First something I agree with you on. "A Gold player will easily climb out of bronze, but may struggle getting out of Silver 1 with bad luck.
Just like a silver 4/5 player might struggle getting out of bronze with bad luck."
My rule of thumb is you need to be about 4 divisions skill higher to reliably climb over low # of games then its a grind after that. Honestly depending on meta and skill once your within 1-3 divisions of your true skill the game does tend to be luck of the draw for teammates, because your just not good enough as a player to make consistent required impact for large # to benefit you. What im saying is if your worse then your mmr, or the game has you at your mmr, do not expect to climb with anything besides dumb luck. That dumb lucks going to Not be in your favor btw, law of large numbers will work negatively vs you if the system has you overvalued.
Now some confusion I have.
Where the hell you getting 25% from there's a better player on the enemy team? 10 players in game. Each player is 1/10, or 10% of the total players in a match. Each team is only 5 payers, so each player is 20% of their team.
Look the assumption that 20% of the time a game losing player is on the enemy team holds true. On the flip side we can say that theres also a 20% chance that a single game winner player can be placed onto the enemy team as well. I realize I glossed over this but I will repeat whats very key to large #s helping you it in bold this time
if your good your favored by 20% if theres a bad game losing player.
Ok so shure you can call me out on my 20% rule being about bad players only. So now between good players or smurfs vs awfull players, what do you thinks more common in bronze? Bronze is lower then the starting MMR for every players account in theory you have to be worse then average to end up there or have a rough time in placements/first few games. That being said, lets talk about what is a realistic expectation. Pick one, That in bronze there is a higher # of good climbing players and smurfs or that in bronze there is a higher number of really bad or Toxic Players?
This is my bias, I believe that theres more Bad players then good, theres more people on their way down then going up. You may disagree if you wish. My view comes from being a bronze player when I started, from beleiveing in elo hell, from blameing teammates for losses. Then I got less toxic, then I got better at the game, Now I can steam roll thru bronze should I smurf.
Anyhow regardless of this, if you yourself are a better player and by a solid margin. Your team has a benefit in 100% of the games you play. Law of largenumbers baby, casino style you just need an edge for it to favor you, bigger that edge bigger the gains with lower requirements on games played.
I don't quite know what you wanted to prove with your random dice rolls. Far as i can guess here is where you fucked up. your dice are all d10. The law is not gonna help you in a 50% 50% environment. It has to be if you have a consistent edge, that is to say your better then your assigned mmr, your a perk for your team, your not deadweight, your not placed at your skill.
You want to see what that's like? I will use your 10 d10 roll results. Just for giggles here is 30 people playing 9900. The higher their impact the higher the dice roll they get. Bad will be d10. Average is going to be d12, and players 2 times better then bad will be d20. Im going to use https://rolz.org/
D10 A bad player
Your roles
5494
5548
5563
5559
5547
5587
5437
5588
5519
5590
My rolls
999D10 => 5550
999D10 => 5573
999D10 => 5563
999D10 => 5554
999D10 => 5631
999D10 => 5476
999D10 => 5437
999D10 => 5394
D12. The average players. Note, only a max of 2 points higher roll potential but with high # of games its very clearly in the lead.
999D12 => 6532
999D12 => 6548
999D12 => 6649
999D12 => 6600
999D12 => 6316
999D12 => 6623
999D12 => 6626
999D12 => 6523
999D12 => 6475
999D12 => 6613
Now D20, a good player, roughtly 2X better best case then a bad player.
999D20 => 10702
999D20 => 10246
999D20 => 10557
999D20 => 10416
999D20 => 10473
999D20 => 10383
999D20 => 10602
999D20 => 10102
999D20 => 10239
999D20 => 10723
Perhaps 999 is way high i mean shit, that's a lot of games for a player to do after all. Lets run this experiment again with only 100, The number of games to get the Veteran badge.
D10. D12 D20
100D10 => 536 100D12 => 658 100D20 => 1042
100D10 => 565 100D12 => 638 100D20 => 1102
100D10 => 535 100D12 => 709 100D20 => 1082
100D10 => 582 100D12 => 628 100D20 => 1006
100D10 => 586 100D12 => 642 100D20 => 1059
100D10 => 615 100D12 => 628 100D20 => 1118
100D10 => 535 100D12 => 651 100D20 => 1071
100D10 => 522 100D12 => 651 100D20 => 1048
100D10 => 542 100D12 => 651 100D20 => 1051
100D10 => 531 100D12 => 712 100D20 => 922
Like, I really don't quite get WTF your dice rolls was about, at all. you just randomly thru it in for giggles I guess.... but uh... not everybody is the same dice. If you do 10 players as all d10 and your using the dice for as a metaphor for skill. you screwed up. Not all players are equil, some are d3s. some are d20. Everybody might roll a 1 and throw a matchbut the best case is not the same between every player.
Your using d10 exclusively implies all 10 players have the exact same skill. Same best cases, same worst cases. That's not realistic to the game state, at all. I really am confused by what ever metaphor you wanted to make with the dice roles but man at a minute 2 points, a d12 clearly after 100 games shows better results to a d10.
Side note. 2 points is 20% of 10. 20% is statistically significant very fast. Look at the results of d10 vs d12.
