quote:

---

Originally posted by yakusoku:
Where did he say he's playing against people who are 100-200 points below him?

---

to be fair, they likely are.

Some reason and logic is nice to have up in here

I know a guy who had close to or over a 2000 rating and he just went on a scrub streak and lost nearly 300 points from his rating because he was playing at GPs and PTs.

quote:

---

Originally posted by caquaa:
to be fair, they likely are.

Some reason and logic is nice to have up in here

I think rats60's biggest problem is associating play skill with rating. Automatically assuming that someone with low rating has no skill is certainly incorrect. When someone with lower rating then me has equal skill does this tell you my rating is too high or possibly theirs is too low? You're making the assumption that mine is too high (which is nice of you) and don't leave room for the other option.

---

I make the assumption based on your rating. I expect a 1900+ rated player to be able to win more than 80% against scrub players. So does ELO. It looks at your rating vs your opponents and says that you should win a certain percentage of the time. If you don't, your rating is too high and theirs is too low and it adjusts for that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rats60:
Garbage.

---

This is pretty much what you have said so far.

__________________
MOTL Fantasy NBA 2010 Champion

quote:

---

Originally posted by rats60:
The flaw in the system is that it doesn't punish players for not playing, which it should have. Example, if you didn't play for a month, you lose 10 pts, 2 months another 20 pts ect until you were back to 1600. Take 6 months off and the 1810 player is starting over at 1600. The only way around this is to do what WOTC is, only reward players for playing and winning. You should be happy now because you can rack up lots of easy points playing and beating lesser players.

---

Factual post: It is a zero-sum system, so this would never work. (ie, all the points in the system sum out to 1600 (taking a 1530 rating as -70 and a 1670 raqting as +70) since when I gain 6 points, my opponent loses 6 points. If you lost points for not playing, the whole system would be out of whack.) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero%E2%80%93sum_game)

quote:

---

Originally posted by SageShadows:
In response to ELO, I think someone pointed out that ELO works fine for Chess, where there isn't variance involved. You can just hit the worst matchups and scrub out- it's still not an indication of your playskill. I would have liked some sort of multiplier for the difficulty of the win though; I think that combines the best of both worlds.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by yakusoku:
ELO rating system.

It's the rating system used for Chess, and previously for Magic.

---

A lot of people seem to believe the new system punishes inactivity. In reality, it rewards very high volume.

Great players who play a good amount of events and are very active by most standards will no longer have good ratings.