TOP ELO stuck for years

[Alesk24]

Hello, i know there are a lot of post for this, first was in 2020. I've stop playing 2 years and now it's even worse.
All experts players know where i want to go :

I'm a bit competitive, and trying to reach the best ELO score is a way i have fun.
The soul of this game is to play with lot of players, with all the risk to have a 1/5 chance or less to win (depend of number of players and a few luck).

Nowadays, half of the top10 ELO rank is blocked by the same players (for over 3/4 years for the top 3), should i be ok ? yes but no :
- these players are only playing 1v1. It could be ok, but you can mastered all your games in 1v1 and not at all in 5players game.
- the fact they are "master" is because they're playing against low ranks (<200 ELO). Ok nice use of the system but, be honnest, that's not fair to all other players.
- if they stay at top is because they reached it a long time ago, they disapear in 3 months, play a single game, winning as always, and dont touch the game anymore for the next 3 months

I don't blame these top players, they use the system, and i will probably not trying to play against them in any 1v1 game (i'm not so mad). But can BGA do something about this ?
a simply thing could be a special 1v1 category game. Everything is already developed (the game will not change after all)

Thx for listening ! (and dont judge my english !)

[MasterMystery]

Simple answer elo gives you information about your likelyhood to win, so in a 1v1 those number given the elo might be right. If they limit to "noob" stomping it will not lead to much increase anymore at some point.

If you think about a leader board ladder, arena is better suited for this as no pick who you play and for this game its also more player. I would not even think playing this 1v1

"- the fact they are "master" is because they're playing against low ranks (<200 ELO). Ok nice use of the system but, be honnest, that's not fair to all other players."
this would also be valid for higher player count to a certain degree.

"and i will probably not trying to play against them in any 1v1 game (i'm not so mad)" why? this may proove the beginning statement of elo

[Wreckage]

Alesk’s complaints are completely valid in every respect. The elo calculation favors 2p by such an extreme amount that it is simply impossible to compete if you play legit games with 5 or more players.

It’s a shame too, because this game’s leaders would change weekly or even daily making it a lot of fun. It’s too bad 2p has such a huge advantage.

In order to play 5p and reach the top scores, you would have to first, reach #1 of the actual players who play 5p games, which is about 600 elo. Then win about 28 more games in a row against all experts without losing. That’s about 60 quintillion to 1. If that’s not bad enough, there’s only about 50 experts on the site, and if you play any of them more than once, your elo is further penalized. Most likely you already have a win streak against a lot of them in order to reach 600. So it will take a lot more than 28 victories in a row…maybe 40-45. Let’s just say it’s easier to hit a billion dollar lottery several days in a row.

But miracle of miracles, lets say you did all that and made it…what if the players playing 2p decide to play opponents with 200 elo? or even higher?….then they just walk away from you easily. Imagine if they ever played tough opponents. Their elo could go above 1000 with relative ease.

For those who will say the arena is the answer for competition, that is no good to top players of 6 Nimmt.. The best players on the site play 5 players/pro/tactics. Those settings are never available on arena. And we will never be gurus, because getting strong and expert tables is slower. So there is no where on bga to compete. The leader boards would work well, if elo was allocated fairly.

[Wreckage]

In 6 Nimmt,
If a player plays 2-player games and has wins of 90% they can stay about 600 ELO above their average opponent.
If a player plays 5-player games and has wins of 90% they can stay about 100 ELO above their average opponent.

This is the percentage of ELO we get from our wins and losses against each opponent:
# players __ % of ELO allocated
2 players __ 100%
3 players __ 75%
4 players __ 67.2%
5 players __ 62.5%
6 players __ 50%
7 players __ 41.7%
8 players __ 35.7%
9 players __ 31.3%
10 players _ 27.8%

If everyone at your table has the same elo, and you get first place:

at 5 player table you will gain 40 elo (10 per player) X 62.5% = 25 elo gain
at 10 player table you will gain 90 elo (10 per player) X 27.8% = 25.02 elo gain

Nothing for beating 5 additional opponents. Does anyone else see a problem with this?

