Maybe he hacked the site?

Good question, and probably a rare bug.
Have people joined your game taking over from CD by any chance? This would have forced up the number of points/player

Oh, and almost certainly not Onar

Crafty fella hacked the site and gave himself a whopping 50 points!

The game hasn't ended, so they shouldn't have gotten their 100 points back yet, should they? So they're up 150, not 50, right?

He got his points back the momenthe was defeated. I suspect it is a code bug that gave him back too many points. If he took over a game for 50 points and signed up for another for 50, but ti never started, he'd probably get back the 100 when he was eliminated, and the other 50 when the game that never started was finally cancelled.

I'd put money on my afore mentioned scenario being what happened.

Hmm, really Draug? I can't really see how that would happen, unless the value of the game he was in had gone up. I thought the maximum repayment was the value of the game in question. Thus your proposal could work, but only if CD players had been taken over such that the predicted join (ie pot/7) was then greater than 100

I think the calculation returns up to 100 total points if you have none at risk in another game. Therefore, if the other game isn't an official game, the system may ignore it and return the full 100 points. Can't be sure without a deeper dive into the code and I don't have the inclicnation or time to do that right now. Maybe later this evening or this coming weekend.

Ah, that's an interesting idea. However, I doubt the code would differentiate between 'pre-game' and 'active' games, rather between 'finished' and 'other'. If you have a look, do let me know - as with you I don't have the time to look at the moment.

I would say it was something to do with CD: You get re-reimbursed at 1/7th of the pot, so he got over-reimbursed. But that doesn't account for all of it, so I'm going to go for:

He took over a hopeless CD Austria for a relatively small amount
When he lost he got reimbursed at pot/7

However, that means that there cannot be a 100 points cap on the level to which you are reimbursed. Is that so?

@ Draugnar: ‘He got his points back the momenthe was defeated.’

OK, thanks, I must have misremembered how it happened when I was defeated. (The game was drawn pretty quickly thereafter.)

Once the winter adjustments are done, if you have 0 SCs, then you are defeated and get your points back.

Ghost may be right as well. Either way, I doubt he hacked to get an extra 50 points.

This idea of putting all of your remaining points into a game just as you're about to be eliminated in another game has me thinking. Under this scenario, a player would be at 0 points when eliminated and the site would "reimburse" the player to 100 points. Then, when the other game does not start (maybe because the conditions of phase time limits don't appeal to anyone) the player gets those points back and is above 100 points, maybe even at a higher level than before beginning the game that led to an eventual defeat.

Have you noticed, fairly often I must say, a player put all of his/her remaining points into a new game that never starts, usually because the points are too high or the game conditions are crazy? Maybe some players have figured this "glitch" out and are using it to really artificially inflate their point totals. I'm not saying every player who dumps all of his/her points, sometimes on the line of several hundred, is employing this strategy, but I will be looking closely at that from now on.

One solution to this might be to not allow a player to start a game with all of his/her points. Joining a game that someone else has started would have to be OK. You can't stop that. This could put a damper on this strategy.

It's probably something from the old way of assigning points. In the past, anyone with fewer than 100 points AVAILABLE had their AVAILABLE points returned to 100 once they were eliminated from a game. He probably lost a game while having 50 points invested somewhere else, and then that game with those 50 invested points was cancelled due to too few sign-ups.

@ Draugnar: ‘Once the winter adjustments are done, if you have 0 SCs, then you are defeated and get your points back.’

Ah thanks, that explains it; there was no winter adjustment after I was eliminated, as the game was drawn first.

@ yellowpajamasson: Can that actually happen anymore? Or is that just the ‘old way’ that cteno4 referred to?

I don't know if it could ever have happened. It is just a guess based on how this situation evolved. I'm not about to try to see if it works either. But it just makes me think about people who start 1231 point games (or some such crazy amount.) Were they trying to cheat the system? Or were they just throwing their points into a game that they knew no one would be able to or want to enter just for the heck of it?

There is another strategy: to avoid the problem of players ganging up on one just because one has a few more points in the bag than the rest of the gang, one can dump the majority into a passworded game before joining said gang at the table and appear to be in penury.

Not that I have done this (more than once).

I had a run of games where, after joining - especially to rescue CD positions, the games suddenly became one of me against the rest. I experimented to see just how much stock newer players put on the points a player has. It would appear from my test that if you turn up with a similar amount to the others, they carry on with their previous alliances and you can come on board and start to work the magic. If you look loaded though, they gang up.

A technique I always employ when playing vrs people with higher points. tell them to look at your stats, see the suck win/loss ratio and high draw rate and then they are all onboard xD

When a game is abandoned (only 1 player left) that player gets the pot and the game is deleted completely, I think thats the only way this situation could occur

man kestas, your so smart... I want to have your babies :(