What is the definition of a Sky 'Average' player?

CraigSG1

Its regarded that Sky is generally a soft site with a lot of weak players compared to some. My question is what would be considered to be an average player on Sky? Someone who breaks even? Is a slight losing/winning player? I ask because I'm trying to define myself as a cash player.

MattBates

Given the % of players that are profitable an average player would have to be a losing player.

jordz16

Depends what average you are looking for?, mean, mode, mid-range, median etc etc.. or the average rec or reg or overall? each will throw up different answers..

my guess is 85-90% of players are losing long term player, so i would say someone who consistently loses small amounts would be average. 

CraigSG1

Lol Jordz. I get your point, be more specific.

I was just trying to define myself as a player in the cash game format. MTT's are my strength but I have took to learn cash poker and have been steadily improving but I know I have a long, long way to go. I was just trying to gauge where I am and what I need to do. I, on average, make about 25-30 BI's a month at 10nl but I feel there are still a lot of regs there that are better than me.

I've played bits of 20nl and feel I have done OK and made a little because there are still a lot of weak players but there are also a lot more stronger/aggressive players that can knock me out of my comfort zone. I dont mind that because its a great way to learn but at same time I dont want to lose a chunk and suffer a confidence knock.

jordz16

In Response to Re: What is the definition of a Sky 'Average' player?:

Lol Jordz. I get your point, be more specific. I was just trying to define myself as a player in the cash game format. MTT's are my strength but I have took to learn cash poker and have been steadily improving but I know I have a long, long way to go. I was just trying to gauge where I am and what I need to do. I, on average, make about 25-30 BI's a month at 10nl but I feel there are still a lot of regs there that are better than me. I've played bits of 20nl and feel I have done OK and made a little because there are still a lot of weak players but there are also a lot more stronger/aggressive players that can knock me out of my comfort zone. I dont mind that because its a great way to learn but at same time I dont want to lose a chunk and suffer a confidence knock.
Posted by CraigSG1

its pretty hard to gauge really, as a 50nl rec who loses a few buy ins a week could be a better player than a 10nl reg who makes a few buy ins each week... so it would be hard to work out the average cash player just from their poker winnings/losses... my guess for cash would be that if you are a slightly winning 10nl player then you are probably an average 20/30nl player, same as if you are a slight loser at 100nl you will probably be an average 40/50nl player. but again every site would differ slightly,

jordz16

In Response to Re: What is the definition of a Sky 'Average' player?:

Lol Jordz. I get your point, be more specific. I was just trying to define myself as a player in the cash game format. MTT's are my strength but I have took to learn cash poker and have been steadily improving but I know I have a long, long way to go. I was just trying to gauge where I am and what I need to do. I, on average, make about 25-30 BI's a month at 10nl but I feel there are still a lot of regs there that are better than me. I've played bits of 20nl and feel I have done OK and made a little because there are still a lot of weak players but there are also a lot more stronger/aggressive players that can knock me out of my comfort zone. I dont mind that because its a great way to learn but at same time I dont want to lose a chunk and suffer a confidence knock.
Posted by CraigSG1

its pretty hard to gauge really, as a 50nl rec who loses a few buy ins a week could be a better player than a 10nl reg who makes a few buy ins each week... so it would be hard to work out the average cash player just from their poker winnings/losses... my guess for cash would be that if you are a slightly winning 10nl player then you are probably an average 20/30nl player, same as if you are a slight loser at 100nl you will probably be an average 40/50nl player. but again every site would differ slightly,

craigcu12

In Response to Re: What is the definition of a Sky 'Average' player?:

Lol Jordz. I get your point, be more specific. I was just trying to define myself as a player in the cash game format. MTT's are my strength but I have took to learn cash poker and have been steadily improving but I know I have a long, long way to go. I was just trying to gauge where I am and what I need to do. I, on average, make about 25-30 BI's a month at 10nl but I feel there are still a lot of regs there that are better than me. I've played bits of 20nl and feel I have done OK and made a little because there are still a lot of weak players but there are also a lot more stronger/aggressive players that can knock me out of my comfort zone. I dont mind that because its a great way to learn but at same time I dont want to lose a chunk and suffer a confidence knock.
Posted by CraigSG1

cash games now have become so much harder to play, there is lots of weak players the thing is even these are generally tight post flop (usually playing fit fold), I have had an awful time in cash but I've had a good time in MTTs and I think that's due to the differences, MTTs have a far greater number of calling station, once the blinds reach 50/100 the concern of loosing a stack is less worry and also they still have a great amount of luck.

cash games now seem to be about keeping losses at a minimum, the loose players might call wide but more often than not they'll be folding the flop or turn especially if you charging a large bet, pot odds mean nothing, weak players generally want to now see weak bets done, leaving you with small pots.

