How is it elo hell if youve play 500+ games?

Paladin 0f Life·Oct 21, 2016·47 votes·3,498 views

Riddle me that. If you are B5 or B1 with over 500 games and think you are not bronze then that's a special type of hubris. It's not teamates I assure you. Especially with new promo changes.

105 Comments

LXIIOct 21, 201617 votes

Eh, a season or two ago I was locked in Bronze for damn near the entire season. I played over 900 games that season, most of them in Bronze. The instant I got out I was a climbing machine and got out of Silver in less than a week.

Bronze really is a special kind of hell.

Battlecast SonaOct 21, 20163 votes

That means that your true MMR was in Bronze until you got better. I don't really know why people don't understand that playing 900 games before you got out of Bronze doesn't mean you never deserved Bronze, it means you actually got better at the game and your MMR is reflecting it...

LXIIOct 21, 201611 votes

Yeah, I got soooo much better in one week that I stopped being a Bronze level player and jumped straight to Gold.

MohawkBirdOct 21, 20162 votes

[deleted]

G4LLOWSC4L1BR4TROct 21, 20161 votes

While their story might support it, anecdotal evidence is hardly the stuff I'd want to be making predictions based off of. That's not to say climbing in bronze isn't harder than in silver, but one person's story is hardly proof that it is.

LXIIOct 22, 20162 votes

I mean.. there isn't another kind of evidence to support or deny the Elo Hell "myth". It's always gonna be "anecdotal". That point aside, it's not just one person's story or this thread wouldn't exist. Damn near everyone that has ever been in bronze longer than a day has the same opinion of the elo.

CookyPrinceOct 22, 20161 votes

It was the same thing for me for a long while even after switching from a support main to an adc main then a mid main

LordCrazyGlueOct 22, 20161 votes

[{quoted}](name=CB Thea Queen,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=3OhnYOph,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2016-10-21T15:49:37.359+0000)

Eh, a season or two ago I was locked in Bronze for damn near the entire season. I played over 900 games that season, most of them in Bronze. The instant I got out I was a climbing machine and got out of Silver in less than a week.

Bronze really is a special kind of hell.

so much this. Bronze is horrid. everyone want to just group mid constantly. and if you take a split pusher you get flamed for not being with team when they engage on a 4v5.

Imperial JapanOct 22, 20162 votes

[{quoted}](name=CB Thea Queen,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=3OhnYOph,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2016-10-21T15:49:37.359+0000)

Eh, a season or two ago I was locked in Bronze for damn near the entire season. I played over 900 games that season, most of them in Bronze. The instant I got out I was a climbing machine and got out of Silver in less than a week.

Bronze really is a special kind of hell.

I'm in silver and I'd argue silver 1 is nearly equivalent to the bronze hell

SasogwaOct 21, 201617 votes

Eh? The whole concept of elo hell is something that takes ages to go through and you get stuck in it no matter the amount of games.

Doesn't mean I believe in it though, I find it weird to use the argument "it's not elo hell if you've been here so long" when elo hell revolves around staying there for an insanely long time.

Battlecast SonaOct 21, 201610 votes

elo hell can't exist because statistically if you play enough games you will climb out of it.

The reality is what people are calling "elo hell" is just their true MMR and they're not happy with it, to which I have to say - get better at the game instead of trying to blame other random shit for your loss.

Paladin 0f LifeOct 21, 20163 votes

[slayer-pantheon-thumbs]

LeetriOct 21, 20163 votes

I think the problem is that people don't play enough games. Someone might statistically be able to get Diamond if they played 2000 games that season, but they only play 200. Since they're so far off from the required number of games they can't even see the goal and feel like they're stuck in "elo hell".

Pill SlingerOct 24, 20161 votes

Oh no, according to "stats", they are saying the number of games for your "true elo" is 100. So 200 should have been more than enough.

Pill SlingerOct 21, 20162 votes

What statistics are you using to calculate that? I'd just like to know. I see people always throwing out "statistically" but they literally never say anything about stats. In fact, if you're gonna go with stats, the amount of confounders would pretty much make any type of calculation meaningless.

But, what people call "elo hell" is basically the MMR where you're constantly better than your lane opponent, but not good enough to carry the game if your teammates are not playing well. Which is why people typically blame their teammates in such a situation.

