Nope, your calculations are wrong. You are altering which player is player A and player B in the elo algorithm. Swap the two and your calculations will be correct.
The mean in the elo algorithm is a completely arbitrary number. You seem to be very confused by this. I can set it to -10 or +1000 or -10000000 and the system functions fine regardless.
LOL
I encourage you to actually look at the math of the elo algorithm. You are simply spouting nonsense.
Here you go, kid:
If any algorithm can produce any output, then there is no such thing as a correct algorithm. You said all simulations are wrong.
You think me saying I could fake a graph = me saying all graphs are fake?
What? Are you serious?
Yes and I showed how utterly absurd that position is, and you backed down and now you are back tracking. If making correct predictions doesnāt constitute proof, then youāve rejected the concept of proof.
No, you specifically agreed your model, by itself, doesnāt prove causation. Your model is only the first step, and requires testing and verification before we can consider its validity.
Thereās that double standard again. Being able to replicate the SC2 ladder data using the actual mechanics of the ladder, by tuning some parameters, is creating a āfakeā graph to you.
To everyone else itās tested and verified hypothesis.
Thats not what I said. Holy crap this is exhausting. Lets go back. I asked for proof that I said āall predictive algorithms are useless.ā
Your āproofā was me saying Iām capable of faking a graph.
So, back to my point (again). That quote does not suggest I think all predictive algorithms are fake.
Do you have a rebuttal, or are you just going to jump to another tangent?
And I showed it to you. You said any algorithm can output any result. That means there are no correct algorithms.
No I didnāt. I said I can create a false algorithm capable of outputing my desired result.
That is not even remotely close to saying all predictive algorithms are fake.
Iāll give you an hour to produce an algorithm that outputs the SC2 ladder data. Iāll wait.
Tangent again. I asked for proof I said what you claim I said. Because your claim of what I said was so ridiculously outrageous, and so far exaggerated from my actual claim, that Iāve lost all confidence in your ability to accurately evaluate anything. Let alone your ability to understand how data can be manipulated to achieve a desired result.
Itās not a tangent. Itās asking you to back up your claim with proof. You said you can use the wrong algorithm to get the right answer. So, do it.
You need proof predictive analysis can be wrongā¦literally just google āhow predictive analytics can fail.ā Iām not doing your homework for you. This isnāt hard.
Let me get this right. We are supposed to believe you can create a fake algorithm that can get the right answer, even though you havenāt done it, while simultaneously discounting the fact that my algorithm isnāt fake and has done it? 
I see you didnāt even bother googling lol.
Iām done with this. Mr āI know math but donāt know the wrong method can sometimes still get the right answer.ā Lol. Ridiculous.
āBatz is wrong without proof, even though he proved he is right. I am right without proof.ā
FYI, coming from someone who works in this industry, itās incredibly difficult to get the right answer even with the right algorithm. You are full of it if you think you can replicate a complex, volatile system like this using the wrong algorithm.
I appreciate you tried Sir AntiSora.
Also, this isnāt predictive analytics, kiddo. This is descriptive analytics.
He canāt even get basic terminology right, but he sure did try, that is for sure.
This batz character is a nutcase with several personality disorders. Reasoning with it is a waste of your time, and only serves to feed into this weird narcissistsā forum liar game. The only interesting result of playing along is guessing whether or not it actually believes the excrement it slings on the forums, day in and day out. But it has limitless time to dedicate to half truths and word salads, and will declare victory as soon as the ānormieā itās ādebatingā realizes their time by contrast has value.