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.
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.
Comments
Just an idea, have you played on any of these??
Gl all at the tables
Cash hu games are differnt kettle of fish to me, and feel if you are willing to sit on cash hu with £5, and do same with std hu game that cost £5 + 50p, i stand better chance of gaining profit longer term then would in cash (if you know what i mean)
The other thing i find very annoying is when no re-match is arranged, then u see other person on another table for same stake waiting for player to join them WHY??
Gl all at the tables
+1 - If sky were to remove HU then the people wanting to play this will just choose another site that does offer it.
I don't personally ever play it but it's something i defo want to improve on and will be looking into in the future.
Getting HU in a tourney is a rare thing for me unfortunately ha, but when i do get there i don't want to get run
over so playing HU will help gain some experience.
It doesn't really matter why people choose to play it, but having the choice to do so should be there.
Thanks for the feedback, keep it coming.
Why remove them? what benefit would it bring to the site?
http://www.dusktilldawnpoker.com/blog.php?profile=4&id=438
But because of rake they do not want to change.
Once you look at the games from a rec's perspective, no fun at all.
You try sitting at ONE cash table of say nl20 or nl50.
I have been doing it for a while latley and the games are not great.
deffo in decline, specially if your a rec on a table with 5 multi tablers playing 12%.
after a while your just gonna think sod this.
O Smit you kinda let me down, was expecting a long winded argument with no valid points apart from making out your out for the good of poker when infact your only thinking about your own gains.
But if you want to be Sparticus, you can be
then OMG you have to agree with Galfond, not like he ain't abused online poker for like EVER!
It's amazing but when players have their win rate cut by better competition then suddenly they want to do something about the decline of poker.
OMG there is no easy money left, OMG bring back 2007.
I find it all very laughable.
I love it how every poker player wants more recs playing, because that is what all this about.
More recs coming into the game, more money for everyone.
lets not dress this up and make out we are doing this for the good of the recs.
You all want more recs playing and the game to last forever with great win rates.
It's left me nowhere to go but just deem our conversations a lost cause.
Your preconceptions, stubborn attitude and unwilling nature to discuss with those that disagree with you...
...is a recipe for some of the most tiresome posts I've seen here on Sky.
Please, PLEASE read your posts above. You assert many incorrect truths, use degrading generalisations, and patronise your opposition before dismissing their claims based on the fact that, "I'm right because you're wrong.".
Either we can trade ideas, learn from one another, and show the forum a different PoV for them to consider...
Or you can continue dictating opinion as fact in the face of logic and reasoned argument.
The ball is in your court.
it's all my opinion
I don't actually know what your opnions are
infact I don't actually know what camp you stand in, apart from saying bumhunting is bad.
Do you want to get rid of HU and why
What are you concerns regarding the future of poker.
How can all the above not be tied into personal gain.
How and why are your suggestions so great for the rec player ?
I think we all agree on the same thing, but some of us want to dress it up as something else like bashing the bumhunters. When infact we all want the game to last forever and our win rates to be good. One way or another that means taking money from recs, so how is it good for the recs long term.
By taking some steps it may increase rec numbers and they might enjoy playing online but they will just end up loosing money at a slower rate if we for example limit players to only 3 tables.
Maybe I being overly critical but why is everyone know trying to help the recs.
If rec A wants to deposit X amount per month and just play for the fun of playing, they'd MUCH rather have their £100 last 2 weeks rather than 1 for example. Loads of people play purely for fun and don't care if they're losing, they just wanna get as much bang for their buck as possible.
It's the old 'sheer a sheep many times, skin it once', a lot of people are probably happy dribbling away lots of money over a long period of time. If they just get destroyed time and time again HU, they may get bored and call it a day.
I'm not gonna lie, of course the reason winning players (me included) want more recs is because they're easier to win money off, but that's poker innit, there are no winners without losers. Everyone knows that, I bet even the bad players mostly know they're outmatched but they stay cos it's fun and variance means they get to win sometimes. Therefore the game needs to be fun for them. Similar to playing a live game, if you chat and have a laugh with them they're probably happy to stay all night, if you just sit there with your headphones on, grinding online at the same time while owning them, they're losing AND not having the slightest bit of fun, so they won't bother
Will address all issues raised here in an editted version of /> THIS < post when I return from the grind.
