Jurgen sitting at a table with high ELO that had people with low ELO is pointless and likely suicidal. Well the premise you are arguing isn't entirely off the logic you are using is completely WRONG.

2300 elo sitting with one let alone two or three sub 2100 elo players has a chance to maybe win 10 points for 1st, anything less will be a negative likely.

The nature of ELO made it hard to rake points mutually, you tended to have to support one player to pump their ELO well others had minor gains or dealt with dumping points off, this is why people developed alts.

With ELO cheating, PGA, OTF, required a coordination that isn't needed now. Now it is just the expected that you will always get a chance for points no matter your position because players think that is what they deserve.

100

that was 101 you moron.

yeah Sam, I changed topic mid paragraph and should have invested some time in correcting it completely instead of just adding "I'm actually mainly talking about the second highest table limit here".

I realised I was basically talking about a situation where you wanted to close the gap to a new table limit, because when there was a 200 elo gap between tables, getting the last 20 points or so was pretty hard. So you needed a few high elo players in the game so it was easier to gain elo. BUT I still think you needed a few easy to beat players in there too so you had a very good chance at top 2 or worst case 3.

Of course it's true that at the top table, the higher the ELO of ALL your opponents, the better.

100 (if you don't count Sam's triple post and Monte calling Sam a moron)

basically, when you were trying to get to 2100 for example and you were at 2080, you'd be lucky to find more than one 2100+ player who would want to play on a table with sub 2000 players

(now I'm ignoring the situation that I witnessed a few times where "friends" willingly sat their main on a non optimum table, donating 20-30 elo so someone could make the jump to top table)

Was 100th reply monte, BOOM!

Jurgen you are talking about moving from 1700/1800 to 2000 which was tricky. No one with 2k+ ELO sat below 2k tables unless you wanted to tank. Just another one of ELO's advantages, it always forced players to play the highest level of table they could.

LOL whoops it wasn't even that. HAHA, yeah wasn't paying attention, thought I tacked that on to the 2nd post not the 3rd. Just was trying to continue the discussion without a bunch of people trying to 100 the thread, which was silly since no one posts anymore. FAIL!

Because of the random element of kdice (unlike chess) a moving average ELO of the last 60 games would be a good measure for trophy competition (would also require a minimum of 60 games to qualify for a trophy). In regard to table spacing, having table populations follow the golden ratio may be the way to go.

See also the collected works of skrumgaer chapter iii on my Wall.

"Just another one of ELO's advantages, it always forced players to play the highest level of table they could."

I couldn't agree more ^^. There's no incentive for that now whatsoever.

Most people that made 2100 ELO, then later 2000 ELO also tended to understand the game because of the work it took to build up ELO from 1500. Making 1700/1800 was easy enough, then trekking up over 2k took work as the losses when you have a 1980 elo playing a 1700 table were harsh.

The monthly competion under ELO was flawed as skrum points out. Most trophies under ELO were earned by high ELO players playing a select few games a month. I think a couple of months were won with sub 50 games played.