So far there is no known limit to who can play a 10 point table. There should be, 1000 points sounds fair. Until there is a limit though you will still have people with 1k+ sit there because there is so little risk.

... which would then reinforce the cliques that already play and know people there ... there is no perfect setup and system ... but this is working good so far
.
.
if you play a 1500+ player at the 10 tables just think of it as a challenge you would not otherwise have had
.
.
if you win ... good on ya mate ... but it you lose ... then hey! ... it was because they were a top tier player ;)
.
.
i think it's a good thing that high rank players are playing at the common tables.
.
.
my two cents (which is worth 5 cents more than yours)

those friends (PGAers) like to play at the same table anyways....

Freak you remind me of Remy, the main character of a book by Hector Malot ("Nobody's boy). It is not because you got 1 "friend" that everybody else is PGA with all their friends, most of my kdicefriends are my fiersest foes on the board and I think most people recognise that situation.

I do agree that 10+ tables should be limited to players below 1k. I don't mind myself, but I can understand that players fresh out of the '0' rooms get scared of seeing the bullies with the scary high scores...

@0/

I can understand that concern, but the cliques were more of a problem when only 2 or 3 2k elo tables were running. Now there are 5-7 200 tables running at all times it would seem and if you force 1k+ players to at least play on a 200 table I am sure you would have even more running so the shear number of tables would difuse the ammount of people that play together over and over again unless they go out of there way to sit the same table which will happen no matter the limit.

To often you see good players sitting on a 10 table just taking easy wins and newer players get discouraged because they have a hard time earning + points being farmed by someone that has been playing kdice for months.

I was sitting at a 10 point table, and all the other players who were between 650- over 1000 said the 10 tables start more often... well they had all sat at a higher rated table the game would have started. Yes its weird that you cant sit at a 0 table if you have more than 100, there should be a limit if you have that many points.

Oh and to add, I say in that case if there is a 900 or 1000+ player at a table with very low point people..... everyone should take that person out first.... lower class should kill the upper!!! haha

I often play at the 10 tables, and the primary reason is that there's almost always a game forming quickly there. At the 200 tables you often have to wait a while to get 7 players. If there were games forming at the same rate at both, I'd choose the 200, but I hate sitting around waiting for a game to start.

As a totally separate argument, I think not having the limit offers another choice to people trying to raise their scores--some may prefer the slow steady gains they might get at the 10 tables, while others can take the higher risks and reap the higher rewards at the 200 (or 1000) tables.

Finally, if the limits were put in, I'm guessing one result would be the return of lots of alternate accounts--can't find a 200 game, so play the alt on the lower tables until they reach the limit, rinse and repeat. It wouldn't solve the problem, it would just create another. I understand the limit on the 0 tables, but I don't think it needs to be carried further.