[Andrei3009]

In 6 Nimmt,
If a player plays 2-player games and has wins of 90% they can stay about 600 ELO above their average opponent.
If a player plays 5-player games and has wins of 90% they can stay about 100 ELO above their average opponent.

This is the percentage of ELO we get from our wins and losses against each opponent:
# players __ % of ELO allocated
2 players __ 100%
3 players __ 75%
4 players __ 67.2%
5 players __ 62.5%
6 players __ 50%
7 players __ 41.7%
8 players __ 35.7%
9 players __ 31.3%
10 players _ 27.8%

If everyone at your table has the same elo, and you get first place:

at 5 player table you will gain 40 elo (10 per player) X 62.5% = 25 elo gain
at 10 player table you will gain 90 elo (10 per player) X 27.8% = 25.02 elo gain

Nothing for beating 5 additional opponents. Does anyone else see a problem with this?

Rainig is needed to show the player's skill, and so it turns out that in 6 nimmt!, as in most games, the most skill mode is for 2 players, so players playing 2P sit at the top of the rating table. To solve this problem, you need to make a separate rating for each number of players. However, I agree that playing only with weak players is easier to maintain the rating, but sadly this is all within the elo rating system.

When playing with ten players, you need to take into account that when you lose, you also lose less.

[Alesk24]

This is not a 1v1 game. Why arena has always be 5p ?

To answer master (god my english is poor), no i will not play against these players. I have no interest for 1v1 (after trying few tournament like this), i've not learn to play that way, i will probably not try to play against chess master if i want to start 1v1.
And trust me, i've joined them at a moment to see how chalenging it could be, they just refused to play, just waiting poor neewbies.

As wreckage says, the leaders could change often without them, and that's the cool thing in "sportsman ranking".
Imagine if Federer was the 1st champion, even after retreat, because he wins a match against a kid every 3 months ?

I dont agree to separate if there is more that 2 players. it stop to be a pure strategy game with 3 players or more. You have to start to speculate and playing on multiples lines.

We all want, except maybe these 10 players, a new game, called "dual 6nimn't" and the problem is solved

[nobody234]

Sigh, here we go again. I am “DJB is da GOAT” and made this account just to respond to this forum. I unfortunately had to stop playing on my standard due to an emergency. I am one of the main people addressed in this forum so I will try my best to respond to everything in this forum so far, but I don’t disagree with everything here.

Please stop saying phrases such as “it’s the soul of the game”, “it’s funner with more players”, or “it’s the way the game was designed”. If you are playing for fun, stop arguing over a competitive topic. Even if you were insistent on that, I could argue the game was “meant” to be played with all 104 cards and only forwards, which 5p experts mostly do not use either of those settings.

My account was created this year, so I don’t know where you got that the top 3 have been there for 3 and 4 years from.

The fact I only play 1v1 is fair to say, but I could also say the same for 5p players and the fact they only play 5p. I’m not exactly sure what you are implying with this statement.

The 3 months of being able to sit on top is definitely a big problem for a while now. The only thing is there isn’t really a good solution to it. You can’t say they can sit there forever without playing obviously or they would. But, you also can’t say they have to play everyday just to maintain their rank because that is way too big a commitment for people who, for example, can’t play everyday. In my case, I just want to play other things, but I was still consistently playing until I was forced to stop.

Making a seperate leaderboard for 2p I absolutely agree with. It doesn’t harm any specific group and only benefits the ones that are missing out. BGA SHOULD do this. I guess the only issue with that is that it locks people to one category. What would qualify for 5p leaderboards? There are definitely high players that play 5p and 2p out there, so having to be stuck with one setting would kinda suck. Other than that, totally agree.

I don’t know where the “noob stomping” claim came from. My 3rd, 5th, and 7th most recent games were all against players above 300. My 3rd most played opponent (the only one I have played exactly 4 times) is a strong player who I know is consistently above 300 (they actually handed me one of my only 2 losses). I play whoever joins my table, so stop claiming otherwise. If your claim is that most of my opponents are below 300, you are probably right. I didn’t count myself but it does not take a genius to know there are more below 300 opponents than above, and I play anyone above 100. I do not control the amount of each I play.

