I prefer the idea of individual reseting only once a certain point is reached, rather than for everyone at once...

food for thought

Another idea is to relax the ELO algorithm a bit so that playing lower ranted people will not be as risky. With the current system, the players at 1800 have no incentive to play at 1600 table, if the average rating of the others is let's say 1650. They will basicaly have to get 1st to get any points at all. Even though somebody at 1800 is somehow a better player, we can't expect him to win every single game at a 1600 table.

All I know is that when you're spread out at the start with little hope of connecting and reaping the benefits of consolidation, you shouldn't be PUNISHED for having not "dominated". That's ridiculous.

I stand by statements that condone accruing trophies and resets on a personal basis.

Course, if five hundred points get pulled out of the system every time, a little number fidgeting will be necessary every so often...

No problem found pTm.

Why elo at all? I got used to it, true. I don't think a player with 1550 and 1700 differ that much in strength of gaming. There are too many other things involved: Starting position, playing only higher ranked players (abuse), being into 'former 1900 tables' circle etc.
If a player only can sit in on an appropriate table - correspondent to his score - or unranked table, there will be no problem of 'misusing' lower ranked players. All 'middle' tables 1500 to 1700 e.g. should not be accessible to players above 1900. This is based upon the assumption that it is easier to get points on high ranked tables than on unrated. (Personally I prefer the challenge of high-ranked players.)
People might still want to put their top account into the top 5 and let them stay there. This problem will be smoothed as they don't get penalized for playing lower ranked players. Elo reduces potential points of high scored players, why do so? Stability can still be in place without.
It is difficult to switch from one level to the other because you needed a lucky streak to get up and an unlucky to get down. Both might be frustrating. Without elo there is not such a barrier, but this is a matter of taste.

Algios: If it's luck that moves you up or down, wouldn't that put you in about the right place? I mean, if there's a particular rating you gravitate to...

Or perhaps I misunderstand?

Tech: Alone by elo you gravitate to the middle score of a table so acutaly between 1500 and 1600 around 1550.
Luck and superior skill are needed to get a level higher.
Elo reduces variance of outcomes on _total_, but causes other problems.
It overvalues difference of gaming skill: You only can divide it into different classes in my opinion, But you can not say player A has 50 more points than B, so he is 'better' On the loooong run of course.
Your luck can be less or more worth depending on what players you play with: 1599 vs 1500 will not get into 1600 tables without good third place because of elo. Without he would probably.
It also is very dependend on streaks to get up or not:
win,win, (level higher) win,loss,loss,loss (all same amount before elo) will bring you one class higher and you will stay there because on a higher level you compare to players with much higher scores. One could now say you 'deserved' a bonus because you managed to get there. Yes because it is seldom in some way, not because I am playing good.
win,loss,win,loss,win,loss won't move you at all. Both players at the end have won the same amount of points pre-elo and are one as good as the other one but with a difference of about 50 points and one table level.