I look forward furthering the discussion.
I disagree, based on these two criteria.
1) Bumhunters (in any form of the game) will only join games when they see a recreational player, and leave as soon as they bust. They are only interested in playing what they consider to be fish.
E.g. Player A usually grinds 8 tables at 100NL. Player B does the same. There are currently 11 tables running at 100NL, with a mix of regs and recreational players alike.
Player B, a table-selector, chooses his most preferred 8 out of the 11, and sits accordingly.
Player A, a bumhunter, will only sit at the tables of which there are extremely weak players. They choose to sit at 5 of the 11, refusing the opportunity to play even the regfish on the other tables.
This can be extrapolated to HU, of course.
2) Table-selectors will often play against players that they have a small edge over, or no apparant edge at all. Bumhunters on the other hand, even if they consider themselves to be good poker players, will still refuse action from mediocre players, in favour of waiting for weaker competition.
This is most apparant in HU games.
However, the above is for the most part, just opinion. Although it is considered canon by a reasonable percentage of professionals. Yes.
The way the current HU format treats recreational players is disgusting. It's extremely bad for pokers image and it needs to be stopped, imo. As I write this, there are 46 HU tables open on Sky at the moment. Only 1 of the 46, is running. Not only is this alienating, intimidating, and undermining the recreational players, but it's bad for the poker economy too. (and I don't just mean busting rec's quicker)
- Predicting the future... -
Let's imagine that tomorrow, all forms of HU were abandonned online. What would happen then?
Well, of course you'd have some of the rec's that would usually play HU, flow over the the 6max game. As you've already touched on, I'd like this. But consider the sheer number of HU regs/pros that are out there at the moment, compared to recreational players. Would it be good for my winrate if the HU population made it's way over the 6max arena? Not really. The influx of new 6m players would almost assuredly be a majority of regs, and it would prove for a more challenging, more competitive game. (which I'm a fan of, btw!) Some that are only in poker for the money will disagree and fight against this HU change. They want to keep games as soft as possible, and to them, tough t1tties. Because of Sky's lack of HUDs (something that I'm also a huge fan of) you'll still see a table with 6 regs, battling against each other. Even if that wasn't the case, you'd still see more tables running if HU was eradicated, than there are at the moment. Win-freakin'-win baby.
On a seperate note, I'm also of a somewhat Darwinian opinion, that poor players in the long-run shouldn't be winning players.
Due to their ability to ONLY play weaker opponents, it's possible for terrible HU poker players to be winners at any level. It's what I consider to be an unjust facade, a con, to continue to allow bad players to refuse action against 95% of their competition, while making enough money to be considered a professional against the other 5%. As touched upon, a majority of regs on here could be considered Nosebleed HU Crushers, if we all only decided to play Guy Laliberte, and insta- sat-out Vs Ivey, Antonius, Dwan, etc.
HU poker has the worst Deposit -- /> Rake, conversion for the site, not to mention with the incredibly small number of games that run nowadays, the site's intake in HU games is tiny. The site itself would be much better off eliminating HU games, from a strictly monetary viewpoint too. This question a little too deep for me to answer succintly here. For now, I'm just gunna address the topic at hand. Having said that, if you want to create a seperate thread with this question in mind, I'd be more than happy to chip in. (I'm not saying you think this way, but) Just because you can't fathom how someone can think in a particular way, or believe in a particular ideal that you don't...
It doesn't mean it's unlikely on the basis that it doesn't match your world-view.
There's a reason why I've never played with a HUD, used training sites, etc. I'm of the belief that they're bad for the game, and thus, I don't want to support it by using them (even though I've been encouraged many times over to do so).
I for one care deeply about the welfare of others. Compassion, empathy, all that cool stuff. There are real people on the other side of the screen, and to disregard what's best for them would be a little callas, no?
Being the better player at the table, my sole responsibility should be to cater for whatever desire the recreational players want. Even though my own ethics and morals would dictate this anyway (because I give a f*ck about other people), my duty should be to make the experience for the recs, the most pleasurable one possible. For the most part I've already covered this above. Treating recs like prey to predators isn't cool, and you'll give the recs a better chance to win (and overall imo) a more enjoyable experience if we eradicate the current HU format. Unsure of what you mean by this. Could you expand on it please? Correction, it means beating worse players, they don't have to be recs. In your mind, it seems that the only thing a pro/reg is concerned about is his winrate? You do realise some of us arn't money-hungry, EV-leeching, angle-shot snatching selfish d-bags, right? If I could give up half of my net worth, to keep the poker games fruitful and enjoyable for everyone for an extra year or two, I'd do it in a heartbeat.
