You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Sky Poker forums will be temporarily unavailable from 11pm Wednesday July 25th.
Sky Poker Forums is upgrading its look! Stay tuned for the big reveal!
Heads-up tables
Partly inspired by the thread by Smitalos (did we really say that - lol)...
Heads-up is obviously a much debated area in the world of poker which we, other sites and players have discussed a lot. Some say it's the purest form of the game, others say it is bad for the 'health' of the site because of some of the things it 'encourages'.
When answering this, please give your thoughts as well as your ideas, especially if you answer 'Yes, but don't remove them'
So...
Comments
This will no doubt be an interesting thread which divides opinion but do remember to keep it civil. It is a hot topic but not worth falling out over!
If you're going to remove 10man Cash tables (where they saw a little action each day), you have to remove HU on the same basis. I don't think this is a particularly great reason to remove them, but ya know, principles are principles.
S'more about how bad they are for the poker economy AND community.
For evey one reg that spends £300 a month there are 50 UK poker players who spend £2000 a month, but right now Skypoker is not seen as an option.
a) I don't really see what that has to do with the Heads Up Cash tables
b) Spending £2000 a month on online poker? They must be loaded then! And, therefore, I don't think there's that many of them!
Sky is not a big site considering the size of Sky and its potential reach. If Skypokers numbers quadrupled we would all benefit.
So, who is interested in themselves than they are the site? Those who "bumhunt" the HU Cash Tables? It sure ain't Smitalos, despite the fact this is probably the first issue I've ever agreed with him/her on, he/she seems to have the best for the site at heart.
Yes, the need to attract new members is an issue of major importance, but to "ignore your regulars" is a very dangerous strategy for any business, even Sky Poker.
'Rent a table' ?
Pay an hours worth of rake up front to get a table for an hour, (activated from when sum1 else joins)
Can leave or top up at anytime..........
any1 can join, good/bad/ugly.
U can play, or leave and sacrifice ur rent
Gl all at the tables
Removing HU games would BENEFIT the site, and the recreational players too. (the latter usually leading to the former)
yet the only ones going 10 minutes ago (and the only ones I've seen actually with 2 players on them after several trawls since early afternoon) were 1 at 5p/10p and another at 10p/20p
Meet half way, to encourage action.
After an hour if both players won the exact same amount, they would be down a fortune.
HU is the same, you do pay a lot of rake, but if you have an edge over an opponent then there's a ton of money to be made. This is obv why loads of people bumhunt and wait for people they know they have an enourmous edge against and likewise why they refuse to play anyone half decent because even if they think they are slightly better, their edge will be small, results will likely be more swingy and they'll just be winning less £££ per hour.
I was just thinking this through when something occured to me. How would any of you feel if you went to your local supermarket to buy some biscuits and found out that they now only stock one brand because the outsold the other brands significantly?
Annoyed is my guess because your options and choices have been taken away from you. This may even be the brand you wanted but now you have had your power of choice removed from you. This is how i see this situation. If you remove HU tables then you remove choice from the people wishing to play. Limiting the choices and options of someone is never a good thing, and more choice (up to a limit of course) is better.
I personally dont play HU for my own reasons and i am happy about this. I am also happy about the fact that if i wanted to i have the choice to do so.
In the end who are any of us to limit the choices and options of others just because of our own personal feelings about them.
just the way poker is
And if any poker player says otherwise then your a liar
if you identify the spot at the table you go after them, you all do it.
The weak will be chased and devoured.
I feel quite insulted when a poker player state's they don't bum hunt, subconsiously we all do it.
Im always open about the concept that if you wanna make money at anything in life you have to look for people spending money. Poker is no different.
Profitable players who say they dont bum hunt are liars or dillusional. This is especially true to any reg on sky as the only reason a reg would play on sky is that it is the softest site out there. Although its no where near as soft as it used to be.
As for hu, the problem is the ridiculous looking lobby. If you limit hu tables to 2 per person the chance of catching a player who is spending money is still the same. But the lobby is a lot better looking.
