Mod Edit: The suggestion to allow players to set, stake or bet the amount of points that each player could lose to the winner has been suggested several times. It has also been REJECTED several times. Recently, MichelSableheart explained it well:
MichelSableheart wrote:The problem with this suggestion is that it doesn't respect the philosophy behind the current score system. Currently, scores are still somewhat indicative of ability, in the sense that if two players only play a certain type of game against each other, their points will reach a natural balance which reflects their ability. The same is true on a larger scale. The fact that most players vary the type of games they play makes the scoreboard less reliable, and abuse does take place, but the principle is still there. The fact that a players score won't grow higher at a certain point is part of that.
By giving players the option to play for a set amount of points, this natural balancing factor will disappear. You give up whatever indication of strength is there to change the system into a flat out race. Definately not a fan.
This thread contains many of these suggestions. If you want to suggest some variation of betting points, please catch up on the ideas history in this thread and the related threads that are mentioned below. If you see a thread that should be merged here, please inform a moderator. Thank you. --agentcom
Along the same lines, some users have suggested options to wager points in other ways. For example:
This topic is also related to, but distinct from, the idea of having games worth no points, which has been rejected. In fact, if you were allowed to "stake" zero points, this suggestion would actually allow for these "unrated" games. That discussion is here: viewtopic.php?f=471&t=720
It would be a great idea if we could set the stakes (points) of the game. This way there would be more at risk if you lose or win.
Last edited by JamesKer1 on Mon Dec 29, 2014 5:02 pm, edited 6 times in total.
Reason:changed title and added introduction
Unfortunately you may be looking through CC with rose eyes. I could see a lot of abuse, multi's setting up games for easy points, when they can wager whatever they want.
Even if we limited it to say '60' point max, still abuse would be horrendous.
first u would have to earn the points before you can wager them. When you join you already start at 1000. Lets say you would need 1500 points before you can enter wagered games. never letting you bet your intial 1000 points. That would eliminate any multi's
Bull Dog wrote:first u would have to earn the points before you can wager them. When you join you already start at 1000. Lets say you would need 1500 points before you can enter wagered games. never letting you bet your intial 1000 points. That would eliminate any multi's
Thats what you think... we have had quite a few multis who were colonels.. and even one guy who had 3 accounts in the top 5 of the scoreboard!
I don't think people should see what points are being wagered. I've been in games where the high point players take out the ^ and ? players first because they're scared of losing points.
Sometimes Points take the fun away. Most people > 1400 points will not play with a Single ^ or ? player because they're scared of losing points - fair enough.
I like playing with ? players because you get to teach them... I then like to play agaisnt ^^^'s or higher players to get my points back
Bull Dog wrote:first u would have to earn the points before you can wager them. When you join you already start at 1000. Lets say you would need 1500 points before you can enter wagered games. never letting you bet your intial 1000 points. That would eliminate any multi's
Thats what you think... we have had quite a few multis who were colonels.. and even one guy who had 3 accounts in the top 5 of the scoreboard!
dugcarr1 wrote:i think we should be able to gamble.... only on doubles games so there could never be cheeting
How would that prevent cheating?
You could use the exact same method described before. Create 4 accounts, have them all join a game, 2 win 999 points and are on the brink of being colonels instantly.
I think that betting points would completely open up the scoreboard to abuse. People are willing to go to great lengths to cheat and steal their way to large amounts of points (and some of those people ARE highly ranked). With a system this easy to abuse the scoreboard would become a joke.
In racing circles there is a term called "pink slips" which basically means you race against each other and whoever wins takes the pink slips away with them. My idea is instead of winning/losing points based on current rank - you could bet an amount of points into the pot for a game and the winner takes all.
* Why it is needed:
I'm not sure if this is a good idea or not - but it popped into my head and I thought that I would let the public decide!!
Hm, what about people creating new accounts, playing in game, having them each bet 999 points (or some other arbitrary high number), and allowing a main account to shoot to the top of the board? Obviously these people would be flagged right away, but the potential for abuse out weighs and fun this could have.
It also seems to take away the 'skill' factor of rank on the scoreboard. Win a few lucky games, and boom, you're up among the best? PFft.
if you really wanted to do it ... this is how I think it would need to work ... you could do it like a private invite poker tournament where all the players in that tournament would have to be approved tp play .. If you kept a large minimun entry per tourney , where there were plenty of players it would be very hard to get a multi account on the same table sorta speak .. not that it couldnt be done but that there would be to many eyes out there looking and to much randomness for someone to want to try ... I like the idea of a massive betting tournament forsure ..especially if you could up the ante during the game play ... if you dont match the ante .. your out .. it would make for very fast paced games and put alot of pressure on someone if they werent sure they could win or not ... thats why poker is fun and why backgammon for points is fun .. it would be madness but if you had someone willing to run it lol it would be off the hook ...
Loudawg wrote:if you really wanted to do it ... this is how I think it would need to work ... you could do it like a private invite poker tournament where all the players in that tournament would have to be approved tp play .. If you kept a large minimun entry per tourney , where there were plenty of players it would be very hard to get a multi account on the same table sorta speak .. not that it couldnt be done but that there would be to many eyes out there looking and to much randomness for someone to want to try ... I like the idea of a massive betting tournament forsure ..especially if you could up the ante during the game play ... if you dont match the ante .. your out .. it would make for very fast paced games and put alot of pressure on someone if they werent sure they could win or not ... thats why poker is fun and why backgammon for points is fun .. it would be madness but if you had someone willing to run it lol it would be off the hook ...
Yes - perhaps this would work as a prize for a tournament?
Or maybe tournie entry costs (say) 100 points...
Winner takes 75% Other people in the final take 5%.
Andy - I agree about the abuse (I was worried about that too) - hence this suggestion of limiting it to tournie games is a great addition to the idea.
u could have unrated games but bet? scenario: a general bets 1 and a private bets 500 = general wins = private cries at home like a baby = unfair (no offense anybody)
Rap music is being listened to by 97% of teenagers, if you're one of the 3% of teenagers that actually listen to real music, then put this in your signature.
How bout you could set the limit when you create the game, and have a maximuim of 50. That way everyone knows the stakes, how much they are going to lose in the game, but also how much they could win.
