All Categories› Poker› Sky Poker Premiership

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!
Options

Crazy

aussie09aussie09
edited September 2014 in Sky Poker Premiership


dan, sky, what are you thinking?

surely you didn't randomly allocate a team to each person by repeating a 1 in 20 process for each player?  surely you didn't allocate player A with a team, and then the same for player B and so on, as you would get different (wildly) numbers in each team. 

I would have thought that from the 3,500 players you randomly select c.175 players in each team.  that would be fair, sensible and expected.  unfortunately you have done the former.

the outcome is that your "random" process has produced teams of widely differing numbers...
The Clarets 205
The Black Cats 190
The Potters 188
The Magpies 184
The Eagles 183
The Hammers 183
The Foxes 182
The Swans 181
The Citizens 181
The Hoops 179
The Blues 174
The Spurs 172
The Toffees 165
The Baggies 164
The Tigers 163
The Reds 163
The Villans 163
The Red Devils 162
The Gunners 158
The Saints 156

very silly.

unfair that one team has 33% more players than another.

then to look at recent form as an indicator of the likely winners in week 3 and take the points scored over the past two weeks, there is one winner already.

The Black Cats 47188
The Eagles 35973
The Swans 35596
The Potters 33956
The Toffees 32625
The Tigers 32222
The Red Devils 31843
The Hammers 28749
The Clarets 24328
The Foxes 24325
The Magpies 24148
The Hoops 23277
The Spurs 21857
The Citizens 20822
The Reds 20634
The Villans 20089
The Saints 19750
The Gunners 19621
The Blues 15351
The Baggies 13932

game over.


there is a huge difference between randomly selecting players into each team and randomly allocating a team to each player. 

just think how the poker RNG would be if someone decided to use such a bizarre procedure.



 



 
· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Comments

  • Options
    belsibubbelsibub
    edited August 2014
    Am I surprised?No.
    Suggest you change title if you want sky to respond(though i doubt they will never to mine).
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    Sky_DanRSky_DanR
    edited August 2014
    I'll forward your feedback on to the marketing team to see if they were aware of this and if they want to amend the team selection system. It's too late to change this week's teams but they might do going forward. 

    Although as it is now it does mean teams with less players if they manage to win have less to share it with so get more.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    aussie09aussie09
    edited August 2014


    thanks, but i am not fussed.  if skypoker want to change it, they will.  if they don't, they won't.  sometimes people do things without thinking it through.  we all do.  i don't think they realised that the procedure they are using might have a random element but it is within a poorly constructed process. 

    it simply nullifies the potential to motivate 3,000 players.



     
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    aussie09aussie09
    edited August 2014
    In Response to Re: Crazy:
    I'll forward your feedback on to the marketing team to see if they were aware of this and if they want to amend the team selection system. It's too late to change this week's teams but they might do going forward.  Although as it is now it does mean teams with less players if they manage to win have less to share it with so get more.
    Posted by Sky_DanR

    that's good.


    but it is still a nonsense this week.


    ps.   a small share of £5,000 is infinitely better than a big share of zero.



     

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    belsibubbelsibub
    edited August 2014
    Order close to what you predicted.



    Position Team Points Premier League Wins Prize Details
    1 The Black Cats 7106 £4,000
    2 The Eagles 6249 £2,000
    3 The Swans 5862 £2,000
    4 The Potters 5768 £1,000
    5 The Red Devils 5177 £1,000
    6 The Villans 4791
    7 The Tigers 4617
    8 The Magpies 4454
    9 The Toffees 4071
    10 The Hoops 3584
    11 The Hammers 3506
    12 The Foxes 3494
    13 The Blues 3397
    14 The Reds 3187
    15 The Gunners 2970
    16 The Spurs 2858
    17 The Clarets 2367
    18 The Citizens 1863               1
    19 The Baggies 1856
    20 The Saints 1796
     
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    Sky_JustinSky_Justin
    edited September 2014
    In Response to Crazy:
    dan, sky, what are you thinking? surely you didn't randomly allocate a team to each person by repeating a 1 in 20 process for each player?  surely you didn't allocate player A with a team, and then the same for player B and so on, as you would get different (wildly) numbers in each team.  I would have thought that from the 3,500 players you randomly select c.175 players in each team.  that would be fair, sensible and expected.  unfortunately you have done the former. the outcome is that your "random" process has produced teams of widely differing numbers... The Clarets 205 The Black Cats 190 The Potters 188 The Magpies 184 The Eagles 183 The Hammers 183 The Foxes 182 The Swans 181 The Citizens 181 The Hoops 179 The Blues 174 The Spurs 172 The Toffees 165 The Baggies 164 The Tigers 163 The Reds 163 The Villans 163 The Red Devils 162 The Gunners 158 The Saints 156 very silly. unfair that one team has 33% more players than another. then to look at recent form as an indicator of the likely winners in week 3 and take the points scored over the past two weeks, there is one winner already. The Black Cats 47188 The Eagles 35973 The Swans 35596 The Potters 33956 The Toffees 32625 The Tigers 32222 The Red Devils 31843 The Hammers 28749 The Clarets 24328 The Foxes 24325 The Magpies 24148 The Hoops 23277 The Spurs 21857 The Citizens 20822 The Reds 20634 The Villans 20089 The Saints 19750 The Gunners 19621 The Blues 15351 The Baggies 13932 game over. there is a huge difference between randomly selecting players into each team and randomly allocating a team to each player.  just think how the poker RNG would be if someone decided to use such a bizarre procedure.    
    Posted by aussie09


    Hello Aussie,

    Unfortunately this is how the promotion was setup.  It randomly allocates a player to each team but does not evenly distribute the teams.  This means that some teams will have more players then others.  Although this is unfair to some teams, those teams will still need to earn the points and finish in the top 5 to receive any benefits.  