Even IF I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and said that my primary goal in poker was to make as much as possible...
The means by which people do it, is completely person dependant.
Case in point...
Let's say we're playing HU for a couple of grand, Live. You misclick and accidentally put the wrong colour chips in. If I cared solely about the money, I could let the bet stand. It's your fault you put the wrong chips in, right?
But behind all that, there's ettiquette at the table. A gentlemans agreement not to scr ew each other over something like this. That if someone's going to win all the money, you shouldn't have to rely on your opponent making innocent mistakes like this to do so. Sportsmanship, basically.
I'd always let you take your bet back, and make whatever action you wanted. Most honourable players would do the same too, I'd like to think.
Apply that to THIS off the table scenario, and in life, and bob's your uncle. Some people arn't gunna take every chance they get, to gain as much EV as possible or whatever. EVEN if their primary goal is making as much dolla as they can. Overly critical? I don't think so. Overly simplistic, thinking a little too 1-dimensionally though, I'd agree.
It's not about helping 'the recs', or any specific group. It's about what's best for everyone. The recs, the regs, the pros, then the site.
There's more to being a pro than just making money.
And there's more to life than just looking out for yourself.
Maybe I am just not beleiving it and I can't help thinking that all poker players are out to skin everyone.
Even though we spout that we should do XYZ so the games are better for everyone. It is only derived from a survival instinct cause we all think the games are going to dry up and it's going to end up just reg on reg.
The better regs eventually will beat the weak regs and then everyone is playing with no or such a small edge edge.
I totally agree there is so much wroung and damaging regarding online poker.
From HUD's, software - mass multi tabling regs - bumhunting in general - regs not starting tables -
It would seem online poker has created this world where it just is not that appealing for the rec player.
I think the whole issue rest's with the operators, are they willing to make the changes.
The players quite obviously will not make the changes.
There's a reason why I've never played with a HUD, used training sites, etc. I'm of the belief that they're bad for the game, and thus, I don't want to support it by using them (even though I've been encouraged many times over to do so).
I for one care deeply about the welfare of others. Compassion, empathy, all that cool stuff. There are real people on the other side of the screen, and to disregard what's best for them would be a little callas, no?
Wow, nice post.
All of the below is mainly about cash poker
Is it all just about ethics and who is to judge what is ethical in a game where we play for money.
One thing we agree on is to make online poker a welcoming place for everyone.
Every aspiring winning poker player would choose if they could to play a weaker spot day in and day out. I don’t think that is unethical, it’s just common sense.
It’s when people take it further like sitting out waiting for the spot to reload and extreme bum hunting. This is not going to encourage the spot to keep on playing and does not provide a nice gaming enviroment and after a while the spot will just get fed up and move on. Because they might like a gamble but no one likes to be taken for a ride.
The more it happens at high stake games then it filters down to lower stakes. After a while it just becomes the norm.
I honestly don’t think this is good for online poker.
Maybe it just because the games are getting tougher and people just want to take the easy route and look for the easy money while it is there. But how long will it be there for?
At the moment online poker is just not attractive to a live/rec player or someone starting out because of all the software/huds, rumours of online being rigged. Once they actually take the step online then they are confronted with people playing 10 tables, dull games, tight ranges – more rumours of bots.
The only way for poker to survive is for new players to come into the game. It would seem we are doing everything possible to make online gaming a horrible place to be.
I think online poker would do itself a massive favour if every operator banned software/huds – data mining. This would be a massive step forward. This would create a level playing field. The main reason a lot of players who come into poker during the boom have stopped playing online is because of the belief the online is rigged or it’s full of bots or people have an advantage over you with huds etc…
Look at the death of the SNG, game is solved because of software.
So on Sky a site where we have no huds J how do we improve the current state of affairs.
1. reduce the number of 6 max tables you can sit to 6
2. reduce the number of hu tables you can sit at to 1 across all levels
But this is where it gets tricky because now Sky have got to ask themselves if they can reduce tables therefore reducing incoming rake.
