Forum
no reason to leave the 0 tables
|
no_moniker wrote
at 3:06 PM, Thursday September 6, 2007 EDT
my only gripe with the new scoring is that there doesn't seem to be a reason to leave the 0 tables. the 0 table players are decidely mediocre and they also stay in the game too long because they have no fear of going negative. so you can take the game and score big. so what reason is there to leave? am i missing something about the scoring? if i was a better player i'd head for the higher tables just for the better play but i know those guys will just curb stomp me back down to 0 anyways. so i'll stay at the 0's and take the new points at the source. but i think this is bad for the game because there doesn't seem to be a reason to strive to get to the higher tables anymore. with the old scoring playing players with much lower scores was very detrimental to your own score because the scoring took this into account. this doesn't appear to be the case anymore. any thoughts?
|
Replies 1 - 7 of 7
|
ZNR wrote
at 3:15 PM, Thursday September 6, 2007 EDT the score is its own reason/reward.. if you didn't care about score in the old system, you could have played on the low tables anyway, where the games would be decidedly easier. (
|
|
|
no_moniker wrote
at 3:25 PM, Thursday September 6, 2007 EDT thats exactly the point, its easier to get the reward, * a high score *, by staying on the 0 tables and avoiding the tough competition. that was not the case in the old scoring, which took into account the scores of the people you were playing against.
|
|
shiffy wrote
at 3:30 PM, Thursday September 6, 2007 EDT once you get to 100 you can't sit at 0 tables anymore
|
|
|
no_moniker wrote
at 3:37 PM, Thursday September 6, 2007 EDT that makes sense. still the game is zero sum anywhere but the 0 tables, which seems odd. guess i'll just oscillate between the 0's and the 100's. w00t.
|
|
XCRobin wrote
at 5:46 PM, Thursday September 6, 2007 EDT Playing on the 0 tables is similar to playing on the 1500 after playing on the 2000 tables for months. Their moves are irrational, and I think that good players would find themselves frustrated.
|
|
player00 wrote
at 6:31 PM, Thursday September 6, 2007 EDT It's annoyting cuz all the points i got before are gone.
|
|
skrumgaer wrote
at 6:32 PM, Thursday September 6, 2007 EDT If your incentive to stay at the 0 tables is to "take the game and score big", then scoring means something to you. If it means something to you, would it not be reasonable to expect that it means something to most, if not all, other kicers? If you are losing, you have no fear of going negative. But once you win your first game (which will happen even to the worst players)you will have an incentive to conserve your score. So the poorer players will learn not to stay in the game so long. Eventually they will reach the higher tables. Improved skill pays off.
So why not join them? You, too, no_moniker, can improve your skills, meaning skills suitable for playing good players. Better skills against good players mean better payoffs at the higher tables, which mean higher scores. |
