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
consider the chances. 25 players pay £9.60 gives a total of £240. for a £200 seat. this means that £40 is taken as rake. it has to come from somewhere. if the 24 others paid 80 pence, you must have paid the rest. that is £20.80.
Alternatively the prize money for the satellite above could be that Jac only gets £220 in cash instead of £240. But the tournament he wants to play is £220 + £20, he needs to add £20 of his own money to it to play, but he knows that, he's trying to play a tournament where the rake is £20. So he's paid the 80p rake in his satellite, + the £20 rake on the tournament which he knew he was going to have to pay, everyone does, you pay it if you BI direct, you pay it if you satellite in.
the issue that i have written about is the new rule preventing buy-in at certain levels. once buy-in is prevented then choice is removed and effectively you are locked into a multilayered, multi-rake tournament.
if there was no such rule (inability to buy-in) there is choice and no problem.
there is a problem. you cannot buy-in at certain levels, therefore you cannot cash-out. this means that you are locked in and everyone forced to pay compound rake.
I pay 80p rake for a tournament where I can win £200.
Then I can choose to use that £200 winnings, plus £20 rake, to enter a £200 tournament where I may win £xx (or other related prize).
So then how are satellites worse than normal tournaments?
FWIW if the maths earlier in the thread was correct, you'd then question why people are grinding satellites for cash as obviously TommyD/MattBates etc cannot profit from them, even with their considerable edge over the field. Only they do profit for them... so there must be a flaw in the maths?
hi shaky,
as you say, if you can choose to cash out and take your £220 seat then all is fine.
satelites are only worse when you can't buy-in and cash-out. with this rule we all pay compound rake. without this rule all is normal.
the maths is correct. and it is this exact point i make and is the very reason why tommy and matt do not readily play multi-layered tournaments from a micro level.
they will play qualifiers but four layers of qualifiers presents them with a question. can they overcome a 46% edge? i believe that they can overcome a one (11%) or two layer edge (21%) but a three layer (33%) is probably not worth it as other options are more profitable.
The Vegas semi-final has a BI of £1k which you can't BI to direct. This isn't just an intentional ploy from Sky to stop people taking the cash - of course, they need to get enough runners to meet the guarantee, so it does help them. But since there's only 5 seats on offer, if they allow anyone to enter the £1k final (not that I imagine there's an awful lot of people on sky willing to put up £1k to do so!) then they would get increased numbers in the final and have more money in the pot than seats to give away which means they have to think of a way to distribute the remaining cash (Although, surely the ONLY option in that case is to give 6th place cash up to value of £10k seat, then 7th (if there's still money left over) the same and so on...)
So, we pay rake twice to get the package - but is there any other way? Rake has to be paid so I guess it's a question of how much: One could argue maybe we should only have to pay 5% rake in the Semi-final. But then that is only going to serve to punish the recreational players that have sat in for three fiddy - since a 5% rake in the semi's is going to attract a bigger number of regulars.
Plus, with more people entering the semi's, Sky might have the same problem of too many people in the final with not enough packages on offer.
But they will also appreciate that they are playing extra tournaments in exchange for that (they play 4+ tournaments, why shouldn't they play 4+ lots of rake?)
I don't see what the counter option would be - Sky should offer rake-free satellites such that the only time you pay rake is in the final?
derailing this thread is so Sky....
FWIW re all this accumalted rake or w/e - are you suggesting we do not have step sats - ?
The whole point of them is so someone can sat in for an amount they can afford, so each step has to be raked for entries at the level.
The whole point of sats is to not cash out, you win seats - to be able to cash out devoids the tourament because it's not a MTT with a flat structure - it's a sat
If anyone can come up with a better system then I am all ears.
RE: rake being built into BI. I.e. instead of £100 + £10, it's £100 BI total but they take 10% of the prizepool as rake which effectively means it's actually £90 + £10 so instead of 10% rake it's 11.1%
Personally I think it probably makes a lot of recs happy. I don't think they're gonna care there's a tiny rake increase and don't think it's even gonna cross their mind that it's gonna have a small affect on their ROI... if they even have a (positive) ROI. A lot of recs are just paying for entertainment (with the added chance of winning some money obv) so from their point of view, the entertainment has just went from costing £110 to costing £100. Now every time they play 10 of these events (with the lower total BI) they effectively freeroll the 11th comp.
Of course the micro sat qualifier "in their king size bed within a 5* hotel/casino complex" won't be thinking about the rake. But for him to be there means there will be another 2499 others still at home, probably unaware they all paid 57p each from their £1.85 buy-in towards the £1425 rake Sky made off that package.
Shakinaces asks "why people are grinding satellites for cash as obviously TommyD/MattBates etc cannot profit from them". They are grinding them because a lot of unskilled players will get through to the later rounds from the micro sats, their edge is huge. Not only do micro-satellite players have to bink a 1/2500 chance raked at 44.5%, they're also gonna have to beat a field riddled with pros at the sharp end. Those that make it fully deserve every minute of their Vegas holiday.
Guess it's just standard, I see what ya mean, just the way it is I guess, there has to be some way of working out a relative rake. If they decide to work out an average rake on MTTs across the site so every comp rakes the same but they don't lose money, then Rollers might only be £100 + £5 but micro deepstacks would be pretty unbeatable at £1 + £5 lol. Needs to be relative to the game.
Should learn to write less Paul
Also, casinos will get other money from players. Table games/drinks etc mean they may lose from the poker game but profit overall from that player in the time they are in the casino.
So you'd have paid 100 x £1 (£100) in rake