Since we are using fake statistics to claim it is extremely difficult to reach the top in 5p, I may as well use my own to counter. The numbers are real but manipulated to make it seem different than what it actually is. It was said that it was 60 quintillion to 1 after reaching 600. (After doing calculations myself I found it was around 37 quintillion, but that is close enough to 60 quintillion statistic wise that I will just use 60), I had to win 121/123 (would be 122 but had a dc) games to go from 600 to where I am today. That is less than 1 in 717 nonillion. (Or, 1 in 717,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) (not exaggerated) To put that in perspective, going from 600-730 (where I am now) in 2p is harder than going from 600-785(current highest) in 5p using a 100% win rate AND winning the lottery the same day. This is why you don’t listen to statistics like these: That 60 quintillion to 1 was calculated assuming that player had a ⅕ chance to win all of those 5p games. If someone has an average chance to win every game, they are not the best and don’t deserve to be.

Tiny sidenote: The win streak penalty is complete bs, you are right about that. They never should have put that in when they already were resetting people for playing the same people.

(Now back to real stats) I don’t know where you got that we could stay 600 above our opponents with only a 90% win rate. And also where you would only be 100 above. First of all, just because you receive a smaller percentage of elo on wins and losses doesn’t change what win rate you need to even out, that is obvious. If we were both 600, we both need the same win rate against the same opponent to reach the same amount, no matter whether you are playing 2p or 5p. BGA calculates win rate incorrectly for non-2p games, everybody knows this already. The fact I can have above a 100% win rate in Gamme Logic is proof enough. To achieve a REAL 90% win rate in 5p, you would have to have an average placement of 1.4 (or winning 3 out of 5 games and getting 2nd place in the other 2 OR winning 4 out of 5 games and getting 3rd place in 1, either of which would make you beat 18 opponents and lose to 2). If any expert did that, I promise you they would be higher than the current number 1 (785). https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=774730713 This game by Wreckage was played with opponents about 200 elo below him, and a placement of 1.5 was enough to gain 6 elo. That means if he played players of the same elo and got the same result each time, he would gain until he is about 750. 1.5 average placement is equivalent to an 87.5% win rate; imagine if they were at the real win rates of masters (I am 99% if you don’t include 2 dcs). https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=742483533 This is a game I played against an ~300 elo player and gained 1.66 elo. That means I would have lost 18.34 if I lost (it always adds to 20). That also means I would have to win 11-12 games against a 300 elo just to afford 1 loss and even out. So a 90% win rate is enough to maintain about 300-350 elo higher than opponents (at all ratings and player counts).

Now when it comes to the percentage of elo you claim you are missing out on by playing with more players, I’m not exactly disagreeing but I’m not exactly agreeing. If a 4p game is played someone will guaranteed have beat 3 other players. Where as that is not necessarily as true with only 2p games; it would take an average of 8 players to get one person with 3 wins. Something else to note: you don’t actually have a penalty! The same win% would result in the same elo over time. Climbing does take more but also is easier when it comes to losing since you lose less. Also if you consider how much elo you can get in 1 game 5p is still far more
2p-10 elo
3p-15 elo
4p-20.1 elo
5p-25 elo
6p-25 elo
7p-25 elo
8p-25 elo
9p-25 elo
10p-25 elo
See the trend? BGA knows it would be way too easy to climb if a greater than 25 elo reward was GUARANTEED to at least 1 player at the table (someone has to win). If a new player(as in first game, with triple elo bonus) played 9 300 elo players and got an outright win with all the elo you claim they should be granted, they would be about 500 elo. If that sounds balanced to you, I don’t know why I’m arguing anymore.

As previously mentioned, I play whoever joins my table. I don’t know who you joined but I would have accepted.

Why do we want changing rankings? Why should we constantly trade the top? That would mean no one is actually the best. You have to outdo the best to become the best, and that would completely remove that requirement. The best is no longer that meaning, because no one is actually dominant.

