Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

Experiment: How many matches does it take?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Flaming_Spinach

Flaming_Spinach

Feature Editor
As the title says, this is not a poll. This is an expirament dealing with PUIs ELO rating system.


I am curious to know how long it takes (practically) to acquire certain ratings in Pokemon.

You can help by logging on to your MyPokemon account, and checking your new stats history page. I want to know the fewest matches it takes to go from a 1600 rating to 1700, 1800, 1900, and 2000 (when applicable).

Anything can help!!



Current records:

1700: 6 matches (6-0)
1800: 17 matches (15-2)
1900: 34 matches (32-2)
2000: 76 matches (68-8)
 
Last edited:
Here, I'll help.

It's spelled: "Experiment."

XD

Also, after a 6-4 record (YEAH!), my ranking is at a "solid" 1631.

:phear: me
 
Ancient Pokemon Trainer said:
Do you mean if you just go undefeated?
Click to expand...


No.

I can calculate those numbers by hand.



I am looking for real-world results. I am trying to figure out how fast you can possibly hope to get to each of those benchmarks after starting the season.
 
Arnoud his rating 1801 - matches 20-3 during this season after 5 uploaded CC's.
 
Last edited:
Well, you know this can vary greatly. I mean I can go 10-0 and have only a 1650 rating, or my friend can go 5-0 and have a 1760 rating, it all depends on the ratings of the people you played.

FYI it took me 23 games to hit 1700. I was at 1609 after 16 games haha.
 
I did it in 12 if this helps.

1 611000237 1 1600 1600 Opponent -16 1584
2 611000237 2 1584 1573 You +15 1599
3 611000237 3 1599 1601 You +16 1615
4 611000237 4 1615 1619 Opponent -16 1599
5 611000237 5 1599 1560 You +14 1613
6 611000237 6 1613 1726 Opponent -11 1602
7 611000211 1 1602 1530 You +13 1615
8 611000211 2 1615 1728 You +21 1636
9 611000211 3 1636 1610 You +15 1651
10 611000211 4 1651 1754 You +21 1672
11 611000211 5 1672 1794 You +21 1693
12 611000211 6 1693 1639 You +14 1707
 
I don't really understand the point of this. Isn't the figure just going to vary based on who the people played? So it would depend on where they play, what age group, and a whole lot of random chance...
 
ZAKtheGeek said:
I don't really understand the point of this. Isn't the figure just going to vary based on who the people played? So it would depend on where they play, what age group, and a whole lot of random chance...
Click to expand...

I am trying to provide a future resource.

So when someone says, "The number of matches you play has nothing to do with your record", I can respond with, "Well, no one has ever gotten a 2000 rating in under 98 matches", or something similar.

Also, it gives people a benchmark for (minimum) how many matches they will have to play in order to recieve that trip to Worlds. If 2000 is the approximate cut-off line, and you can't make it to more than 3 or 4 tournaments this year, you'd better start planning that trip to Nats now.

Lastly, it is always better to use real-world numbers. Sure, it's possible to reach 2000 in 16 matches; but the real-world restrictions on your rating make this a rediculously impossible feat.



BTW, now that we have Ross's numbers, we have benchmarks for every level. There are probably better numbers out there, but at least we have a start.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top