anyone encouraged enough to count the number of unexpired games i had wen i took #1? I'm too lazy to do, but i thought it was like 25-30.

Most practical solution:
- rank games in the order they start (sze explains this above)
- rate the first 20 games exactly like how the seasonal ladder works
- use True Skill instead of the current ELO

Seasonal ladder's wiki:

"The rankings are determined using the same ELO scale that the existing ladders use, with one small modification. Players who play fewer than 20 games (due to leaving the ladder early or joining late) get a penalty of 40 rating points per game." Thus, games 15 to 19 would be a provisional rating on the 1v1 ladder.

True Skill (how it works and how it influenced the ladder right before I became #1):

http://blog.warlight.net/index.php/2012/01/trueskill/

With these changes, (1) people with less than 20 games couldn't game the system, (2) players with more games would be rated better, (3) the incentives of the rating system would encourage us to play more games, and (4) more good players would participate in the ladder.

Well talking about someone hitting high with low game count. [REGL] nich http://warlight.net/LadderTeam?LadderTeamID=2129 is currently on a 2019 rating, if he beats Z-Dog and Red before Frank's game finishes he might have a shot of getting into first. He isn't gaming the system, but the system lets people do this. He is on 9 games and currently his rating would put him in 5th.

Yeah, and I don't know if you've looked at his games, but he does not deserve top 15 even in my opinion.

Of course, I don't think I deserve top 3 the way I have played on the ladder.

It's another Red, not me.

Yes, that is why i put Red, if not I would've put [WM] Red
He is lucky, if i am correct you are better than other Red

I was confused because i couldn't find the game against him :D

Here is an example how how a person can make a top ranking without many games:

http://warlight.net/LadderTeam?LadderTeamID=2129

I am not saying he is good or bad (haven't looked at games, never played against), just that a small sample size can really benefit you.

He/she has 1 top 10 win, no other quality wins. If he/she wins 1 more game, they'd be top 3 on ladder with only beating the 8th player on ladder.

Whoops, just saw this was posted a few above. Can't edit it though.

A while back there was a guy called DEATH TACO who beat a really lackluster group of players (<1500 rating for the most part) and also beat HHH. He had over a 2000 rating when he finished his 15 games, then dropped off the ladder so no one could see a series of losses he took right after that. Before that particular run, he averaged something like a 1600 rating.

These particular examples seem to be more issues with winning every game you play. In the seasonal ladder Fizzer tightened the game matching some and increased the count to 20 games in order to reduce this problem. A similar fix might work in the 1v1 ladder. Even increasing the required game count to 20 would greatly reduce the chances of someone getting ranked without any losses.

Example: http://warlight.net/LadderGames?ID=0&LadderTeamID=1233

but in your example doggy beat quit a few good players. none after the expirings, but also not the same as winning first 10 games and nothing signature

terra: 1608
The General: 1784
Mr. Stein: 1258
negpue: 1617
jasdanmoo: 1398
nagromo: 1245
Honey Badger: 691
manunuma: 953
{101st}Blowfly: 1076
skunk940: 1208
Stephan: 1071

He has certainly beaten plenty of great players in the past. But those 11 are not great 1v1 players. Maybe one of them is good. If you are ranked based on 15 games and 11 of them are relatively easy, that makes going 15-0 easier. 20-0 would require amazing luck (without stalling), even if 11 of the 20 are relatively easy games.

"20-0 would require amazing luck (without stalling), even if 11 of the 20 are relatively easy games" Eh, I could do that.

go do it then

I got 16, and they were all hard opponents. If I had gone from rating 0 I dont doubt the first 4 (minimum) would have been easy wins, I didnt because wins against very low rated players reduce your rating.

the alt has more confidence. the main account has excuses.

The thing about Doggy is that he can win a single game against a high rated player (even just above 1900) and end up with a 2000+ rating, at the pace he is going. He's not likely to reach 2100, let alone a record, but it's a relatively easy way to gain a higher rating than you might otherwise deserve. His previous high point was 1956, with wins against good players and a normal distribution of losses. If he takes a loss, even to a higher rated player, his rating will be much more accurate than if he takes no losses, even with only a single win against a good player.

People with more skill in math: Is there a fair way to weight ratings downward when there are no losses counted yet? I'm thinking of a system auto-correct that assumes some level of losses even when there are no actual losses, to help prevent gaming a low sample size.

Duke of Ben: some statistical analysis methods disregard a certain highest and lowest percentile of results to level things down around the mean result. i think some sort of variant could work better here than to simply penalize lack of losses.

i guess what i am suggesting is an algoryhtm that ignores the top and bottom games, a higher number of them when the number of games is lower. and a lower number of them when the number of games is higher. i guess the higher and lower fluctuating as a percentile of the average number of games that active players have in the ladder.

so if you have 20 games and the average is, lets's say 35. the algo ignores the two top and two bottom games of the player.

and if you have something like 30 games you only get ignored one game from top and one from bottom.

in practical terms it would imply that if you're new or returning you must beat more higher rank players to debut on top.

a simpler way to implement it could also be achieved with a co-efficient (or whatever it's called) multiplier, of the number of games relative to the average of the ladder. so if you have 20 games and the average is 35, you get your rating multiplied by 20/35. only when you reach the average number of games do you have your real 1:1 ranking. and if you have more games then average you would also get a slight boost.