Then you're thinking about it wrong. Your rating relative to other players is what matters, not your relative rating to your own previous rating. If someone else is at a similar rating they likely have a similar amount to gain or lose as you unless there is a disparity in games played.When you play in the leaderboard and want to maximize your chance to qualify, you don't watch "who I can catch?" but rather "I'm more likely to improve or worsen my actual rating by playing an additional game?"

Given that's what you've been achieving so far there's no real reason to think you'll not achieve that.Now imagine a system in which win rate dominates. I sit on a 25-3-2 record. My actual win rate is 88.33. If I lose next game, my record drops to 85.5. If I lose, I will able to return to a 88.33 win rate only with a record of 32-3-3, i.e. with 7 more won games. With a loss costing me 7 wins, on a 25-3-2 record I'm likely to play one additional game only if I think to have a chance higher than 88% (7/(7+1)) to win next game. From here the stall on "lucky" records and the rerolls after losing a game.

But you're talking about an extreme, win%-only rating which is not what I am looking at at all.

He is playing more demonstrably consistently though.I want also to point out that a player with a long term win rate of 80% has a 16% chance to obtain a 25-0-3 record or better (89%+ win rate) and a chance of 2% to obtain a 90-0-12 record or better (88%+ win rate). Thus, a higher win rate with x games isn't necessarily "playing at higher standard" than a lower win rate with 2x or 3x games. There is no way to have a rating system taking in consideration the higher variance generated by a lower number of games played?

More games played gives more ranking points. That

*is*taking into account that variance. A 80% player with 40 games will be ahead of an 80% player with 30 games.