ShaunyT

somebody who only 4bets with aces lol

MattBates

In Response to Re: What is the definition of a Sky 'Average' player?:

In Response to Re: What is the definition of a Sky 'Average' player? : cash games now have become so much harder to play, there is lots of weak players the thing is even these are generally tight post flop (usually playing fit fold), I have had an awful time in cash but I've had a good time in MTTs and I think that's due to the differences, MTTs have a far greater number of calling station, once the blinds reach 50/100 the concern of loosing a stack is less worry and also they still have a great amount of luck. cash games now seem to be about keeping losses at a minimum, the loose players might call wide but more often than not they'll be folding the flop or turn especially if you charging a large bet, pot odds mean nothing, weak players generally want to now see weak bets done, leaving you with small pots.
Posted by craigcu12

I don't play cash but I don't understand how you cant exploit players from what you have said. From what you have said they are only playing their hands so our hands are irrelevant and we can play based on their actions.
 

unknown_username

In Response to What is the definition of a Sky 'Average' player?:

Its regarded that Sky is generally a soft site with a lot of weak players compared to some. My question is what would be considered to be an average player on Sky? Someone who breaks even? Is a slight losing/winning player? I ask because I'm trying to define myself as a cash player.
Posted by CraigSG1

it would be fantastic if there was a database available for cash game ability.

i know you have sharkscope,but it only covers mtts and sit and gos.

you can speak to players on the cash tables,and at least half of them will claim to be pro/winning players.

statitics which dont really add up to me,as they are pitted against each other every day!!:)

like  i said,a database could prove ,very ,very informative

bluffulot6

In Response to Re: What is the definition of a Sky 'Average' player?:

In Response to What is the definition of a Sky 'Average' player? : it would be fantastic if there was a database available for cash game ability. i know you have sharkscope,but it only covers mtts and sit and gos. you can speak to players on the cash tables,and at least half of them will claim to be pro/winning players. statitics which dont really add up to me,as they are pitted against each other every day!!:) like  i said,a database could prove ,very ,very informative
Posted by lovejunky

There is but sky is not on there poker table rankings r

shakinaces

In Response to Re: What is the definition of a Sky 'Average' player?:

In Response to Re: What is the definition of a Sky 'Average' player? : cash games now have become so much harder to play, there is lots of weak players the thing is even these are generally tight post flop (usually playing fit fold), I have had an awful time in cash but I've had a good time in MTTs and I think that's due to the differences, MTTs have a far greater number of calling station, once the blinds reach 50/100 the concern of loosing a stack is less worry and also they still have a great amount of luck. cash games now seem to be about keeping losses at a minimum, the loose players might call wide but more often than not they'll be folding the flop or turn especially if you charging a large bet, pot odds mean nothing, weak players generally want to now see weak bets done, leaving you with small pots.
Posted by craigcu12

I don't know if this is applicable in the NL40-NL100 tables, but I have loads of players at NL10-NL30 tagged as passive calling stations who are an absolute license to boost your BR by just value betting and letting them pay you off with any pair.

And in between, as Matt says, those that are playing fit-or-fold can be easily pushed off lots of smaller pots to keep the money ticking over.

Anyway, average, that is probably something that applies to me and poker

Is it fair to assume that if we are talking posters on the forum (with 100+ posters to rule out most of the random faces that appear in BBV) then average would be someone who can hold their own at their level and breakeven/make a small profit.

Tikay10

In Response to What is the definition of a Sky 'Average' player?:

Its regarded that Sky is generally a soft site with a lot of weak players compared to some. My question is what would be considered to be an average player on Sky? Someone who breaks even? Is a slight losing/winning player? I ask because I'm trying to define myself as a cash player.
Posted by CraigSG1

Morning Craig.

You are probably correct there - it is said by many that "Sky Poker is joke soft".
 
Is it true, though?

I'm not sure anyone can prove that's true, even though I've seen it said on Poker Forums thousands of times.
 