Edit: Many comments. Still not a single mention of statistics being used to determine the magical "100 games" needed to reach your "true elo".

G4LLOWSC4L1BR4TROct 21, 20165 votes

If you're better than the position you're at, you should win more games than you lose, barring any trolls or the like. Statistically, if you never troll, you are more likely to have a troll on the other team (5 players on that team that could be trolls), than you are on your team (4 slots, because you never troll/rage/tilt), so the existence of feeders/trolls should statistically make it easier to climb rather than harder, which I think is what he's trying to get at.

For example, if a game is guaranteed to have exactly 1 troll on it, and you never troll, there's a 4/9 (~44%) chance the troll will be on your team and make the game harder to win, and a 5/9 (~56%) chance the troll will be on the other team and make the game easier for you to win.

Vistha KaiOct 22, 20162 votes

Statistically that's correct, but reality is a different thing.

Especially with a sample size of a few million players, being stuck lower than you belong and get trolls on your team as or more often than on the enemy team, is more than possible.

For example, what's the chance than in my last 10 ranked games I've been only given the first pick? 0.0000001024%

But it happened.

Pill SlingerOct 22, 20162 votes

barring any trolls or the like.

That's the huge issue lol.

And also, there is the same higher percentage of having a TSM smurf on the other team.

Point being that every single game is different, and the amount of variability in each game pretty much makes it impossible to make any statement like, "enough games and you'll be at your skill". Because the game doesn't judge "skill", but rather the ability to carry a game. Which is why I said "elo hell" is generally frustrating for the player because they are constantly winning lane, but cannot carry the game if their top laner is 0-8-1 by the 10 min mark.

I've seen plenty of people post games and have had players say, "well that game is just unwinnable. some are like that." Well, what happens when you get 5 of those in a row due to random chance? It's pretty random whether or not that unranked dude playing his first ranked game, and for some stupid reason is placed in a high silver game, is gonna be on your team. In a perfect world, your stats are great. Yet flipping a coin doesn't always give you a 50-50 outcome. The only constant in the games is yourself....meaning there are 9 other variables. Those affect the game much more than 1 lol.

Battlecast SonaOct 22, 20161 votes

it's not a matter of statistics used to calculate anything. When I say statistically I mean that the system will eventually get a large enough sample size to place you in the "proper" MMR for your skill level. It's generally accepted that if you reach 100 games and don't climb you're most likely at your "proper" MMR, since 100 games without any positive gains is a 50% winrate. With a higher than 50% winrate within 100 games you should climb just because you win more games than you lose.

Pill SlingerOct 22, 20162 votes

So you say statistically, yet admit your statement has literally no statistical basis at all? Well that doesn't make much sense lol.

Battlecast SonaOct 22, 20161 votes

It's not like "statistically if you play 100 games you will win 50% of them" because I don't know your personal winrate. What I'm saying is that if you play 100 games you have a large enough sample size to be in your "proper" MMR. I don't think you understand how statistics work, friend.

Pill SlingerOct 22, 20161 votes

I'm actually quite familiar. Which is why I know that a claim that "100 games and you'll have a large enough sample size" is a pretty dumb comment.

Battlecast SonaOct 22, 20161 votes

explain to me how and I'll believe you. From what I understand you want some sort of formula, but... I don't really understand your statement. statistics only work with a proper sample size (having a 50% winrate can't be demonstrated in 2 games accurately), and using statistics you can see whether you will climb. If your winrate is above 50%, you WILL climb. That's all I'm saying.

I don't really understand what your complaint is, because "having a large enough sample size" is literally what you need for statistics to even be an applicable form of math in this scenario. I don't see how "setting the parameters that are required for my statement" is a dumb comment...

Pill SlingerOct 22, 20162 votes

So what power calculations have you used to determine that 100 games is a large enough sample size to show any statistical difference in anything?

There is literally 0 statistical basis in your comment. Which is why I said it's dumb to mention, "statistically...." when you have literally no statistics whatsoever. It doesn't make sense.

JQKAndreiOct 23, 20161 votes

It's just math and probability. You get free losses the same amount you get free wins, we all had losing and winning streaks. Meaning that in the long run, you're the only one that can influence your win rate.

