Discussing in chat against another player

[euklid314]

The latter argument seemes flawed.

If you are a 300 ELO player playing against a 150 ELO player and a 400 ELO player and you get 2nd then it is not relevant who of your opponents will win.

If the 150 ELO player wins, you lose many points but you gain most of them back by beating the 400 ELO player.

If the 400 ELO player wins, you lose less points but you gain even less back by beating the 150 ELO player.

In my example the ELO average is (300+150+400)/3= 283 ELO. Thus you are a bit above the average and should place a little bit better than 2nd place. In case of a 2nd place you will therefore lose some points (but only very few). The order of the other players does not matter for your ELO loss.

[Coleus1]

This issue is hard to moderate, but when a player openly admits in chat that they plan to favor another player due to a grudge and follows through with irrational trades and unfair robber targeting, that is kingmaking in my view.

[Bibobach]

I try to ignore these suggestions. Which often ends up in "Haha, Bibo doesn't know how to play!!" But they only think about their own goals. Also those who are moanig about the other two playing together. It's nearly the same thing. They try to influence your game and in the end, if you follow theit suggestions you loose.

[aloof-rabbit]

The latter argument seemes flawed.

If you are a 300 ELO player playing against a 150 ELO player and a 400 ELO player and you get 2nd then it is not relevant who of your opponents will win.

If the 150 ELO player wins, you lose many points but you gain most of them back by beating the 400 ELO player.

If the 400 ELO player wins, you lose less points but you gain even less back by beating the 150 ELO player.

In my example the ELO average is (300+150+400)/3= 283 ELO. Thus you are a bit above the average and should place a little bit better than 2nd place. In case of a 2nd place you will therefore lose some points (but only very few). The order of the other players does not matter for your ELO loss.

IMO there isn't nearly enough transparency about how the ELO calculation works. Yes it's based on a standard system but BGA use their own "modifications". In any case the problem with your analogy is in a close game if neither the 300 player or the 400 player knows who is going to come 2nd what they do know is they don't want the 150 player coming first if there is a chance that they come last.
Assuming a player is of a rank that suggests they at least know how to play... some games I think would be played very differently if you didn't know what ELO ranking your opponents when playing the game.

[euklid314]

The latter argument seemes flawed.

If you are a 300 ELO player playing against a 150 ELO player and a 400 ELO player and you get 2nd then it is not relevant who of your opponents will win.

If the 150 ELO player wins, you lose many points but you gain most of them back by beating the 400 ELO player.

If the 400 ELO player wins, you lose less points but you gain even less back by beating the 150 ELO player.

In my example the ELO average is (300+150+400)/3= 283 ELO. Thus you are a bit above the average and should place a little bit better than 2nd place. In case of a 2nd place you will therefore lose some points (but only very few). The order of the other players does not matter for your ELO loss.

IMO there isn't nearly enough transparency about how the ELO calculation works. Yes it's based on a standard system but BGA use their own "modifications". In any case the problem with your analogy is in a close game if neither the 300 player or the 400 player knows who is going to come 2nd what they do know is they don't want the 150 player coming first if there is a chance that they come last.
Assuming a player is of a rank that suggests they at least know how to play... some games I think would be played very differently if you didn't know what ELO ranking your opponents when playing the game.

If you are getting last (in a 3-player game), you lose against both players anyways. It does not matter for you who gets 1st and 2nd.

You can remember that only your own position in the ranking determines your ELO outcome. Whoever takes the other positions is irrelevant for your own ELO change.

There might be exceptions, e.g. when the winning streak cap is applied (after several consecutive wins against the same opponent your ELO wins are reduced, finally even to 0 - in such a case a win against the opponent is less valuable). But in general you can always ignore your opponents' ELO. Just aim for the best final placement you can get.