BGA has a serious bully problem

[Ceaseless]

Firstly, I mentioned that I peaked at 550 (which no one else has) once because you made a comment suggesting that my win % playing against good players and above doesn't mean I'm a good player. It seems rather silly to me to suggest that someone who has accomplished as much as I have isn't a good player.

This statement doesn't make sense. You throwing in other stats has no relation to this. If the world champion says something ridiculous like "I farted, therefore I'm the world champion", that statement can be dismissed as false even if they later truthfully say "I won the world championship, therefore I'm the world champion." Showing they've achieved the title "world champion" isn't the problem here, it would be the connection between them farting and them being the world champion that would need to be focused on.

You using good for two completely different things is misleading, so I'll rephrase for accuracy. "I have X win percentage vs 200+ players, therefore I'm a good player" isn't just about how good of a player you are, but how forced it is to the win percentage vs 200s.

[FrankJones]

Firstly, I mentioned that I peaked at 550 (which no one else has) once because you made a comment suggesting that my win % playing against good players and above doesn't mean I'm a good player. It seems rather silly to me to suggest that someone who has accomplished as much as I have isn't a good player. You then applied this number to a bunch of other things suggesting that I feel as though my true ranking is 550, what I feel others true ranking is, & that I went from 550 to 380 in 20 mins etc.

I never said or suggested that you aren't a good player.

I'm still confused about the "20 minutes" comment you made, and this post does not clarify the matter.

[FrankJones]

I have played a lot of spades here. The system isn't perfect, but I don't think it's all that bad. Doesn't it just take the average Elo for each player on the team, and use that when calculating the Elo change after a win or loss?

No. I just explained to you how team elo works. Luka Doncic avg the most points in the NBA. Yet his team (lakers) were just 13.5pt underdogs to the spurs (they actually lost by 28). What team elo does is say "oh Luka doncic is better than player b on the spurs so he is 90% vs player b, 80% vs player c etc." Thus Luka Doncic would lose rating as a player (elo) in a game that he wasn't really favored in because the other team is actually better overall. In addition, if Luka Doncic were able to win with an inferior team then his teammates would benefit most out of the victory (if it worked like elo). So once again there is separation between players in certain games but the broken rating system (elo) being used to rate these players strength are constantly converging them closer than they should be.

You're right, the Elo for Spades does seem off. But, I cannot decipher the actual algorithm at a quick glance. Looking at my recent games, it seems as though I lost 20 pr 21 points for each game mt team lost, but only gained 6-9 points when my team won.

Even if it is just comparing my own Elo to each of the opponent players and then counting those as 2 games, the results do not make sense.

[FSKFSK]

For team games, it sometimes counts as a tie with your teammate.

[ChiefPointThief]

Firstly, I mentioned that I peaked at 550 (which no one else has) once because you made a comment suggesting that my win % playing against good players and above doesn't mean I'm a good player. It seems rather silly to me to suggest that someone who has accomplished as much as I have isn't a good player.

This statement doesn't make sense. You throwing in other stats has no relation to this. If the world champion says something ridiculous like "I farted, therefore I'm the world champion", that statement can be dismissed as false even if they later truthfully say "I won the world championship, therefore I'm the world champion." Showing they've achieved the title "world champion" isn't the problem here, it would be the connection between them farting and them being the world champion that would need to be focused on.

You using good for two completely different things is misleading, so I'll rephrase for accuracy. "I have X win percentage vs 200+ players, therefore I'm a good player" isn't just about how good of a player you are, but how forced it is to the win percentage vs 200s.

No. Your comment makes no sense lol. I have a 18% better win percentage playing against tougher opponents over player b (& we both play 2p). Amongst SEVERAL other reasons that I listed why I am in fact a better player than player b. What are you actually arguing?????

You admittedly didn’t even know all the information, never even bothered to look up who I was talking about at the time of the post, made a bunch of false assumptions, & are still going back and forth with me on the topic

[ChiefPointThief]

I have played a lot of spades here. The system isn't perfect, but I don't think it's all that bad. Doesn't it just take the average Elo for each player on the team, and use that when calculating the Elo change after a win or loss?

