Is this true?

A chess friend told me that if you win multiple (i don't know how many) consecutive games in a otb tourney you'll get extra elo points. Is this legit?

I don't know.   Each game is counted separately, when requirements are fulfilled ( both ELO etc.)   Why should one get extra (how many?) points ?   There is a TPR, Tournament Performance Rating, when there are enough "strong" players, counting for titles etc.   Who knows more about it ?

Well ... it makes sense, at least to some extent, to get rewarded for winning multiple games in a row. It would be awesome if it were true. Also FIDE introduced a new rule this year for players U18 who have their rating calculated with a k=40 so they can increase their elo faster.

Anyone else knows anything about this?

Hi !  What is the sense winning from 2000 elo, 1800 and 1750 elo in succession and be rewarded ?   Each game should be calculated separately in my opinion.

About k=40, that is okay, I know someone, aged 15, scoring 6/9 in the last Olympiad and she became WFM, Women Fide Master after being a WCM, a Women Candidate Master, and that is  rightly so, seeing her play !

I don't think that this is a good rule. If this rule is enforced, chess ratings would get inflated very quickly.

How so? Ýou don't win 3 or more games in a row in every tournament. It's an accomplishment, also since when you win you get stronger opposition than on the previous game, based on the points.

Players U 18 grow fast in strength, faster than adults, and the elo rating apparently now can better follow their curve.

I am no mathematician and cannot judge whether k=40 is too high or too low.     Anyhow I don't think this is inflation, firstly it is only for the youth and secondly their elo will settle in the years after 18. 

It is inflation when the elo of some player is increased to a level that is falsely high, caused by whatever circumstances, and that will settle in due time.

The huge number of players with a "high" elo, often is called wrongly inflation, but is just following their strenght, and it is not good to call these elo's less valuable. 

Let us be glad the number of strong players increases, I just read the remark that in 1991 there wwere almost as many Grandmasters from Britain as there were from the whole world in 1950.

And have a look on the lists of participants of the Olymiad in Tromso, hundreds of players above 2000 ! 

After reading post 7 I think Muhammad ment the rule of k=40, not the fact of the wins in a row !

And it is not always that you get stronger opposition after winning, in a round robin surely not, and in a Swiss tournament also not always.

Ok, this topic is for sure very debatable, but there's still no one who can tell me whether this is a (new?) rule or my friend was not well informed.

Ask your friend the source of this !

k=40 is true and will inflate a lot the junior ratings. I am one of them myself though, so I don't mind.

RomyGer, I was saying about the extra elo points rule. K=40 is good for me!

The USCF utilizes bonus points for events with 4 or more rounds.

From looking at the FIDE ratings regulations it appears that unrated players may get bonus rating points by scoring greater than 50% in a tourney. It doesn't appear that players with established ratings get any kind of bonus. (Section 8.2)

                 Maybe your friend was thinking of extreme rare cases. Like when Fischer went through the candidates matches like butter. Like any kind of athletic record, how many times do you think that happens??