Anonymous?

Sky_Poker

Further to the post by Churchy18 here...

"How about trying some anonymous tables and limit too 2/3 tables at a time  would help smaller players build up some confidence and knowledge without just getting destroyed by people playing 20+ tables

Sure these would fill quite easily and may get some more people playing cash.

Would also stop the regs just waiting on weaker players as others have said"

What do people thing of that idea? What are the ups and downs of this?

Sky Poker

TommyD

Anonymous tables would take SkyPoker further away from the community based/old time card school atmosphere which made this site popular with a ton of recreational players in the first place.  I can see an argument for anonymous HU cash tables as a lesser of evils to actually get people to play HU, but at 6 max I would detest this idea.

Also the SkyPoker player pool is in no way big enough to put such a strict limit on multi tabling and still have even a decent number of tables running.  Also I really wouldn't want the developers to suddenly stop working on their current projects to start the code for that, it makes no sense to twist in the breeze so easily without good reason.

ajs4385

What about anonymous capped pot limit 4 max action tables

But you can only play them if you sign up through rake the rake

MrWh1te

They are popular enough on other sites so cant see why they wouldn't work here.

It is kind of a loaded dice asking on forums tbh, because the most active players likely to be the winners and this could hamper their profit margins so they wont wanna be positive about it

churchy18

Don,t seee why it would have too take away from the community tommy and as for the 2/3 table limit this is only for these tables so people like aj cant sit at every1 going and give players new too cash a better enviroment too start out on.

Would also stop the bum hunting as u and most others know the majority of regs will try and avoid each other and sit out if there is not enough recs on the table.    

Do you really think it helps attract new players when they sit at a table lose they,re bi and leave the table open too watch a bit and suddenly see 3/4 players sit back out? waiting on fresh fish!

This format works elsewhere and tables fill so can,t see how it would not work here as for player pool maybe this would open the door for more players who don,t like sitting down at a table and seeing the above happen.

Was only a suggestion 

All the best brian

unknown_username

I personnaly dont like Anon , played them elsewhere.
However, if they did show up, I would be tempted when I was running hot.. So its worth a shot for the Sky think tank department.

RLT16

my opinions as a marginally winning player are this, they would not benifit recreational players at all, the experienced players just simply wouldnt sit on tables that already have players on,as far as im aware its mainly reg players that start games and its alot more likely that rec players join tables that already have players in them they just want a quick game. just because you dont know who your losing to doesnt mean you arent losing to the same regs you were before.

also limiting tables to 2/ per player is this just for anon games?? would be a stupid idea imo, its the guys playing 20 tables giving sky most their rake and it can take so long for games to start up even with those people, theyd just be shooting themselves in the foot by stopping it

TommyD

In Response to Re: Anonymous?:

Don,t seee why it would have too take away from the community tommy and as for the 2/3 table limit this is only for these tables so people like aj cant sit at every1 going and give players new too cash a better enviroment too start out on. Would also stop the bum hunting as u and most others know the majority of regs will try and avoid each other and sit out if there is not enough recs on the table.     Do you really think it helps attract new players when they sit at a table lose they,re bi and leave the table open too watch a bit and suddenly see 3/4 players sit back out? waiting on fresh fish! This format works elsewhere and tables fill so can,t see how it would not work here as for player pool maybe this would open the door for more players who don,t like sitting down at a table and seeing the above happen. Was only a suggestion  All the best brian
Posted by churchy18

First the bold part, name a time I personally have ever sat out a reg.  True you haven't named me and yes I will agree the majority do but there are some who will just keep playing to get the table running again, I am one of those.

On the rest, one of the key purposes of an anon table on other sites was to counter HUDs, Skypoker doesn't have that problem.  Personally I think a Rec will want to be seen as and when they spin a stack at cash, it's part of the attraction to play if you just play for fun.  As is seeing familiar faces, having week and month long battles with certain guys and actually chatting and being social with each other.

I can see your side of the argument, it would be a boon for a low table count recreational regular who is looking to use poker as a small addition on their usual income.  However a true recreational player doesn't really care if someone is anon or not, they play for fun and it's disposable income.  To implement this idea would help fit or fold regulars to level 1 their way to winning sessions.  Not for one instance is it helping the site economy, it is helping one portion of the regular community while hindering the other.

