Is There Consistency In Who Wins Forrest Shuffle Arena Competitions?

[IExcel]

Do the same players appear high in the leaderboard in successive forest shuffle arena tournaments, or is there high turnover in the names at the top (say, the top 10) from tournament to tournament? I have not been able to figure out how to find this information. Forest Shuffle has a nice mix of skill and luck, and I am trying to figure out how big a role skill plays for elite players. The fact that any individual has a high ELO at any particular time could, in theory, be a matter of luck, and what I am trying to discern whether there is "persistence of performance."

[Meeplelowda]

I have not been able to figure out how to find this information.

Go to the "My Arena history" section of the Forest Shuffle page and click the "View all seasons" link at the bottom of that section.

[IExcel]

Thanks for the directions. Just eyeballing it, I see three of the top 10 in season 21 were in the top 10 during at least one (and as many as three) of the previous four seasons. In addition to luck, the failure of winners to appear could be due the player not participating, or changes in the game extensions being used. I would have expected to see pretty much complete turnover. This sample is tiny, but I am still a bit surprised.

[Meeplelowda]

Thanks for the directions. Just eyeballing it, I see three of the top 10 in season 21 were in the top 10 during at least one (and as many as three) of the previous four seasons. In addition to luck, the failure of winners to appear could be due the player not participating, or changes in the game extensions being used. I would have expected to see pretty much complete turnover. This sample is tiny, but I am still a bit surprised.

A proxy for how much skill dominates a game is the ELO of the highest rated person. Forest Shuffle has a peak ELO in the 700s and the next scores are in 600s. That is skill dominating. Just because a game has randomness does not mean nothing but luck matters. Only then would you expect complete turnover in the top 10. Of course, for games with zero randomness, the peak ELOs can be in the 800s, 900s, or over 1000.

Then look at a game like Verso with a peak ELO in the 300s. That game is demonstrably not dominated by skill. It doesn't mean there are no right and wrong choices. It just means the right moves are fairly straightforward and making them doesn't increase your chances of winning by as much as you'd like.

[Carhou]

The question is tricky.

Since you're not forced to play against players of your level, ELO can be easily manipulated choosing who are you playing against.

You can have skill to beat only players under 300 ELO with a 100% rate, let's say, and playing a lot will grant you a very big amount of ELO, only one point each match if you have really high ELO, but still 1 point. Until 700 if you want and you have time. But maybe against players over 500, you have win at a 50% rate, so, you would be stuck there.

This doesn't happen in online chess, where you're forced to play against players of your level, just selecting margins limiting up or down your level, but with some limits (if I remember right, 200 or 300 points difference is the maximum difference).

So in BGA, ELO (or Arena) doesn't mean skill necessarily, but TIME.