How would you define FICO "gaming"?

[Anonymous]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@Anonymous wrote:

In using the items you describe as possible "gaming" scenarios there are several that require the creditor and/or and third party to participate in removing or correcting your report. In writing a goodwill letter you are asking a creditor to forgive a transgression and based on what you provide you may get them to agree. A few have posted how a catastrophe can cause these types of scenarios and a good will letter showing an exemplary payment history prior to the default can go a long way to getting a creditor to cut you some slack. Same with payment and delete options. I got a collection agency to drop a $100 item based on the original bill being $46,000 and having moved this $100 item was left owing and they couldn't find us. It still pissed me off something terrible that the greedy doctor's office felt compelled to turn us into collections over this but money owed is money owed.

Once again...if you need to creditor to participate in reconsidering a negative reporting and you can present a case that they review and act on, this is not gaming the system but smart credit management. Of course if your just sloppy with your bills and have a track record of missed payments....good luck getting anyone buying into your story. So I can't consider goodwill letters, disputes, second chance phone numbers, pay for delete and other similar avenues to improve scores as gaming the system.

Things that you can do where you don't rely on others to be an integral part of whether or not you are successful in improving your scores are more "gaming" than some of the things you listed.

---

"Hi Dan.  You write:

In using the items you describe as possible "gaming" scenarios there are several that require the creditor and/or and third party to participate in removing or correcting your report.

Unsure who the "you" is in your sentence......"

---

I was referring to Jamie123 actually

[mitchblue]

So who is this Bob guy?

[Anonymous]

Thanks Dan!

[Anonymous]

---

CreditGuyInDixie wrote:

[...]

The way I described gaming is engaging in somewhat arcane tricks for which there was no other justification except because you discovered a technique for raising your score.

[...] 

---

Okay, so that's a definition.

I think it's worth noting that for high-dollar amount credit decisions, lenders see value in the extra cost of pulling reports from 2 or 3 bureaus, which neutralizes somewhat the effect of the arcane tricks, because the likelihood of implementing them successfully across all credit bureaus is lower than the likelihood at just one, due to differences in policies, timing of reporting, etc.

For mortgage applications in particular -- typically the highest-stakes use of credit scoring -- lenders routinely pull a score from each bureau, and each bureau's score is derived via a different version of the FICO algorithm.  The median score is used.  This dulls the effects of arcane techniques even more, unless they are common to all three bureaus and all three FICO versions.  The uncertainty over which score will end up being the all-important "middle" score to be optimized makes it even harder to manipulate the outcome, since some arcane techniques (one example that comes readily to mind is the Alliant SSL technique about which you have written at length, CGID) will have divergent effects on the different FICO versions.  So a lot of the really arcane gaming gets neutralized.

[Anonymous]

Hey Sarek!  The SSL technique is (as you point out) of marginal value with the extremely old models (currently the ones used by by the mortgage industry).  Even the claim that it doesn't work (e.g. for EX) is arguable, but you are absolutely right that it cannot be expected to work.  It is pretty sound for FICO 8 at all three bureaus, however, which is the dominant family of models for CC issuers and probably auto as well (by FICO 8 I include the classic, auto, and bankcard varieties).

Derog removal (e.g. via a gaming approach like the Saturation Technique) is likewise something that cannot be counted on to do its work in 30 days -- it almost always takes a long time, it may never happen depending on the creditor, and some bureaus will respond when others do not.  Nonetheless if somebody has derogs and they are willing to take the time, it's worth doing it.  Contributor BBS is a good case study in the value of it.

AUs do not work for everyone, chiefly because the AU technique only really shines when the recipient has an extremely young profile and has a parent or spouse who has a $0 balance, extremely old, derog-free tradeline.  For many of us some part of that is not the case.  But if you DO meet all those criteria, then the AU trick is without question the right thing to do.  I would do it in a heartbeat if it applied to me. 

The three CC gaming tricks I mentioned are basically things that work for all FICO models across all profiles and can be executed pretty quickly.

[Anonymous]

---

@mitchblue wrote:

So who is this Bob guy?

---

Dylan of course.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhuWipIDhwI

[mitchblue]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@mitchblue wrote:

So who is this Bob guy?

---

Dylan of course.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhuWipIDhwI

---

He does Dr. Seuss justice. Thanks for posting this..

Edit: And Bob Dylan, I hadn't realized that wasn't him.

[WolfMan]

Am I gaming the system?

Sure, I don't need all these credit cards. Sure, I'm aware when my statements cut, and time payments. Etc. 

One thing gaming has done is made me more aware of my credit, and made me more responsible with my credit. 

[Themanwhocan]

The average consumer doesn't know any of the tricks we know, and yet they can still game the system. Merely knowing what your scores are each month, you will tend to avoid applying for a credit card this month once you see your score is lower than it has been in the last couple months. You don't need to know why it is lower, or how to increase it, you will merely tend to delay your non time critical application until you score increases to around what you know is your typical high scores, and then you apply. This of course will tend to raise the average score of people applying for credit, even though the credit fundamentals for those people have not improved.

[Anonymous]

---

@Themanwhocan wrote:

The average consumer doesn't know any of the tricks we know, and yet they can still game the system. Merely knowing what your scores are each month, you will tend to avoid applying for a credit card this month once you see your score is lower than it has been in the last couple months. You don't need to know why it is lower, or how to increase it, you will merely tend to delay your non time critical application until you score increases to around what you know is your typical high scores, and then you apply. This of course will tend to raise the average score of people applying for credit, even though the credit fundamentals for those people have not improved.

---

I don't know about that.  If you're talking a significant score change, maybe, but not a slight one.  And, most people generally speaking will only experience slight scoring changes if they don't have anything going on with their profile, as the only real slice of the pie that could lower their score temporarily would be a utilization change.  None of the other slices of the FICO pie would lower score.  So, if their score is a 738 one month then the next month they see their score is 732 because perhaps their utilization reported a bit higher (which they don't realize or understand) I don't see that person failing to apply for a product that they want at that time.  There may be exceptions and I'm sure what you illustrated does happen, I just don't think it's really a deal breaker type situation.