Maybe I'm coming from a different impression of what poker actually is to me personally, because for me it's the ever growing meta game between individuals, not over a session but never ending.  That's what attracted me to it as a Rec way back when, you take someone on, you adjust, then they adjust and you counter, and so on and so forth.  For me anon tables eradicates this, it becomes one shot sessions of tight is right for the most part.

I'm all for Skypoker trying this though, at this point why not?  It has moved so far away from the USP which got me involved in the first place that I have no real precious emotion over it anymore.  And this post and the one above were just my opinions just like yours was a suggestion.

Best of luck all.

Tikay10

In Response to Re: Anonymous?:

In Response to Re: Anonymous? : First the bold part, name a time I personally have ever sat out a reg.  True you haven't named me and yes I will agree the majority do but there are some who will just keep playing to get the table running again, I am one of those. On the rest, one of the key purposes of an anon table on other sites was to counter HUDs, Skypoker doesn't have that problem.  Personally I think a Rec will want to be seen as and when they spin a stack at cash, it's part of the attraction to play if you just play for fun.  As is seeing familiar faces, having week and month long battles with certain guys and actually chatting and being social with each other. I can see your side of the argument, it would be a boon for a low table count recreational regular who is looking to use poker as a small addition on their usual income.  However a true recreational player doesn't really care if someone is anon or not, they play for fun and it's disposable income.  To implement this idea would help fit or fold regulars to level 1 their way to winning sessions.  Not for one instance is it helping the site economy, it is helping one portion of the regular community while hindering the other. Maybe I'm coming from a different impression of what poker actually is to me personally, because for me it's the ever growing meta game between individuals, not over a session but never ending.  That's what attracted me to it as a Rec way back when, you take someone on, you adjust, then they adjust and you counter, and so on and so forth.  For me anon tables eradicates this, it becomes one shot sessions of tight is right for the most part. I'm all for Skypoker trying this though, at this point why not?  It has moved so far away from the USP which got me involved in the first place that I have no real precious emotion over it anymore.  And this post and the one above were just my opinions just like yours was a suggestion. Best of luck all.
Posted by TommyD

Nail, head.

churchy18

In Response to Re: Anonymous?:

my opinions as a marginally winning player are this, they would not benifit recreational players at all, the experienced players just simply wouldnt sit on tables that already have players on,as far as im aware its mainly reg players that start games and its alot more likely that rec players join tables that already have players in them they just want a quick game. just because you dont know who your losing to doesnt mean you arent losing to the same regs you were before. also limiting tables to 2/ per player is this just for anon games?? would be a stupid idea imo, its the guys playing 20 tables giving sky most their rake and it can take so long for games to start up even with those people, theyd just be shooting themselves in the foot by stopping it
Posted by RLT16

Fair point but as i said the regs won,t be sitting back out when someone bust's waiting on fresh fish as they won't know who the fish is.

And also these tables would be aimed more at new players/recs too learn and improve without just being bum hunted by the sharks.

EDIT:Would never accuse you of anything like that tommy.just pointing out something that happens

Also the hud thing maybe the reason other sites use this format..but it works players enjoy them and more importantly play them that is all i was saying just an idea no more or less.

MilitantG

In Response to Re: Anonymous?:

Anonymous tables would take SkyPoker further away from the community based/old time card school atmosphere which made this site popular with a ton of recreational players in the first place.  I can see an argument for anonymous HU cash tables as a lesser of evils to actually get people to play HU, but at 6 max I would detest this idea. Also the SkyPoker player pool is in no way big enough to put such a strict limit on multi tabling and still have even a decent number of tables running.  Also I really wouldn't want the developers to suddenly stop working on their current projects to start the code for that, it makes no sense to twist in the breeze so easily without good reason.
Posted by TommyD

+1 especially for the HU tables!

