That seems to bottom out at an initial rating of about 1150 and then pick up again for higher initial ratings.Originally Posted by drug
I don't know if this can also happen under the current Glicko-2 but I think there is actually some kind of argument for it even if it can. That is that the greater the disparity between the original rating and the observed performance, the stronger the statistical evidence becomes that the original rating is simply total junk, as opposed to (say) a player with erratic runs of form having a good few months.
However an 1100! who gets 50% from 30 games vs 1400!s should go closer to 1400 than 1354. I expect that under G2 which is more dynamic they would go closer (maybe 1375 or so).
I had an overshoot like this under the old ELO system where because of a backlog of dozens of tournaments being processed at once in a period in which I had improved, I went to a rating that was about 60 points higher than my PR for the tournaments. However I was able to maintain that rating from that point.Next I changed ! for the player X to be an empty space and I got
So we have 800 player who drew 30 times a 1400 player and as a result becomes 1700 player.
I think overshoot/undershoot protection should be applied in such cases generally. Not sure if it is at the moment or not. Perhaps there are some cases though, with fast improving juniors, where an overshoot could be more predictive of future results than the player's actual performance rating for the period.