Elo point

[buv3x]

The way elo works is that both players "ante" rating points based on their rating difference, and the winner gets the pot.

Elo uses the formula 1 / (1 + 10^(rating difference/400)) as the "better player's chance of winning", where "rating difference" is lower rated player's ranking minus high rated player's ranking.

This system works very well for chess, because a player with a 400+ better rating will almost always win, due to the lack of a luck factor.

This system fails for luck-based games, because the better player will only have a 55%-75% chance of winning, no matter how much better they are, as long as their opponent knows the basic strategy for the game.

I'm just saying that the formula 1 / (1 + 10^(rating difference/400)) needs to be replaced with something else for games with a significant luck component. Ideally, the distribution can be determined dynamically by looking at game results, maybe updating it every 3-6 months.

I understand the point, but I don't necessarily see an issue with that. Yes, maximum win percentage might be around 70% let's say. So that means that a rating difference equilibrium between a good and a bad player would be around 150 points. Similarly, the maximum rating the best player can achieve would be capped at a value much lower, than in a less luck-based game. So, if you want to compare ratings between two different games, that of course wouldn't make any sense (ok, achievements like X+ Elo get significantly easier/harder from game to game, maybe that's a little bit of an issue).
But, on the other hand, you can treat it as an indicator. Maybe you can calculate the standard deviation of rating distribution of all players (I'm assuming that should be close to normal distribution) and with that to have an objective measurement of a luck-factor for each game, instead of an arbitrary assigned value (actually, very easy thing to do, if you have access to BGA database). A comparison like this, I feel would be an interesting and useful thing.

[AnriMachishiro]

Elo is a horrible system for games that have a substantial luck component, like this one. No matter how great you are at this game, you aren't going to be able boost your win rate more than a couple percent.

Be careful what you say about elo, you can get banned, but Arena isn't much better. I play arena games to play better people. Tonight i had a person with the 2X stop after attaining second place. They only had 1 card higher then a 9 and could have won, but they quit. Why play if you are only playing for second.

Afaik the aggressiveness of the 2nd place player would usually help the 3rd place player, sometimes the 4th player either.
Or you want this kind of game: everyone except the 1st place player continuously flip flip flip until flip 7? I think it's no fun.

[Fonky family]

J'ai jouer 7 parties de suite. J'étais a 101 dans le classement en arene. Depuis sur les 7 parties 6 perdue et les points que l'ont m'enlève sont entre 25 et 19 points mais celle que j'ai gagner m'a rapporter 9 point du coup de 101 je passe a 728 au classement.
Tu perd plus que tu gagnes.

Les jeux sont tous pareils, dans ces conditions je prendrais pas un abonnement car il y a trop de faux joueur qui sont repérable a leur pseudo qui sont imprononcable, ou numéroté, et des algorithmes .