tomgoodun

I'm not a cash player usually, I may have the odd dabble now and again, my tuppenyworth on this idea is I don't think I would ever play on this type of table, for one I like to have a chat on the table, after all as a rec that for me is part of the game, secondly I can see who is dissing me  I duno how sky would be able to impose any sanctions against him who was sat over there sort of thing, then again me be I'm just being my glass half empty tonight and tomorrow I will be tommy anonymous

HaveaA1Day

In Response to Re: Anonymous?:

but it works players enjoy them and more importantly play them
Posted by churchy18

So do the bots.

churchy18

In Response to Re: Anonymous?:

I'm not a cash player usually, I may have the odd dabble now and again, my tuppenyworth on this idea is I don't think I would ever play on this type of table, for one I like to have a chat on the table, after all as a rec that for me is part of the game, secondly I can see who is dissing me  I duno how sky would be able to impose any sanctions against him who was sat over there sort of thing, then again me be I'm just being my glass half empty tonight and tomorrow I will be tommy anonymous
Posted by tomgoodun

It may be anonymous too us but sky would still know who is who! and really the only thing u would worry about is abuse!!

And you would still be able too chat just not know who was who.

Re: Anonymous? posted at 18/6/2015 8:23 PM BST on SkyPoker.com

HaveaA1Day Posts: 72 First: 30/1/2015 Last: 18/6/2015

In Response to Re: Anonymous?: but it works players enjoy them and more importantly play them Posted by churchy18 So do the bots.

What has bots got too do with sky! sky don't allow any 3rd party software!

FCHD

That doesn't mean there is no 3rd party software running.

'Stars don't allow bots either, there was still a large PLO bot ring identified a week or so ago that had been running for years and seem to have taken over $2 million out of the game.

churchy18

In Response to Re: Anonymous?:

That doesn't mean there is no 3rd party software running. 'Stars don't allow bots either, there was still a large PLO bot ring identified a week or so ago that had been running for years and seem to have taken over $2 million out of the game.
Posted by FCHD

Re: Anonymous? posted at 18/6/2015 7:28 PM BST on SkyPoker.com

Tikay10 Posts: 25363 First: 20/5/2009 Last: 18/6/2015

In Response to Re: Anonymous?: In Response to Re: Anonymous? : First the bold part, name a time I personally have ever sat out a reg.  True you haven't named me and yes I will agree the majority do but there are some who will just keep playing to get the table running again, I am one of those. On the rest, one of the key purposes of an anon table on other sites was to counter HUDs, Skypoker doesn't have that problem.  Personally I think a Rec will want to be seen as and when they spin a stack at cash, it's part of the attraction to play if you just play for fun.  As is seeing familiar faces, having week and month long battles with certain guys and actually chatting and being social with each other. I can see your side of the argument, it would be a boon for a low table count recreational regular who is looking to use poker as a small addition on their usual income.  However a true recreational player doesn't really care if someone is anon or not, they play for fun and it's disposable income.  To implement this idea would help fit or fold regulars to level 1 their way to winning sessions.  Not for one instance is it helping the site economy, it is helping one portion of the regular community while hindering the other. Maybe I'm coming from a different impression of what poker actually is to me personally, because for me it's the ever growing meta game between individuals, not over a session but never ending.  That's what attracted me to it as a Rec way back when, you take someone on, you adjust, then they adjust and you counter, and so on and so forth.  For me anon tables eradicates this, it becomes one shot sessions of tight is right for the most part. I'm all for Skypoker trying this though, at this point why not?  It has moved so far away from the USP which got me involved in the first place that I have no real precious emotion over it anymore.  And this post and the one above were just my opinions just like yours was a suggestion. Best of luck all. Posted by TommyD Nail, head.

raggy94

'Poker is a people game played with cards'. You need the people for it be poker.

With regards the HU/cluttering of the lobby thing, I'd just take out Pot Limit/No Limit/Capped/Televised and 'All' Filters' from the lobby and just have 'regular' ticked by default upon download, so it showed everything other than HU and FreePlay. 

 

huuuuume

i would like to see anonymous tables given a go. It can't do any harm to the state of heads up games and it's worth seeing how popular they would be with regards to 6max. 

sikas

i vote no

unknown_username

        It would not bother me in the slightest...

