Is it True that if you beat the top guy in back to back games the NEW ELO system makes it harder to catch him?

[MANNY-OLIVIA]

I've seen everything in Spades and I'm well aware of what's going on.

Players can write what they want on here to derail the truth.

BGA should just get rid of both leagues and then there would be no more issues.

[tcarlaw]

I am suspicous of anyone who wins over 80% of their games in Spades.

So basically you think that the top 7 accounts in elo are cheating?

I don't really look at the all time rankings much, but the top 10 in Arena last season ranged between 50% to 70% for their lifetime winning percentage. Which means it is fairly difficult winning more that 3 games in a row with decent competition. I think outside Arena some players don't play people with lower ELO which I am fine with. It makes the penalty for losing more proportional. I think Arena should be similar, but if high ranked players do risk losing, which isn't an intelligent risk they need to be rewarded otherwise there is no incentive not to camp at the top.

In a game with fairly skilled players you are probably going to lose at least 30% of the time. If there is a weak link, it isn't particularly fun for them or their partner. The way BGA calculates winning percentage with some people over 100% doesn't seem to have much value...

[Tuut Tuut tis Luut]

Then how do you catch the top player if you get penalized for beating him more than once?

Is it a count of how many times you've beat that without losing against them?
Or does it only count actual back to back games? (As in, if you keep winning against them without playing against any other players inbetween).

I'm not sure, because the wording in the elo update announcement by BGA isn't entirely precise about this.
But if it's the latter, then there's your answer

[azcats2002]

I am suspicous of anyone who wins over 80% of their games in Spades.

So basically you think that the top 7 accounts in elo are cheating?

I don't really look at the all time rankings much, but the top 10 in Arena last season ranged between 50% to 70% for their lifetime winning percentage. Which means it is fairly difficult winning more that 3 games in a row with decent competition. I think outside Arena some players don't play people with lower ELO which I am fine with. It makes the penalty for losing more proportional. I think Arena should be similar, but if high ranked players do risk losing, which isn't an intelligent risk they need to be rewarded otherwise there is no incentive not to camp at the top.

In a game with fairly skilled players you are probably going to lose at least 30% of the time. If there is a weak link, it isn't particularly fun for them or their partner. The way BGA calculates winning percentage with some people over 100% doesn't seem to have much value...

There are a couple players that if we just played ELO (non-arena) and paired up, 80% would be easily attainable. many of the people who play spades know the rules, but just depend on cards to help them win.

[tcarlaw]

So basically you think that the top 7 accounts in elo are cheating?

I don't really look at the all time rankings much, but the top 10 in Arena last season ranged between 50% to 70% for their lifetime winning percentage. Which means it is fairly difficult winning more that 3 games in a row with decent competition. I think outside Arena some players don't play people with lower ELO which I am fine with. It makes the penalty for losing more proportional. I think Arena should be similar, but if high ranked players do risk losing, which isn't an intelligent risk they need to be rewarded otherwise there is no incentive not to camp at the top.

In a game with fairly skilled players you are probably going to lose at least 30% of the time. If there is a weak link, it isn't particularly fun for them or their partner. The way BGA calculates winning percentage with some people over 100% doesn't seem to have much value...

There are a couple players that if we just played ELO (non-arena) and paired up, 80% would be easily attainable. many of the people who play spades know the rules, but just depend on cards to help them win.

Even inside Arena there are a few partnerships that could be very successful provided there was one weaker player on the other team. That is basically the problem with the current format. I suspect when I see a winning streak longer than 5 or 6 games there are either weaker players involved(sometimes me playing very badly) or something fishy. I am not saying players enjoying that kind of success are necessarily cheating, it may just be a problem with BGA's matching algorithm. I would advocate the top 20 players stay in elite, with their arena scores reset to help give players a chance to chase the All-time ranking in a meaningful way, and to keep their interest in Arena at the same time. I maintain that if you put 10 or 11 of the top players in competition with each other it would follow the distribution of the cards more than anything. There are a lot of players below that capable of winning with good cards but we often self-sabotage with unnecessary risks.