So it’s upto the players and the operators to push for changes that would be better for the long term longevity of the game.
Rubz/
we do not know if any of the above will infact improve the current situation. But surely we got to at least try something.
Maybe we will just carry on and hope for another poker boom to bring in vast numbers.
Poker players have an ethical responsibility to act graceful and respectful of other players at the tables regardless of ability. It’s a shame that the game in certain quarters has gone down the pan regarding this.
Just for the record, it should be highlighted that I have never said either of those things.
1) You're Sam Razavi ffs, ik you're a capable poker player.
2) I'm also aware that you havn't made your moniez purely through bumhunting. Imo though, you do bumhunt, which is something I frown upon. The two are different.
Eventually the guy says `GG` and leaves. I advise Smitalos that he is a very classy guy. He points out very kindly that I am a bum and that I haven`t achieved anything in the last year, and that I am still sat playing the same stakes and bum hunting heads up. It is also clear that he knows exactly who I am.
Yet another inaccurate representation of what was said. I was berating your lack of progress via my bumhunting remarks. 'Achieving nothing', and 'not progressing' are again, very different things. Please select your words more carefully. The comment underlined is accurate of what I said, however.
if a $700K year is pocket change to him. (For the record I have the conversation on my phone if needs be).
I never said or implied that. I also have the entire conversation saved on my desktop.
He advised me that he was lobbying for the closure of all HU tables, and how he was trying to do what is best for the poker community, and for professional grinders like him.
Just for the poker community as a whole, actually.
I did offer Smitalos a friendly game of heads up, advising that I am happy to play someone who holds themselves in such high regard amongst the community. He politely let me know that he was very much up for it, he just had to finish posting on this forum thread. Funny, I waited a good 4 hours and he never showed. Ah, well. I guess he recognised I`m just a bum giving away free money, and we know how high his morals are. I salute you sir.
After finishing my post, I completely forgot about your offer. I'll follow up on this and find you at the tables sometime soon. Probably within the next week or so.
To quote Smitalos in this thread: There's more to being a pro than just making money. Sadly sir, poker is exactly about making money. This game frustrates me much of the time, it depresses me some of the time too. If there was no money in this game I wouldnt pick up another card in my life. Please elaborate on exactly what benefits other than financial gain there are for being a pro. Is it about fame? Glory? If so, surely your time is better spent practising what you preach: And there's more to life than just looking out for yourself.
HUZZAH! And here we come to the crux of the problem between us. You play poker for the money, and have come to the opinion that this is exactly what poker's about. That belief is purely dependant on the person playing, pro or not, and for me, it isn't purely about the money. Not by a LONG shot.
Other things take priority over money, and I've given examples on this already.
Ya know, if we were playing live HU cash and you misclicked, I'd let you take the bet back. I'd never slowroll you to put you on tilt to potentially increase my winrate, or find ways to angle-shoot to gain that extra edge. Ettiquette, ethics at the table, take a priority for me. The interests of the recreational players, and the poker community as a whole alongside that too. I was trying to compare this with life, in how we don't just act selfishly and look out for the interests of others, even if it's detrement to ourselves sometimes.
Fwiw, I'd PAY to play poker. It's an incredible game, and i'm just lucky enough to get paid to do something I absolutely adore.
Lets put all this into perspective. You are a pro boxer, and you are given two options at the same stakes. For $500K, fight Manny Pacquiao or fight an unknown beginner. Who do you choose? You are a professional golfer, and you can opt to play Tiger Woods or Joe Bloggs for $100K. Who do you choose? You are a top snooker player and you ask anyone interested in a best of 5 match for £5,000. There are two offers. One is a keen, rich amateur calling himself `Johnny147`, the other is a slightly better known person: Ronnie O`Sullivan. Who do you play? You really have to put things into perspective and get a grip on reality.
Straw-man argument.
Even if we take this poor analogy and try to run with it, the equivalent of bumhunting would be to advertise how you're willing to play any golfer for 100k, and then refuse when Tiger takes you up on the offer because you're just looking for easy money. I have no problems with the "crushing recs" part of bumhunting, how would I? It's the refusal of action of the other. Your example would involve you sitting at 2 tables, in which a total donator sits at one, with Phil Ivey on the other. I'm not trying to argue that position, which is why your argument is straw-man.
