Originally Posted by

**PogoPogoPogoPogo**
The fact that you keep telling me that I'm missing the point, and then you try to prove that I'm missing the point by explaining whatever X reason people get stuck makes me think you're not just missing my point. It makes me think you're just not reading my posts.

AtheistGuy1, I assume you want to rise in Elo. I assume you know that having a negative attitude impacts your ability to win games (since that's what your complaining about in this thread), so I assume that you NEVER have a negative attitude in your ranked matches.

If we can assume that all of this is true, then here's the math.

Let's say that in terms of skill level, you're actually exactly even with the average for your Elo. So in any game in which there's not a negative attitude, you're going to win 50% of them and lose 50% of them. Can you agree to this math? Do I need to elaborate on this math? If you do not understand why this is true, then you need to let me know so I can explain this part further.

Now, IF there is a negative attitude, since it is never you, it must be coming from one of the other 9 players in the match. There is a 4/9 chance that it is a teammate (44.4%) and a 5/9 chance that it is an enemy (55.6%).

Now, this is just the math for when there is one negative player. It gets more complicated with multiple negative attitudes, but the math will still show that when there are an odd number of negative attitude players, the enemy team will have more negative attitudes more often than your team. The enemy team will even have more negative attitudes when there's an even number of negative attitudes, but in this scenario, sometimes both teams have the same number of negative attitudes, so it cancels out.

So, here's the point. Let's say there's a negative attitude in a drastically high percentage of your games. Let's say 80% of your games have a negative attitude. And you're going to play 100 games.

Okay, well in the 20% of the matches in which there is no negative attitude, you win 50% of the time, remember? So for these 20 matches, you have 10 wins and 10 losses.

Now, in the other 80% of the games, I already showed you the math (and if you have questions about ANY math, you MUST let me know so I can explain it further) that demonstrates the enemy team has the negative attitude 55.6% of the time, so that means YOUR team will win 55.6% of these matches, while the enemy team wins the 44.4% of the time your team has the negative attitude. Out of these 80 matches, you'll win roughly 44 of them and lose 36 of them. These are the matches attributed to negative attitudes.

So, after 100 matches, you've won 54 and lost 46. If we assume an an average Elo change of 12.5 (some are as low as 11, some as high as 14, but the average is 12.5), then you'll have gained 100 Elo over the course of these 100 matches. You'll average +1 Elo per match just for being EQUAL skill level to the opponents in your Elo bracket and with negative attitudes determining the outcome of 80% of the matches.

In fact, if negative attitudes determines the outcome of all 100 matches, you'd actually gain more Elo. If a negative attitude determined the outcome of all 100 matches, you'd gain roughly 150 Elo, having won 56 and lost 44 matches,

So you say I don't get it, and that negative attitude keeps people in Elo hell. I get it. But the only attitude that can keep YOU at a low Elo is your OWN attitude. Otherwise, that attitude is on the enemy team more often and causing the enemy team more losses than your team. And what that means is that even if you have identical skill level to your opponents, you'll gain in Elo.

The math is not wrong. Period. The only thing that can be wrong at this point is one of your logical assumptions.

Do not respond trying to explain to me that I just don't get it. At this point, you can either try to explain how my math is wrong (it's not) or come up with a better argument for why you're stuck in Elo hell since you, like everyone else in Elo hell, is not willing to admit that they're at that Elo because that's simply how good they are at the game.