All Categories› Poker› Poker Chat

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

13»

Comments

  • SmitalosSmitalos
    edited August 2013
    In Response to Re: Heads-up tables:
    In Response to Re: Heads-up tables : :) 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
    Posted by rancid
    Dude, I'm not sure how much more of this I can take. It's incredibly ignorant of you to assert my views, when i've told you time and time again in the thread that I don't hold that opinion. It doesn't matter how many smiley faces you dress it up with, you're still coming across as a patronising d0uche. Disregarding everything I've said in favour of your own preconceptions.

    It's as if you don't believe people can be good, purely for the sake of it. It's as if there HAS to be an alterior motive, a reward for them. Why?

    The fact that acting nicely/looking out for the recreational players, helps my monthly nut, is purely a bi-product of said action.
    This doesn't make it my primary motivation to do so.

    What if you helped a buddy out with a favour or two, off your own back. You care about your friend, and wanna help them out. They end up compensating you with some £ for your time and effort.
    If you help them out from that point onwards, are you doing it for the money? Does that HAVE to be the case?
    Or can you be of the opinion that you want to help your mate regardless? That the money has nothing to do with it, you just wanna help your bro out.

    Case in point.

    Yes, I probably make a little more £ for helping out the recs, but that's NOT the reason I'm doing it. I just care about the welfare of others. As I hope MOST people would!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • SmitalosSmitalos
    edited August 2013
    In Response to Re: THE HUMBLE OPINION OF A TERRIBAD DONK REGFISH:
    In Response to Re: THE HUMBLE OPINION OF A TERRIBAD DONK REGFISH : 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. I dont understand why you continue to assert the point that you are so full of etiquette and understanding. I expect most people that understand the game and are professional, or just have common courtesy, practise the exact same thing. A guy in SPT Brighton last year (or year before, cant remember) shoved in against me and I called with AQ. The dealer mucked his hand by mistake. I asked the dealer to run the board and if his hand held (he had 88), Id refund the entry. Me being me, I hit trips. I didnt go advertising what a great sport I am. Sportsmanship and etiquette aren`t things that take so much time and effort to implement that you have to detract from what poker ACTUALLY IS ABOUT, which is making money. I havent come across many players that have demanded in a live cash game that a misclick should stand, it is usually the floor that makes such a ruling regardless of the protests of both players.  I really dont see why you insist on painting this picture of yourself as some sort of Robin Hood figure of the poker world. You understand etiquette. You understand fairness. We get that. Thanks. Life isnt all about making money for me. But poker is purely about making money. I have plenty of responsibility and other hobbies that I am able to indulge in because of poker. I appreciate that you would pay money to play poker. For someone that is a pro I would suggest that is `minus EV` as they call it. But to each their own. I`m sorry I dont have such a great passion for poker that I wish to waste my precious time on this Earth pleasing every one at the table and showing what beautiful manners and what wonderful etiquette I have.  I make a fool of myself at the table. It amuses me because poker can be boring. It amuses some players, it annoys others. But I am fully confident in my fairness and my understanding of poker etiquette, and I dont feel the need to prove that to anyone.  I too feel lucky that I get paid to play a game I love and hate in equal measure. I have helped myself, my family and charities across four corners of the Earth. Again, I don`t advertise this and unfortunately it isnt seen, so people can be quick to see results and jump to conclusions. Please dont be of the opinion that I am a money hungry degenerate. (Before you start your pedantic remarks, I didnt suggest this is what you stated, just please dont draw conclusions). Ive earnt my money and it hasnt been easy. Ive enjoyed life and Ive given more than my fair share to those that need it, because I am lucky enough to earn what I do. As for you telling me some of my comments were `unacceptable`. Come on sir. Come on. You troll the heads up tables and start cheering when a player loses money. And you preach about your etiquette? Unprovoked, you insult me by calling me a `bum that has achieved nothing in the last year` and insinuate that I have a lower moral standing than your good self by sarcastically telling me `I guess thats just where you and I are different`.  And you think this is acceptable? You know very little of my character or personal life to make such sweeping judegements.
    Posted by LeChoss
    Tu quoque (Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency, and not the position presented, whereas a person's inconsistency should not discredit their position. Thus, it is a form of the ad hominem argument. To clarify, although the person being attacked might indeed be acting inconsistently or hypocritically, this does not invalidate their argument.


    You've also misquoted me multiple times in the face specific examples of where you'd previously done so, and to refrain from doing this again.
    Many claims attacking my position are also unsubstantiated, or misrepresenting my position as something else. Extrapolating things that I've said as ego-fueled bravado in an attempt to showcase how honourable I am.

    A straw man or straw person, is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position. This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged, emotional issues.

    This happened multiple times in your initial post and has still yet to be addressed.

    This conversation is over.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Sky_DaveSky_Dave
    edited August 2013
    1) Looks like the thread has gone somewhat off-topic.
    2) Looks like it's getting a bit feisty in here.