    Just because you have more players on your team doesn't necessarily mean you will win that week because you may end up with lots of players that do not contribute to the team point total.  There may be some teams that don't have as many players but have a few priority players that can swing the advantage back in their favour and earn them a bigger share of the prizepool.  In the end it is still a random team allocation and if you are lucky to be on a team with more players, the team will still need to accumulate a large amount of points throughout the week to finish in the top 5.

    Thanks,
    Justin 

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    aussie09aussie09
    edited September 2014
    In Response to Re: Crazy:
    In Response to Crazy : Hello Aussie, Unfortunately this is how the promotion was setup.  It randomly allocates a player to each team but does not evenly distribute the teams.  This means that some teams will have more players then others.  Although this is unfair to some teams, those teams will still need to earn the points and finish in the top 5 to receive any benefits.   Just because you have more players on your team doesn't necessarily mean you will win that week because you may end up with lots of players that do not contribute to the team point total.  There may be some teams that don't have as many players but have a few priority players that can swing the advantage back in their favour and earn them a bigger share of the prizepool.  In the end it is still a random team allocation and if you are lucky to be on a team with more players, the team will still need to accumulate a large amount of points throughout the week to finish in the top 5. Thanks, Justin 
    Posted by Sky_Justin


    hi justin

    this is the use (or misuse) of random.  

    it is good to randomly select 1/20th of the players into a team.

    it is not good to randomly apply one of 20 teams to a player (repeated for 3,000 players)

    you have a process which produces unequal teams from day 1.   you only need to use "random" correctly and you will have a promotion that incentivises more players for longer.  if i were designing a £10,000 a week promotion i would want to ensure that it encourages more people to play more. 

    it is an opportunity missed for you.






    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    IandJIandJ
    edited September 2014
    In Response to Re: Crazy:
    In Response to Re: Crazy : hi justin this is the use (or misuse) of random.   it is good to randomly select 1/20th of the players into a team. it is not good to randomly apply one of 20 teams to a player (repeated for 3,000 players) you have a process which produces unequal teams from day 1.   you only need to use "random" correctly and you will have a promotion that incentivises more players for longer.  if i were designing a £10,000 a week promotion i would want to ensure that it encourages more people to play more.  it is an opportunity missed for you.
    Posted by aussie09
    i totally agree with you, although i was in the winning team for bonuses last week 'the blues' i got two free bets and 15 pound its still not fair on other players who put alot of gameplay into it to collect points but are being let down by a lack of players in there teams. My team has been carried this week by one player collecting almost 19000 points. The eagles got 2nd i think. What team was you in?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    aussie09aussie09
    edited September 2014


    still crazy, week 4, one team has over 50% more players than the second biggest team.
    The Baggies 359
    The Spurs 234
    The Potters 228
    The Gunners 227
    The Foxes 224
    The Black Cats 218
    The Villans 218
    The Reds 217
    The Citizens 217
    The Saints 215
    The Red Devils 215
    The Tigers 214
    The Hammers 213
    The Eagles 209
    The Blues 201
    The Hoops 198
    The Toffees 198
    The Magpies 198
    The Clarets 192
    The Swans 191

    i think that this is not just the known problem of poor use of random, this must now also include a clerical error.

    the gap between biggest and all other teams is too great for randomness alone.







    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    IandJIandJ
    edited September 2014
    In Response to Re: Crazy:
    still crazy, week 4, one team has over 50% more players than the second biggest team. The Baggies 359 The Spurs 234 The Potters 228 The Gunners 227 The Foxes 224 The Black Cats 218 The Villans 218 The Reds 217 The Citizens 217 The Saints 215 The Red Devils 215 The Tigers 214 The Hammers 213 The Eagles 209 The Blues 201 The Hoops 198 The Toffees 198 The Magpies 198 The Clarets 192 The Swans 191 i think that this is not just the known problem of poor use of random, this must now also include a clerical error. the gap between biggest and all other teams is too great for randomness alone.
    Posted by aussie09
     Thats is by no means fair at all!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    IandJIandJ
    edited September 2014
    In Response to Re: Crazy:
    still crazy, week 4, one team has over 50% more players than the second biggest team. The Baggies 359 The Spurs 234 The Potters 228 The Gunners 227 The Foxes 224 The Black Cats 218 The Villans 218 The Reds 217 The Citizens 217 The Saints 215 The Red Devils 215 The Tigers 214 The Hammers 213 The Eagles 209 The Blues 201 The Hoops 198 The Toffees 198 The Magpies 198 The Clarets 192 The Swans 191 i think that this is not just the known problem of poor use of random, this must now also include a clerical error. the gap between biggest and all other teams is too great for randomness alone.
    Posted by aussie09
    its abit crazy that the baggies have 125 more players than the next BIGGEST TEAM and 148 than the smallest more players. not fair chance at all
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    HITMAN_RVHITMAN_RV
    edited September 2014
    It Is a Free Money Excercise after all, few flaws i feel, but Hey Ho!!

