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
It has been brought up before and like a lot of stuff, been sweeped under the carpet.
The unfortunate truth is that while Sky can get away with charging such high rake they will never alter it as it would mean a reduction in their revenue.
For the vast majority of players they won't even think about rake, especially at 4nl.
I seemed to get quite a few fish/bad regs without using any sort of game selection.
Suddenly a lot more satisfied with my ROI though
Keep putting ideas out there, a lot of what you say makes a lot of sense I've always thought.
If I sit down with 50xBB, then it doesn't matter if you have 51xBB or 99999xBB, it makes zero difference to the fact that every pot I play is 50xBB effective. If you're saying people feel intimidated then it's a case of educating them that it's illogical to feel that way. If someone does have 999999xBB and is playing like a nutcase cos they think they got lots of chances to try and bust you then that's great for us, let them play like a nutter.
Am pokering right now guys, but will reply in the morning.
And no, the suits did not ask me not to reply before, & will not do so now.
Have a good evening.
Morning all.
Don't quite know where to start with this, so many different views on so many different subjects, but I'll try.
Am happy to try & answer any questions, though I'll swerve the sarcy stuff if you don't mind, life's too short & all that.
I've no idea, to be honest, but I make a point of sending up to Head Office links to all threads which contain suggestions such as this.
Your question prompted quite a debate, some of it very balanced. Most of it is subjective, tomato tomayto, just depends where you sit & how you view things. There is little "right or wrong" in these things, it's all subjective.
For the record.......a few years back there was a lot of lobbying for Cash Tables with a BIGGER number of BB's, & eventually, "MASTERCASH" Tables were introduced. These had a max buy in of 200 BB's, compared to 100 BB's for "regular" cash tables.
They were received very positively indeed, & these have continued in use. Players therefore now have the option of sitting at Tables with max sit downs of either 100 or 200 BB's. A choice was offered, players seemed to like that choice. They can, of course, always sit down with less than the Max.
Could or should a max 50BB be introduced? I suppose it could, but what next, where do you start & stop, 25BB, or 10BB tables?
You have to balance two things here.
1) Giving players as wide a choice as is reasonably practical.
2) Not offering too many options, as the more different options offered, the more the liquidity is spread around. If there were only ONE max BB level (say 100), ALL the liquidiry would be concentrated there. If there were, say, ten different options, the liquidity gets diluted tenfold, assuming an equal split of players at each. Offering more & more choices is a double-edged sword.
So it's about striking a balance I suppose.
I don't play Online cash, so I don't claim to understand the pros & cons of a 50 BB table. But there's nothing to stop anyone sitting with 50BB's at a table which has a max sit down of 100BB's, or "table selection" to sit where players are sitting shallow.
If the Business thinks it will generate extra traffic without compromising the existing balance of games, I guess they'd do it. If not, they won't.
Do any other sites offer this? It's certainly a new one on me.
I don't see the attraction myself, but I like the notion of throwing out these ideas & chewing the cud.
As a business, I think the first question they will address is "will it make Sky Poker a better site, & result in a net increase in the amount of business"? If the answer were "yes", I guess they would do it. But the reduction in liquidity across the various options would certainly be foremost in their thinking.
Every single Online Poker site offers a different basket of options to players, so poker players are spoilt for choice, they can choose what they play, & where they play. Which is a great thing, imo.
Most 4NL players who can afford 200 Bigs would surely be playing at bigger stakes, no?
Interesting, incidentally, that the thread is advocating SMALLER Max Buy-Ins AND BIGGER Max Buy-ins!
And there's the whole thing, everyone likes different things, the trick is to try & please as many as possible.
Discussing these things is great, though I'm at a complete loss as to why these discussions & debates often generate so much heat. Surely it is a good thing that we all have different opinions?
They sell products, being various poker formats at different levels & costs.
They don't deceive anyone, the prices are clearly shown, & nobody is forced to buy their products.
BA charge £400 return London-Edinburgh, EasyJet charge £173 for the exact same journey. Are BA "scr3wing" passengers? No, their overall "basket of value" stacks up to some, & not to others. It's just how business works. The same equation applies to, say, Aldi & Waitrose. One is cheap, one is expensive. Both are very successful, & both offer completely different baskets of value.
Different strokes, different folks. Passengers look at the basket of value, not just the ticket price, then make their choice. Nobody is forced to fly BA to Edinburgh. The BA flights to & from Edinburgh, by the by, for next Saturday/Sunday are almost sold out. And if you visit Aldi & Waitrose today, you'll find queues at both checkouts. Customers exercise their option to do whatever they want.
Sky Poker offer a basket of products & services. Some are better, some are worse, than the competition. Maybe Rake at lower levels is higher here than than most sites, I don't know why, but supply & demand is almost certainly the answer. If you can sell apples for £2 a lb, why sell them for £1 per lb? The Y-o-Y traffic figures prove that customers, overall, seem happy with the balance. Traffic on Sky Poker across all levels has increased Y-o-Y, & very few sites can say that right now, so they cannot be THAT bad, can they?
"....recreationals have NO idea how the rake affects their winrate and how much sky's extortionate rake makes beating the game near impossible...."