    The Community - as well as the table chat - are meant to be what helps set Sky Poker apart from a lot of our competitors. We want this to be a welcoming place to play poker, irrespective of the stakes you play at, the background you come from, or the views you hold on any given subject. Some of you are clearly not seeing it the same way - that's both sad for you and not acceptable for the rest.

    This thread is being going to be kept open for the initial discussion, the recent 'conversation' being conducted on here is not going to continue, I hope. A reminder to everyone who uses the forum - use it and post in it in a friendly manner or your posting rights will be removed. 

    Thanks all.

    Edit: while some are talking about ensuring previous posts are read correctly, here's what the second post in this thread said:

    "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!"
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • SmitalosSmitalos
    edited August 2013
    In Response to Re: Heads-up tables:
    1) Looks like the thread has gone somewhat off-topic. 2) Looks like it's getting a bit feisty in here. The Community - as well as the table chat - are meant to be what helps set Sky Poker apart from a lot of our competitors. We want this to be a welcoming place to play poker, irrespective of the stakes you play at, the background you come from, or the views you hold on any given subject. Some of you are clearly not seeing it the same way - that's both sad for you and not acceptable for the rest. This thread is being going to be kept open for the initial discussion, the recent 'conversation' being conducted on here is not going to continue, I hope. A reminder to everyone who uses the forum - use it and post in it in a friendly manner or your posting rights will be removed.  Thanks all. Edit: while some are talking about ensuring previous posts are read correctly, here's what the second post in this thread said: " 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!"
    Posted by Sky_Dave
    People are going to disagree on contraversial topics such as this one.

    So long as posts arn't reduced to abuse, lies, or spamming, what's the problem?

    Imo, the discussion has been fairly civil. Very few instances of name-calling, or personal attacks. An intense or "fiesty" debate, isn't necessarily a bad one. People are gunna disagree sometimes, s'just how it is.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Sky_DaveSky_Dave
    edited August 2013
    No abusive posts or table chat are permitted. That's not a matter of opinion, those are the Community Guidelines that you and every other forum user are asked to abide by. There has been some chiding from many sides on this thread. I'm asking for it to stop now.

    As mentioned earlier, this particular conversation is over, I hope.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • huuuuumehuuuuume
    edited August 2013

    Personally I'm not at all bothered whether heads up table stay or go. The main difference it would make in this instance would be the appearance of the lobby as there is so little action heads up on Sky

    It seems to have been forgotten in the discussion that recreational players are all adults and are responsible for their own decisions.  just let them get on with whatever it is they want to do with their money...they don't need someone to look after them and they're certainly not wanting someone to look after them.

    Maybe they play poker simply for the love of the game but aren't fortunate enough to get paid while playing the 'game they love' like other people are.  

    There shouldn't be the assumption that all 'recs' are unhappy with the way things are just because 'regs' are becoming less and less happy with the state of the games.  That would just be protecting your own interests using the disguise of protecting the interests of the recreational player. 

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • rancidrancid
    edited August 2013

    You deffo ain’t hearing what I am saying

     

    Put it this way do you care about me ? I am a rec player, and if I sit at your table – what you going to do – your going to try and take my money while at the same time worrying about the future of the game and how these rec players are being abused.

     

    And your saying you’re not worried about your future in the game and how it could end up with you losing money.

     

    Surely you must be worried about yourself first and you care for the rec is only a side product of the state of the game.

     

    If you care so much why you want to take my money!

     

    Think you should be totally honest with yourself regarding your reasons for wanting hu tables removed and bum hunting eradicated and people to stop abusing recs.

     

     

    Sorry if you think I am d.......e but it’s just my opinion. It just all too much hypercritical bullcrap that your sole reason is to save the recs from losing money, this is how your coming across to me anyway.

     

    You see Smit I ain’t a pro, I have been a rec for years.

    Tonight your probably going to load up a few tables and try and win some money from some recs and some regs.

     

    So essentially your saying it’s ok to win money from recs as long as it’s by your rules. But at the sametime your saying to other players NO you can’t win like that.

     

    Man it’s just a hot bed of ethics and morales where people are going to differ. You could take the morale highground and say that taking money from someone at a poker table is not right. To keep on taking someone’s money who is obviously not as good as you is just ethically digusting.

     

     

    Where do we draw the line Smit, do we take two buys in’s off someone and just stop playing them because the poor rec/reg is not very good ?

     

    While we can say this is not right and it’s not great for the game we still looking at it from a selfish standpoint. To deny that is denying the very reason we try to win money at the poker table. Imo if anyone get’s to a point where they feel bad for the people they are taking money from then surely they should stop playing.

     

    You may feel bad for the recs that sit down at hu tables and get smashed and you call for hu to be removed. How about if I feel bad for rec players that sit down at 6 max and get smashed, shall we remove 6 max tables.

    I am just going to leave it here as we are probably just going round in circles.

