Don't get offended, it is your table that
doesn't make sense.

Elo system is based on the premise that a
rating is an accurate estimate of the strength,
and difference of ratings accurately predicts an
outcome of a match (a player better by 200 point
is expected to score 75%). If an actual outcome
does not agree with a prediction, it means that
ratings do not reflect strength, hence must be
adjusted according to how much an actual outcome
differs from the predicted.

An official (as in FIDE) Elo system has few
arbitrary arbitrary constants (e.g. 200/75 gauge,
`Erf`

as predictor, etc); choosing them
(reasonably) different may lead to a different
rating values, yet would result (in a long run) in
the same ranking. There is some interesting math
behind this assertion; this is not a right place
to get into details.

Now back to your table. It assigns the rating
based on the place, not on the points scored. The
champion gets 1000 no matter whether she swept the
tournament with an absolute 100% result, or barely
made it among equals. These points do not estimate
the strength of the participants.

So my advise is to abandon the table
altogether, assign each new player an entry rating
(say, 1000; it really doesn't matter as long as
you are consistent), and stick to Elo from the
very beginning.