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
Posted by devonfish5
I honestly don't know where some of these ideas come from!
Wrong. Nobody told me to do, or not do, anything.
I DID agree some weeks ago to start a thread to discuss it, after one Gent asked me to. I decided to look at his previous Posts before doing so, & discovered that a great % of his previous posts were making the same point over & over again. In my experience, that's a debate I could never win, as his views were deeply entrenched, so in the end, I decided not to do it.
But I have now.
I agree that "Teddy talks much sense". He's one of those guys who you ALWAYS want to read their posts as they are intelligent & lucid. I happen to disagree with him on this one, but we'll have a debate, not an argument, as we are both grown ups.
I'm afraid that's the nature of Forums. People like to be rude when using a computer. They never speak that way face to face, of course.
People are rude to Sky Poker or myself all the time, because they KNOW we cannot respond in kind, so it strikes me as a bit low, to be honest.
c'est la vie.
Back in the day (here he goes again....), almost every Online Poker site had a Forum.
Most of them descended into players abusing the site, so they closed them down. Very very few poker sites now have attached Forums, for obvious reasons, the sheer negativity was ott.
Peresonally, I hope Sky Poker keep their "Community" Forum, as I think it adds a lot to the site. Hard to put a "value" against it though, either as a Business, or a player.
I could name you several users of this Community who have never ONCE said anything positive about Sky Poker, & who almost only play Freerolls. Go figure.
PS - Pretty sure we shared PLO8 Tables recently, or am I dreaming?
BOOM!
Think that's everyone replied to, & the broom has not swept anything under the carpet, either.
I'm done for now, see you later.
I can't debate it for ever, but if need be, I'll respond to further comments & questions, but not until tomorrow morning.
I got some poker to play tonight, wiiiiiiiiiiiii.
sky will of course charge as much as people are willing to pay. what i'm questioning is whether that is good for the long-term health of the games at the micro-stakes level [and the levels above actually]. in particular the games that are in the main unbeatable due to rake [sub £1 hyper HUSNG and DYMs all count]. if no-one is winning then the money is leaving the player pool. if people are deposting regularly then happy days for sky i guess. i'm not an economist or privvy to sky's business plan so i could be WAY off base, of course.
you say that most recreationals dont have a win rate and play for enjoyment. i'm saying that it is impossible to have a win-rate in those games. poker is a form of gambling [with a skill element]. gambling games that offer a chance to 'spin up' or go on a mini-heater are surely more enjoyable? at the moment that would be difficult for even the best players on the site to achieve at those levels.
see [editing name, not fair to bring his name up all the time]'s first diary for example. he felt fustrated and has quit playing numerous times. if he took his winrate to the level above he would have been a break even player. he is significantly better than the players in his games yet hemorrhaged money due to playing in unbeatable games.
we all know just what a psychologically intense game poker is when you cant seem to win. these games are unbeatble. as the 'entry level' games, i'm not sure that they are a great introduction to poker for the peeps who might deposit a tenner to try this wonderful game of ours.
if traffic and deposits are increasing at the micros, then fair enough: if sky keep offering unbeatable games they will clean up. just wondering if allowing players at the bottom to win and build a bank-roll would increase the liquidity of games [not just at the bottom, but throughout the site], would increase the enjoyement of the player-pool [winnning feels nicer than losing] and would be better for the long-term health of the site and business.
i'm very pro sky and recommend the site to people all the time. the lobbies are clean and well set up, cashouts instant, and the community is fantastic. i do feel that microstakes players, however, are getting a bad deal. that they arent aware of that and are willing to play games that they dont know are unbeatable doesnt, for me at least, change that fact.
again, i'm not an economist or in any way intersted in business models etc, but thats how things appear to my admittedly naive eyes.
thanks.
Thanks for getting back to me on that other PLO thread by the way (going for the win versus nit laddering), still struggling a bit with it, did Google ICM and even though I maybe didn't understand all of it I feel like going through the thought process of trying to work it out helped me a lot.
I tend to think for a really long time about the smallest of little things so it takes me a while to put things into words some times. I appreciated you making the effort to reply though and was glad to hear that things were generally going well.
PS - You're 2 -1 up in HiLo DYMs we've played together I think, I'll pull it back though.
The other reason that there was a call for at least one 2p/4p Mastercash table was that it would then have a "televised" icon, so maybe a hand could be featured in Mastercash hour on TV every now and then, and that hands from that table could be sent into the live shows for Poker Clinic etc. I find it ironic that the stakes where the players probably need the most help and would most welcome the odd one-off spot of having a hand on TV, is the very level where this is denied them.
Rightly or wrongly sometimes it feels people make all manner of positive suggestions for the site which appear to fall on deaf ears.
I agree 100% with Teddybloat's post.
Anything that can be done to promote the game should be encouraged.
In the short term charging the higher % rake will make Sky the most money.
As with Teddy, i'm not an economist, but I would argue that reducing rake (at the micros) would be more beneficial long term and result in longer term profits. A bit like Walmart's stack them high sell them cheap.
If the games were "beatable" then it could only help the poker food chain. 7.5% at 4/10nl is massive imo. These games are still beatable (at cash) however it is very difficult for anyone to move up from these levels given the constraint of rake. Short term Sky might lose a bit of money reducing rake at micros but for the longevity of the game and the site I feel it could only be a boon.
The rake at DYM's 15% plus at micros and 10% on 55p hypers, it would seem safe to say these games are pretty much unbeatable for micro players.
They keep saying that online poker is in decline. I think Tikay you have said in the past Sky has been bucking this trend which is brilliant. But I passionately believe anything that a site can do to encourage / promote the game should be supported.
A big thing Sky could do in this regard is offer better terms for micro players in relation to rake, which would have a follow on higher up the chain.
rake already takes money off the tables. i posta calc either in this thread or another that showed that at the micros the equivilient of 6 buyins leaves the table every 4.5 hours.
if everytime a player won a pot the money went to their account then that would mean money leaves the table in two ways: rake and winnings
essentially players would have to top up more regularly than they do now to keep money on the table.
at the moment if player A wins a small pot of player B then that money is still available for the other players to win.
unless everyone auto-topped up tables would maybe dry up quicker
again i'm not 100% sure how this would affect dynamics / business / playign experience, but it is summat to consider.
I disagreed with you. I outlined my reasons why I didn't think it was an idea that was feasible, worthwhile, or would ever take off. If this is being ''damn well rude'' or means I have a ''lack of class'', then so be it.
It certainly won't discourage me from agreeing/disagreeing with you on any future topics.
I actually think anyone reading through this thread will be able to easily determine who has acted childishly and who hasn't.
Think Tikay has put some cracking posts on here, when he really isn't obliged to.
WP sir.
As an aside, I guess you're posting this on your way home from the match. Not seen the results yet. How did you get on? I imagine against a team like Stoke you won by 4 or 5?
Just because I don't agree doesn't mean I put your posts down. But you do say plenty of things that I (and others) don't agree with; folding KK pre because you'd lost the previous 3 hands with it, saying Sunday is ''bingo day'', the idea in this thread etc etc. I'm not the only person who doesn't think the idea in this thread isn't feasible or needed. But I'm happy to debate things and ideas, this is a forum after all.
I think your sly digs have been completely unnecessary and I'd have much more respect for you if you just called me out in the future.
Good book.
I've read it twice.
Hilarious as always Brian
Why don't we just rent a room and be done with it?
Anyway, lets not derail, might get accused of being a troll and all that.
Traffic is increasing here, declining elsewhere, all is good. Sky is about to dominate!!! What u worried about!!!?
Morning all, off we go......