I posed this question to TGM, and he might crunch the numbers with his database. We'll see. =)

On first glance, it looks like this isn't the case.

Nevermind, the database he's got doesn't include points.

Very interesting idea. I think it is not that way at all though, if you think about it a different way.

The game will not allow you to get below 100 points, unless you're playing in a game.

So if we make a number of very conservative assumptions, we can show that this is not even close to true. :-)

First, we must count all points, including points people have currently wagered on games, since they still have the potential of winning these games.

Second, we will assume that each player not in the top 5% has exactly 100 points (The minimum allowed). This is obviously not true, but is a very conservative assumption.

So, the bottom 95%, or 15793 players (I'm using your numbers, and assuming they're right) have 100 points each. This means they have 1,579,300 points. For this to be 5% of the total points, there would have to be (1579300/.05) 31,586,000 points total, meaning the top 5% have ( (31586000-1579300)/831) just over 36,000 points per person. We can obviously see that this isn't true, since the highest point player on here is on or around 11,000 (Although this number does not include the games they are currently in, it is fairly obvious that the average would not reach 36,000).

On a side note, this would mean that each player had rolled over 18 times, as the total points/total players is 1900. Again, obviously not true.

Interesting math. No, I hadn't ever thought of this, but I'm glad you did. :-)

How do you like them numbers Chris? :-)

keep in mind that there are a lot of points that are currently in pots, and are thus not shown in the profile

Thats right, and its even worse in Canada, 3%wealth for 97% peoples =O

It is sort of like the US economy, in that when people lose all their points, the website (*government*) bails them out and gives them free points that seemingly come out of nowhere.

It is also like the US economy in that the website recently crashed:) Well, at least had "downtime."

Also, I really don't mean to turn this into a political discussion...I'm just making a joke. So please do not take these statements seriously at all:)

The hidden joke is the Top 10% of wealth in the USA is also controlled by those over the age of 50 -- that is,people over 50 control 67% of USA wealth. Not too outrageous, as they have inherited much, or worked, or kept good credit.

The other phony thing about that (liberal) statistic that liberals like to throw around is that the measurement excludes the THREE largest wealth-holders (and land owners) in the United States: the federal government, the states and municipalities.

Much of that wealth is redistributed to the masses.

yes, and its clear that they need most of the government's spending directed their way! Cheaper Health Care for America's richest, but not for its most productive!

Yawn! What bullshit.

they vote the most, that's why.

I believe this type of distribution is called a Zipf's law distribution.
You see it everywhere: the top x000 common words make up 80% of all text.
The top y000 wikipedia contributers submit 80% of the updates.
The top z0000 wepsites are responsible for 70% of all internet traffic.
and so on.

In other words: somebody somewhere is always "on top" and if it isn't you, you'll probably complain about it.

Doesn't work here - most of the points are held by 100-point players who sadly don't come here any more. If anyone's board maybe they could go on a recruitment drive for new valued members, or to regain some of those we've lost...

I've actually been wondering about the active participation rate...

A more interesting statistic (in the real world) is what percentage of the population is supported by the top 5%... I'm guessing it would work out to about 35% or so, considering in 2009 we should roughly reach the point where 50% pay no taxes at all.

The next version does gives an active-player-count, but it doesn't give a points distribution layout :-(
Playing: 1127 - Registered: 16554 - Pages served: 25608861
Starting games: 3 - Open games: 258 - Active games: 521 - Finished games: 7448

(You can check the hall of fame for the next best thing though)

We should really include the invested points as well as the spendable points, just as we include a house under assets even if we don't spend it.

101 points is 2458th
100 points is 2500th, and the lowest possible net worth.

8500 people have played games, give or take

top 5% is top 425

Top percentiles:

1st: 1346 exact
2nd: 910 accurate to 2sf ish
3rd: 660
4th: 520
5th: 420

Sum of Top Percentile's points are about 255,000 (by approximate addition from Hall of fame), true figure is less as the rounding is more up than down (density decreases as points increase) This is cancelled ish by the fact that in-play points don't matter.

between 1st and second, 95,000
between second and third, 67,000
between third and fourth, 50,000
between fourth and fifth, 40,000

Total for top 5 percent is about 500,000 points.

6000 people have 100 points= 600,000 points

Therefore the top 5 percent do not own 95% of the worth, but they do own as much as the bottom 5000, or 60% (in round figures)

This last information is very interesting. Thank you.