For as long as there's been a club, people have been complaining vociferously that the Elite ratings were "stacked" to favor quantity over quality, longevity over skill. The basic beef was this: as long as a player is reasonably skilled and is willing to spend 20 or 30 hours a week playing tournaments, his rating just continues to climb higher and higher.
It's not a measure of his skill, it's a sheer quantity thing. The skill, of course, is there, but the rewards are out of proportion. Is there anyone out there who thinks that if you and I have identical won/lost percentages and identical tourneys-won percentages, that you're "better" than me because you play 50 tourneys a week and I play 25?
For this reason, we believe that putting a "cap" on tourneys-won and matches-won bonuses is eminently fair: once you reach s certain level of lifetime participation, the dtermining factors should be the percentages, not the gross numbers.
The funny thing is, now that we've fixed it (with a VERY high limit, I might add), now we have people complaining of exactly the opposite, albeit quite a few less of them.
We can't please everybody, all the time. The current rating formula is a very fair compromise between two opposed points of view.