Well, best out of 5 or 9 will cancel out luck a bit more for the more skilled players

So a good player with just over 5k can safely sit 5k, knowing bad luck won't give him 5 bad starts in a row and so he has to worry less about losing most of his points with one bad start.

Anyway, it's just my opinion in case you're having the STUPID situation like now where points from regular games and 1v1 are combined. Imo, it's not healthy for Kdice if you can easily win >30-50k in one day by 1v1 and there are hardly any regular 5k games. If you combine both points, having best out of 5 or 9 high wager would also have the "advantage" that it slows down point gains in 1v1 so things are more balanced again compared to the regular games.

If 1v1 is a seperate championship, I can live with 1v1 being just one game.

Agreed. It seems pretty unfair that some folks are off gaining a large number of points with 1v1s. It should be incorporated in.

And I like the best-of-x format. It will make for some pretty exciting final games when they're tied leading into the last one.

yeah

and I'd also like some 1v1 tournaments

there are plenty of possibilities there:

first rounds are best out of 5 (against the same opponent). semi finals are best out of 9. final 1v1 is best out of 13 (9 or 11 could be enough). I have some ideas to fix the very likely situation that you won't end up with a starting #players of say 16 or 32

other option is to start of with a pool stage: everyone gets a number of random opponents and plays one 1v1. Depending on the number of starting players, top 4 or 8 advance to quarter or semi finals (with best out of X games for those)

what winrate good player do you think have against average one on 1v1s? 52%? 51%? that is still huge variance. With this winrate there is still reasonable chance to lose best of 1001. Like 4%, not sure. And that there is so much luck involved in this game is a reason why this game is so awesome and not dead yet. Any attempt to lower variance is just ridiculous from any perspective.

hmm, I just did the math and the increased chance of winning for the skilled player by increasing the number of games isn't as important as I would have guessed.

For a really good player against an average one, I would give a 60-40% win chance in 1v1. If they would play a best out of 11, on average the good player would win 75% of the times.

However, I think most regular 1v1 players will start to understand basic 1v1 strategy so it will be impossible to get more than a 5% edge on most of the other regulars. So 52% indeed sounds good. In 11 games, that edge barely helps you to win a few% more of those best out of 9 or 11 matches (55% over 11 games max).