Elo score makes no sense, there's something off here

[Suoivax]

How much you win or lose is dependent on the ELO of your opponent.

I know that, in theory. But how do you explain the fact that I often find people with 150 playing like a 300?

ELO doesn't stop a 300 from pairing up with a 150, what I'm saying is if you beat someone with an ELO of 150, you're not gonna get many points, but if you beat someone with an ELO of 800, you're gonna get a lot of points.

That's why 6 wins and 6 losses doesn't mean you end up with the same ELO you started at.

[Mars4ever]

Stop losing and start winning ??
Is this a serious question?

The question was already in the first message: is it normal to you to win the first games THEN starting losing a lot? First I'm a good player when I'm supposed to be a beginner, then I became a numb and dislearn how to play? This is what emerges from the graph, and what I'm reporing as an anomaly.

There are other games where I've never reached 200 elo after tens of matches, like stone age or 7wonders duel, and that is what's supposed to happen if I'm no good, and I accept that. Get 200 in a snap of fingers then become a idiot later is unreal. I'm just repeating myself.

[FrankJones]

Stop losing and start winning ??
Is this a serious question?

The question was already in the first message: is it normal to you to win the first games THEN starting losing a lot? First I'm a good player when I'm supposed to be a beginner, then I became a numb and dislearn how to play? This is what emerges from the graph, and what I'm reporing as an anomaly.

There are other games where I've never reached 200 elo after tens of matches, like stone age or 7wonders duel, and that is what's supposed to happen if I'm no good, and I accept that. Get 200 in a snap of fingers then become a idiot later is unreal. I'm just repeating myself.

You went on a 6-7 game upswing with a k-factor of 60.

If your first 7 games are against opponents rated
0
30
60
90
120
150
180

you will quickly be at 210 Elo after 7 games despite not beating a single player above 180 Elo.

This could happen even if your actual skill level is only around 150 Elo, which based on your subsequent results, may well be the case.

If you want to stop losing and start winning, study the game. BGA game history is open. You can view game replays of top players. Look at their moves and figure out what they're doing differently.

[FrankJones]

I'm not trying to give you a hard time here.

You need to understand, your rating was artificial in the first place. You had 3 losses in your first 10 games, each of which should have lowered your Elo by 30-ish points, but because of the artificial Elo floor, players never lose Elo until they are above 100. That makes a huge early difference. Basically, early on it's 30+ Elo gain for a win, and zero Elo decrease for a loss. I don't think this is a good system.

Your actual skill level is best judged by your recent 50-ish games, during which you have had a surprisingly stable Elo around the mid 100s. The explanation is simple. You're a 150 Elo player. A brief spike to 266 during periods of high k-factor does not mean anything.

EDIT - My error, you actually lost 5 of your first 10 games. Realistically, your Elo "should" have been 0 at that point. (Meaning, if there were no weird rules that prevent any Elo decrease but allow for triple Elo gain during those first 10 games).

During your first 21 games (after which the k-factor drops to the standard 20), you do not appear to have won any games against players rated 300+, and most of the wins were against players rated 200 or less. If you want to remain at or above your peak of 266, you need to consistently beat players rated 266+.

[Ceaseless]

Stop losing and start winning ??
Is this a serious question?

The question was already in the first message: is it normal to you to win the first games THEN starting losing a lot? First I'm a good player when I'm supposed to be a beginner, then I became a numb and dislearn how to play? This is what emerges from the graph, and what I'm reporing as an anomaly.

There are other games where I've never reached 200 elo after tens of matches, like stone age or 7wonders duel, and that is what's supposed to happen if I'm no good, and I accept that. Get 200 in a snap of fingers then become a idiot later is unreal. I'm just repeating myself.

And the question was already answered on the first page. The early system for new accounts allowed for things that it doesn't offer regular accounts. You get a bigger rating swing to get to where you're supposed to be quicker, which you've also used in other games. Just checking your game history answers the question, something you have access to just like everyone else.

https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=863830258 You don't normally get 30 elo for beating anyone, the most you can get is 20 in regular play, but here you got 30 for beating a 1 rated player. https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=872064964 42 rating for beating a sub 200 player. https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=875553089 Another 40 for beating a sub 200 player. That's what the increased k factor does for you. You can check your game history in other games and find similar results.

And as Frankjones mentioned, there's also protection for 100 and under accounts that prevents them from losing rating.
https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=859164702 The 1 rating gain for losing on your first game. https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=859262170 https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=868248841 https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=875257680 https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=875257256 A series of losses where you lost no rating due to being 100 or lower. Again, an effect you see in other games.

You having a 10-1 streak starting with breaking 100 rating (where your previous two losses just didn't affect your rating at all) really helped get your rating up. But from the looks of your games afterwards, that's all it was, a fortunately timed streak. Since you didn't keep it up, your rating dropped with future play.

[Ceaseless]

How much you win or lose is dependent on the ELO of your opponent.

I know that, in theory. But how do you explain the fact that I often find people with 150 playing like a 300?

That's easy, you're probably wrong. If they played like 300s, they'd be 300s. Usually when these claims are made the other player really just overrates what actually happened and completely misses the mistakes made by both players. Players aren't generally expected to understand how higher rated players play, considering those players are playing at a higher level than them. While there are other possibilities, they come up less often and usually aren't worth bringing up until we've ruled out the more common stuff first or have cause to believe one of these reasons are actually in play.