My elo only increases despite the losses

sort
[I]Klitowitcz 12 years ago I just lost a few games (3 I think) in a row and my elo passed from 1550 to 1554 to ... to 1566. After this, I won a game and my elo went up to 1595. If I remember well, the last time I logged in my elo was still 1492 and passed to 1550 without me having played a single game. I'm far from winning all games but so far I haven't seen my elo decreasing, despite all the losses I've suffered. Some people told me I'm lying without having checked out my elo evolution and another person told me it's normal and that all newbies like me will increase their elo by 250 to 350 before losing elo points. My question is, then why are we set a elo of 1250 at start if we're all going to get a higher elo up to 1600? Why not start directly at elo 1600? Also I've been told by people looking at the game info log that in one of my losses I was supposed to lose around 12 elo points while actually my elo had increased by 4 points. Is this a bug? What's going on!? Is there a way I can check out my elo evolution? +0 / -0
Anthem 12 years ago New players have a 250 elo malus that is reduced as you play more games. +0 / -0
[GBC]1v0ry_k1ng 12 years ago so in other words, new players start at 1250, and assuming a totally even win/loss of elo, will level out at 1500 elo (completely average) after they play a certain number of games. This is because new players do NOT function at 1500 Elo, but quickly gain proficiency. +0 / -0
Saktoth 12 years ago The origional Elo system assumes that new players are completely average in skill, 1500. This is neither statistically sound (does not include a margin of error), nor is it accurate regarding the average new players skill (most new players ARE in fact -new- players, and are awful). +0 / -0
GoogleFrog 12 years ago A pure elo system starts all players off at 1500. We have two modifications: New players have low certainty, this causes them to change elo more rapidly. New players effectively start off at 1250 elo and gain a total 250 elo spread over a certain number of games. +0 / -0
[I]Klitowitcz 12 years ago You do realize guys that I still win elo points when I'm over 1500 elo? In other words I've passed the 250 elo points mark. Anyway Jseah gave me a satisfying explanation. He said that from each game I was awarded like 35 points (loss=-12 elo from the 35 points) then 25 points then 15 points then 5 points, etc. I'm not sure this is an accurate info but at least it makes more sense than all the answers so far. +0 / -0
GoogleFrog 12 years ago You gain 250 elo over a certain number of games. I didn't say anything about a 250 elo mark, the added elo is on top of your normal victory/defeat elo so you can still be gaining the extra elo over 1500. The 250 elo is required to keep the average elo at 1500. If new players are simply given 1250 elo when they join the average elo will simply shift down towards 1250. +0 / -0
[NC]Gretchen 12 years ago (edited 12 years ago) It is really use: - as a new player you start at ELO 1250. You should have started at 1500 but as new players are often dreadful it was decided that for balancing purposes to start them at 1250 - however, you are still 250 short. So each game you play - whether you win or lose - you gain some amount of ELO until the 250 is up - for each game, you gain (if you win) and lose (if you lose) more ELO than more experienced players (experienced player does not mean better, there are some experienced players with ELO < 1200) - so, for each game you play you get: a portion of the 250 ELO you are still due + ELO due to win or loss. The big idea behind all this is that after playing a number of games (say 20) the ELO system has a good idea of how predictably good/bad/mediocre you are and your ELO will more or less reflect that. After all, your ELO rating is correlated to how good/bad/mediocre you are on average. +0 / -0
[I]Klitowitcz 12 years ago Thank you guys, this makes sense now. Glad there was no bug/error of the ranking system. +0 / -0
[I]amNot[null]Bla1 12 years ago I don't get why system takes away elo from losing. If I played 10 times vs Godde or some other pro, yes I lose elo, but it will also make me better because when low elo player (Mine is around 1340) takes on 2100+ elo player, I'm bound to learn something and get better. +0 / -0
Anthem 12 years ago (edited 12 years ago) That's how Elo works. If there were no way to lose rank, there would be massive inflation and eventually leaderboard spots would go to the most active players, not the best ones. If playing against Godde has taught you well, prove it by winning some games. +0 / -0
[NC]Gretchen 12 years ago Anthem is right in one thing: that is how it works, but not quite correct in the other aspects. ELO is a zero-sum game, meaning that if you loose as much as you win, you will gain nothing. The average is, by definition, 1500 (just like IQ average is, by definition, 100). The calculation is surprisingly simple. If you loose, you loose ELO. If you win, you gain ELO. How much is determined by (the sum of) your opponents rating and (the sum of) your own (teams) rating. If you win from, say, Godde, your ELO would increase a lot more than if you lose from Godde. And vice versa, ofcourse. If Godde loses from you, he loses a lot more ELO than if he wins from you. More background in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system +0 / -0
GoogleFrog 12 years ago Good explanation. That is why when we start players at 1250 they must gradually receive a free 250. New players also change elo rapidly. In a team game new players will take a large proportion of their teams lost or gained elo. +0 / -0

Forum index > General discussion >