1. The difference in linear ratings for 1st and 2nd place is equal to the difference for 11th and 12th. This not only diminishes the importance of the top places but also, with a large number of participants, very quickly reduces the difference between them.
2. The bonus, although it depends on the correct parameters, is truly negligible. It does not reflect the difference between a warm-up gathering and a BB, and it is not very clear either.
What can be proposed? By default, provide each player with a conditional strength parameter equal to five on a ten-point scale (or 50 on a hundred-point scale - it doesn't matter). Then, from game to game, this parameter will be adjusted up or down. Any newcomer receives exactly the average parameter, not zero. Because the average value of the strength distribution of any set of players will tend towards the median as the sample size increases. Previously, we started from zero; perhaps this is where the mistake lies... It is impossible to underestimate the true strength of unknown players, thereby unreasonably lowering the rating of the tournament... And in each tournament, there are enough players whose rating has not yet been determined...
Next, we calculate the level of relative strength of the opponents in the tournament and take it into account as a parametric coefficient when calculating the bonus. And no numbers should be taken out of thin air! Someone here said that in mathematics and physics, many coefficients are taken from the air, and that's okay... :)
I am not yet familiar with such mathematics...