Do you really believe that the vast majority of recreational players have a "win rate"? To the "poker serious" that may come as a bit of a shock, but many players just enjoy playing poker, & they know it costs them a bit of money, just as going to ther pub or cinema twice a week costs them money. It it their recreation, & recreations often cost money. Some play ONLY for profit, yes, but I suggest they are the vast minority.
Again, I think "extortionate" is a bit emotive, & does not assist the debate. You'd be staggered at how many micro-limit recreational players use Sky Poker for their poker fun. Any business, up to a point, will charge what the market will pay. Why would it not?
You might get better or worse rakeback on, say, FT or 'Stars, but equally, you might find it MUCH harder to win there. That can never be proven, but I'd suggest most hold the view that to win on, say, 'Stars, is much tougher.
You'd also neeed to try & assess the difference it makes playing on sites where HUD's & the like are permitted - they make it MUCH tougher for most of us, as the playing field is not level, & those who use HUD's & a whole array of other third party software are at a great advantage over you & me.
If any player here simply looks at ONE element - say rake @ low levels as an example - then they are not looking at the whole picture. The basket of choice & value is much much more than price alone.
Quick aside.
I've already received one rather rude message, suggesting I am dodging some of the issues. I am not, I am trying to work through the questions in chronological order.
I don't know the answers to some of the questions, I'm just doing Devils Advocate stuiff mostly. I won't "dodge" anything, but I just don't know the answers to some stuff. Most of it is subjective, anyway.
It's also Saturday, & I need to go & tend my allotment. You seen the size of my parsnips?
This is a Forum, & players feed back their views & Sky Poker read them.
You can't reasonably expect them to attempt to justify every thing they do, surely? They'd need a staff of plenty just to answer questions.
Whenever possible, I answer players questions, & do do so openly & honestly, though I do have a bias, of course.
Sky Poker is a business. It needs to keep players happy so at to maximise its earnings. Overall, it does exactly that. If you want to see the earnings profile of SB&G, google is the way, & you'll see that the business is very very successful, & so, presumably, we can assume that it offers a balanced range of products which Customers, overall, must like. That does not mean it can please all of the people all of the time. It can't, thats impossible.
By definition, threads like this concentrate on negatives. There are plenty of positives, too, which Sky Poker, & no other site, offer. I would suggest that players choose which site best suit their needs overall, but I very much doubt one single element makes much difference, they view the whole thing in a wider & more balanced context presumably.
Earlier in the thread, one player suggested "go to another site, their rake is less". Bit unbalanced that though, don't you think? Tougher to win there, some players will have HUD's, da de da. Players weigh all these things up, I'd say, rather than look at any single element.
The power sits with the players, always, as they make the choices. Plenty choose Sky Poker, plenty don't. Seems reasonable to me.
It's all part of the choice thing, Jack Spratt & his missus.
Why on earth would they ever "have a good laugh about it"? What sort of people do you think they are, that they'd laugh at players questions?
"....this is sky poker, so i should have known better by now, I guess...."
I've no idea what that means, to be honest, so I can't really respond.
I'm spending my Saturday morning trying to honestly address all the questions, is that really "having a good laugh"?
I could be be busy, cheerfully sweating my nuts off up my allotment, remember.
So the rake is less at, say, 'Stars, but it is MUCH tougher to be a winner there, as the playing field is a bit bumpy.
Again, players have that choice, & try to find what best suits them.
Poker is slowly dying new blood is needed to fund the business.
Look at the lobby, how anybody who is new to poker can understand it, I do not know. I struggle to get my heard round the amount of tables.
Should be one type of table with different blind levels. 30 to 100 bb buy in. This buy in range allows people to choose how deep they want to play. Deep tables should be avoided as they are bad for long term business.
There are totally illogical blind levels eg 100200300400500 then 1000. It would look a lot neater eg 1002005001000
Here is a list of different tables
standard
action
mastercash
action mastercash
capped
hu
hu action
hu mastercash
9 handed
pot limit
have I missed any?
Add this to the ridiculous amount of blind levels and all hu with one person sat.
This all adds up to a ridiculous looking lobby that is going put people off playing poker.
Fo sho, yes, lower rake would be good. So is the Community, & the education aspect of Ch 861, & the Guests we can learn from, all of which has definitely helped many thousands of players get better.
You could say no other site charges the rake to micro limit players that Sky Poker does. You'd probably be right. No other site also offers a Community, a TV Channel, the amount of different Promos EVERY single month. It's all a balance thing.
Players decide, as always.
Well your question is really directed at Devon.
If you think that Lobby is cluttered, ever tried navigating the 'Stars lobby?!
So the thread now has "we want more options" & "we want less options". Can you not see how impossible it is to please everyone......
Still, you'll be pleased to know that the amount of new players joining Sky Poker has recently been increasing at a decent rate of knots.
Two facts for you.
Online poker, globally, is in decline.
Sky Poker traffic is still increasing.
Three highlighted points.
What exactly has been "sweeped under the carpet"? If you pardon the pun, that's a sweeping allegation!
"get away with high rake". Why "get away with"? They are not deceiving anyone. They offer a range of products, people are not forced to buy them.
I agree 100% with your last statement, very few players at 4NL are interested in the rake level, they just want to sit & play some fun poker, chat with their mates on the rail, play in ££'s which they understand, & enjoy themselves. That's why most of us play poker, surely? That's my excuse, anyway.