Substantiate your claims. Correcting you constantly is tedious and extremely boring. I care deeply about the longevity of online poker, and I'll lobby for anything that'll benefit the poker community as a whole.
Do you see me whining about the lack of Rake Races here on Sky? Complaining about the cuts to Priority Club, or how the new C4P/Rewards system hurts regs like me, whilst benefitting recreational players?
No.
Objectivity. I recommend it. While I'm a HUGE fan of the ol' "every idea's a good idea!"...
This one just wouldn't fly man. So many problems introducing a format like this. Will elaborate if asked to do so. Word from the wise, avoid double negatives dude. Your question is ambiguous, and potentially confusing.
I guess we're trying to discuss how the relatively speaking high rake in HU games, leaves little room for players with a decent edge to emerge winners?
Long story short, this is why you'll rarely see regs play each other HU. Small edge - Rake = Not worth playing (to most HU regs)
Lambert180 said it best.
Good idea, just not one that would work in this instance I'm afraid.
Shocking explanation ik, it's 4:30am. Apologies. The analogy here is extremely poor, as it fails to take into consider the negatives of 'offering your favourite biscuits'. It would work if we were referring to the lack of Full-Ring tables on the site, sure. There are limited noticable repercusions to removing these tables in favour of a strictly 6max format. The HU tables are completely different, however. Games rarely run resulting in a small intake of rake for the site, players refuse to play one another, the weaker competition are allowed to be winning players using "game selection", bumhunting is bad for the longevity of the game AND pokers image.
This issue isn't purely a matter of personal opinion, but objective forethought, as how to benefit the poker economy and community.
If your argument is strung up on limitations, you'd have to address every other form of poker that isn't currently offered on Sky. Do variations deserve a chance on Sky? Sure. Is HU one of them? Absolutely not. Speak for yourself.
Less wild, provocative generalisations please. Which is the exact reason why I'm trying to press this issue and make people aware of the current problem w/HU online poker.
HU games humiliate and alienate recreational players, while allowing outright terrible regs to 'game-select' so that they're a winning player at any given stake.
Case in point, a vast majority of regs here could beat 100kNL HU if they only decided to play Guy Laliberte and refused to take action from anyone else. I've honestly not seen a post more wrong than this in a very long time. So many fallacious arguments I don't even know where to begin. Will tackle it tomorrow as it's already 5am.
Absolutely appalled at your rationalisations, AJS. 'Disgusted' would be an understatement. It's demonstrably unsuccessful at eliminating bumhunting on other sites. Bumhunting for the most part isn't a reliant on realising familiar names of good opponents, HUD stats on prior competition, or notes on how they play.
It's about sitting down with someone, playing a small number of hands, and deciding whether or not they're a rec, or a reg.
Play as few as 20 hands of HU, and most people will already have a rough idea of your skill level. If you're 3beting frequently and with good consistant sizing. If you fold your bb a reasonable for a min-raise, prolly a reg. If you check-raise your semi-bluffs or show a capability for thin value bets, prolly a reg. etc etc the list could go on.
Anonymous tables fail because people can STILL game-select and instantly avoid regs.
gg gn peeps. I'm knacked.
If I told you their was a player at 5/10 shoving ATC every hand would you sit at that table.
Well you would be mad not to sit wouldn't you.
Why do poker players go and play weaker players from table selecing at nl10 through to businessman selecting in macou.
What your saying is it is unfair to the rec player who chooses to sit down at a hu table.
Well I think they should have that choice.
If someone wants to sit down and play HU then how does this affect you Smit.
What are the negative implaications for poker/ Sky and you if HU tables remain and bumhunting contnues.
I don't think anyone can quantify that.
Is this just a self serving mission to get these recs on 6 max tables and take away the rec's option to sit at HU.
So essentially everyone can take from the rec equally.
I mean Smit we don't want these players to leave the site, so we want them on 6 max tables !
So what's in it for you Smit, you just want a share of the money by forcing them onto 6 max tables ?
O btw their is a player at 5/10 happy to get it with TPNK, anyone fancy joining this table ?
Or you could join the other one with Style and all the other regs.
mmmmmmmmmmmm