Rating adjustments and unbalanced teams

You're assuming the 500 player actually listens to the 2000 player.  If they don't, they're a solid 500 and going to do their unintentional best to die in 15 moves.

Right! Generally this cooperation is either prearranged (between friends, one of which is high rated and the other low - perhaps with the high rated player acting as the lower rated one's coach) or not done at all.

It's hard to communicate with the speed and quantity required without using voice chat or the FICS/Thief partner suggestion feature (make a move on your partner's board and they get a chat with that move's notation). So random partnerships on chess.com probably won't succeed with this. On FICS, some high rated players set personal best ratings with this strategy, though.

Yeah, Sorsi has told me that some really strong players would just suggest like 10 moves in a row to their partner's board. That would be easy work for the team with the really strong player LOL.

But I have a question: if someone's 500 rated, wouldn't he have problems when listening to the notation? I know 1600+ players who struggle with notation in time scrambles LOL.

Hey, @piotr, and @jdcannon, would it be possible to get some of @monitor time to perform an actual analysis on stats after gathering enough information from Bughouse games played? (I would naturally assume that such things are work-in-progress, but, it would be interesting to hear from someone directly involved with data and stats, this per direct observations, etc.)

ChessMN16, that's  one of the reasons not all lowbies are good for such type of partnerships. Some of them doesn't know notation well, others doesn't listen, some really like to attack and trying to mate sitting for pieces and so. But those who play fast and listen are used by strong players to gain rating

That is the reason no rating system is really good for bughouse. Since there are several players at the same rating with different skill sets. So if i random partner a 1200 for example we might win a 100 points together, but with another 1200 we will lose a 100.

The current rating system is good enough, but i don't like the matching system i don't like to play for +0

Yes, very true, Sorsi. I would assume that as a rule all 500s are bad at notation...But I may be wrong. 

"So if i random partner a 1200 for example we might win a 100 points together, but with another 1200 we will lose a 100."

But on aggregate, with a large number of games, it will even out, and thus, in the long run, a rating system can still give you a half-decent approximation of how you're doing.

"i don't like the matching system i don't like to play for +0"

That's what happens when two sharks team up against two minnows.  With random seeks you tend to get a shark and a minnow on each team, which generally makes for a roughly balanced match.  Not always, but fully random seeks tend to do OK at getting balanced teams.  Of course, you might end up with a partner who doesn't communicate...