??????
You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
It's become common practice to create a high valued game and then ditch when you get ~20-30 more coins than the oponent. I think this is detracting from the game, people are edging others out simply by getting small coin advantages and then ditching before the other player has a chance to win them back.
Anyone else notice this happening?
Also I want to say that I really enjoy the game, I just hate that this has become a way to essentially bleed others out.
Last edited by SeanThyMan (2015-06-15 22:38:27)
Offline
Sorry for the double post, but I think the penalty for an exit should be higher
Offline
I played my first game today up against someone like this, I find you can scare them off in the initial rounds by showing you won't respond to big early pushes, just fold. I don't personally see the point of playing this level of risk aversion, if you are playing for small gains why not just use a betting schema like doubling to recoup losses, but to each their own.
I wasn't even personally aware you could leave and "cash out" until today! All this time I had been playing everyone down to zero.
Offline
Well, there is a 6-coin penalty for leaving, but after the ante gets bigger, it matters a lot less.
I think the penalty for leaving should go up the longer you stay in the game. It should start at 6 and go up by 1 each round, just like the ante. So, if you're leaving in round 20, you'd pay a 26-coin penalty. I'll make that change this week and we'll see how it goes.
Offline
Hm. I'm not sure how I feel about this. There are legitimate reasons and strategies to leaving later in the game. Also, someone who's a pickpocket might not have any problem with simply going all-in after the first pick of their last round to steal the ante for a "free" leave penalty, since I doubt most people would call it.
Offline
Cobble, wouldn't someone be tempted to go all-in after first pick anyway once the ante was that large?
Perhaps the penalty could go up by 1/2 coin per round, rounded down. So it would be 7 by round 2, then 8 by round 4, then 9 by round 6, etc. Anyway, it can be tweaked later to find the sweet spot.
In general, I like the "freeze out" structure, like a heads-up sit-n-go tournament, where we play until one person has all the chips. However, I do want to leave an out for people who have to leave for legit reasons (a long match can go 30+ minutes). If there's no out, then people will be reluctant to play for higher stakes. Also, when you KNOW you are beat (like the opponent has your number, or is obviously Bird Graduation), you should be able to bail. If you're going to lose all your coins to this superior opponent, any penalty would be worth it to bail to save some of them.
Still, it should be worth your opponent's while to stay. They should feel like, "Oh, they left, but at least I got paid off for them leaving."
Leaving should be a tough decision, not an obvious strategy once the ante gets large enough.
Offline
I don't play as much anymore, but I would definitely prefer a rising penalty. But I'm probably biased. I come from a poker world, where my game as of late has been hyper-turbo SnGs. I'm also a mathematician, so I feel I have the biggest edge when math comes into play (i.e. pot odds), which is when the stack sizes are small compared to the antes. It's rather disheartening for me when virtually every single one of my opponents leaves the second they win a decent pot late in the game.
Offline
Ah, good point! I need to start going all-in more...
There's definitely a balance between being fair for both someone who needs to leave for legitimate reasons and the person who gets stood up. Matching the penalty to the ante seemed intimidating, but I think this 1/2 coin idea sounds pretty good.
Offline
Pages: 1