say if someone is rated 1300 and their average opponet is 1100 . they are really not a 1300 right? how could u average out what they really should b rated?

They are 1300 rated. Playing people mostly lower than you shouldn't in theory inflate your rating.

I think the best way to relate to someone's rating is to see how many games that person has played, against whom, and what results he got. Obviously, the more games he's played, the more reliable his rating.

I cant see your logic
Are you saying that within the percentages that each rating has of beating another one, and overttime they even out?

umm i only am like 800 and i manly face 100 and i win agains inflated people not agins normal so i lose a lot

Yes.

Your rating takes into account the ratings of people you play. Imagine if you could run a round robin of everybody on the site. Then everyone's average rating would be around the site's average rating. That wouldn't mean the ratings were off. In fact, the ratings would be better estimates in that case.

just seems a 1300 whos average oppeont is 1300 would be a stronger player than a 1300 whos average opponet is 1100. so it seems 2 people could be rated 1300 but one much better than the other

That may be true if they're ratings are only based on a few games. But if both ratings are based on a solid number of games, they will pretty close in terms of performance against you.

That's the whole point of the rating systems: to combine the information of a player's win/loss record with the information of who they've been playing to give a good estimate of performance.

ichabod seems to be a statistics guy, so I'm sure he knows what he's talking about -- and it is true the identical ratings with different average opponents are equally correct.  It's a psychological trick that makes it seem like the 1300 with an 1100 opp avg has an inflated rating.  This is because a 1300 rated player would expect to score as well as he did against lower rated opposition, it just means he had to win 3 out of 4 games.  The 1300 with an avg opposition of 1500 only has to win 1 out of 4 games for his rating to be accurate for example.

Of course if you played nothing but extremely weak people your rating will eventually be inflated -- and there are many other things that can distort it -- so like ichabod said, the more games you complete against accurately rated people, the more accurate your own rating will be, it doesn't really have to do with your average opponent's rating, although in extreme cases it helps flag a distorted rating (e.g. if a 2200 player's opp avg was 1200).

I don,t know much about rating, my avereg oponent is 1650 in long but my long rating is 1550. Also, my winning chance is 30%.

If they have the same winning percentage against different average rating, then the one who has won over the stronger average will be higher rated, because his losses have lost him less points, and his wins have won him more points. 

The point is that the stronger your opposition is, the less games you have to win to get to a certain rating.

But the one winning less games against higher opponents...surely he's playing higher quality/more complicated games?  yes or no?

Though even that seems an illusion if it's all statisically done properly.  hmm.

Imagine two players that are in fact equal strength, but one is playing weaker players than the other. How would you tell from their game results that they are in fact equally skilled?

Just throwing this out there...  Perhaps the rating system can't be perfect.  I definitely find that as my Average Opponent Rating drops...my rating goes up. 

In my opinion, the best way to improve is to play people equal to or above your rating.