Empirical proof that ranking up doesn’t depend on personal performance stats

It is a widely believed thing in this sub, that good personal performance stats (KD, ADR, Kills, HLTV rating or whatever else) play a great part in ranking up. Or to be more precised are one of the main factors that the matchmaking system takes into consideration of when you should rank up.

Judging by my personal experience (2500 hours in the game, Global Elite, Faceit lvl 7), knowledge about the game and knowledge about different matchmaking systems, I personally believe that personal performance either has none or very small contribution to determining your rank. Since the beginning, I’ve always tracked all my matchmaking games on csgostats.gg. Now I will use my fair sample size of games (870 games) as an example of why I think “stats don’t matter” to put it shortly.

For the example I will compare two of my friends, I’ve played mostly with. One (mindfreak) is really good at the game. He has a lot of 1.6 experience, really good aim, game sense, decision making, you name it. The second one (SneakyTurtle) plays mostly for fun and never practices. CSGO has been his first shooter. Logically he is not that good at the game. We are really good friends though and like to play with each other despite the great skill difference.

For the example we will look at a period, when the 3 of us have played together consistently. This will be August 5th until December 1st 2017. It was some time ago, but that is the best period for the example, since they stopped playing consistently later on.

Here are the games of both guys for this period:



You can see that for the period of roughly 4 months, mindfreak went from DMG to LEM (+2). Being the much worse player, Sneaky went from MG2 to LEM as well (+4).

Now we compare mindfreak’s stats to Sneaky’s for those particular games:


mindfreak is clearly the much better player stats wise: KD (1.34 vs 0.67), winrate (47% vs 44%), ADR (85 vs 58), Rating (1.25 vs 0.71). Please note that on csgostats.gg the winrate includes draws – that’s why it is below 50%. The actual number should have been 54% vs 47%.

Sneaky managed to rank up 4 ranks with twice less games than mindfreak (127 compared to 249). Don’t forget that Sneaky has worse winrate than mindfreak, in case you pull up the argument that mindfreak was just playing bad in the games he played without Sneaky.

I can go even more in-depth with analysing stats, but I just don’t want to make this post too long. I think it is clearly enough already that mindfreak has much better stats than Sneaky and despite that Sneaky ranks up quicker.

Now I will present you with my theory which provides some sort of explanation of the situation.

When winning, your team wins points. When you gather enough points you rank up. And the opposite if you lose enough points you down rank. How much points your team gets depends on the average rank of the enemy team. If you play against higher rank opponents, on a win you will get more points that usual as a reward that you’ve beaten higher ranked team. Every member of the team get his share of the won points. However the shares are not even. If you are the lowest rank in the team you will get the biggest share, because you’ve played against a higher ranked opponent and still one. If you are the higher rank in the team your win share will be the smallest, since you in a way had an easy game against lower on average ranked opponents.

That explains why low rank players get carried and rank up quicker when they play with high rank buddies. In the above example initially Sneaky was 2 ranks bellow mindfreak and because of that he was getting bigger win share. That’s how eventually he caught up to the same rank as mindfreak.

That is my experience with multiple friends over many many games. The situation is even more obvious in Wingman. I’ve played with much worse friend than me for many games, where I had around 2 KD and he had around 0.5 KD. Eventually we ended up at the same rank as well. Unfortunately csgostats.gg doesn’t track wingman games to provide proof.

I know that this is not a proper scientific study, yada yada, but the sample size is good enough I think to demonstrate my point. If you care about proving me wrong, please go do a deeper analysis of the data and show me where the mistake is.

Make your own conclusion and I would like to hear your opinion.

submitted by /u/mairomaster
[link] [comments]