The same has been said of almost all Online Poker sites, in fact, with the possible exception of 'Stars, where the sheer size of the site means it can reasonably be regarded as the hardest site to win on.

I think we should challenge these cliches.

"Sky Poker is a soft site"

"The WSOP is the softest "Live" Tourney in the world". (Try winning it....)

"The Cash Games at X Casino in Y Town are incredibly soft".
 
The UKPC is joke soft as it is full of satellite qualifiers.

And so on.

Let's, for the sake of debate, try & test that theory.

Poker players are good - INCREDIBLY good - at spotting value, & exploiting "value" situations. Quite right too, why would they not?

Let's imagine a hypothetical scenario.

"abcPoker.com" really IS a soft site.

What happens then?

Well a good £50p-£1 cash player spots it, moves his 'roll to abcPoker.com, & very soon, he is minting it, making £500 per day. Soft site, see?

But then others spot how much he is making, or he cant resist chirping. "abcPoker.com is joke soft lads, I make £500 every day". 

What to you think happens then? 

Correct. All those good players migrate across to abcPoker.com, & within days, it's no longer soft, as all the boys are wised up now.

Poker is self-policing, & self-levelling. If there were REALLY "soft sites", or "soft cash games", it would not be so for very long, once word gets out.

I've seen "the cash games at X Casino in London are joke soft, they are all complete fish".

How can that ever be true? The geezer would be a millionaire within a few months, or at least take it up full time if it were so. He's not, & it's not.

There are sites which are relatively easier to win on, I guess, but "soft sites/games/MTT's"? I'm not a buyer, sorry.

I may be wrong of course. But I think we should challenge these "conventions", these tired old & oft-repeated cliches.

Wotcha think? 

MattBates

There are a number of factors that influence where someone plays. These include (not limited to)

- Quality of opponents
- Rewards (eg rakeback/promotions)
- Quality of software
- Safety of funds/time taken to cashout
- Reliability of software

So it may be that a site is great for one or more of these aspects but overall it isn't deemed the best.

Tikay10

In Response to Re: What is the definition of a Sky 'Average' player?:

There are a number of factors that influence where someone plays. These include (not limited to) - Quality of opponents - Rewards (eg rakeback/promotions) - Quality of software - Safety of funds/time taken to cashout - Reliability of software So it may be that a site is great for one or more of these aspects but overall it isn't deemed the best.
Posted by MattBates

Agree with all of that Mr Matt.

I know the software here gets dissed a lot by many, too. Maybe thats fair comment. We can't argue that @Stars software is a real beaut.
 
But when a player says "Sky Poker is joke soft, but I think the software is poo so I don't play there", that kite aint ever gonna fly.
 
If he thought he could make £100 more per day at Sky Poker, you better believe me, he is going to play there, whether he likes the software or not. An extra £36,500 per year? Do we really think he'll snub that because he does not like the software?

I call BS.

RAISE. And I don't raise very often.......

MattBates

In Response to Re: What is the definition of a Sky 'Average' player?:

In Response to Re: What is the definition of a Sky 'Average' player? : Agree with all of that Mr Matt. I know the software here gets dissed a lot by many, too. Maybe thats fair comment. We can't argue that @Stars software is a real beaut.   But when a player says "Sky Poker is joke soft, but I think the software is poo so I don't play there", that kite aint ever gonna fly.   If he thought he could make £100 more per day at Sky Poker, you better believe me, he is going to play there, whether he likes the software or not. An extra £36,500 per year? Do we really think he'll snub that because he does not like the software? I call BS. RAISE. And I don't raise very often.......
Posted by Tikay10

I guess I should have added amount of appropriate games and timings of games, on stars for example there are games of all buy ins around the clock (global focused site) whereas sky is UK focused. The edge is never going to be all that considerable on the buy ins/number of appropriate MTTs on sky where £100 extra a day can be earned. If you look at the number of UK regs who appear when UKOPS etc is on, it shows when there are an appropriate amount of buy in/field games that players come.

I do agree about your market correction comment and that's why there does appear to be more UK regs on sky as the MTT offering has improved over the last few years.

I must mention all of what I am talking about is MTTs, have no idea about cash/SnGs.

TeddyBloat

Dont forget volume

If games are softer but hardly run then playing multible tables on tougher sites would result in higher hourly rates.

Speaking for husngs, the best hyper players on this site have itm %"s that you dont see on the bigsite.