Either you're missing my point entirely, or I'm not making myself clear.
I'm interested in:
- The welfare of the recs (selfless)
- Pokers' image (semi-selfless)
- The longevity of the game (mostly self-invested)
Bumhunting (whether it's in HU, 6max, SnGs) poses a problem to all 3. Hence why I have issue with it.
You wish to `make the poker community a better place for all` yet your pure goal is to stream all the fish onto the game where you are most comfortable, full ring. There is a huge difference between a fish that sits down heads up of their own accord to play another person 1 on 1... it is quite something else when an entire table will sit out waiting for one weak spot to reload and avoid pots against each other just to lynch a fish. THAT is unethical sir. People will gamble of their own accord, nothing you can do and no amount of screaming `DONT PLAY THAT GUY! YOU`LL LOSE!!!` is going to stop them. Nor should the community be able to control what games people are allowed to play purely because they want the easy money flowing nice and evenly through the tables so every one can get their fair share, as it were.
Bolded comments are unacceptable.
I'm terminating my reply here until you show the maturity to refrain from wild degrading preconceptions about my stance on this position, and the way I conduct myself at the table.
If you'd taken the time to read all my posts itt, I'd doubt you'd be making these comments.
Lastly...
You brought my ethics into question last night, so Ill tell you this. Poker is a game that is a combination of luck, skill and instinct. I will never be an online MTT grinder because I am totally, totally against the use of HUD. IMO the use of such programs should be banned. I would love to multi table 20 tournaments with a bunch of so called `online wizards` once their `wands` have been stripped away from them. That`s real poker.
Fwiw, you'll be hard pressed to find someone championing the use of HUDs etc than me.
Your comments regarding them though are typical Live-pro opinion. Using terms like "Instinct" and (regarding poker w/o software) "That's real poker". That's just unsupported opinion. Conjecture will get you nowhere in a reasoned debate.
As far as training sites are concerned, I myself havent used them purely out of laziness. The fact you avoid them because you think its unethical and might imrove your game, thus giving you an edge?
This isn't the reason I think they're slightly unethical. Please read my posts before misrepresenting my position.
Smit,
Which ever way you want to dress it up, we get it – we gotta care about the state of the game. But the reason we care is purely from a self serving position.
You simply can not deny this.
You/we are concerned because of the negative impact on the game which will result in less players. Which would result in lower win rates.
Let’s be honest they only reason I care is because I don’t want to see recs abused because it means they won’t comeback and it’s concerning when you think especially if you’re a pro who needs to pay the rent when you see your win rates getting smaller and smaller every 6 months.
I don’t see how you expect people to believe that you don’t care about your future in a game where you play professionally and need the games to thrive and prosper.
I mean I get that, if your reason’s are purely self serving then ethically that is fine. If I was a pro and the games were getting tougher and my win rate was dropping I would be worried.
I think your ethics are great if true J and if all poker players had the same ethics then we wouldn’t have this damaging problem regarding bum hunting., players sitting out waiting for rec to reload etc..
Cmon Smit you gotta stop being so defensive when someone say’s your only worried because of your bottom line., no shame in it.
"I'm interested in:
- The welfare of the recs (selfless)
- Pokers' image (semi-selfless)
- The longevity of the game (mostly self-invested)"
Other things take priority over money, and I've given examples on this already.
Ya know, if we were playing live HU cash and you misclicked, I'd let you take the bet back. I'd never slowroll you to put you on tilt to potentially increase my winrate, or find ways to angle-shoot to gain that extra edge. Ettiquette, ethics at the table, take a priority for me. The interests of the recreational players, and the poker community as a whole alongside that too. I was trying to compare this with life, in how we don't just act selfishly and look out for the interests of others, even if it's detrement to ourselves sometimes.
Fwiw, I'd PAY to play poker. It's an incredible game, and i'm just lucky enough to get paid to do something I absolutely adore.
All three are tied together and ultimately impact on you - this is why you care because it will affect your £'s
Maybe if you care that much you should give up the game as a selfless act and stop taking money from players worse than you
Then you champion the fight for all the recs, idk maybe start a charity of something.
Maybe give half your winnings back to all the recs you have won from ?
take care Smit