And if we can agree that it is more fun to play with players who have similar amount of chips, we come back to my favourite subject: flooding the market :)
If money just keeps coming into the system and no money gets out, the difference between rich and poor will get bigger. However the amount of players is limited, so there will be less players you could have a nice game with. Poker here has been online for only few days(?) and the highest stacks already are in the 100k range. Imagine how many chips the best players will have for example after a year of playing?
puupia: If there were no bugs in the system, the overall chipleader would have approx. 25000 chips, a few others would be above ten thousand and most players would not exceed five thousand. That's not what I call flooded market.
puupia: Im not sure if this is the answer to help... but most poker games the house takes a cut of every pot, that does take back some money off the table, but I am not sure if it would really matter or not?
Czuch: Yes it will help. On daily basis house should collect rake the same amount it inserts new chips into the game. Of course there already is a lot of money and over long period of time the best players will get large portions of it. But if the overall amount of money in the system does not increase, also the money a single player can have is limited.
Another option to keep the game interesting would be to reset everyones chips back to 1000 for example weekly. At the time of the reset the player with most chips would be announced the weekly champion. And after resetting the chips everyone could compete at same level again.
puupia: Another option to keep the game interesting would be to reset everyones chips back to 1000 for example weekly. At the time of the reset the player with most chips would be announced the weekly champion. And after resetting the chips everyone could compete at same level again.
Czuch: One problem I see with that idea is that people will play foolishly with their money if they know it will be reset later anyway.... play money already makes poker play different from the real thing, and resetting money would only make it worse.
I don't like the idea of regular resets of money either (other then the one after the testing is done because of some bugs)
But as I've mentioned before, I like the idea of awards & such for poker players (suggest before about possible "buying" awards - things that can be displayed on your profile & such) - "buying" them, as in turning in chips for them is a way to take some chips "off" the "market" so to speak.
But also the idea brought on another one - maybe weekly, there There should be "stats" of sorts, like:
Top Chip holder (once some people gain, this list would not change much) (along with a how long they have held a position)
coan.net: But if there are no "regular resets" of chips, are you suggesting that once you use up your 1000 chips, you can never play poker again? Seems to me the number of potential opponents will dwindle down to the point where there are only a few people playing.
rod03801: I dont think that is what he is suggesting.... when we are talking about resets, we mean that everyone be set back to a set number, like $1,000, and basically starting over.
But, people will always be able to get a new $1000 when they run out, but only once a day, which helps prevent people from just taking their $1000 and going all in pre flop, and if they lose they just go back get more money and try it again until they get lucky.... you have to have some sort of way to make free play money hold some sort of value, or the game integrity is really compromised (more than it already is using play money anyway)
rod03801: Like Czuch said, some are saying to stop people from getting 1 million chips, reset everyone back to 1,000 chips every so often to restart everyone - that I'm against. (Players being about to get some chips daily so they can play daily - I'm all for that - and should be a goal to at least allow some to play at least once a day.)
Trading chips for Brains (or anything worth money) - I don't like that idea since it would encourage cheating. My opinion is to keep it worth nothing - with awards or ribbons or something as just "decoration" - making it something cool that people want to get to be "ahead", but not really worth anything of value other then respect & bragging rights.
Czuch: Well there are some who currently do that just for ratings - and even though that bugs it, I think it is at a minimum of who does that (since there really is not point.) Yea, there will always be some to do it just because they feel they can or something.... but when there is nothing real at stake, then I believe cheating is kept to a minimum.