Much of the time, it's comparing your experience with what you see happening.  For example, when you review the rating report for MC2, you will find several entrants who started playing in tournaments 2 months before the MC2 event.  Their performance in the 50 games that they completed by the end of September was so-so.  Then, two weeks later, they perform spectacularly and collectively win about 2/3 of the total <1600 prize fund.

Although this is not proof of sandbagging, think about it.  How likely is it that one person, let alone several people, would start playing in tournaments two months before a big money tournament, and then spend $2000+ to play in a tournament that they would have little chance of winning if they weren't sandbagging?

The trick is to not have the stupid ass MC events

Check out this id#15206964 for example. This guy had a fantastic tournament at Millionaire Cheess, strong enough to win 3000+ dollars in the under 1600 section. A week later he comes to to play at some cheap tournament, and throws games to sub 1100 players. Now his is going to play in U/1400 section again.LOL

I think if you win a big prize in say the world open you are " marked " and can never win another big prize in that same rating class again ... thats one way they " punish " suspected sandbaggers but this also punishes those who are not sandbagging . There are many things that can be done to combat sandbagging and is one of the purposes of the USCF having rating " floors " .  I don't like floors though and think they hurt older players . 

A million years ago before the USCF instituted rating floors, sandbagging used to go on ALOT.  People would purposely lose in local event to lower their rating and then go to a big tournament to win money.  

The reason "why" is entirely up to you.  Some people think its wrong, while others think "why not im getting mine" But sandbagging is cheating.  

The other problem is that it is very hard to detect.  There are "legitimate" cases of slumps.  I had one in 2014, but also benefitted from it.

I reached 2100 for the first time in 2013.  Of course, you fall back down.  I went back over 2100, and then had a HORRIBLE stretch in the spring of 2014.  Both my opponent and I missed the win of a piece for me in round 1 of the Chicago Open.  I proceed to win round 2, and then go on to lose rounds 3, 4, 5, 6, AND 7 in the Under 2300 section.  My rating fell like a Rock!  In June, I played in a couple of 1-day events in North Carolina and I believe I went 0-3 in one of them, and not much better in another (I want to say I may have beaten a 1700 or so in one of them).

My rating LEGITIMATELY fell as low as 1978 (My Floor is 1900, never hit my floor in my life, closest I came was 1758 when it was 1700).  Well, that lead to a 1993 rating for the U.S. Open, and I tied for first 2-way for the Under 2000 prize with 6 1/2 out of 9 at the U.S. Open in Orlando in 2014, and won $1480, the most I've ever won in a tournament - previous record was $732 at the 2008 Chicago Open.

Now one might argue that mine is easier to read as a legitimate slump because who in their right mind would use the 2014 Chicago Open, a big event, to lower their rating, and the fact that I've played over 100 tournament games every year from 1998 to now, and about 2500 games since first getting my rating in 1996.

That said, you can't rule out that someone might figure "$220 for the Chicago Open and $150 for the US Open is only $370 - Throw the first to win the class prize in the second for $2000".  This was not my scenario, and it wasn't like that 6 1/2 was easy.  I had a strong tournament with only 1 loss in the second round, and played nothing but masters in the final 4 rounds and 2 experts over 2150 rounds 4 and 5, going 3 wins and 3 draws in that stretch, beating both experts and my round 7 opponent, an obnoxious little snot from Florida - Felt good beating him!  There seems to be a thing about Round 7's in the U.S. Open - I faced another little snot that wouldn't even sign the Monroi like he was supposed to at the upper boards of the 2008 U.S. Open, flung his King across the board after I made my 40th move, and I come to find out it's the freaking son of the guy managing the Monroi's at the top 20 or so boards!

Nothing feels better than taking down immature brats over the chess board!

->ThrillerFan

Good for you Patrick!

About thirty years ago, I was losing a game against an opponent (maybe expert strength with a USCF rating of about 1800-1900) who casually handed me a note, asking me to please not resign. He was trying to get in playing shape for an upcoming big money tournament, so he had been legitimately trying to "win" our game, but he didn't want the actual result to reflect that. He was afraid I was about to resign but he wanted to resign first. So he resigned a won game just to keep his rating down.

The LOVE of money is the root of evil.

My impression was that if you really tried, sandbagging would be very hard to detect (kind of like academic dishonesty, where it seems like most of the cases are very ill-concealed).

chess.com could implement a rating floor like the USCF does.