BGA has a serious bully problem

[FrankJones]

Once again, my settings are set for good players and above.

"good players" on this site are 200 Elo and above. Despite the title of that Elo range, there are a lot of low-skill players rated in the 200s.
Winning 68% of the time against players in the 200s Elo does not make someone a great player at that game. Nor does it mean that player should have a higher Elo than someone who wins 50% of the time against Elite players.

I set the filter for most of my games to "Strong players" and above. In some cases, "Expert" and above. Thus, I'll have a lower win% in the long run, but a high Elo.

To put it another way: If I play a lot of games against the highest rated "Earth" player, we will, on average, perhaps have a 50% win rate each, while still maintaining Elos in the high 600s.

I hope that illustrates the point. Win% does not necessarily correlate to Elo.

[FrankJones]

My problem with the current ELO system is not what it measures and how accurately it measures it, because I don't really care.
I complain that this system is my ONLY option to filter my fellow players based on their expected game knowledge, but for many games the system is not really suitable for that. If I set the "good players and above" filter, then those good players who have just performed worse in the last few games and have fallen back to average level are left out, if I use the "average players and above" filter, then even those who haven't even read the basic rules of the game are included.

You're correct; sometimes the gam filters will result in playing against someone who has a higher or lower skill level than the filter was intended by the player setting the filter.
How else should the filters be done though?

[FrankJones]

My problem with the current ELO system is not what it measures and how accurately it measures it, because I don't really care.
I complain that this system is my only option to filter my fellow players based on their expected game knowledge, but for many games the system is not really suitable for that. If I set the "good players and above" filter, then those good players who have just performed worse in the last few games and have fallen back to average level are left out, if I use the "average players and above" filter, then even those who haven't even read the basic rules of the game are included.

But this still speaks to some of the flaws with the current system. The inability to fall below 100 and how team elo is calculated just to name a few. In bang (& other team games) it would be nice to filter out incompetent players but the current system doesn’t properly rate players. It takes elo from stronger players and gives it to weaker players keeping the pool closer together than it really should be. The 100-200 filter is also too far apart for games that have low elo ceilings.

The ratio of games played/won would perhaps be a better indicator, but only afer 10-20 played games.

A mediocre player could play entirely against beginners (in the 0-100 Elo range) and have a high win percentage that would not correlate well with that player's actual skill.

A player could play entirely against experts and masters and have a 50% win rate which again would not correlate with that player's actual skill.

[FrankJones]

How did you get 400 points higher than someone in a game where you couldn't win more than 75% of the time vs any competent player? That's the first question that needs to be asked. Is your opponent incompetent? Are they just underrated?

This is a good question that has been asked several times but not answered.

Essentially, the default rating is 100. Players do no lose Elo when they are between 0 and 100, and then never go below 100.

So, yeah, how does someone get to 500+ Elo despite not being able to beat competent players more than 75% of the time?

[Ceaseless]

Captain flip for one.
I have a 68% win rate. The player above me has a 50% win rate which is a HUGE difference in any game let alone a game with a 4 luck rating. I’ve also maintained this over thousands of games and only play with players good and above (if you see someone lower than it was a game w/ a friend).

As for the whole 90% probability discussion there is a specific arena player that I am calculated to win against at that rate in a game w/ a luck factor of 3. But these win probabilities are off thus resulting in me losing 100pts throughout the arena season to this player even though I beat them 75%. People complain about top players being blocked but for me it is way more beneficial to block a player like this than a top player. After doing numbers I realized how flawed the system is. The system doesn’t gauge who has the best overall season only who finished w/ the best streak. Therefore it is flawed.

The win probabilities are laughable for team games.

The win rates described here are a display of how the pairing system is doing. A high or low win rate means your pairing is poor, and a relatively even win rate means it is solid. It's not a good way to compare two players though.

Once again, my settings are set for good players and above.

"Good player" is just a word for 200s, which is a pretty low rated, barely above the 100 minimum. I set a lot of my games to 300+, and even then mostly because going up to 500+ or 700+ could slow down my pairings when I just want to get a game in.

You talk about your settings but did not mention your opponent's settings. For all we know they're playing 300+ players for their games, and that's why they can maintain a lower win percentage than you while having the higher rating. It could also be because a lot of that 50% was from games we have no reasons to care about anymore, because it was back when they were a worse player. If they played a few hundred games at a certain skill level, and finally made a breakthrough, we don't need to care about those past few hundred games anymore, they've gone beyond that. We're not concerned with how good of a player they were in the past, only how good they are now.

