Not sure if I should reply to you seriously, as you seem just like a troll. Although here is my last msg for you, as you didn't say anything smart again, just trying to push your agenda which objects the stats. Yes, in low elo games swing tons by mistakes, even in pro games sometimes games swing a lot. The higher elo you go less mistakes people do sure. But that doesn't mean civ bonuses are not important. Although I would leave 500 elo alone, thought you said you are around 1850, didn't you? So check at least an average player which is at ~1k and most civs have very similar win rates which says the story. You can float res, can be slow, but if you don't need houses or don't have knights or get some upgrades for free as with franks/burmese often can mean even more in lower elo. Sure as lower elo you go the more games are decided by big mistakes, but with certain civs(which they know what to go for final composition etc) they are still more likely to win.If that was the case then low elo games would turn out like higher elo games but slower.
What you actually see in low elo is wild swings, massive vill differences, huge overreactions, inconsistencies in peoples play and stomps because these things snowball.
There are many bonuses where you don't need to do anything specific to get benefits. Like any 1000+ elo will get way more res just because being vikings and having free hand cart and in most games will reach imp faster than with other archer civs and in lower elo often people panic even more, so faster imp can be even more beneficial. So again there are tons of mistakes why they losing, but civ still impacts their game quite a lot.