Pill SlingerOct 23, 20161 votes

Yeah, I get that. My question is what stats were involved to determine this "100 game" thing that everyone wants to keep mentioning.

JQKAndreiOct 24, 20161 votes

In probability it is commonly used to consider randomly equal the events that you don't have much info about.

For example, we all assume that a coin toss has 50% chance to land either side. That chance could vary based on which side is heavier or on the shape of the coin.

If you don't have these additional details, you assume it's 50%.

In league, we assume that we will have both bad and good teammates, sometimes so bad that they lose the game alone, other times so good that they carry by themselves. We have no influence in these games. But we do have influence in the more average games.

Pill SlingerOct 24, 20161 votes

Still didn't address why the community just randomly chose 100 games to be a sample size powered to detect "true elo" and called it "cuz stats".

ZellymanOct 23, 20161 votes

{quoted}

It's just math and probability. You get free losses the same amount you get free wins, we all had losing and winning streaks. Meaning that in the long run, you're the only one that can influence your win rate.

"Source: My ass"

Leon EtoileOct 21, 20164 votes

Funny they post this after finally making it out of bronze.

Also, elo hell is at every level.

Paladin 0f LifeOct 21, 20161 votes

I passed every promo I just dont play ranked much

Leon EtoileOct 21, 20161 votes

Yet, still waited on that silver 5.

There is no difference from silver 5 and bronze.

Paladin 0f LifeOct 21, 20162 votes

I just want the border and this has taught me not to screw around in promos. But I fail to see your point because my normal mmr is silver 3 and i was silver 4 in ranked last season i am silver elo and im bad but im not bronze 5 bad

Battlecast SonaOct 21, 20164 votes

elo hell doesn't exist. If you deserve to be in a higher MMR, you will get there if you play enough games.

No offense, but the idea of Elo hell is based deeply in the Dunning-Kruger effect, which states this: "The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which low-ability individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability as much higher than it really is."

What this leads to in games like League is the "I never got outplayed, my teammates just trolled/flamed/fed/etc" mentality. But the reality is that statistically, a Challenger player has been trolled/flamed/had people feed just as many times as you have (maybe more due to higher density of ranked games played, since a lot of them stream/are pro players/etc), and they still managed to get to Challenger. There are multiple instances of pro players tanking their Elo by dodging games (most of them from before the Division system, to be fair I guess) and they go from the lowest possible Elo (dodge until it won't go down anymore) all the way to Challenger/Diamond.

Elo hell is everywhere because what you call is Elo hell is just the game.

Leon EtoileOct 21, 20162 votes

Dunning-Kruger effect, which states this: "The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which low-ability individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability as much higher than it really is."

I feel sorry for you. You have no idea of the real world. Prime example, psychology isn't a real science.

Elo hell is a joke throughout the playerbase and viewers for all levels. My favorite example of this would be the pro player Froggen. Everyone "mocks" him for constantly being on teams with no talent and constantly being regulated. They do this despite him having great numbers and nothing from his team.

Demented GagOct 21, 20166 votes

"I feel sorry for you. You have no idea of the real world." Oh, the irony.

Battlecast SonaOct 22, 20162 votes

"you have no idea of the real world".

Nice cited sources. Arrogance on the internet is so unique and edgy!

Leon EtoileOct 22, 20161 votes

I'm just glad you're a Democrat; that way you'll probably abort.

Battlecast SonaOct 22, 20161 votes

I'm an Independent. Who the fuck do you think you are, actually? o-o

devdev463Oct 21, 20161 votes

[{quoted}](name=Battlecast Janna,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=3OhnYOph,comment-id=00020001,timestamp=2016-10-21T19:14:46.036+0000)

elo hell doesn't exist. If you deserve to be in a higher MMR, you will get there if you play enough games.

No offense, but the idea of Elo hell is based deeply in the Dunning-Kruger effect, which states this: "The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which low-ability individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability as much higher than it really is."

