ELO on luck based games

[FrankJones]

Everyone on this page [Oops, my post started a new page. Everyone on the previous page] of the thread was writing "Elo", not "ELO."

[ChiefPointThief]

[ note - this is a quoted portion that was a reply to Andrei3009]

You do know elo already isn't equal amongst all games right? Team games and coop use an entirely different format. I know the devs even have the ability to put whatever desired formula they want for coops as one dev even asked the player base for input on creating the formula for a coop. Making an adequate rating system for luck base games wouldn't change how I view players in non luck games like terra mystica.

I thought Elo was the same for all 2-player games, and then uses a modified formular for 3-player games, but the same modification for all 3-player games. For a team game that is 2 versus 2, I thought the 2-player standard formula was used after taking the average Elo for the two teammates and applying the standard formula.

Co-op games can make things murky, but that's a separate matter, right?

I do wish there was more transparency and that all players could easily view the exact Elo formula for any game.

And actually there is already evidence of how inaccurate calculations affect rankings. There is also evidence that if you fix those inaccurate calculations it can result in better rankings. Case in point, bga changed the calculation for team games. For the record it is still VERY flawed but they made a tweak for the better. The result, prior to the change at any given time in spades their was only about 15 players ranked above 300. After the tweak now there sits 54 players and a lot in the upper 200s. The upgraded ranking system has given us a more accurate view of the skill level amongst players. Which would be the same if what I suggested for luck base games was implemented. Are you currently looking at players elos from non luck games different now that team games are being ranked differently? Ofc not and some of you probably didn't even know that fact.

My apologies for my very belated reply. This portion of your post is very interesting to me. I was not aware of this recent change by BGA for Elo in team games. I do play spades, and was ranked 7th overall at one point, when nobody was over 400. I recall having great difficulty improving my Elo despite being one of the best players on the site. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. What exactly was the change made to the Elo formula for Spades, and when was the change implemented?

In 2v2 games it uses the same formula for every player involved. It doesn't take the average elo of the team. Your teammate is disregarded in the calculation which then makes it impossible to accurately predict possibilities. If I go to the basketball court to play a 2 on 2 pick up game my probability to win the game changes drastically if my teammate is Lebron James or a youth basketball player. It also makes no sense for two teammates to have different win probabilities and lose and gain different amount of rank from the same game.

The change to team elo isnt recent. It happened at the same time as consecutive win penalties. The change that was made was that previously it also used the head up calculation with your partner. Meaning that before the game even started depending on your partners elo you would lose/gain elo from them. Now instead you simply tie with your partner so you dont lose or gain any elo from them. Just this small change changed how the elo standings look in spades (I'm sure other team games so this effect as well but this is the only team game I am aware of the elo charts before and after the change). So while you guys are saying the elo leaderboards give an indication about luck or the skill in between players that isnt necessarily true. Spades didn't become any less lucky after the change. There wasn't a sudden influx of players increasing their skills either. What changed was how the players are being ranked. With an inadequate system you saw more inadequate results of the measure of skill amongst the pool.

You keep mentioning poker so let me ask you this. Lets say you play weekly at your house with a group of 5 buddies and win on average 200 chips. Lets say you also play at a different location weekly and the host has a rule that they will take 10 chips away after every hand and the amount you win here on avg is about 50 chips. Doesn't playing at your house give a better indication of how much more skilled you are than your buddies than location b does?

A few things you are failing to understand is that the level of "mastering" a game is different depending on the game. If you manage to understand a near coin flip game to the point that you can win close to 70% instead of 50% then you've somewhat "mastered" that game. And thus your rating shouldn't be able to fall below that of a player who only historically wins at a 50% rate based on a small lucky streak by player b or a small unlucky streak by player a after player a and b have shown over thousands of games what their skills are at the game.

I understand this. I realize that "mastering" a game means different things for different games. I just don't have a major gripe with this fact. For OFCP, mastering the game here means an Elo of 300. For Kulami, it means an Elo of 400. Earth? 700. Some abstract games? 850+. Etc.

I understand this and I am okay with it. What exactly are you suggesting? Do you want every game to have a modified Elo formula such that we have exactly x% of the player pool at 700 (master) Elo? Such that every game has the exact same Elo ceiling for the world Elo#1 player? Why is that necessary? When I want to see who is the best at a game, I do not look only at current Elo. I look at the historical graph to see peak Elo and average Elo over time.

While it would be nice for players to be able to get the "master" label or to win certain awards like 10,20.50 consecutive games won (that could be lowered considering the luck factor of the game) that isn't a concern for me. What I would like is rating systems that better reflect the skills of players within games because using one rating system amongst all games is simply wrong and inadequate. My issue isn't that a captain flip player can't reach 1000 elo like a patchwork player can but that the ratings being used converge players closer than they should be thus eventually allowing more skilled players to fall below players that they are superior to. What is the point of a ranking system if you want and are ok with the rankings being inadequate? You called it "fun" to have extreme fluctuating rankings but i don't see it that way. There's no reason to have a system like that outside of arena. You made it sound like participation trophies need to be handed out to everyone. If you are going to use the argument of bga is a business that needs to make arena suitable for the masses that is fine. But I believe it should be marketed as some sort of fun mode or side challenge rather than competitive when they purposely did things to take away the competitiveness of it.

[FrankJones]

In 2v2 games it uses the same formula for every player involved. It doesn't take the average elo of the team. Your teammate is disregarded in the calculation which then makes it impossible to accurately predict possibilities. If I go to the basketball court to play a 2 on 2 pick up game my probability to win the game changes drastically if my teammate is Lebron James or a youth basketball player. It also makes no sense for two teammates to have different win probabilities and lose and gain different amount of rank from the same game.

