Talk:Elo rating system/@comment-66.27.120.165-20120611065015/@comment-69.86.214.81-20120613070652

First of all, you're assuming that the bad game is NOT one of the games they are already losing. ProtonZero is right, them playing bad that game could contribute to that loss, something you aren't considering. So on average they would still win more than 50%, if 50% of the time they have a bad game in a game they lost, cause 5.5/10 = 55% win rate. So your arguement is not correct, they will be able to raise their elo over time.

Another thing about your 400 games to reach 1700. If their skill level is already 1700 elo, they would win more than 5/9 of their games allowing them to reach 1700 much faster. Them taking 400 games to reach 1700 means that they are improving while playing the 400 games, so their skill level should be much lower.

Also, your luck thing is true but only on a SHORT TERM. The law of large numbers STATES that if you play enough games, you will eventually go to your true elo. If unlucky, this could take hundreds of games, but unlikely. It is possible that you can get feeders every game, but what are the odds. After playing ranked for about 200 games, I can say without a doubt that I've only ran into 2 true feeders/griefers, the other "feeders" were simply bad players. If someone believes they're gold material, but after 200 games they're not, they have an overly high opinion of themself. I refuse to believe that after 200 games, they fail to reach their "true" elo, I believe they are at their true elo already.