Board Game Arena

cfunke wrote: ↑01 June 2026, 20:32

Ceaseless wrote: ↑01 June 2026, 19:29

cfunke wrote: ↑01 June 2026, 19:17 I don't put a whole lot of stock in ELO. It's more a marker of experience than skill

What are you referring to by experience here?

Having played the game a number of times.

A player can play the game many times and still have a low elo. The OP itself notes pairings vs opponents with 2000+ games with an elo in the 100s.

Low elo is an indication of either low skill or low experience (because everyone starts at 0). You can't know which without looking at the player's history.
High elo is an indication of high skill (or cheating )

FrankJones wrote: ↑01 June 2026, 20:42

cfunke wrote: ↑01 June 2026, 20:32

Ceaseless wrote: ↑01 June 2026, 19:29

What are you referring to by experience here?

Having played the game a number of times.

Elo is an indicator of skill. Experience won't gain Elo unless that experience translates into increased skill.

It can be but it only measures plays on BGA and presumes they don't play anywhere else and/or don't experiment with different strategies online. If it's an accurate measure of skill, then a 600 wouldn't lose to a 100 but here we are having this discussion.

cfunke wrote: ↑02 June 2026, 18:13

FrankJones wrote: ↑01 June 2026, 20:42

cfunke wrote: ↑01 June 2026, 20:32

Having played the game a number of times.

Elo is an indicator of skill. Experience won't gain Elo unless that experience translates into increased skill.

It can be but it only measures plays on BGA and presumes they don't play anywhere else and/or don't experiment with different strategies online. If it's an accurate measure of skill, then a 600 wouldn't lose to a 100 but here we are having this discussion.

That's not how percentages work. You can't just say "it works 95% of the time, therefore it works 100% of the time". That other 5% is still there. It would be like if I said I'd always beat you because I'm higher rated than you. I'll likely take a comfortable majority, but I'm not winning every single game.

Playing elsewhere isn't going to invalidate ratings on BGA. You'd have to not be playing on BGA while changing your gameplay skills elsewhere for there to be such an impact. As for experimentation, there's a limit to how much that's going to change things. The base skills are still there, and you get used to whatever you're trying.

If I say there's a 95% chance it will rain tomorrow, and it doesn't rain... would you say I was wrong?

Jellby wrote: ↑02 June 2026, 18:35 If I say there's a 95% chance it will rain tomorrow, and it doesn't rain... would you say I was wrong?

This person probably would.

1. Elo reflects skill
2. In a game with randomness (and even in games without) a lower Elo player can beat a higher one…

Why is this a debate lol

cfunke wrote: ↑02 June 2026, 18:13

FrankJones wrote: ↑01 June 2026, 20:42

cfunke wrote: ↑01 June 2026, 20:32

Having played the game a number of times.

Elo is an indicator of skill. Experience won't gain Elo unless that experience translates into increased skill.

It can be but it only measures plays on BGA and presumes they don't play anywhere else and/or don't experiment with different strategies online. If it's an accurate measure of skill, then a 600 wouldn't lose to a 100 but here we are having this discussion.

If this was how things worked, we wouldn't have sports betting because the "better" team would always win.