Suppose there was a game....

[kentuck]

and it was played until 100 points were scored.

Or until one team scored 51 points.

But what if one team said that they had to be "spotted" points before they could compete in the game? In other words, the superior team would need to get 60 points, instead of 51, to win the game. And if the inferior team could score only 41 points, then they would win the game. Would you consider that a fair game in any respect?

And if both teams were fairly balanced, then it would be almost impossible to reach the 60 points. How long would you continue to play that game?

[Glassunion]

1. What's the problem?

So at 22 with the last being a 5 and 6, start a "go", lay a 4, that's a 3 point run, lay a 3 for 1 more, and the 2 for a 5, then 1 point for the go for a total of 13. Like when you have a 10 10 8 7 6 2, your best bet is to stick with the 8 7 6 2 as 15 4 and a run of 3 make 7.

[JaneyVee]

3. Obviously.

[brer cat]

4. Remind me to never play any games with you.

You would make me crazy.

[madinmaryland]

2. Are you thinking of bowling? Think about league bowling where bowlers are given handicaps

to even the playing field. Also happens in golf.

Not sure if this is an apt comparison. Golf and bowling are games and sports. Politics is not nor should it be, regardless of what Chuckie Todd thinks.

[PowerToThePeople]

5. what if

one team has millions or billions of points before the game starts -
and the second already owes the first a lot of their future points?