Forum
They wouldn't let poor 1900.... play at any 2000+ games...
![]() |
skrumgaer wrote
at 10:02 AM, Monday April 16, 2007 EDT
In my observation of play at the high tables I have noticed that lower-Elo players are shunned.
Five or six 2000+ players are sitting at a table, a 1900-level player sits in, and all the others disappear, meaning that they all go to another table. Then one foggy Christmas Eve, Ryan came to say.... Since that probably won't happen, I offer this self-help remedy to the 1900'ers: If you sit in at a high table and all the 2000'ers leave, stay put! Stage a sit-in. If there is a 1900'er at all the high tables, the 2000'ers will have to use their secret handshake and magic decoder ring to find another table to play at (any table will do, even a zero-limit one). But that will eat up their game time and the people who are willing to play at the 1900 tables will play more games, gain more elo points and catch up faster with the leaders. 1900'ers of all countries....unite! |
Replies 1 - 3 of 3
![]() |
fuzzycat wrote
at 10:54 AM, Monday April 16, 2007 EDT Maybe this is just a sympton of to high spans between tables?
I don't know. |
![]() |
Scaldis Noel wrote
at 11:37 AM, Monday April 16, 2007 EDT Fuzzycat, you've been lobbying for smaller spans between the tables, which has some merit at lower levels, where there are plenty of players. But at higher levels, the wait for a game to start would become rediculously long, because there would never be enough available to play. I seldom play on the 1700 tables because the wait is often several minutes long. I can't imagine how bad the wait would be for a 2000 player if the tables were split at 1800, 1900 and 2000.
|
![]() |
fuzzycat wrote
at 11:44 AM, Monday April 16, 2007 EDT It may still be *his* choice to sit in a 1900 table to get his game faster.
Now this "choice" is just done for him "by serverpower". |