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!
New UK Gaming Regulations - Idea for Sky
I've just been discussing this with a few mates on FB and it seems to be a complete no-brainer to do it, but I'm sure there are lots of things to think about that we've overlooked so maybe it's not so cut and dry.
The new ruling means Sky will have to pay 15% tax on all gross rake (BEFORE rakeback). Sky haven't discussed their future plans regarding this afaik but you would assume they would like to recoup at least some of this 'loss'... whether it be by reducing the budget for promotions, increasing rake or, the most likely candidate imo, reducing Sky Rewards...
So.... Why don't Sky completely do away with RB, and lower the rake by say 20-30% ?
It would mean that players are no worse off than the current system but Sky would be paying 15% tax on a figure which is now 20-30% smaller than it was. They've lost nothing because what they reduce the rake by is recouped by not paying out any RB at all.
To use me as an example... (under the 20% idea)
Say under the current system, I play cash all month, and pay £2000 in rake. At 6 points per £1 that puts me at 12,000 points so 20% RB, so I'd get £400. Sky would pay 15% of £2000 which = £300
Now under the proposed system, I play cash all month, exact same volume but the rake is 20% lower and as a result I only pay Sky £1600 in rake. I don't get any RB at all, but my overall end result is identical. The only difference is Sky pay 15% tax on £1600 instead which = £240
Multiply that by the number of players on the site and it's a large saving when no-one loses out.
The reason I mentioned 20 or 30% is because obviously it does make a difference to people who currently earn 20,000+ points if it's only reduced by 20%. Maybe Sky could go with the 30% idea so while they are taking a hit on the players that earn <30,000 points, that's probably not as big a hit as if they had to pay 15% tax on a much larger amount of total rake.
It's not necessarily a potential USP for the site, but it can't be seen as negative really and it would certainly be another unique attribute of the site. Sure, a rec is never going to sign up to a site because their rake is lower (most don't even think about rake), but equally are they really gonna sign up because they can earn <£5 per month in RB, I don't think so. So it shouldn't have a detrimental affect on new player sign ups.
Games should get better
Certain games which were previously unbeatable due to rake may now become beatable.
Winrates should go up all round.
Any flaws/thoughts?
The new ruling means Sky will have to pay 15% tax on all gross rake (BEFORE rakeback). Sky haven't discussed their future plans regarding this afaik but you would assume they would like to recoup at least some of this 'loss'... whether it be by reducing the budget for promotions, increasing rake or, the most likely candidate imo, reducing Sky Rewards...
So.... Why don't Sky completely do away with RB, and lower the rake by say 20-30% ?
It would mean that players are no worse off than the current system but Sky would be paying 15% tax on a figure which is now 20-30% smaller than it was. They've lost nothing because what they reduce the rake by is recouped by not paying out any RB at all.
To use me as an example... (under the 20% idea)
Say under the current system, I play cash all month, and pay £2000 in rake. At 6 points per £1 that puts me at 12,000 points so 20% RB, so I'd get £400. Sky would pay 15% of £2000 which = £300
Now under the proposed system, I play cash all month, exact same volume but the rake is 20% lower and as a result I only pay Sky £1600 in rake. I don't get any RB at all, but my overall end result is identical. The only difference is Sky pay 15% tax on £1600 instead which = £240
Multiply that by the number of players on the site and it's a large saving when no-one loses out.
The reason I mentioned 20 or 30% is because obviously it does make a difference to people who currently earn 20,000+ points if it's only reduced by 20%. Maybe Sky could go with the 30% idea so while they are taking a hit on the players that earn <30,000 points, that's probably not as big a hit as if they had to pay 15% tax on a much larger amount of total rake.
It's not necessarily a potential USP for the site, but it can't be seen as negative really and it would certainly be another unique attribute of the site. Sure, a rec is never going to sign up to a site because their rake is lower (most don't even think about rake), but equally are they really gonna sign up because they can earn <£5 per month in RB, I don't think so. So it shouldn't have a detrimental affect on new player sign ups.
Games should get better
Certain games which were previously unbeatable due to rake may now become beatable.
Winrates should go up all round.
Any flaws/thoughts?
Comments
If someone is a losing player but RB makes them break even, then under the proposed system it would be exactly the same cos instead of them losing £10 everyday for 10 days of the month, then getting £100 back at the end, they'd just be breaking even everyday or w/e. Obv if never works out exactly like that, but overall they'd be no better or worse off.
Their RB disappears but their winrate increases in line with that. Even if that's a case of improving their 'loss-rate'. Losing players will still have a better win rate even if it's still a negative winrate.
The only way it would be different is mentally, and that's fair enough, that might be a big enough deal for it not to be a go-er for Sky.
Like for me, when I sit down each session, I know the amount of points I earn are gonig to equal abuot £20-£30... under the new system I wouldn't get anything at the end of the month, but every session result would be £20-30 better than it was under the current system (long term obv).
There is the incentive to play thing, but that is just a mental thing really cos that feeling of thinking 'I'll play X tonight and that means £10 RB at the end of the month', well playing that same X tonight still = £10 it's just gonna be on that night's results.
Didn't realise the tax was based on rake as opposed to profit... I guess that can only really hit the players at the end of the day then, either via increased rake or (at best) reduced promos. It seems unlikely that big business would want to see major profit reductions?
That's like saying 'I can save £2000 a year on X insurance, therefore I won't bother saving £200 on my electricity bills even though I can'. If it's a big saving, then it's a big saving, regardless of if you can make bigger savings in other areas.
You think Sky have went, 'well we gotta pay 5mil tax on skybet, but it's only 1mil tax on sky poker, so who cares?'. Of course they're gonna wanna recoup from all areas.
Everything I have read the tax is after rakeback and it also includes other gambling
So if I pay say 1000 in rake and get 100 in rakeback then win 600 on blackjack. They only pay 15% on £300.
Can Sky clarify this?
I don't imagine they will say anything yet awhile, some of the legislative processes are currently under Legal appeal, but the whole thing has been on the table for a very long time, & all Online Gaming Sites, including SB&G, will have formulated their general policies & approach to it some time ago.
We have already seen 'Stars UK defer their changes from Oct 1st to November 1st, so announcing anything too early is probably not wise.
Poker, here & elsewhere, will be just fine, life will go on as usual, & Online Poker will be a better place generally for Licencing & improved regulation.
How are your ferrets? Still got them? Can't imagine too many folk outside Yorkshire keep ferrets as pets......proper Yorkshire thing, that.
I just read today they are delaying things.
Down to two ferrets, I lost a couple to cancer over past couple of years. They are very susceptible to it Im afraid. Apparently around 70% get cancer.
I would recommend any poker player get some ferrets and a good lurcher. When I am in middle of a downswing and have no money for food, I just go in woods and we eat like kings. I have largest lurcher they do, amazing athlete she holds her own play fighting against my Doberman and goes from 0-40 in 1 second.
So yeah, if they instead create a satellite where you can't take the cash regardless if you're in the tournament already or not - then yes, they shouldn't charge rake on those satellites. But right now that's not the case.
Sky isn't and shouldn't be trying to compete against stars.
12k points made solely on cash... 12,000 if you get 6 points per £1 = you paid £2000 rake. If you're between 10k and 19,999 points you get 20% RB... 20% of £2000 = £400
However...
12k points made solely on MTTs/SnG.... 12,000 when you get 10 points per £1 = you paid £1200 rake. Again 12k points = 20% RB and 20% of £1200 = £240.
Some will say 'ohhh cash players get more RB', but it's not, when you get over 10k points then it's a flat %, if cash players get more £££ back then that's cos they've paid more rake in the first place.