That's how they calculate Elo changes in Spades? That is ... terrible. So, just so I understand....


If my partner has a 300 Elo, and we play against two 300 Elo players, and we win, I gain x Elo.
If my partner has a 100 Elo and we play against two 300 Elo players, and we win, I still gain ... x Elo. ??? Not x + something?

I gain or lose the same Elo against the same opponents regardless of my teammate's Elo?

That's crazy. Why do they do it that way?

[FrankJones]

You keep mentioning poker so let me ask you this. Lets say you play weekly at your house with a group of 5 buddies and win on average 200 chips. Lets say you also play at a different location weekly and the host has a rule that they will take 10 chips away after every hand and the amount you win here on avg is about 50 chips. Doesn't playing at your house give a better indication of how much more skilled you are than your buddies than location b does?

Of course. Nobody should base their success in poker by the result of a game with an absurd exorbitant rake.

[FrankJones]

While it would be nice for players to be able to get the "master" label or to win certain awards like 10,20.50 consecutive games won (that could be lowered considering the luck factor of the game) that isn't a concern for me. What I would like is rating systems that better reflect the skills of players within games because using one rating system amongst all games is simply wrong and inadequate. My issue isn't that a captain flip player can't reach 1000 elo like a patchwork player can but that the ratings being used converge players closer than they should be thus eventually allowing more skilled players to fall below players that they are superior to. What is the point of a ranking system if you want and are ok with the rankings being inadequate? You called it "fun" to have extreme fluctuating rankings but i don't see it that way. There's no reason to have a system like that outside of arena. You made it sound like participation trophies need to be handed out to everyone. If you are going to use the argument of bga is a business that needs to make arena suitable for the masses that is fine. But I believe it should be marketed as some sort of fun mode or side challenge rather than competitive when they purposely did things to take away the competitiveness of it.

I don't disagree. What you suggested is pretty much what I'm saying - BGA likely is aiming to please the masses and is less concerned about the (likely) much smaller subset of players who are super-competitive and highly concerned about Elo fluctuations and precision of the rankings system.

I suppose I fall somewhere in the middle. I tend to be very completive and concerned about my Elo, ranking, etc, but I also enjoy the games and I don't mind the fluctuations all that much. I find ways to look for some positives in it and just roll with it. Although the system is not perfect - it has some obvious flaws - I'm not sure widespread significant changes are necessary or ideal, and they might cause more problems or confusion than they solve.

I just shrug it off and say, "Well, OFCP is just going to be a difficult game to master here on BGA, and a difficult game to even maintain a 300 Elo or the #1 leaderboard spot."

Did I specifically say it's "fun" to have Elo fluctuations? (I may have; I don't remember exactly). I thought what I said was that it's cool that players can study and improve and rapidly increase their Elo and have a chance at the leaderboards.

So, I think we agree on almost everything, except the extent of the severity of the flaws and the urgency (or lack thereof) of addressing them.

[BarnardsStar]

Why is everyone yelling Elo's last name?

I thought they were talking about the band famous for Mr Blue Sky…

[EuroGamez]

This thread TLDR...

If someone want to summarize it I'd happy read it. But 20 pages is a bit much. Maybe I'll ask a chatbot to do it...

But I think there should definitely be a K-factor that is dependant on how much luck is in the game. Would make ELO changes much smaller when there is a lot of luck. Could even be different for different game modes.

E.g. Terra Mystica: playing with Auction amkes the K-factor higher as it's less luck than playing witht randomly assigned faction. So if you lose with an unlucky random pick your K-factor is low so that your ELO only changes slightly.

[ChiefPointThief]

In 2v2 games it uses the same formula for every player involved. It doesn't take the average elo of the team. Your teammate is disregarded in the calculation which then makes it impossible to accurately predict possibilities. If I go to the basketball court to play a 2 on 2 pick up game my probability to win the game changes drastically if my teammate is Lebron James or a youth basketball player. It also makes no sense for two teammates to have different win probabilities and lose and gain different amount of rank from the same game.

That's how they calculate Elo changes in Spades? That is ... terrible. So, just so I understand....


If my partner has a 300 Elo, and we play against two 300 Elo players, and we win, I gain x Elo.
If my partner has a 100 Elo and we play against two 300 Elo players, and we win, I still gain ... x Elo. ??? Not x + something?

I gain or lose the same Elo against the same opponents regardless of my teammate's Elo?

That's crazy. Why do they do it that way?

Good question! I have no idea . But just think, it was an even worse rating system before.


If player a has 301 elo w/ 100 elo partner vs player c&d w/ 300 elo they are favored to win the match. If they do pull this game off w/ clearly the weakest player at the table the weaker player gets the majority of the elo distributed and player a loses the majority of the team share in a loss. Like I said, a system converging players closer in skill level than they truly are.

[FrankJones]

Geez. Well, I'm glad it's better now than before, but it still seems poorly done. And, I had no idea any of this existed. Thank you for alerting me to this. I always assumed playing with a low rated partner would help my Elo when we win. So, I was always willing to play with a low-rated partner, figuring risk versus reward was worth it.

Now I know that is not the case, even though the system is better than it was previously.

[Meeplelowda]

Why is everyone yelling Elo's last name?

I thought they were talking about the band famous for Mr Blue Sky…

I was already glad I popped back into this thread for the discussion of proofs by contradiction, as I am a formal logic geek. But this was the cherry on top.

But how about this: I am in a volunteer program that recruits a band every year for an event. One year they recruited the Ukulele Orchestra of the Western Hemisphere that played an arrangement of "Mr. Blue Sky." You can find a Covid-era recording on this page.