What this leads to in games like League is the "I never got outplayed, my teammates just trolled/flamed/fed/etc" mentality. But the reality is that statistically, a Challenger player has been trolled/flamed/had people feed just as many times as you have (maybe more due to higher density of ranked games played, since a lot of them stream/are pro players/etc), and they still managed to get to Challenger. There are multiple instances of pro players tanking their Elo by dodging games (most of them from before the Division system, to be fair I guess) and they go from the lowest possible Elo (dodge until it won't go down anymore) all the way to Challenger/Diamond.

Elo hell is everywhere because what you call is Elo hell is just the game.

The elo you are in doesn't determine who you get matched with. You can be bronze 5 and literally dodge all of your promo games and if you keep doing that you will get matched with higher and higher ranked players even though your bronze 5. This is because dodging doesn't lower your mmr, the rating used to find matches.

Battlecast SonaOct 22, 20161 votes

the instances I was talking about were prior to the Division system. You could take yourself to 0 Elo by dodging games repeatedly. Currently I do believe though you can replicate it... The idea that if you dodge games you get placed against better players doesn't seem correct to me since it's counted as a loss to your LP.

Champion SkinOct 22, 20161 votes

If you dodge games or become inactive you do indeed lose LP However I believe your Elo/MMR stays the same and the matchmaking still looks at you as just as skilled as before and keep matching you against the same level of opponents

Though yes being matched against better players when you dodge games probably don't happen? As I don't see any reason for it to happen?

devdev463Oct 22, 20161 votes

[{quoted}](name=Battlecast Janna,realm=NA,application-id=3ErqAdtq,discussion-id=3OhnYOph,comment-id=0002000100010000,timestamp=2016-10-22T02:10:18.518+0000)

the instances I was talking about were prior to the Division system. You could take yourself to 0 Elo by dodging games repeatedly. Currently I do believe though you can replicate it... The idea that if you dodge games you get placed against better players doesn't seem correct to me since it's counted as a loss to your LP.

If you were referring to the old system I'm not exactly sure, but I'm pretty sure that had a match making rating (mmr) as well. But now in the current system, dodging games definitely does not make your match making rating go down. Now, if you straight up afk'd and your team remade the game because you were afk that might drop your mmr, but doing that would get you reported and banned if you kept doing it lol. The only real way to actually go down the ladder and face lower skill players is to simply lose a ton of games and honestly when you get to like silver it's pretty hard not to win. That's why pretty much everyone uses a smurf when they wish to play in the lower divisions, because needing to throw that many games to drop would be trolling for one and both strenuous and time consuming.

Battlecast SonaOct 22, 20161 votes

Prior to the division system your Elo = your MMR. You could see your MMR directly and it was how your rating was determined. The hidden ranked MMR is actually a fairly new development.

it be lìke thatOct 21, 20162 votes

lmao this guy again.

"i made it to silver v, i can finally make a post every day about how elo hell doesnt exist"

Troll for TrumpOct 22, 20162 votes

It's always elo hell. It's a team game, and each game is a gamble to see who you are with and who you're up against, be it trolls, AFKs, smurfs, premades etc.

MarshbouyOct 21, 20161 votes

With 500 games played, even if you had only a 53% win ratio, you would be able to climb. (depending on LP gain/loss)

dunkeroniOct 21, 20161 votes

LP gain/loss is asymmetric, and you can't just figure it with straight algebra. You could have a 60% winrate, but if the majority of your losses are in promos, you still won't be climbing.

RogueWillOct 21, 20162 votes

you literally need one win to climb during your promos, witn 60% winrate ain't that hard. I usually average 80% winrate on bronze and around 60% on silver, didn't try on gold this season because of the boosting made it worthless.

dunkeroniOct 21, 20162 votes

Sure, it's not hard for everyone, but it is statistics. If 10,000 players all get a 60% winrate, then even assuming everyone only has to get 1 win to pass promos, 7,840 of those players will fail at least one of their next three promos. They can then try again and push that number down to 6,147 players left to complete their promos. The point being, regardless of the winrate and number of wins required to climb, some percentage of the player base will be statistically stuck not moving up.

P.S. The 'worth' of getting Gold is still, as it has always been, a victorious skin, an icon, and a gold border in load screen. There was never any other value to it, and players boosting has not changed the value in any way. Even with other players boosting, it is still worth a skin, icon, and border.