satellite rake?!

jdsallstar

Noticed in the lobby there's satellites for the 10k bh tonight which I cant quite get my head around.

The 10k bh is a £33 entry fee (£30 + £3) but the direct satellite is £7.2 entry fee for a 1 in 5 chance. That means then that the satellite collects £36 for every 1 seat.

Surely the rake is getting paid twice? and every satellite entry pays £6 in rake compared to £3 for the direct buy ins?

I understand though if it wasn't like this and was £6.6 (£6 + 60p) you could just pre register for the event, collect cash for winning sats and then deregister the main event before it starts to get the refunded entry. That way you'd be grinding sats without paying any rake.

scotty77

This is industry standard, both live and online.  The sat is a different tournie entirely to the main event.

jdsallstar

Fair enough and cheers for the reply, just seems harsh IMO to collect £6 rake instead of £3 for every £30 seat given but I get it's two tournaments and the site want to collect their fee for hosting both events.
 
Argument for reduced rake fee for satellites?! lol

GaryQQQ

Yes, it is standard, and it's one of the reasons why direct buy-ins are the better value option if you can afford them in my opinion. In a satellite both your buy-in and your prize get raked.

Saying that a satellite is a great way to take a cheap shot at a tournament that's outside your BR. Several UKOPS final tablists got there via a sat last week.

Do the maths for a quarter final lol. It'll soon come clear why all poker sites (not only Sky) love promoting satellites. The more satellite qualifiers the merrier as far as they're concerned.

The_Don90

when you go to a casino and they run a game you pay the house rake. Doesn't matter if its for a sat or a main game. They still need to cover the costs of running the event.

I imagine its much similar online, although im not sure on the costs invovled but im sure theres some. 

jdsallstar

In Response to Re: satellite rake?!:

when you go to a casino and they run a game you pay the house rake. Doesn't matter if its for a sat or a main game. They still need to cover the costs of running the event. I imagine its much similar online, although im not sure on the costs invovled but im sure theres some. 
Posted by The_Don90

Agree there is costs to cover but they could certainly run these satellites with reduced rake and still make profit. They run low buy in dyms at 10p a player!

Lambert180

In Response to Re: satellite rake?!:

Yes, it is standard, and it's one of the reasons why direct buy-ins are the better value option if you can afford them in my opinion. In a satellite both your buy-in and your prize get raked. Saying that a satellite is a great way to take a cheap shot at a tournament that's outside your BR. Several UKOPS final tablists got there via a sat last week. Do the maths for a quarter final lol. It'll soon come clear why all poker sites (not only Sky) love promoting satellites. The more satellite qualifiers the merrier as far as they're concerned.
Posted by GaryQQQ

That's not strictly true if you're a good player.

Granted you are having to pay more rake which is annoying, but if you look at it in terms of actual money spent, a good player should always find better value in satellites compared to buying in direct.

For instance that £7.20 into a £33 game, even if you were only good enough where long term it always took you 4 attempts to win a seat from a 1in5 like this, you've still saved yourself £5 on the BI. If you can win once every 3 attempts then you're making a £12 saving which is more than 33% of the BI. If you play say 150 MEs per year which a lot do, that's quite a big saving.

Slipwater

In Response to Re: satellite rake?!:

For instance that £7.20 into a £33 game, even if you were only good enough where long term it always took you 4 attempts to win a seat from a 1in5 like this, you've still saved yourself £5 on the BI. If you can win once every 3 attempts then you're making a £12 saving which is more than 33% of the BI. If you play say 150 MEs per year which a lot do, that's quite a big saving.
Posted by Lambert180

...of course, this assumes you then don't buy in directly, after you fail, which a lot of folk do.

Lambert180

In Response to Re: satellite rake?!:

In Response to Re: satellite rake?! : ...of course, this assumes you then don't buy in directly, after you fail, which a lot of folk do.
Posted by Slipwater

Well it doesn't really, cos we're talking long term aren't we?

Sometimes you'll fail 3 in a row and BI direct, sometimes you'll win your seat first attempt 5 nights in a row and be above expectation. But long term if it takes you 3 attempts to win a 1in5, then that's a far better option than buying in direct, extra rake or not.

Slipwater

I actually don't think the rake is the real issue. It's the standard of play. I genuinely struggle in most satellites. Then again, that may say more about my own standard than that of the rest of the field

The_Don90

Sats are a different type of game Slipwater, as a resuly many do struggle. 

I think it just takes a little adapting, I play sats quite unorthodox but it works for me. 

Lamberts post is defo correct tho 

GaryQQQ

UKPC micro sats;

1 in 1,250 entrants will win a UKPC seat.

1250 x £1.30 = £1625

Seat value £1000 + £100

So each micro-sat qualifier will generate £625 in rake, a direct buy-in £100 in rake.

#JustSaying