FAIL

Does this assume that the skill level at a 1k table would be way greater than the skill level at a 10 table.

I don't think your probability is correct given that skill would be a huge variable in making this decision.

Therefore, I do not have enough information to provide you with an answer.

Fail =D

i've seen skillful players win 1 game at a 1000 table.

i havent seen skillful players win 10 straight games at a 10 table.

=D

DiceyGirl,

Hello again. :)

All things being equal, then mathematically SodaPop is correct (1/282475249 chance of wining 10 times in a row at the 10 tables). But then, so are you in that the skill difference would change that up some.

I think what SodaPop is saying is that at a 1000 table, the skill difference will be slight if not completely negligible whereas at the 10 tables the skill difference would give an advantage to a skilled player, but not as great as the current risk/reward system would seem to imply.

Empirically, you just have to ask: Have you ever seen anyone win 10 times in a row at the 10 tables? The odds are pretty remote no matter how skilled a player is or how inexperienced the other players are.

In short, I don't think the skill variable is as large as one might think.

I believe that it cannot be argued simply on statistical merit because we are not including positive points in lower places. I have only won say, 4 in a row on the 10 tables, but I could easily have a streak of all 1st, 2nd, and 3rd placings that could go on like the Colorado Rockies.
If that were the goal rather than always winning, I think it would be statistically more sound than attempting one game at the 1000 table.

I think it is the same as gambling in vegas... You can find a table with other players who are doing well, bet high when you have the advantage or...
you can go to the roulette table and bet on black and then run out of the casino with (hopefully) with your winnings.

Who is to say which is more statistically sound? of course if you can spend for games on the 1000 table and not ruin your standings AKA putting your house up for a game of blackjack, then I think it will be the better choice.

You lose Get out

Your crack statistical analysis doesn't include the loss side of the equation. If you play 10 games on a 10 table, and you're the type of player who might actually stand an even (1/7) chance of winning at a 1000 table, then you're probably going to come out with higher points after 10 games at the 10 table. But you've got a better than 50% chance of coming out with much lower points after the 1000 game.

It's more of a risk reward ratio question. If you're trying to win the monthly point contest, get on the top players list, etc., you're going to need to play on the high point tables (and win there at least your share of the time). If you'd rather see slow, steady gains, you're probably better off at the 10 tables.

Why the requirement of consecutive wins? There is no extra reward for consecutive successes in kdice (unlike bowling, where strikes and spares result in earlier scores being counted again). So compare the probability of one win at a 1000 table (1/7) with 10 divided by the number of games played to attain the 10th win at a 10 table (1/50 or 1/70 or 1/110) without regard to whether the wins were consecutive or not.

Correction: I meant 10/50 or 10/70 or 10/110.

the math seems correct but it totally ignores the human factor.

i would argue that it's easier to win 10 games in a 10 table than 1 in a 1000 table, because, as per my observations, you have a very high chance of losing in the 1000 table because of PGA among those elite players/friends.

this is why so many 1000+ pts players storm the 10 table.