    A Better Promotion would be to Give ALL the Money to me, then I lose it Randomly to other Sky Players in MTTS over the weeks..

    Hold On.... That Promotion has been on for Four Years!!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    shakinacesshakinaces
    edited September 2014
    I heard rumours that Richard Orford was asked to help out in the office this week and saw this as a once in a lifetime chance for The Baggies to win a league title?

    ps - are your formula correct Aussie because, being of similar geek background, I also run through this to check out my chances of a win and only counted 207 Baggies (other sides count the same as you).

    Still a bit daft logic I agree, but no clerical error after all?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    Sky_JustinSky_Justin
    edited September 2014
    In Response to Re: Crazy:
    still crazy, week 4, one team has over 50% more players than the second biggest team. The Baggies 359 The Spurs 234 The Potters 228 The Gunners 227 The Foxes 224 The Black Cats 218 The Villans 218 The Reds 217 The Citizens 217 The Saints 215 The Red Devils 215 The Tigers 214 The Hammers 213 The Eagles 209 The Blues 201 The Hoops 198 The Toffees 198 The Magpies 198 The Clarets 192 The Swans 191 i think that this is not just the known problem of poor use of random, this must now also include a clerical error. the gap between biggest and all other teams is too great for randomness alone.
    Posted by aussie09

    Here is the actual team distribution for week 4

    The Baggies 207
    The Black Cats 218
    The Blues 201
    The Citizens 217
    The Clarets 192
    The Eagles 209
    The Foxes 224
    The Gunners 227
    The Hammers 213
    The Hoops 198
    The Magpies 198
    The Potters 228
    The Red Devils 215
    The Reds 217
    The Saints 215
    The Spurs 234
    The Swans 191
    The Tigers 214
    The Toffees 198
    The Villans 218
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    gerardirlgerardirl
    edited September 2014
    Hi guys, I might be wrong but from what I can see it doesnt matter if some teams have more players as most players pts are insignificant to the overall result. You could have 50 players earning on average 20 pts , some earning none..... 

    I get your point let each team have the same amount of players. But I wouldnt get too caught up on it when all that really matters is what teams the big earners are on. Would be nice to hear from sky non the less.

    Ger


    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    aussie09aussie09
    edited September 2014

    ah, my clerical error..   no time to check now but will tomorrow.


    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    WAOOGAWAOOGA
    edited September 2014
    Yeah Based on week 3 scores Baggies will be 15th

    Top 5 might be the following based on week 3 scores - quite a few new players this week so who knows....
    The Hoops 52018
    The Clarets 47517
    The Reds 45623
    The Saints 40860
    The Spurs 31263
    This method produced the top 5 for week 3 as
    The Black Cats 47188
    The Eagles 35973
    The Swans 35596
    The Potters 33956
    The Toffees 32625
    Not sure what happened to The Villians - I had them as 16 so it aint 100% lol
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    gerardirlgerardirl
    edited September 2014
    Oh no 4 weeks now and no cashes ouch...anyone else not cashed yet???
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    WAOOGAWAOOGA
    edited September 2014
    In Response to Re: Crazy:
    Oh no 4 weeks now and no cashes ouch...anyone else not cashed yet???
    Posted by gerardirl
    Sorry Ger, Potters are predicted as last this week :(

    I'm not much better off - Magpies are looking at 19th

    There might be some mad grinders who are new in the promo or didn't play last week so you never know!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    gerardirlgerardirl
    edited September 2014
    Ive already written this week off. Will be pretty rough if i go the 7 weeks without a cash! Yikes!!

    In my 3 years here Ive been excellent avoiding cashing in skys promos!! lol

    Hows things Waooga ....what games you playing these days?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    tomred64tomred64
    edited September 2014
    NO JOY FOR ME EITHER AND PUTTING IN ABOUT 500 POINTS PER WEEK............
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Options
    WAOOGAWAOOGA
    edited September 2014
    In Response to Re: Crazy:
    Ive already written this week off. Will be pretty rough if i go the 7 weeks without a cash! Yikes!! In my 3 years here Ive been excellent avoiding cashing in skys promos!! lol Hows things Waooga ....what games you playing these days?
    Posted by gerardirl
    Hi Ger,

    Looks possible for you this week - keep em crossed!

    I'm having one of those nowt n something periods where my BR doesn't move, still better than being down I guess. Playing 1.15 DYM - one of these days I might be brave and stick at trying the 2.25's.

    Still smashing the 3:30's?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.