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!
The Price of Poker
Normally I'd just read a blog and take in its thoughts, and then move on. Maybe improve myself or learn something new in the process.
However a family member of mine recently wrote a blog called the price of poker, and it goes into a number of key issues with rake in the modern day - particularly from a live event point of view.
As a result I've decided to bring it up here, to not only get further opinions from other players, but maybe get an opinion from people who I know where involved with one of the tours mentioned in this blog (Sky's UKPC) which i think effected a huge chunk of Sky's player pool (and i imagine will maintain doing so in the future).
I know this link does mention other sites, but there is no links so i hope this doesn't constitue as a breech of rules. Genuinely trying to get feedback from players, and more importantly imo Sky/UKPC people.
Comments
I am not keen on the way an event is advertised as a 1million GT but has a prizepool of 900k and a £100 rake on a £900 entry but I was aware of this before I entered and would pay the extra for a well run tourney which is always the case at DTD.
the money taken as rake is a lot worse than you think
for example, the current £10,000 vegas package is entered only via satellite with four levels of satellites, the overall rake is up to 46.4%
yes.
those who say there should be no buy-in (to thwart those who play satellites for cash) are ensuring that more of the maximum 46% premium is taken out of the prize pool.
fewer satellite levels would be a far better argument for the recreational player.
Rake is pretty straight forward, we all understand it, it pays for a service, the service of playing. If, like it was mentioned in the blog, you pay a bit more for certain events (live) but the level of service from the event is higher, then this is logical and a personal decision for the player. However if it isn't made clear, the distinction between what is going into the prize pool and what is actually rake, then in my opinion this is clearly wrong. In fact I would go as far as to say deception.
The concept of winning seats for finishing in a certain position in another tournament is a bit trickier. There could be a variety of reasons for offering this, but as stated in the blog, this radically distorts "pay" jumps. Once again this wouldn't seem fair, but I don't think its as unfair as the rake issue. My solution to this could be rather than just winning seats as a whole from 50th and under, you win vouchers of differing value to put towards a seat. Obviously the voucher amount increases the higher you finish. I'm not entirely sure this would be feasible, it just an idea off the top of my head.
Only my opinions, chucked in to the discussion, feel free to criticise
All poker sites bend over backwards to promote and encourage satellite qualification into big buy-in events. Why? Because the satellites are a huge rake earner for them. Each seat filled by a satellite qualifier typically earns at least twice as much rake as a direct buy-in.
An example; one in every 2500 players entering a £1.95 micro sat will win a £3,200 Vegas package (micro 1/10, quarter 1/5, semi 1/5, final 1/10).
2,500 x £1.85 = £4,625
£4,625 - £3,200 = £1,425 rake, which is 44.5% of £3,200
I've got absolutely no problem with players taking a shot at a dream poker holiday for only £1.95. I'll be delighted for those who make it and I hope they have a wonderful experience in Vegas. You pay your money you take your choice. If you're don't mind paying a stealth rake of 44.5% then go for it.
Sky have run SPT events in past that you could only enter via satellite, direct buy-ins weren't even allowed. Imo this was a far more sneaky method of collecting extra rake than that pointed out in the blog.
that's not really the correct interpretation
it is less a matter of wanting a specific group of players to qualify, it is more a matter of preventing another group of players buying in.
+1 to what Geldy says.
And if you bink a package from the lowest rung of the sat ladder, you personally only pay rake once
hi gelds...
when buy-ins are not allowed, you are not able to cash out.
apply this principle to multiple qualifier levels, you must enter at the lowest level and play through the levels. you either win the prize or you're out. you must go through four layers of qualification.
this is exactly the same as playing one tournament where you pay rake at entry then pay rake again a quarter the way through, again at the half way point and pay rake once more at the three quarter point.
the reason this has become a reality is that rules have been introduced that restrict buy-ins.
if this principle is extended throughout a four layer one-in-ten qualifier the game will attract a 46.4% premium.
even for the top professionals who have a distinct edge, playing this way is to do so at worse odds than going to the pub and putting their money in a slot machine.
hi jac
i saw your comment in response to gary and so added to that.
i haven't offered an opinion yet, that is apart from the "going to the pub" bit. i have only talked about numbers. the issue i have made any comment on is the consequence of restricting buy-ins. the numbers are straightforward.
my opinion is that sky are perfectly at liberty to take a rake. in fact, i am glad they do. however, i believe that the rule to restrict buy-ins has a costly consequence of which many players might be totally unaware.
that is simply not the case, harry. effectively you will pay rake 4 times.
or put it another way, if you enter at the lowest level and qualify through to win a vegas package, given the chances of doing so the value of the package should be £14,641. However, you win a package valued at £10,000. In effect, the balance of £4,641 is the rake that you have paid.
jac
i never said you were wrong. i never said that you were incorrect.
do you think that you only paid £1 in rake to earn a £220 seat?
But if you win your way up from the bottom, you personally are only liable for the first rake you pay.
to win your £220 seat from £12(?) you probably won a 1-in-5 game and qualified into a 1-in-5 qualifier and then won. i guess, the final would have been £48 (£44+£4) and the qualifier into that would have been £9.60 (£8.80+£0.80). You got there spending £9.60...i guess. And only paid 80p in rake. Excellent. I think I did the same.
you won a £200 seat and you won a further £20 in rake. you could have cashed out. Whatever you chose, you effectively paid £20 in rake.
I never understand this multiple rake arguement, yes it's technically true, but in practical terms it isn't really.
Fwiw, as far as I know you can BI direct to all of the VLV stages (I haven't tried the £1k final yet though). These are all essentially stand alone MTTs. Personally I always BI direct to the target tournament in advance, even if I don't want to take the cash, it's good to know that I have the option for various reasons... power cut, internet goes down, family emergency etc. and when you do that, it's much easier to see it that way, as a group of stand alone tournaments.
If you play the £17 VLV sat, you BI, you play the game, and the prize money is 5x your BI (minus rake) - £77, the tournament ends and you are given £77 cash.
If you want to enter the £77 game, that's up to you, it's a new game, charging rake again because you are entering a completely different MTT, but you're also free to just take the £77 that you won by playing in the earlier MTT.
It's a matter of opinion I guess, but to make out like satellites are really bad and stealth raking doesn't make any sense to me. Poker's a very selfish game, who cares if the total rake being taken is £X, if you can get into the £110 Roller for an average satellite outlay of £60, that's a great spot, it effectively almost doubles your ROI in the Roller in comparison to buying in direct.
Every single good player who knows how to play sats well is making a masssively +EV decision to play satellites for something like this. Long term all the good players will be getting a package far cheaper than the value of the package. Does it matter if the total rake taken is £X, not really, and that rake is spread across that thousands of people who took part in all of the satellites, not just the winner... you don't win a £33 main event on Sky and think 'I just won £1500 but god they took £1000 in rake, haven't I been shafted'. All that matters is can you play these games and make a decent return on your investment, and you can.