My problem with the current ELO system is not what it measures and how accurately it measures it, because I don't really care.
I complain that this system is my only option to filter my fellow players based on their expected game knowledge, but for many games the system is not really suitable for that. If I set the "good players and above" filter, then those good players who have just performed worse in the last few games and have fallen back to average level are left out, if I use the "average players and above" filter, then even those who haven't even read the basic rules of the game are included.

But this still speaks to some of the flaws with the current system. The inability to fall below 100 and how team elo is calculated just to name a few. In bang (& other team games) it would be nice to filter out incompetent players but the current system doesn’t properly rate players. It takes elo from stronger players and gives it to weaker players keeping the pool closer together than it really should be. The 100-200 filter is also too far apart for games that have low elo ceilings.

The ratio of games played/won would perhaps be a better indicator, but only afer 10-20 played games.

With a proper pairing system, everyone should have a roughly 50% ratio. With improper pairings, it's easy for your win rate to say more about who you got paired with than anything about you.

[tbhp]

My problem with the current ELO system is not what it measures and how accurately it measures it, because I don't really care.
I complain that this system is my ONLY option to filter my fellow players based on their expected game knowledge, but for many games the system is not really suitable for that. If I set the "good players and above" filter, then those good players who have just performed worse in the last few games and have fallen back to average level are left out, if I use the "average players and above" filter, then even those who haven't even read the basic rules of the game are included.

That's a very specific complaint. Why does it matter that some players are left out, if all the ones that remain fit your preferences?

What you seem to be looking for is something that doesn't exist. Who defines what a true great player is? The only objective metric we have is results. If you want to argue that some players who have fallen down are better than their elo suggests, this gets into a subjective discussion of who you consider to be in the "hall of fame" of that game.

It's like if a football team said "I don't want to play against the teams qualified for the champions league, I only want to play the historic teams". Who decides what the historic teams are? We might have some common consensus, but that doesn't constitute an objective ranking. It wouldn't fit the spirit of sportsmanship to select teams based on that. This is like the people who want the champions league to be a closed league, instead of being entered based on merit.

By your logic also, people who used to have a high elo but have fallen down should be able to enter tournaments that require a high elo, right? But that wouldn't be fair either. You have to earn your rank, you can't just say "I'm actually a great player, take me in". That wouldn't be fair to all the people who managed to climb to a higher elo than what you currently are.

[BarnardsStar]

If I set the "good players and above" filter, then those good players who have just performed worse in the last few games and have fallen back to average level are left out, if I use the "average players and above" filter, then even those who haven't even read the basic rules of the game are included.

Your first complaint here is a little odd. I mean, the line has to be drawn somewhere, and you’re always going to miss out on players who are just below the line. Are you suggesting you should be able to draw the line at 190 Elo to catch those “temporarily embarrassed” good players?? Or what’s your alternative?

[Gooorn]

My problem with the current ELO system is not what it measures and how accurately it measures it, because I don't really care.
I complain that this system is my ONLY option to filter my fellow players based on their expected game knowledge, but for many games the system is not really suitable for that. If I set the "good players and above" filter, then those good players who have just performed worse in the last few games and have fallen back to average level are left out, if I use the "average players and above" filter, then even those who haven't even read the basic rules of the game are included.

Sorry, I forgot to point out that the above only applies to real-time and turn-based game modes. Here, a system that pairs players of similar strength would be more appropriate, and in Arena and Tournament game modes, a ranking system would be more appropriate.

[Ceaseless]

My problem with the current ELO system is not what it measures and how accurately it measures it, because I don't really care.
I complain that this system is my ONLY option to filter my fellow players based on their expected game knowledge, but for many games the system is not really suitable for that. If I set the "good players and above" filter, then those good players who have just performed worse in the last few games and have fallen back to average level are left out, if I use the "average players and above" filter, then even those who haven't even read the basic rules of the game are included.

Sorry, I forgot to point out that the above only applies to real-time and turn-based game modes. Here, a system that pairs players of similar strength would be more appropriate, and in Arena and Tournament game modes, a ranking system would be more appropriate.

That post didn't make much sense. Real-time and turn based games modes are the ones available. You don't really clarify what this "system that pairs similar strength" is based on or to what it's more appropriate than or for. Same goes for ranking system.

[Meeplelowda]

Real-time and turn based games modes are the ones available.

You honestly couldn't tell from context (when they contrasted with tournament and Arena), that they were talking about Real-time and turn based in "Simple game" mode?