No. I just explained to you how team elo works. Luka Doncic avg the most points in the NBA. Yet his team (lakers) were just 13.5pt underdogs to the spurs (they actually lost by 28). What team elo does is say "oh Luka doncic is better than player b on the spurs so he is 90% vs player b, 80% vs player c etc." Thus Luka Doncic would lose rating as a player (elo) in a game that he wasn't really favored in because the other team is actually better overall. In addition, if Luka Doncic were able to win with an inferior team then his teammates would benefit most out of the victory (if it worked like elo). So once again there is separation between players in certain games but the broken rating system (elo) being used to rate these players strength are constantly converging them closer than they should be.

You're right, the Elo for Spades does seem off. But, I cannot decipher the actual algorithm at a quick glance. Looking at my recent games, it seems as though I lost 20 pr 21 points for each game mt team lost, but only gained 6-9 points when my team won.

Even if it is just comparing my own Elo to each of the opponent players and then counting those as 2 games, the results do not make sense.

Well I’m happy you understand what I was trying to explain now

[Ceaseless]

Firstly, I mentioned that I peaked at 550 (which no one else has) once because you made a comment suggesting that my win % playing against good players and above doesn't mean I'm a good player. It seems rather silly to me to suggest that someone who has accomplished as much as I have isn't a good player.

This statement doesn't make sense. You throwing in other stats has no relation to this. If the world champion says something ridiculous like "I farted, therefore I'm the world champion", that statement can be dismissed as false even if they later truthfully say "I won the world championship, therefore I'm the world champion." Showing they've achieved the title "world champion" isn't the problem here, it would be the connection between them farting and them being the world champion that would need to be focused on.

You using good for two completely different things is misleading, so I'll rephrase for accuracy. "I have X win percentage vs 200+ players, therefore I'm a good player" isn't just about how good of a player you are, but how forced it is to the win percentage vs 200s.

No. Your comment makes no sense lol. I have a 18% better win percentage playing against tougher opponents over player b (& we both play 2p). Amongst SEVERAL other reasons that I listed why I am in fact a better player than player b. What are you actually arguing?????

You admittedly didn’t even know all the information, never even bothered to look up who I was talking about at the time of the post, made a bunch of false assumptions, & are still going back and forth with me on the topic

Every single one of these things has been covered in my past posts. Feel free to check those for the answers already provided to you. What I've argued has been clear. If you're claiming Y for reason X, and reason X doesn't line up with Y, don't go complaining when no one takes it seriously. People have no reason to bother looking into Y every time someone claims it. If you're leaving out the relevant stuff and just throwing out the junk, then it's on you if no one bothers to see if there was anything important.

[FrankJones]

Well I’m happy you understand what I was trying to explain now

Part of what you were trying to explain.

So, does anyone know exactly how Elo is calculated for Spades? Does it use the same bizarre algorithm used for calculating changes in 4-player non-team games?

If so, that's bizarre.

[FrankJones]

For team games, it sometimes counts as a tie with your teammate.

That could fit with the irregularities I observed.

That's asinine. Why would they calculate Elo that way for Spades? That's not an Elo flaw, that's just a terrible use of Elo.

[FrankJones]

No. Your comment makes no sense lol. I have a 18% better win percentage playing against tougher opponents over player b (& we both play 2p). Amongst SEVERAL other reasons that I listed why I am in fact a better player than player b. What are you actually arguing?????

You admittedly didn’t even know all the information, never even bothered to look up who I was talking about at the time of the post, made a bunch of false assumptions, & are still going back and forth with me on the topic

I didn't get the impression people were denying your resume and accomplishments at the game, but rather, people were suggesting that if you couldn't consistently beat 150-Elo players as a 550-Elo player, then you aren't good enough at the game to maintain a 550 Elo rating.

If the game is a high-luck game (And if I recall correctly, is it, right?), then it's very possible nobody is skillful enough at the game to maintain a 550 Elo. It wouldn't be the first game to have too much variance for anyone to maintain a 550 Elo.