ELO rank now visible from everyone!

[dudi2]

thks for opinion dudi.winning is all that counts period.im 2nd in wins and my average on wins is probably top 5or 10 so in my opinion I'm a very//very good player and yes there are few that are better.P.S HOPE eNN DONT GET MAD FOR ME REPLYING TO WHAT DUDI WAS SAYING.THKS bga

You are by far not top 5 or even top 10 in winning percentage. The top 5 have all much higher winning percentage
and in addition
their rate getting in 1st is higher than getting in 2nd,
their rate getting in 2nd is higher than getting in 3rd, and
their rate getting in 3rd is higher than getting in 4th.

This is a result of trying to win the game even if there seems to be a low chance to win, but not to take incredible high risk of ending very bad at last position.

Details:
1st hearts100: 1380 games (ELO: 570) 33.8% (percentage of wins)
1st 466x
2nd 375x
3rd 307x
4th 232x

2nd trickylemur: 536 games (ELO: 566) 36.9%
1st 198x
2nd 152x
3rd 114x
4th 72x

3rd The more the merrier: 128 games (ELO: 478) 33.6%
1st 43x
2nd 31x
3rd 29x
4th 25x

4th czarnykolor: 1059 games (ELO: 468) 43.0%
1st 455x
2nd 280x
3rd 206x
4th 118x

5th alexi1972: 690 games (ELO: 462) 35.5%
1st 245x
2nd 194x
3rd 149x
4th 102x

Even Marka on ELO position 40 is much better than you:
40th Marka: 406 games (ELO: 389) 34.5%
1st 140x
2nd 95x
3rd 97x
4th 74x

Youre average is this:

1139th fuonlynu: 261 games (ELO: 198) 31.4%
1st 82x
2nd 44x
3rd 41x
4th 94x

intrepid: 2615 games (ELO: 100) 28.8%
1st 753x
2nd 474x
3rd 468x
4th 922x

Together this is a winning percentage of 29.0 percent. This means that you are a "very good hearts player", but definitely not a "very, very good hearts player". Perhaps you winning percentage is about top50 of hearts players with more than 100 games.

By the way I myself am not a good hearts player with only winning about 21.1 percent.

The ELO system shows much better who is really a good player in a game than the winning percentage, cause it also takes into account if your opponents are strong or weak players.

[fuonlynu]

wrong again but thks for ur hard work.nothing against u or bga cUrrent #1 elo player hearts 100.waiting a long time for this.the next six players listed bga and dudi alL have more wins and a better winning percentage.so please honor them correctly with showing whom is top players.CINCY/1460 WINS/.4629 /////////SCHWEIGER 935 WINS////.4333. Cyril68 .876 wins///.4826. Doublespliff //936 wins///.4091. Valentinenc1 /1052 wins///.4017. Nikklos 852 wins////852 wins///.3747 Hearts 100 ////852 wins ..3548 Percentage.And now please respect these players and show all whom is really /Truelly a good player. P.s by the way since all knows that I only care about Wins intrepid/if you only knew (FUONLYNU ) I'm top 2 or 3 in wins .you can figure out my winning percentage .its also up there where I don't need u or bga to say how good I am.all tell u IM GOOD.BUT IT IS NOT ABOUT ME ITS ABOUT WHAT BGA SHOULD FOCUS ON WITH WHOM IS A GOOD PLAYER.nOT A SNAT SHOT IN TIME.THK U VERY MUCH BGA FOR BRINGING THIS IMPORTANT INFORMATION TO THE HEARTS PLAYERS COMMUNITY

[fuonlynu]

ist of all its not about my wins or losses its about showing whom is good not a little time frame that is just 1 problem with ELO.a more huge problem is the game of hearts or any game (one WINS and 3 LOSE.) PERIOD.BGA HEART PLAYERS ARE PLAYING FOR 2ND OR 3 RD INSTEAD OF TRYING TO GET THE LEADER.IF U DONT GET THE LEADER U DONT WIN (PERIOD).THIS IS EXACTLY WHY I HAVE MORE WINS ,PROBBLY NEVER LOOKED AT STATS ,NEXT WOULD BE FOURTH.in a game of 4 /////// 2nd is called ist loser. Now to correct u dudi since u misrepresentative my stats... INTREPID 3000 GAMES///981 WINS///.3270 PERCENTAGE. fuonlynu///292 games 104 wins =.3596 percentage . Combined 3292 games with 1085 wins////percentage .3296.havent look lately either 2nd or 3rd in wins which is my goal wins///wins not 2nd not 3rd or nor 4thor not ////ELO.nOT ONLY ELO DOESNT SHOW WHOM IS GOOD BUT ITS RUINS THE GAME OF HEARTS BECAUSE PLAYERS PLAY FOR ELO INSTEAD OF wINS.

[dudi2]

Now to correct u dudi since u misrepresentative my stats... INTREPID 3000 GAMES///981 WINS///.3270 PERCENTAGE. fuonlynu///292 games 104 wins =.3596 percentage . Combined 3292 games with 1085 wins////percentage .3296.

