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!
"£10 MTT entry please". "Fine, that'll be £11".
It’s weird how we come to accept the conventions of poker, both live & online.
Generally, though there are a growing number of exceptions, we pay our Reg Fee on top of the prize pool.
The prize pool excludes the Reg Fee of course.
And everyone seems happy.
There is another way to do it, though.
We all prefer to think, & spend, in nice round numbers.
£5, £10, £15 or £20, seems to feel better than £5,50, £11, £16.50, or £22.
Personally – this is just me - but I prefer the nice round numbers.
This is something the Suits discussed recently, too.
Let’s look at how it would work. Please note the maths are approximate & indicative only, it’s just the theory I’m thinking about.
So….
Comments
Let’s use as a nice easy example, the Tuesday Night Turbo Open, which costs £11 to enter, being £10 + £1.
Currently
100 runners each pay £10 + £1.
Prize Pool = £1,000 Reg Fees = £100.
Thinking Out Loud Version
100 runners each pay £10 TOTAL.
Of that £10….
£9.10 = Prize Pool
£0.90 = Reg Fees.
Now the 100 runners produce these numbers.
Prize Pool 100 x £9.10 = £910.
Reg Fees = £0.90 x 100 = £90.
So the net result is that…..
Players pay less to enter.
Players pay less Reg Fees.
Players win less.
The Business receives less Reg Fees
The Business (probably?) benefits slightly from a more customer-friendly number.
It’s much the same thing really.
Or is it?
I know that personally, when I look at how much I want to spend on poker, I think in nice, easy, round numbers.
In overall terms, it would make very little difference to me.
Much the same logic would apply to SNG’s, of course.
Instead of £3.30, £5.50, £11 or £22, it’d be £3, £5, £10, or £20.
What do you think?......”
Another method would be to just take 10% out of the total, like this…..
100 x £10 = £1,000
Less 10% for Reg Fees = £100
Prize Pool = £900.
What that does is reduce a £1,000 Prize Pool by £10, which the Business gets, so effectively, players are paying a fraction over 10%.
It’s as near as makes no difference really, but it might cause a hoohah I suppose.
The problem is that the method I outlined originally means less Reg Fees for the Business, & little likelihood of incremental gain, except “user-friendly”.
It all just seems quite interesting to me, challenging convention.
Mostly, it achieves nothing, but it’s a great way to think about stuff.
I do know that in my daft little world, a tenner tourney should be exactly that - a tenner.
No, as far as I know, DTD are still doing it, though there are various ingredients in their mix which change it slightly. But in theory, yes, much the same logic.
At the upcoming Sky Poker UKPC 6-Max @ DTD, for example, the method is "a £1,000 MTT is a £1,000 buy-in" with 10% deducted from the total prize pool. Some complications CAN arise there though if the MTT fails to meet it's Guarantee, but that's just a peripheral problem really.
I'm not sure, but I think one or two Online Poker Sites are doing it now, too.
Nothing stands still for ever, nor should it. The difficult bit is finding a better way forward, if indeed it is needed or thought worthwhile. That's why folks like Bill Gates & Steve Jobs ended up with all the lolly - thinking outside the box.
No, the subject is nothing to do with player numbers.
As I explained in my Posts, it would have little or no direct benefit in that respect. It's really about convenience, & common-sense, & challenging conventional wisdom.
Trial it?
Well that's way outside my remit, but the example I used, the Tuesday £Tenner (err, £Elevener....) Turbo Open would be my preference as a trial, nice & simple. I doubt anyone would see much difference, but it just somehow feels right to me.
Increase traffic? No, that won't happen, not at all, (imo), & is not really the logic.
The Guarantee "problem"? Well yes, that, in theory, is a headache, but the best way to tackle that is by dealing with the root cause - don't have overlay. No overlay means no guarantee problem. Whatever way you skin the overlay cat, overlay is BAD for everyone in the long term. The Customer, ultimately, pays the overlay bill imo, as it means less cash is available for other stuff such as Promos, the TV Channel, da de da. Overlay is inefficiency, & there is little business logic, it is simply not sustainable.
SNG's? Quite interesting that. I play tons of them, & never quite know how much I've made or lost. £3.30, what sort of number is that? I'd far rather have £3, £5, £10, £20, etc. It's just a personal thing really, overall it makes very little difference except between our ears.
the overlay/guarantee mechanism is a business tool to increase volumes.
There is no huge benefit for or against, it just tidies up an anomoly really. £10 should be £10, arguably.
That's an interesting point about headline prizes, as the Business would need to make sure it's Guarantees are correct. That's a good thing thouugh, & they already micro-manage them. There's alot of understandable booing & hissing from the back row when Guarantees get reduced, but overlay is setting fire to hard earned money. Giving away a £1 in overlay means you have to earn it twice more to get where you should have been. And Overlay does not increase traffic, the data proves that.
