If I were to comment on your comments, it turns out that in your example, player 10 DIDN'T WIN A SINGLE MATCH. So, my question is: why, in your system, was 44.20 rating points added to the starting capital of a player who didn't win a single match – out of pity? And did you ask him if he needed pity? In my system, he logically went into the negative from his starting capital. In my opinion, that's what you initially wanted, as in your earliest discussions about the rating. I'll say even more. If you calculate the example further using my system, like he participated in another tournament with the same lineup, but this time player number 10 came in first (won all matches), and player number 1 came in last (lost all matches), and you don't forget to include the players' ratings earned in the first tournament when calculating the tournament rating, you might be even more surprised. Then calculate the second tournament using your system. After that, finally, post the tables again with the results of the two tournaments. This is where there will really be something to compare. We will carefully look at how the positions in the rating table will change for players number 1 and number 10 based on the results of the two tournaments.
So, is it okay to simply swap all the players, or just player 10 and player 1?