If I'm the thousands of points guy and I take stupid risks, doesn't that benefit the other players? Either they're playing optimally or they're not...

I would agree that there is more unpredictability at the lower tables--you certainly see some bizarre behavior at 0 tables at times.

But unpredictable behavior can come from anyone and in my experience comes more often from people with lower points (which probably makes sense statistically--millionaires don't become millionaires by taking stupid risks).

Personally I just adjust my own playing style at lower tables--generally that means I play more defensively, assuming anyone next to me is probably going to attack even if it would be stupid for them to do so. Or if the situation warrants, being much more aggressive to kill someone's ability to fight back.

And yes at times I might try for that epic connect "just for fun", but usually only when I probably had no shot at winning otherwise, and man I can't think of something less fun than clicking end turn for dozens of rounds hoping for 5th.

At the end of the day, you win or lose the same number of points regardless of what you have. It's not like poker where the millionaire can bet more to "bankrupt" the other players. I don't really see the problem.

1. Stop responding to mo chara, it is a waste of breath. He is either a child or a complete idiot.

2. What is "fair", "a waste of time", or "unreasonable" are subjective assessments...in other words, just your opinion which is equally as valid as anyone elses sitting at the table.

3. Who cares how many points I have? If I have 5000 points and sit at a table, it is the same as me creating an alt and sitting with few points. I can play reckless in both situations.
3a.You make a false assumption that risk taking behavior is directly proportionate to points.

4. People play this game for different reasons. If someone wants to blow off steam or have fun by trying even or (-) rolls which sometimes win, then that is their right. Just play your game and let others' play theirs.
4a. Remember that people play with many different motives...points/medals/fun/socialize/take out frustration along with different styles...passive/aggressive/defensive/trucing/etc. None of these is any more right than another.

5...

5. captainLAGER-"An example: 2 players left, equal lands, I have 300 points, the other guy has 4985 points, I shit you not. I proposed to him to let me have the win, since he doesn't need the points to progress and apparently doesn't care about them. It is a small gain for him, but a huge gain for small players, being able to break into 500s. Obviously, he didn't do the reasonable thing, and continued to fight with me for over 10 minutes, eventually winning. "

What your paragraph proposition advocates is called POINT FUNNELING. Why in the world would someone just GIVE you the win. You can EARN the win.
Honestly your open admission to trying to point funnel deserves a ban imo, but I don't know how much stock mods can put into intent when banning.

>Honestly your open admission to trying to point funnel deserves a ban imo, but I don't know how much stock mods can put into intent when banning.

Are you serious? I can't believe you would think that this deserves a ban. Point funneling? I didn't even know the guy. I tried to reason with him, tried to make him realize that letting me have the win makes more sense. How is that even remotely deserving of a ban? It's just utilizing the chat to your own favor. Again, don't know if you're trolling or not.

@ reminder
"1st place has been funneled for like two years by now, the very obvious proof (in case you're suspicious) is that 1st always beats second by a landslide"

That comment is comical. Perhaps you should have acutally had a look at the monthly archives before you made such a retarded statement. I did just that, as you got me curious. This is what I discovered:

In 2009 there was one month (Sept) that stood out as a 'landslide' win. 1st place was 85 335 points clear of 2nd. However, even with that taken into account, the average point difference between 1st and 2nd for 2009 = 30063.

In 2010 there were 2 months that stood out as 'landslides' the differences were 92 672 (Feb) and 73 671 (Oct). Again even with those totals the average point difference between 1st and 2nd for 2010 = 29 241.

That being said, In my opinion these figures hardly equate to a 'landslide' win for 1st place over 2nd. Seriously, winning the grand finale can give you more points than that.

Now admittedly, I am no mathmetician.. But, I have played enough games (probably too many) to know, that a win of 2600/2700 (for a 2k win) and around 6000 (on a 5k table) is a reasonable approximation. So, 30k is the equivilent of winning about 11 2k games or 5 wins on a 5k. Which is not unrealistic.. (Also, keep in mind that placing 2nd or 3rd on the higher limit tables will give you a good point gain).

I guess this wasn't my last reply as I wanted.

Loobee, it depends on what you consider a landslide, that's all. Kinda funny you didn't say anything about point funneling tho. And yes, the final tourney is a great deal, never claimed it otherwise.

Boner Oiler, no, I don't even want to try. Not only you could cheat and invite your friends by any messenger proggy (I don't say you would as I couldn't prove it anyway), but it would be enough to tell that you're veta and your acc name wouldn't matter.

Jeez, I've already said all I wanted to say, so I guess this is it.

Wasn't the "landslides" your proof of point funneling? If so, why would she need to mention it? And 30k is NOT a landslide when people are around 100k.

Actually, If you are gonna cheat, I wouldn't recommend winning by a landslide anyway. The bigger your lead, the more suspicious it looks and the more risk you had to take to get those extra points.

so landslide or not doesn't say anything imo

heres my opinion, the are 15-20 cheaters(regulars) with about 5-10 alts each, mods cant prove this, so the tables always have them, there are occasionly people who will just cheat a bit, once in a lifetime kinda thing, i have had fair 5000, 2000 games as well as a few undecent ones, but i believe the main downfall of this game is that people talk together on msn and never attack each other EVER and that is not called pga by the persons pgaing, people play in groups or pairs, there is no way of telling who your facing is a pga or a fair player, i recommend playing 500 - 100 games, a bunch of 2000 games are fair excluding the first 10 days, i hope i helped

In my honest opinion, the limits are wrong.

Level Max Points
0 250
100 2500
500 12500
2k 50000
5k n/a