Huge initial Rating drop of 403

???? 400 points ! and you think that it was because I played a weaker opponant ? that doesn't make any sense .
My initial rating was 1250 . I played my first 2x games with players of comparable rating and won both games.
I had a modest 8-10 points added for each won game .

The third game I lost and my rating was cut by 400 points ........where is the justification for that drop? that is my question .
I didn'y choose a lower rated player ...Lichess might have but that wouldn't make sense seeing as I was winning at 1250.

@InstinctiveArcher said in #11:

???? 400 points ! and you think that it was because I played a weaker opponant ? that doesn't make any sense .

You only lost that much in your first ever loss on the site, 363 points to be exact, second loss and second most points lost was 134.

Look at my history it's exactly like yours, I'm not sure what you want to hear?
This is the game

Here is my first loss:

@InstinctiveArcher said in #8:

What I was questioning was why the huge drop of 400+ points after a single lost game
Actually, your history does not really show a game where you would lose more than 400 points of rating, the biggest is 363. And that was your very first game, with rating deviation of 250 (IIRC) which is something unlikely to repeat again, unless you take a very long pause (few years at least). And more, you lost to a player with rating lower by almost 150.

This is actually an advantage of Glicko-2. In some other systems which do not work like this, people with an initial rating far from their actual strength can sometimes take very long to converge to their representative rating. Here even a player with strength over 2000 (or below 1000) can get there within few games. And that's actually your case as well: even after this huge drop, you still were ~300 points higher than where your rating stabilized and where it stayed for three more weeks. Or ~150 higher than where you are now. So why would you complain that the drop was too big?

and how the Lichess algorithm arrived at that .
If you feel the explanations given so far are insufficient, the best place to learn more details would be https://www.glicko.net/glicko/glicko2.pdf

@InstinctiveArcher said in #11:

My initial rating was 1250.
Wrong. Your initial rating was 1500, just as for (almost) everyone else.

I played my first 2x games with players of comparable rating and won both games.
I had a modest 8-10 points added for each won game .
The third game I lost and my rating was cut by 400 points
Again, your history shows something completely different. In your first (rated) game you lost 363, in second you gained 132 and in third you lost 134. The first game where your rating changed by 10 or less was your 27th game, i.e. much way later than you claim.

where are you seeing this game detail ? I can only find a simle profile chart and that is difficult to analyse.
I'm still finding my way around the site as I mostly use the other one .

Unfortunately when i first joined I didn't have a clue how games were scored and opponents chosen otherwise I would probably have played differently and not resigned so quickly perhaps.

Well nobody has yet been able to explain how rating points are arrived at so I guess I'll just have to accept what is passed and concentrate on the future climb back

@InstinctiveArcher said in #15:

where are you seeing this game detail ?

https://lichess.org/@/InstinctiveArcher/search?dateMax=2024-10-04&players.a=instinctivearcher&sort.field=d&sort.order=asc

@InstinctiveArcher said in #15:

Well nobody has yet been able to explain how rating points are arrived at

Sometimes the people in this forum truly make me speechless. Why even ask if you are not really reading the answers? (Last chance: read the first answer to your post.)

Incredible.

Indeed. Someone complains, gives factually wrong numbers, other people look it up, explain it, give the links...

Yet, there is no effort done to understand the answers. Why then ask in the first place?

@InstinctiveArcher your climb back is unrealistic as long as 1000 is your established rapid rating

@nadjarostowa said in #18:

Indeed. Someone complains, gives factually wrong numbers, other people look it up, explain it, give the links...

Yet, there is no effort done to understand the answers. Why then ask in the first place?

in my last post I asked if someone could direct me to a more detailed analysis of my games because I could only find the profile chart and therefore did not have the correct rating details.
Which part of that did you not understand ?
Or is it that you just prefer to hurl insults and be rude and unhelpful rather than address my question. Clearly you are another who doesn't have a clue about the answer to the question