When to abort a game?

If I get matched against someone with a record of hundreds or thousands of games played and a consistent 58%+ win rate, is it fair to just let the game auto-abort? Or what win rate would make you suspicious?

I try not to be accusatory. I might just say, “Oh, 65% win rate over the last 90 days and 200 games… interesting,” and then let the game auto-abort.

If I’m wrong, how so? I just don’t feel like wasting my time playing against engines or smurfs.

If I get matched against someone with a record of hundreds or thousands of games played and a consistent 58%+ win rate, is it fair to just let the game auto-abort? Or what win rate would make you suspicious?

I try not to be accusatory. I might just say, “Oh, 65% win rate over the last 90 days and 200 games… interesting,” and then let the game auto-abort.

If I’m wrong, how so? I just don’t feel like wasting my time playing against engines and smurfs.

How could you tell? Too coherent?
I figured I’d write like an adult.56–58% over hundreds of games isn’t luck... The Elo system’s built for 50%.If someone’s slice of pizza is 58% bigger, you'd notice

At what point does it stop being a streak and start being a statistical anomaly?

Yep. One scenario is when a player joins at a level lower than they actually deserve. They'll have a better than average win/loss ratio just because they're being matched with weaker opponents.... less so as they move up in rank.

Um... 🤔

This still qualifies as smurfing behavior based on the data.

Rating: 1466

Average opponent: 885

Win rate: 67% over 734 rapid games

Accuracy in key win: high

Definition of smurfing: Playing significantly weaker opponents to gain an advantage, regardless of intent.

That’s a 580-point average gap, sustained across hundreds of games, with a win rate far above what the rating system is designed to produce.

Whether intentional or not, this fits

the definition.

I’ll give you this though, you didn’t lie about it. You were open, and these opponents chose to accept the matches. You're not hiding your rating or pretending to be a beginner, and you didn’t tank your record just to go stomp 100 ELO players. That’s a whole different level of sketchy.

Still, I wouldn’t play you. The data speaks for itself.

This is not smurfing. Smurfing is when a high rated player creates a new account with a lower rating, fooling their opponents. It's perfectly fine for high rated players to play against lower rated players. The rating system compensates the lower rated player by giving them less risk, regarding rating, with more to gain, exactly in proportion to the size of the rating difference, and just the reverse to the higher rated player. Besides, no one is forced to play a much higher rated player. It takes about a minute to choose a range that suits you: settings >incoming and outgoing challenges. Barring that, if you're ever matched and don't like what you see, for any reason, you can always just click "abort".

Somewhat fair. He’s not your classic definition of a deceptive troll Smurf making burner accounts or tanking his rating just to farm 800s. He’s the open, honest kind, the one who admits to a 580-point average gap and a 67% win rate because he plays way down in the majority of his games.

Call it what you want, but let’s not pretend the scale isn’t skewed, or that this is fair play. Setting your lower limit to “any” and your upper to +100 is stacking the deck. That’s not how the rating system is meant to work. It’s not cheating, but it’s definitely farming.

Credit to his opponents. Either they’re brave as hell, or they just don’t know how to set filters.

I wouldn’t play him, not because I think it’s morally wrong, but because unlike most of his opponents, I know how to adjust my search settings to weed out players like him. So I’d probably never even encounter this type of player a

nyway.

No one pretends that the higher rated player doesn't have an advantage. I just finished explaining that, at least as far as ratings are concerned, there is nothing unfair about having a lower rated opponent. You say that's not how the system is meant to work, but that's exactly how it's meant to work. It is not in any sense meant to discourage or encourage anything regarding ratings and who is matched against who, only to take relative skill into account when ratings are adjusted. Again, no one is forced to play anyone. If you only want matches against equal opponents, why not? Go for it. If you only want matches against equal or lower opponents, go for it. If you only want matches against equal or higher opponents , go for it.

I have my range set to -400 to +400 though no limit would suit me just as well. 

It's a personal preference and I'm glad no one interferes with my ability to choose for myselfs, or with yours or with anyone else's. À chacun le sien.

Farming is a myth except when someone hides their true skill level, opening an account and choosing "beginner" , f.e. Anyone who thinks they can game the system by choosing lower rated opponents is kidding themselves, just as are those who think they can game it by choosing higher rated opponents. What's missing in both is any respect for the rating system and/or any understanding of how it works. It doesn't just compensate, it compensates exactly. If you want a higher Elo, you need to improve your game. There's no way around it. And that's the whole point. There will never be a master level player who got there because he was good at selecting opponents. It's a ridiculous idea, thank goodness.

@Fetoxo “I don’t gain many points, so it’s legit”

If the system claws back points when you drop games you should win, that’s fine, but rating math isn’t the whole story.

A 580-point gap and a 67 % win rate across 700 + games still means your day-to-day experience is crushing players far below your level. Whether you gain 10 points, lose 20, or break even, the lower side is still facing a mismatch. Play closer to your own rating band and your win rate will drift toward 50 %, giving a clearer picture of your real strength.

@thedelcai – you’re debating the dictionary, not the data

A 580-point average gap and a 67 % win rate across 700+ games is lopsided, period (which you also agree with).

Whether we label it smurfing, farming, rating-spread gaming, or Tuesday, the result is the same: lower-rated players are getting steam-rolled, and the higher-rated player stays well above the 50 % mark the system is supposed to create.

Arguing over the exact word doesn’t change the math, or how one-sided those games are. The definition debate is a distraction; the numbers tell the real story.

I'm not debating the dictionary, clever phrase or not. I'm disputing the idea that cheating is involved. You're allowed to disagree. What's not allowed is a private definition for the term "smurfing" or "farming"... if you're not masquerading as a low rated player, by starting a new account and choosing 'beginner' skill level, for example, neither term applies. It isn't "smurfing", except in a very broad sense, or "farming" unless you're deceiving someone. And playing lower rated opponents is not a way to game the system, my other argument. If it's all about winning and losing for you, that's fine with me. If you think the only good game is between two equally skilled opponents, also fine with me. Just don't assume everyone shares that opinion. They do not. I'm glad those in charge don't presume to know what's best for everyone or, like you and the OP, think there's a moral issue involved and take it upon themselves to police, or even just reprimand, other players.

Should never abort. All games have a right to life.

Again:

If you only want matches against equal opponents, why not? Go for it. If you only want matches against equal or lower opponents, go for it. If you only want matches against equal or higher opponents , go for it.

I have my range set to -400 to +400 though no limit would suit me just as well. 

It's a personal preference and I'm glad no one interferes with my ability to choose for myself, or with yours or with anyone else's. 

À chacun le sien.