Arena mode is a disgrace

[hibachi]

Just thought I'd bump this - this continues to be a very frustrating experience for games that are more luck based.

I play lots of Gin Rummy and the BEST players at this game might win ~60% of their games. This makes the ultimate winner at Arena for a season really dependent on someone just 'running hot' to get to #1 and then stopping playing and hoping to hold on.

It's super frustrating to win 5-6 games in a row and that progress get more than undone by 2 losses to someone that gets really lucky cards.

Please consider implementing an adjustment for these types of games. ELO is frustrating enough in this regard, but to have Arena end up working this way is pretty lame. I've talked to lots of the other strong players and everyone agrees with the frustration.

[FrankJones]

True, high-volatile games are going to result in an arena champion who just happens to go on a hot streak at the right time.

Is this the "biggest" disgrace related to arena?

I would say no. Personally, I believe a bigger disgrace is someone getting consecutive top-3 arena finishes while red-thumbing literally all of the 300 Elo players.

[tbhp]

If a game is that luck based, you’re never gonna be satisfied with an Elo based system anyway. So what would be the solution?

[hibachi]

There's already suggested solutions posted in the thread...

Short answer - less variance/swings for wins and losses.

In a game where top winners are winning at 60%, you shouldn't lose 3x the Arena points that you gain for a win...even against someone you are significantly higher ranked...because thee worst player is still 35-40% to win against the VERY best player.

[tbhp]

In a game where top winners are winning at 60%, you shouldn't lose 3x the Arena points that you gain for a win...even against someone you are significantly higher ranked...because thee worst player is still 35-40% to win against the VERY best player.

The problem isn't the number of points you lose (though in your example it would be 2x, not 3x), it's that at such a slim difference between the best and the worst player, your Elo is always going to be hugely impacted by the luck of your recent games.

The only solution would be to create a non-Elo system, but seeing as Arena makes everyone play against everyone, what would that system be?

You could simply list the win percentages of each player (with maybe a requisite that you have to play like 100 games to appear in the ranking). But given that players are randomly assigned opponents, there would be zero guarantee that the games two players get are fair to compare.

[FrankJones]

...because thee worst player is still 35-40% to win against the VERY best player.

If the worst player really can win 40% of the time against the best player, then no system is likely to ensure that the best players win an arena season.

How did Stu Ungar manage to win almost 100% of the time? (At gin Rummy.)

[Meeplelowda]

How did Stu Ungar manage to win almost 100% of the time? (At gin Rummy.)

A combination of a freakishly good memory and being really good at the game? The latter may seem to be a byproduct of the former to a degree, but you need to know how to use what you remember correctly, and that's what I mean by being really good at the game. I estimate a one in a billion chance you haven't already seen this, but just in case I recommend "High Roller: The Stu Ungar Story."

[FrankJones]

How did Stu Ungar manage to win almost 100% of the time? (At gin Rummy.)

A combination of a freakishly good memory and being really good at the game? The latter may seem to be a byproduct of the former to a degree, but you need to know how to use what you remember correctly, and that's what I mean by being really good at the game. I estimate a one in a billion chance you haven't already seen this, but just in case I recommend "High Roller: The Stu Ungar Story."

It's in my physical book library

My point is, Stu Ungar's brilliance at Gin Rummy illustrated that it's not really a game of luck. It's just a highly difficult game to play perfectly, and Stu Ungar was one of one. Everyone else just isn't skilled enough to do what he did.

But his accomplishments disprove the assertion that even the worst player will beat the best players 35-40% of the time.

Considering that Stu Ungar generally had a standing bet that he could identify every card in an opponent's hand after 3 discards, three are clearly some skill techniques he was using that nearly all other players are incapable of.

He also would allow his opponents to look at the bottom card, and he played disadvantageous turn order.

Though, who knows, maybe some of his accomplishments are apocryphal. Beating the "top" known player 80-something times in a row seems a bit dubious.

[yodamus]

Is this the same Stu Unger that was top pro poker player ? Memory goes a long ways into being better at games than others.

[Meeplelowda]

Is this the same Stu Unger that was top pro poker player ? Memory goes a long ways into being better at games than others.

Yes, but he was playing gin rummy, at a pretty young age if memory serves, before he played poker. And gin rummy is absolutely a game in which memory is an asset.