I know its bad form to be the first guy to post in your own thread but I wanted to separate my topic and my view so each can stand on their own merits.
I think given that its on a ELO system league needs to be approached with a view requiring pretty high number of games. For example, if we say 3 is a streak, and 100 games. This is what 50% odds looks like, https://www.random.org/coins/?num=100&cur=60-usd.0025c-ga Filled with 17 streaks. So if we assume matchmakers doing its job well enough to provide each team fair odds for a win we would see player A (represented by first coin flip) have a 17 streaks, for a total of 61% of their games being part of a streak.
Now if we make that a streak of 4, we get a total of just 6 streaks, it accounts for only 28% of the games played.
Make that 5? 3 streaks 17 games.
This is with balanced odds, if we add in imbalance then its even more likely to see streaks because the % a consecutive result comes up (be that positive or negative) is inherently higher then 50%.
Thus I personally don't like consideration for smaller #s to be called a streak because most your history will look like that, its not a stand out moment, its a expectable majority of your results. I also don't like how a streak of 3 will get treated the same as a streak of 9.
Anyways just something I have seen a bit for some time and it bugs me a little because I don't think there's any thing very exceptional about a 3 win streak but I do for 10.
