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!
Wee bit flawed...
Not a dig at the guys who take advantage of a flawed system. If I was a better player and could afford to, I would probably do the same. The UKPC entry tournys have been brought up before, the big hitters geting cash outs on a weekly basis is reducing the number of players fed through to Nottingham, looking at tonights quarters, semi and final, the same players who have already their seats booked will take a fair bit of the seats tonight. (cash)
I do not even enter because of this, if these guys had seats locked up and no cash out instead,they would not be entering weekly, it would give the not so good players a better oppertunity (maybe). But Sky Poker get the reg fee no matter what, so more the merrier.
Not many final tables in tournys offer the prospect of 5 or 6 top equal payouts, no sliding scale as in MTT, so can see attraction to top players.
Comments
Hi poncake,
The point you make has been made by many players before, & is not without merit.
However, for balance, it is worth considering that without the "big hitters", the liquidity in these Super Sats would be much reduced, as would the number of Guaranteed Seats.
I think it's pretty much a swings & roundabouts thing. Ban those guys from playing these things, & there'd be fewer Guaranteed Seats on offer.
PS - I'm not saying it is right or wrong, or that I agree or disagree with it, I'm simply adding an important fact which had not been mentioned, to give better balance to the debate.
to help and to add some data to this issue....
if once a player had qualified they were not allowed to try a second time.
there would have been 51 fewer entrants into sunday's semi-finals.
of these, there were 10 winners of a second place.
a rule would have been harmful to all players seeking to qualify.
I'm not saying the system is perfect, few things are. But on balance, for everyone, the current system benefits more people than it hinders.
Sadly, nothing in life, or Online Poker, is as fair as we'd like it to be.
I'm not sure you would.
I don't have that as gospel, I've never asked the question of the Suits, but it seems self-evident to me, & very much so.
Overlay would have lasted about a week, then the number of Guaranteed Seats reduced.
As it happens, I don't recall a single week where there has been overlay.
The equation is dynamic, & the number of Guaranteed Seats is micro-managed. Miss the Guarantee too often, they'd snap reduce the number, & quite right too.
The matter has been debated countless times, & will carry on doing so.
People's views are strictly polarised, based on where they sit in the equation. Which is perfectly natural, & to be expected.
I do think the majority are bright enough to see both sides though.
The one thing I would chuck into the debate is: I see what poncake is saying, and on the face of it, it doesn't seem fair. however, If you feel aggrieved that you are playing a satellite where a lot of regs have already won seats. IF they weren't allowed to play when they already had a seat locked up and sky had to run less satellites then you would have to face these regs anyway in order to win a seat.
I don't know what the solution is, and I agree it doesn't seem entirely "right" however tbh I would just leave it the way it is.
The Business chooses what it thinks is right (based on a better undersatanding of the numbers, which they see but we don't), & the players choose whether to engage or not.
You can cut this cake any number of ways, but never enough ways to please everyone.
With over a month to go, Sky Poker qualifiers now total 83. Far larger sites would be chuffed to bits with such a take up, & so early.
why confine thinking on multiple attempts to those who play and win? why not apply the same thinking to those who play and lose?
shouldn't you argue equally strongly and stop everyone entering a second time, whether or not they won or lost on their first attempt. but of course this would be counterproductive and complete nonsense.
isn't it really all about wanting rules that exclude better players yet retain weaker ones?
How many players are put off playing the sats at the moment as these "big hitters" are playing and they feel they have less chance of winning a seat against these players?
How many people would be put off playing if there was only say 3 or 4 seats (guess at how many would be guaranteed without the 2nd seat players) guaranteed as opposed to 5?
I am sure there are other factors to consider but those couple came to mind.
Finally, there is a lot of literature available online on sat strategy so people could spend some time improving their sat play to improve their chances of getting a seat.
Normally, poker keeps players of different ability apart naturally.
£5 - £10 cash players don't play 5p-10p cash, & 5p-10p cash players don't play £5-£10, so never the twain meets, whatever twain means.
But the Satellite Tree on Sky Poker, & in fact every site that I am aware of, means micro-limit players get to mix it with the Big Boys in the Satellite Finals.
Football & cricket keeps different abilities apart with Leagues. Golf does it by handicapping. Poker does it by buy-in levels. But Satellites confuse that logic, & all players of all abilities get to play the same Final, & hopefully, Target Event.
The debate is good, but we can never expect the extreme ends of the spectrum to agree, views are naturally polarised.
Personally, I've always flown the flag for the smaller players, & spent a good deal of my time in poker trying to do my little bit to level the playing field. (APAT etc). But I genuinely think the current model is fine, & if it were artificially skewed to exclude some or include others, the wheels would fall off. I don't expect everyone to agree with me though.
But if a decent number of the qualifiers through this route (across all sites running qualifiers for this event) opt to take the money instead, does that have a detrimental effect on the tournament itself?
Ie if it reduces the eventual number of runners does that mean the tournament organisers potentially have to cover overlay to meet the £500k guarantee, or does the rake from all the satellite entries protect against this?
And if there is a smaller field for the event, even if the rake covers the overlay, does that have any negatives for the future running of the tournament (ie less positive publicity, worse experience for the players etc?)
The trouble is that we don't know the net effect (Eg would there be more qualifiers without 2nd seat players) of players taking cash (We can estimate this but it can only be considered an estimate based on my points in my last post).
Based on Aussie's stats the 2nd seat players add to the prizepool so there isn't a negative effect on the number winning seats so this does reduce the argument.
Also, the tournament is re entry so some players will be winning seats (taking the cash) to then be able to re enter.
If that were the case, then I'm sure it would be addressed. It is not.
Sky Poker have a target number of qualifiers. They will exceed that number, by some margin.
Every Monday morning, we look at the numbers to date, both internally, & with our Partners @ DTD.
I also send a short report to DTD, & they send their version back, explaining where we are with numbers & projections.
As of today, it is already guaranteed that the Event will have in excess of 420 runners. This EXCLUDES "walk-ins" & Re-entries from Days 1a & 1b. The Guarantee requires 500 seats. I estimate it will get north of 600.
So no, there is no concern as to overall numbers. And that is because both Partners put a great deal of effort & thought into how to qualify that number of players, one way & another, & because the Players have supported the Satellites.
However I know on the show last night it was referenced several times I already had a seat, which is all true. While I locked up the equivalent of 3 or 4 seats early you'll be pleased to hear I have donated over a grand back to the community this last month in these sats. Buy ins which have no doubt helped provide additional seats to a variety of £10 satty and small bankrolled qualifiers get their seat. You are welcome.
As long as this site and these sort of events continue to be busy and successful then happy days, good for poker!
In the new new news, poker players like wining money.