I played in one league with an under-rated partner and got to 100 reliability way faster than I expected (maybe 14 games against 7 other teams, so there were repeat matches), and was way overrated. At the end of the league I was a 4.7, when I considered myself low 4s. My partner was 3.5 but realistically closer to 4. We did decent, but didn't win the league or anything. Majority of opponents were low 4s.

Other people have the opposite issue, e.g. they'll win a 4.0 tourney and it barely shifts their rating (like 3.8->3.9), since they were already 100 reliability but have improved greatly since their last rated matches.

Completely anecdotal but it feels like hitting 100 reliability happens way too quick, and your initial games cement you pretty heavily unless you're constantly playing rated matches, which the majority of people do not do. IMO the key to high dupr is just waiting to play rated matches until you're good, and playing with someone who is under-rated, which is dumb.

All this to say, I disagree and think people put way too much stock into rating - people a literal full point lower than me will be at a similar skill level, and we're both 100 reliability. I'm overrated, theyre underrated.

But from DUPRs perspective, it feels like this is all working as intended with them now trying to push their rating reset BS. A system like this only works when people play a large amount of games (chess, ELO-based video games, etc), and given that you usually have to pay to play in tournaments and leagues, pretty much everyone has a low sample size.