I don't think Guarantees here would be much affected, as Traffic has entered a strong growth phase, soon to be accelerated when SNG's & MTT's can be played via the App, both of which are on the way. Increase the traffic & the Guarantee problem solves itself.
i think this is a simple move to eradicate the cost of overlay yet retain numbers.
i would guess that the next move would be to have the £9.10 element of the £10 entry rounded to £9. this is a 11% increase in "rake".
so, all in all, my thoughts are no.
the change would not be in the interest of the player, it would be in the interest of sky, although even then sky would lose as they would no longer have this tool to increase or maintain the number of player in each mtt.
For the UKPC is it not £1000 per player and 10% comes off the prize pool?
If Sky was going to go to do this, would it be the same figure? 10% taken from the prize pool?
If this was the case, then this just makes it more expensive for the player to play and more money for the site?
As in 10% taken from prize pool is more than 10% added onto prizepool.
I don't know if it would make much of a difference in as everyone is familiar with how things are at the moment.
But can see the merit if people did find it easier.
Do you prefer to shop at the Poundshop rather than the 99p shop as its a nice round number?
Getting too old to work out the change? :-)
I'm not aware there is an "overlay" mechanism, except some poor so & so in the office probably gets a metaphorical slap round the chops when it occurs.
Gurantees, yes, they exist for good business reasons, to help with volume.
That's a different topic though.
I explained that the same logic applied (or could) to SNG's. SNG's dont have overlay, ever.
It's what I said it was, just challenging conventional wisdom.
I did articulate the "alternative" of the rake increase, but that was just my thoughts, just thinking out loud. The Business have not indicated that to me.
The thought process is based on what I said - no more, no less. Should a £10 MTT or SNG cost £10 or £11 to enter?
Not necessarily. I did the workings of both methods in my Posts, the first of which does NOT increase what the Business earns per MTT. It reduces it, in fact, as I demonstrated.
I then set out the alternative, which does increase it. You are only responding to the second scenario. The first does not make it more expensive to play, nor does it cost the player anything.
I honestly have no idea if or what they may or may not do. It's just a discussion topic.
In Vegas, a lot of stuff was $0.99c, or $9.99, or whatever.
They don't even offer you the change, every retail outlet has a little Charity Box on the counter, & they chuck the cent in that.
Can't say I've ever been in a Poundland, though I know the founders made a an absolute fortune from the business. I'm more a Wilko man.
for example, there is no point having guarantees that will never be reached, it costs profit. equally, if the guarantee is always beaten, it ceases to operate at an optimum, and potential profit is missed.
i would set guarantees to be beaten on say 95% of tournaments. i would vary guarantees regularly, upwards and downwards. but overall, the numbers playing will be higher than not having the tool.
but overlay and guarantee are part of one mechanism.
it is good business sense to aim for overlay in, say, 1 in 20 tournaments. otherwise skypoker loses money. insofar that other positions will lose more.
I have no idea of the actual %, or whether you refer to number of MTT's, or "subsidy" (total amount of Overlay), but they micro-manage it, very tightly, so I guess 95%$ would not be far out.
It has very little to do with the £10/£11 thing though, that was not part of the thought process at all. I guess it is a consequence, though, but a very small one.
I have not "challenged them" on that or anything else, but if you want my views, & me to send feedback on that particular issue Upstairs, I'm 100% fine with that & will try to field all questions such as I'm able.
Feel free to start a new Thread on that topic, otherwise this one will wander too far off track. I'll try & field questions on that matter, & send it all up to Suitville.
yes, i see. i am only putting forward that the overlay/guarantee thing is a healthy and honourable mechanism by which skypoker can increase their income.
the planned existence and regular occurrence of overlay should be a fundamental part of the business plan. rather than someone in the office getting a clip round the ear if overlay happens they should be patted on the back if the overlay is in line with plan.
"effective rake increase".
My main discussion topic did not include such a thing.
For the purpose of balance, I then included the "effective rake increase" theory, too.
I am not aware that they have any plans to do either.
I DID think it would be good to have a sort of "thinking out loud" debate, where we could chit & chat about the pros & cons, because I genuinely think that is a good thing. Very few Online Poker sites do that.
Well I'm sure they include Overlay ("Subsidy" is their terminology) in their Forecasts, & no, I doubt anyone really gets a clip round the ear if overlay occurs within Forecast.
But I bet he gets a cooey-wooey note from Lord Top Suit if he spends less than Forecast.
It's an interesting thing, the whole "Guarantee" debate really.