2p is not a pure strategy game, there is still luck and sometimes even 50/50s. Not to mention you still have to worry about what hand you draw. But the strategy shifts based on how your opponents play, just like 5p and every other player count.

I do have one last question. Not saying it is wrong but just curious. Why 5p? It takes 5 cards to trigger a row, so someone could take a row from the start. What makes 5p the ideal player count over 4p or 6p? I have been briefed before but would like a slightly more detailed explanation.

As a final note I do want to say I really respect the 5p experts out there. I have had interesting conversations on strategy similarities and differences, and I know it is absolutely not easy. I know players like Wreckage are extremely strong at what they do. I will always respect them, and continue to even though we will probably continue to debate this forever.

[Alesk24]

For the same top player i was talking about baptens and i dont remember right now the others names. I agree on some point with you DJB. But you cant say its easier to go 700 elo by playing 5p than 2p.

Wining 10 games in a row is nearly impossible and be 2nd is a lost of Elo at some point if you re 5. I actually triing to top arena too and thats worse. And often you cant anticipate bad moves iz there is more than 2 players.
I will not argue with your stats, it looks you work a lot on this. And i will not reduce your talent on 1v1. I just point an unfair rule beetween players to accès to the top cause they not really play the same game.

I will stop here, we all have good things to say. But if we all agree we need 2 leaderboards, we should just all defend this for BGA.

[Wreckage]

DJB is da GOAT, I want it to be clear that I am not accusing you or anyone of doing something wrong. I just think the ELO math equation you play by, is unfair to us playing by a different ELO math equation.

These are perhaps my top 10 competitors in 2025, and my total record against them:
Opponent_____my wins-losses__%
Shane2008 _______156 -110 ___58%
Spur21hk ________ 275 - 201 __58%
Respect_doma _____56 - 33 ___63%
Roland 777 _______188 - 112 __63%
Tonyiptony _______236 -117 ___67%
Waterlily blooms __168 - 85 ___66%
Okeya _____________97 - 91 ___52%
Cheval_raye ______100 -71 ___58%
Thereda __________ 87 - 60 ___59%
Bubbablum _______ 86 - 56 ___61%
Matinx1 __________ 45 - 35 ___56%

They are in no particular order, and perhaps other names should be here instead. There are 100 other strong candidates. The arena players don’t play against us much, as bga has divided us into two separate communities. In fact, of the current top 10 , I have only played 2 of them:
Opponent_____my wins-losses__%
volleykiero _______25 - 18 ____58% (currently in first place)
drja5on __________27 - 13 ____68% (currently second place)

You can see by my win percentage it’s nowhere near 90% against these players. My profile shows 97%, but in reality, it’s possibly 75% at the most. The fact that we have lower % against each other doesn’t mean we are bad players. We are the best in the world.

The thing is, we play against each other.

For us, we know the numbers. The best players who play 5p games, have an ELO of about 525. Once in a while one of them has a rare win streak that gets them above 600 for a few games, but it cannot be maintained.

On the other hand, 2p leaders are not playing each other at all. Baptlens vs Chadmild 0-0 games, Juletrae vs JaqenDDK 0-0 games. Any top 10 vs any other, 0-0 games. Any top 10 vs any top 100…my guess 0-0.

They can maintain ELO in the 700s without ever facing rivals.

[Wreckage]

DBJ is the Goat, I’m sure you think you are the best player. You may be. Your stats are impressive. If you play Baptlens 60 games, and won 35 and lost 25, you would gain 100 ELO above your current score. If you did the same thing against Chadmild, you would be up nearly 200. If the top 10 all play each other 60 games each, and anyone wins 60% of those games, they would easily be 500 ELO higher. The leader among you could probably maintain ELO in the 1200s or higher, unlike those of us playing 5p, whose scores are in the 500s.

So, we know how high players can get in 5p for sure, we are seeing it continually. We absolutely don’t have any idea how high 2p scores can go. I suggested if the top 10 play each other, the leader could be 500 higher, but what if there were 20 or 30 of you, and you play each other? A modest win % would be enough to go even higher.