Well the 10 table should really be a 100 (or even a 200) table anyway... I have faith this will be corrected next month.

Given the current point rewards I'd suggest something along the lines of:

0
100
400
1000
2000
4000

Combine that with only being allowed to play one table down. ie, if you have 450 points you could play at the 400 or 100 table. If 350 you could play at the 0 or 100 table.

I could see an exception being made for the 0 tables and keep the current "if over 100 then no 0 table for you". But for all the tables above zero playing down a table is needed to build up a good reserve of points to handle the higher risk of the next level.

With the current point system I don't think there would be much need for a table higher than 4000. There are currently only 5 players with more than 4000 points as I write this. I know it is only the 11th, but I wouldn't imagine there being a need for a higher risk/reward than a 4000 table.

Honestly though that kind of input would best come from the top 25 club. They know far better than I what their needs are.

Pretty sure there is no max on the 10 tables, although there probally should be. If you ahve 1k+ you should be forced to play the 200's.

hmmm....

not really sure about limits...

i dont think you should force players to 'bet' more because they are better.

there are sometimes where i want to play, but not risk alot... and 10 tables are limited risk

SodaPop,

That actually begs the question I've been thinking about a lot lately: Why even have different risk levels?

If all tables had an identical risk/reward structure with respect to how many points are risked and earned, then the better players will *still* accumulate more points over the course of a month. The higher risk/reward is unnecessary.

To that end the table limits would simply serve as a place the more skilled people can go play without the interference of those wild and crazy new (less skilled) players.

Yeah... that wouldnt really work.

200/1000 tables fill up way slower than 10 tables...so i guess accumulating points fast would be rewarded by not being able to play games.

and if every table were the same risk/reward then it would simply become a contest of... who can play the most games this month.


Although, i agree there should be less differences in regards to risk/reward,

a 1000 game being 10x a 10 table in my opinion is stupid.

SodaPop,

With a system that eliminates the risk reward difference at the tables, there is no reason to restrict a high ranking player's access to the lower rank tables.

The access restrictions would simply be a kind of "high ranking players lounge" for the experienced players to go play together at. If those tables are empty at a given moment, then they can always play at the lower tables.

For those who wish to accumulate points fast, playing at the lower tables becomes the incentive. And that is not necessarily a bad thing. The inexperienced players get their experience watching the better players beat them.

All that said, keeping a zero only table open is still a good idea so that the new players can get away from the crush of experienced ones. But aside from that, everyone would have to earn their points equally (ie no game is more rewarded than any other game).

I enjoy these discussions. :) Hopefully Ryan reads these threads and has ideas inspired from them.

Max Limits would be a sweet name... But not as sweet as Max Power

Table levels give better players an opportunity to differentiate themselves. It gives them motivation to play together. It's good that you don't have a chance at first unless you play the best players.

Always good to get the boss man's feedback. :)

So with table limits a valued thing being given (After all Ryan's is the only oppinion that counts there. ;) ), the next question is: Is the risk/reward progression working as intended?

As SodaPop pointed out the scaling seems just a tad off. Any comments, Ryan Sir?

yeah the problem with what I have seen is that top ranked players play the 10 tables and have been crushing the new-comers. A few of the people I have talked to have given up on the game due to this. Its like telling a little league Baseball player to go play against the pros. The competition level is profoundly different that the person does learn one thing that they can't win and will most likely give up the game. I think tables of relative skill would make game play fun for all skill levels and would fill the higher level tables too. Here is my suggestion:

table maxScore
0 100
10 500
200 1000
500 ----
1000 ----
2000 ----