Not saying it's a bad idea just that it would pose some new problems with deal with.

yeah, I agree with jmo1121109, putting more money in would definitely make them a more attractive target.

For example, my total points are 5559. With the suggested option, I could bet 50% of my total points, which would be 2779 (rounding down). MadMarx, if interested, would also bet 50% of his points, which would be 13378. The Czech would bet 50% of his points, which would be 6291, and so on. MadMarx would have more points in the total pot, but his investment relative to his wealth would be equal to mine, The Czech's, and everyone else's. Ideally, under this option, there would be a minimum required investment (X) that could be typed in, so that everyone has to bet at least X points, which would help maintain a minimum level of commitment from everybody (50 point buy-ins might be possible, but wouldn't necessarily be appealing to someone like Marx, so this minimum investment option would alleviate that).

However the game ends, it would pay out no differently than the current system--in other words, a winner would take all under WTA or the points would be divided under PPSC, or divided equally under a draw amongst the surviving players.

I think this would put an exciting twist on high-stakes games across the site, enabling the creation of games with incredibly high payouts without excluding underdogs who don't have 5000 to bet on a game.

That's a good point jmo. That can be alleviated by setting the game to anonymous.

In practice, the kind of game I'd personally create with this option would be an anonymous WTA with a 50% commitment, with a minimum investment of 1000 . This game would be designed with some of the top players in mind, but would be open to everyone in the top 100 and beyond. Nobody would know who's who, so meta-gaming would be alleviated in the same way that it already is via anonymous play. Beyond that, everyone would have at least 1000 in the pot, so the pot would be pretty substantial on its own.

Another website uses this system. As a high ranking player there I have found it a big disincentive to continue playing on that site. If I enter a game, because I'm putting up so many more points than other players, only a win would gain me more points. A 3 way draw leads to a big loss of points. That's quite a handicap.

we use this system, it is called the ghost rating system...

except you don't get to vary your bet, every game is worth ~7% of your GR points, and you don't automatically see how many points another player pouts in..

infact to avoid being ganged up upon highly ranked players tend to play only anon games anyway...

It's not a good idea imo, for all the reasons just mentioned. Why should the good players be punished for their skill? What would possibly be the incentive to play a game with low caliber players?

I do not know what these fools are talking about. I would love to put in 400 to play against your 2750 , dune cat.

I like this idea, the odds would very heavily favor me.

As a "low-caliber" player, I would also very much enjoy this. As it was a higher-level player that suggested this, perhaps this could catch on should the change take place.

I'd never play a noob that way. Why should I risk 170 against a noobs 50 ? And how would the ppsc work? Someone like madmarx would have contributed more than half the points so even a PPSC win for him would cost him points.

I wanted to put forth this suggestion in a thread where people were praising progressive taxation

"What would possibly be the incentive to play a game with low caliber players?"

this system means 'good' palyers are punished for losing to low calibre players and 'poor' players find an easier time crawling up the rankings.

And it is how the ghostrating system works... I don't know anyone who still cares about the 100 - this is a useful system for limiting the number of games a brand new player can join.... but not a fair system for ranking players who have been around for several years.

maybe the amount/ % betted in doesn't have to be shown until the end of the game, and they can be anonymous so nobody knows how much everybody has

I'llbput this another way... I'll play new players for an equal bet point wise, but not equal percentage. This actually discourages top polayers from playing new ones as they risk even more for less reward.

It would be like playing poker but every net would be a percent of your stack. The big guys would never play a hand once they got up a bit.

Every *bet* not net.

If this is made to be an alternative option (say a bet type option -- percentage, or flat amount), then I don't see the problem. If you don't like it, don't play it.

Might be a bit of work to program, though. I dunno that aspect of the idea.

I don't think the programming would be that bad, and of course people have the choice of using this system or not, just like gunboat is a choice. However, it is just unlikely that anyone of high caliber would use up their points this way. The risk versus reward here clearly favors the people on the bottom rung.

I guess I don't see the purpose to the game. The stated purpose was to "encourage underdogs to take on the richest players on the site." We have shown no such encouragement would happen because the richest players would never invest that kind of money (points) with such a shitty ROI.

So why do it if it serves no purpose. That is what Kestas would likely say and has said about other ideas in the past. If it doesn't improve the community/game and just adds confusion, it is *bad* for the community/game. I say this is *bad* for the community/game.