     

    FWIW I agree something needs to be done for the good of game and yes my concerns are purely selfish.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • beanehbeaneh
    edited August 2013
    been lots of rubbish walls of texts and nto much actual discussion. mainly because the problems are easily highlighted and the solutions are complex and have wide ranging affects on many people. 


    literally no clue how this thread hasn't been closed with the 'brilliant' modding we get.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • LeChossLeChoss
    edited August 2013
    In Response to Re: THE HUMBLE OPINION OF A TERRIBAD DONK REGFISH:
    In Response to Re: THE HUMBLE OPINION OF A TERRIBAD DONK REGFISH : Tu quoque ( Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy , is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency, and not the position presented, whereas a person's inconsistency should not discredit their position. Thus, it is a form of the ad hominem argument. To clarify, although the person being attacked might indeed be acting inconsistently or hypocritically, this does not invalidate their argument. You've also misquoted me multiple times in the face specific examples of where you'd previously done so, and to refrain from doing this again. Many claims attacking my position are also unsubstantiated, or misrepresenting my position as something else. Extrapolating things that I've said as ego-fueled bravado in an attempt to showcase how honourable I am. A straw man or straw person , is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position. This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged, emotional issues. This happened multiple times in your initial post and has still yet to be addressed. This conversation is over.
    Posted by Smitalos
    WOW WOW WOW

    I just dont even know how to respond to this. 

    I think anyone that passed their GCSE in English can grasp the crux of what Im getting at.

    The defensive stance youve taken by quoting Websters First Edition of the English Dictionary goes some way in validating my argument.

    Youre right though, the conversation is over.

    Now if you`ll excuse me...I have some Straw Men to attend to.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Sky_DaveSky_Dave
    edited August 2013
    In Response to Re: Heads-up tables:
    been lots of rubbish walls of texts and nto much actual discussion. mainly because the problems are easily highlighted and the solutions are complex and have wide ranging affects on many people.  literally no clue how this thread hasn't been closed with the 'brilliant' modding we get.
    Posted by beaneh
    Get on my level, Beaneh. I only close the ones where you call us idiots ;)
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • SmitalosSmitalos
    edited August 2013
    In Response to Re: THE HUMBLE OPINION OF A TERRIBAD DONK REGFISH:
    In Response to Re: THE HUMBLE OPINION OF A TERRIBAD DONK REGFISH : WOW WOW WOW I just dont even know how to respond to this.  I think anyone that passed their GCSE in English can grasp the crux of what Im getting at. The defensive stance youve taken by quoting Websters First Edition of the English Dictionary goes some way in validating my argument. Youre right though, the conversation is over. Now if you`ll excuse me...I have some Straw Men to attend to.
    Posted by LeChoss
     I was quoting a credible source in the attempt to explicitly show the ways in which your argument was malformed.
    Attacking this as 'defensive' as therefore incorrect, surrenders all remaining credibility in your argument.
    I prefer to substantiate my claims and demonstrate where people are right/wrong.
    I'd love it if someone did the same for me, instead of misrepresenting my position time and time again.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • beanehbeaneh
    edited August 2013
    In Response to Re: Heads-up tables:
    In Response to Re: Heads-up tables : Get on my level, Beaneh. I only close the ones where you call us idiots ;)
    Posted by Sky_Dave

    pffftttt that and the other 200 freds of valid content. 


    one day i'll get a console and come find you online and pooooooooooooooon you :) xxxx
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • SmitalosSmitalos
    edited August 2013
    Why was my post with a brief explanation of why there's nothing wrong with the chiding itt, deleted?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • LeChossLeChoss
    edited August 2013
    In Response to Re: THE HUMBLE OPINION OF A TERRIBAD DONK REGFISH:
    In Response to Re: THE HUMBLE OPINION OF A TERRIBAD DONK REGFISH :  I was quoting a credible source in the attempt to explicitly show the ways in which your argument was malformed. Attacking this as 'defensive' as therefore incorrect, surrenders all remaining credibility in your argument. I prefer to substantiate my claims and demonstrate where people are right/wrong. I'd love it if someone did the same for me, instead of misrepresenting my position time and time again.
    Posted by Smitalos
    You`d fit like a glove over with the NVG trolls on two plus two. 
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • LeChossLeChoss
    edited August 2013
    In Response to Re: Heads-up tables:
    Why was my post with a brief explanation of why there's nothing wrong with the chiding itt, deleted?
    Posted by Smitalos
    I saw that. It appeared patronising and pedantic.

    I don`t think posting stuff like that does you great favours. 

    Just saying. 
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • DOHHHHHHHDOHHHHHHH
    edited August 2013
    Lot of talk, no action, just play HU !

    Give your fans what they want!!!!!!!!!!!

    Rake free tables for a couple of hours plz sky, televise it. gl gl :)

    <3 u both! ;)
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Sky_DaveSky_Dave
    edited August 2013
    In Response to Re: Heads-up tables:
    In Response to Re: Heads-up tables : I saw that. It appeared patronising and pedantic. I don`t think posting stuff like that does you great favours.  Just saying. 
    Posted by LeChoss
    ^ This.

    And, as we have lost this thread to the bickering, it's been Beaneh-ed.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.