Multiply by 10 and I'll agree.

I find the jump between 500 and 2k a bit psychologically daunting. I don't play 2k unless I have saved up at least 4k. I think a 1k table would fill the void for people who don't want to risk it all on 2k, but are looking for a bit more of a gamble than 500

If 50000 players played Kdice, I guess we could add 1k tables. But even then, why is there a need for so many table limits? The gap between 500 and 2k isn't that big.

You're playing the right way by saving up to 4k first, before playing 2k. But what's the difference with having 1k tables? You'd play 1k when you had 2k points and play 2k when you had 4k points?

Adding 1k tables would just mean we dilute the player pool: imo it would mean more 5 player games on 500,1k and 2k instead of 6 or 7 player games. Waiting times for games to start would slightly increase too.

If it were up to me, I would even get rid of 100 tables.

I've explained why before but 10k tables would be an awful idea. It would mean more pga, more toxic/negative play, more pointwhoring etc.

You can already win 10k in a 5k game, which is a considerable % of the points that most 5k players have when they play 5k.

The thrills that you would look for on a 10k table can already be found on the 5k tables. Also same logic as for 1k tables apply: 10k tables would increase waiting times + dilute player pools for 2k/5k/10k.

Jurgen, i know what you mean but then remove liomit bar for 500 tables, in eastern europe morning, (2 time zones before yours) you cant play a shit before 1 am cause all afraid of damn 2k, and i cant play 500, this month its me some other month it will be someone else. Me and other high stake players must make alts just so they can play 100 tables???

hell there is still a limit on 500 tables? i have 50k pts and can sit

yes wrest but limit is on 200k

I think my big issue with tables over 500 in general is that they seem to only payout for first, because the tables don't fill, combined with dom factor.. the risk seems daunting vs the potential for rewards.

I think a 1k table would fill more reliably than the 2/5k tables do, and I think we can all agree that full tables are more enjoyable, and have more reliable payouts!

dnaa, I can understand that the risk reward for higher tables seems lower, but trust me, the payout structure is exactly the same for 500, 2k and 5k: they are all zero sum now, just with a different multiplier.

If you add the kill bonus into the equation, 2ks actually have a better risk/reward than 500s.

Assuming you roughly get 0,5 kills per game on average, playing 500s will make you gain 50 points per game on average whereas 2ks should give you a 100 point per game gain. for 5ks it would be 250 per game.

1k tables won't improve your risk rewards, imo they will only increase the number of 5 player games (compared to 6 or 7) on all table types combined

@jurgen: "the payout structure is exactly the same..."

While this is technically true, this doesn't address dnaa's concern, that those tables "don't fill" - ie. they start with 5 if they start at all, and at those games, only the first gets +score before dom vs. 6 and 7-player games, where the second also gets some pocket change. Granted, this is not a rigorous concept of risk profiles, but some players might find that psychologically challenging.

But if we find the lack of mathematical rigour a problem, your bold statement about the better risk/reward ratios might also be questioned.

Assuming 5-player games for simplicity, we could define (or at least appriximate) "risk" as the standard deviation of the payoffs. As you've previously mentioned, the mean is 0 in all cases, so the variance before dom is given as var(x) = E(x^2 - 0) = ([2/5]*[-buyin])^2 + ([2/5]*0)^2 + ([1/5]*[2*buyin])^2 = 2*(4/25)*buyin^2 = 0.32*[buyin^2]. Taking the square root of that, we arrive at ~0.566*[buyin], so the risk might be roughly proportional to table level, or to put it another way, a linear function of the buy-in. On the other hand, the kill bonus is usually NOT a linear function of the table level - the bonus on a 2k is only twice of the bonus on a 500, so the risk/reward ratio might actually be worse on higher tables.

(Of course, there are other aspects of the game that more than offset this for good players, e.g. they are much more economical in terms of real time.)

Addendum: of course, the above calculation of risk was assuming that all players at a table are roughly equally skillful - and variance was approximated before dom and kills.

Accounting for all these other factors (and different table sizes) would make the calculation much more complicated, but IMHO it wouldn't change the big picture.