At what level of ± deviation, rank should be considered accurate/stable/established?

I think it is deviation <160 rating (glicko).

I can’t recall where I read this, but a random sample of [?] people seems to be in line with that.

Note that this is a fair bit of a kyu (rank) at 25k, but not much of a kyu at 13k because the glicko-per-kyu is not linear.

I can confirm that <160 rating deviation is when you are no longer ranked “?” and given a full integer rank

To clarify, it is logarithmic

As for actually being somewhat stable, look more so for deviation under 90

The ? disappears at 160, other OGS features are using 125.

In my opinion it’s more like <100. Deviation of stable players is 60-90 on OGS. It never falls below 60. The first game in a rating window increases the deviation from 60->~90 for example. For stable players you will find a point in the latest 15 games of their rating history at which their deviation was below 70, but also a point at which it was slightly above 90.

Btw.: Stable still means the rank can fluctuate within a 3 ranks window.

Edit: Corrected ? deviation to 160.

It should be 160 not 150 https://github.com/online-go/online-go.com/blob/d728a92549f536238634d3b167c3ac75b911b2ac/src/lib/rank_utils.ts#L46

I’m pretty sure I found a person with [?] and 150 < deviation <160, but I guess I’d have to go looking again to prove that I could easily have been mistaken - I looked a a bunch of [?] … it started to blur

I was answering the question “established” not “stable” (I should have clarified that).

“Rank is established” is a well defined thing: it’s when the [?] goes away.

“Rank is stable” … I don’t even know what that means.

I think our base 10 wired brains just see a bunch of numbers around that area and think “obviously 150 is the logical place to draw that line” but if you can find someone between 150 and 160 that’s still unranked you should probably tell someone because I *think* that’s a bug

See above, edit. rob408 [25] 593±151

I took it to mean: “When do I know that my 13K rating is legitimate; as in accurately reflective of my average skill.”

Personally, I don’t understand why that would be different to the value chosen to swap from [?] to actual rank.

Other answers in this thread imply that it is, but I would have thought this was the exact thing that this means: your rank is “established, and legitimate as in accurately reflective of your skill” when we take away the [?].

or in my case ‘lack of skill’.

Saying that I managed a game against a new player yesterday who has lost all his/her other games so no pleasure in that win at all.

2 years later I checked specifically, 160 it is.