No E.L.O.

[Meeplelowda]

am I right in thinking that there’s a floor of 100 (presumably with the goal of not hurting people’s feelings), and that this rule distorts the ratings?

Correct. This change predates me joining BGA. I've read that there used to be no floor, but you started with a provisional rating higher than 0 (I don't know what it was). The thing is, you may be the best Carcassonne player in your household. Or maybe in your entire friends group. But when you come on BGA you run into people who are the best Carcassonne (or whatever) players in their entire city or even country. The truth hurts when people start to realize they aren't nearly as good as they thought they were when they face real competition.

[Wistama]

Apologies if this is threadjacking, but I have a related question about Elo ratings. It appears to me, as a new player, that once a player reaches 100, his or her rating is not permitted to drop below that number, regardless of game outcomes. In a game just concluded, I gained some points for the win, but my opponent, rated 100, lost none. Is my understanding correct?

If so, it introduces an inaccuracy. Suppose my opponent’s true playing strength was only 50. If his or her rating had been 50, then my win would have gained fewer points than what I actually got. An artificial floor of 100 means that I was over-rewarded.

The consecutive-wins penalty slightly mitigates the problem. If I keep whaling on the same overrated opponent, my unjust rewards will diminish. Still, am I right in thinking that there’s a floor of 100 (presumably with the goal of not hurting people’s feelings), and that this rule distorts the ratings?

You are right, but in no way this is related to the consecutive wins problem.

There is some relation. The artificial floor inflates some ratings, but the consecutive-wins rule reduces the extent of the inflation.