However you can earn more on stars as volume is higher and rake tiny compared to her

Sky's software will be a factor when its close. But this place has clean lobbies and money is safe. 

Rake and low volume would put off many grinders,  but you are right i

t will find its own equilibrium imo.

Tikay10

In Response to Re: What is the definition of a Sky 'Average' player?:

Dont forget volume If games are softer but hardly run then playing multible tables on tougher sites would result in higher hourly rates. Speaking for husngs, the best hyper players on this site have itm %"s that you dont see on the bigsite. However you can earn more on stars as volume is higher and rake tiny compared to her Sky's software will be a factor when its close. But this place has clean lobbies and money is safe.  Rake and low volume would put off many grinders,  but you are right it will find its own equilibrium imo.
Posted by TeddyBloat

Agree with all that, too.

My (perhaps poorly made) point is that we should not just always accept what we read as being "fact". We read it, we believe it, we repeat it, & it becomes "fact".

And it's not "fact" to say, for example, "the cash games at The Empire are joke soft". The kid who wrote that (elsewhere) is boracic, & goes round asking people to stake him for cash games. If they were that soft, he'd not have to go to work every day, would he? He was referring to £1 £2 cash games. If he could earn £100 a day there, he'd be doing it. But he can't.

Invert, always invert. Charlie Munger.   

Macacgirl1

well, according to that list of profitable player % available for viewing on sharky, the % of winning players here is similar to any other site. last time i saw it, it was something like 30%. if this site was soft, wouldn't it be skewed with a slightly smaller % as the winning players would be winning more and cleaning up?
that's only mtt and sng of course, but you get my drift.

CraigSG1

Hi tikay. I take your point and very much agree. I suppose I meant because this is UK based and has a smaller player pool to other sites the core of regs is a much bigger % to the total player pool so the difference between very good to very recreational players is much bigger. 

If anyone gets what I mean?!

shakinaces

In Response to Re: What is the definition of a Sky 'Average' player?:

well, according to that list of profitable player % available for viewing on sharky, the % of winning players here is similar to any other site. last time i saw it, it was something like 30%. if this site was soft, wouldn't it be skewed with a slightly smaller % as the winning players would be winning more and cleaning up? that's only mtt and sng of course, but you get my drift.
Posted by Macacgirl1

It wouldn't really skew the winning % though would it?  It would just mean that (maybe) the people in the 11%-30% category are winning players on easy site A but would be one of the losing 70% if they moved to a harder site B.

I would guess that the Sky games (cash) are perceived to be a bit softer due to the lack of HUD, which both puts off some players from moving across (if they are quite reliant on their stats) and leads to a different and arguably easier game for anyone but the best players?

FWIW apart from the stability of the software at times, I think the Sky set-up is fantastic. So clean and uncluttered, by far the favourite table design that this rec has played with.

hhyftrftdr

I reckon Sky only has a 'soft' tag because I imagine a lot of UK players new to the game will be tempted to start here;

- The Sky brand
- Tv channel
- It's in £ not $
- The chance to play with Richard Orford

Not all will stay of course (I started here, moved across to BetVictor then migrated back), but as a starting entry to the world of online poker, Sky must be very appealing to UK players. And obviously new players will make it feel like the site is soft, when in reality it probably isn't (in the main).

Macacgirl1

In Response to Re: What is the definition of a Sky 'Average' player?:

In Response to Re: What is the definition of a Sky 'Average' player? : It wouldn't really skew the winning % though would it?  It would just mean that (maybe) the people in the 11%-30% category are winning players on easy site A but would be one of the losing 70% if they moved to a harder site B. I would guess that the Sky games (cash) are perceived to be a bit softer due to the lack of HUD, which both puts off some players from moving across (if they are quite reliant on their stats) and leads to a different and arguably easier game for anyone but the best players? FWIW apart from the stability of the software at times, I think the Sky set-up is fantastic. So clean and uncluttered, by far the favourite table design that this rec has played with.
Posted by shakinaces

probably, possibly. god my head hurts now!

anyway, as to whether this site is soft or not, i can't even begin to comment with regard to nlhe. plo8 though, no it isn't. i've played more plo8 here than anyone and i've played it a lot on most other sites too.
a large percentage who play plo8 here, would have a field day if they played the tournaments on stars. i know, i've done it and it's impossible not to win there over a period of time. that place is super soft. standard here varies, but can be very high considering the stakes available to play at are so low.