These 3000 games of intrepid include games which are cancelled before the end because someone leaved the table. These games are not really wins. E.g. the game https://de.boardgamearena.com#!table?table=26476307 which was leaved by fuonlynu counts as win for the other 3 players on main stats page. Of the 3000 games 375 games were games not ended normal. 228 of them were counted as won for intrepid, 147 ended because intrepid left these games.

So to be fair only games ended correct should count to the winning rate. By the BGA-implementation of the ELO system this is taken into account by weighting the ELO change by progress state.

Going to "username's statistics at this game" and then following the "xxx games" link you can find the stats of the correctly finished games. The number of games and wins shown there is smaller than on the main stats page.

[fuonlynu]

blah/blah/blah and I'm sure u will dudi urself.go to where they show top 5 in wins . luv fans lke u..SO/////SO///FUNNY.P.S AT LEAST SHOW RESPECT AND MAKE A GRAPH SHOWING 6 PLAYERS THAT NOT ONLY HAVE MORE WINS BUT A BETTER WINNING AVERAGE,THAN ANY/ANY ELO BGA PLAYER.THKS AGAIN ///HOPE WE PLAY SOON.TOLD YA THE TRUTH HURTS MANY

[Liallan]

I disagree that not having the number of games played already on the screen provides clarity. Why is that the number of games played would make somebody unable to read the ratings graph? I think you should give your players more intellectual credit than that.

Amen!

In fact, quite honestly, I think it looks more confusing now. We were concerned that having too many factors (abandoned games, over time, thumbs, etc, etc) was too much and too confusing for beginners. (I had no trouble with it.) But now when you look at an invite there are two bar lines, and you must hover over them to find out what they mean. Just at a glance, there really isn't a way to tell what they are or what they are related to. Beginners are even more like not to hover over them, and given that, this is more confusing.

"Reputation" is a fine word and could be on the invite above the green bar. (Which more more sense than "Karma" - I did notice that change.) Then make the top thing just the number instead of a full bar. I'm not even sure I understand the reason for the bar - some type of line graph for their rank? (Except the highest players apparently aren't ranked.) I see no point to that. That space could be utilized to put back the number of games like before, and this will make it more obvious that this top number is related to this game, and the bottom graph related to overall reputation. I don't know how a lack of information is more clear. We're a bunch of gamers - we like numbers and can figure this out. (There really wasn't that much information there.)

[fuonlynu]

now that the bga community knows that bga world elo ranking means nothing /squat can we just please honor whom is really good and not a player thAt in a little time frame is playing good.cmon BGA .PLEASE hoNOR whom is good NOT SOME ONE THA IS GOOD BECAUSE OF BGA MATH OR STAT CALCULATION

[sprockitz]

I've given a little time to think about these updates before weighing in because I wasn't sure about some of them.

Making Elo visible to all, certainly a good change for all as long as it doesn't hurt subscriptions.

Having an Elo floor. I like this change as well. Before it was rare to see players below 1400 b/c most players just quit before figuring out the game if they are losing lots of Elo, this gives people time to figure out the game without severe penalty. It can cause Elo drift as points are generated when someone loses a game but not points b/c they are at the floor, however, the old system experienced drift whenever someone retired with a rating other than 1500...and these were more often players who played a few times and lost a bunch of points...causing the average rating to drift upwards over time.

I would personally prefer to see new players start out with a provisional rating and only become officially rated after 5 games (against some minimum of unique opponents, say 10). This could work with a hidden Elo starting at 200 that is revealed after 5 games. You could reduce the K value opponent's have against a provisional by a factor of 2 (for example), since a provisional rating is less reliable.

Reducing the K value. I think it is a good move and will improve stability of ratings. However, I think it is reduced a little too quickly, especially when you combine it with the fact that new players now start at a 0 ranking and need to gain 200 points just to get back to the old 'average'. This isn't so bad in games that play more players but for a 2 player game it can really slow down how long it takes a person to get in the ballpark of their actual ranking. Perhaps 15 & 40 or 20 & 50 would be better cutoffs to transition from 60-40 & 40-20, respectively.

[fuonlynu]

update now seven players with more wins and better win percentage than top elo player in hearts.sorry hearts 100 u haven't been playing lately.whom is the sevnth or 7 /// me/me/me .3548 percentage and yes whole lot more wins .ALSO LOOKING UP BIEFINJO HE MIGHT BE #8. Get back to this very important information./////.WISH I WAS SMART ENOGHT FOR A GRAPH BUT IM NOT

[fuonlynu]

update... 8 players confirmed ,I'm sure more.BIEFINJO////1481 GAMES/////590 WINS PERCENTAGE .3984 .ALL ABOVE BGA ////CURRENT ELO LEaDER.AGAIN WHY CURRENT BGA RANKING JUST DOESNT SHOW JUSTICE TO WHOM IS A GOOD PLAYER.p,s nothin personal top 10 elo in hearts ,just the facts that elo is a small time frame when a player is winning,and by no means does elo represent whom is goodor top player