        I would be confident i would know who im playing against,judged by their quirks,and bet sizing.

Sky_JP

Personally, I can't see recreational players choosing to play these games unless it was their only option, and don't think they'd necessarily know/notice the impact, even if forced into it.

If this was put into place on HU games only, I think we'd be in a very similar spot to where we are now, where some regs would refuse to sit with any anon player (assuming a rec would sit at a table where they could instantly get a game, rather than sit and wait). It would, however, encourage regs willing to sit regs, to sit, as it's at least slightly more difficult to know the standard of player your up against, and they may get a few hands of play.

All in all, I think the only advantage would be slightly discouraging regs sitting at HU tables who would usually refuse to play other regs. Do I think this would be a good thing? Yes. Do I think it's worth the investment/resource? No.

shakinaces

Already been nailed in respect to the 6-max games... only really needed to remove impact of HUDs.

The inclusion of chat on the mini-view is still a relatively new addition and helps improve the social/fun aspect of the game which is surely a big win for recs... I enjoy the games way more since this was brought in... Playing anon players in silence would be a big step backwards IMO.

tomgoodun

Hi Churchy, always good to see you and have a chat at the tables, and I fully appreciate folk having different points of view,I have a certain weakness that grates my teeth though-the over use of exclamation marks,it comes across as a bit shouty.

Tikay10

In Response to Re: Anonymous?:

Hi Churchy, always good to see you and have a chat at the tables, and I fully appreciate folk having different points of view,I have a certain weakness that grates my teeth though-the over use of exclamation marks,it comes across as a bit shouty.
Posted by tomgoodun

We are of one mind there, Tom.

I could post over 100 links explaining why, but here's just one.....

http://www.tomthumb.org/exclamationmarks.shtml

You won't find many, if any, in my Posts or Blogs.

I can't even bring myself to open those threads which start with a Thread Title containing multi-exclamation marks.
 
I saw a Post yesterday which had 5 sentences & 5 exclamation marks. Which kinda misses the whole point of why we should use them, & how often. If you use one per sentence, how are you ever going to use emphasis when needed? Use two, or three instead?

I don't know what they teach in schools these days, but it's clearly not punctuation.
 
Meh, now you've set me off.  

FCHD

I'm with you Tikay, although I did have to write a report once that had about two dozen exclamation marks in it. The defence is that it was about street addresses in Westward Ho!

One per paragraph should be an absolute maximum, but then kids these days don't know about paragraphs, do they? If it goes over 140 characters they're stuffed.

Tikay10

In Response to Re: Anonymous?:

I'm with you Tikay, although I did have to write a report once that had about two dozen exclamation marks in it. The defence is that it was about street addresses in Westward Ho! One per paragraph should be an absolute maximum, but then kids these days don't know about paragraphs, do they? If it goes over 140 characters they're stuffed.
Posted by FCHD

Ooh, well done Barny, I'm glad it's not just me.

As a general rule, one "!" per 1,000 words seems about right. They DO have a useful function, but overusing them destroys their function completely. 

"Baked Beans 10p per tin!" is just horrible. If 10p is a good price, & your intended audience are grown ups, no exclamation mark is needed. We, the readers, are not stupid.  

waller02

In Response to Re: Anonymous?:

I'm with you Tikay, although I did have to write a report once that had about two dozen exclamation marks in it. The defence is that it was about street addresses in Westward Ho! One per paragraph should be an absolute maximum, but then kids these days don't know about paragraphs, do they? If it goes over 140 characters they're stuffed.
Posted by FCHD

Statisically, the average IQ has risen by 30 points in the past 100 years, so the kids are getting smarter

hhyftrftdr

In Response to Re: Anonymous?:

In Response to Re: Anonymous? : Statisically, the average IQ has risen by 30 points in the past 100 years, so the kids are getting smarter
Posted by waller02

What went wrong with you then?

waller02

In Response to Re: Anonymous?:

In Response to Re: Anonymous? : What went wrong with you then?
Posted by hhyftrftdr

Wp

Tikay10

Apologies for the derail. I blame tomgoodun.

NoseyBonk

In Response to Re: Anonymous?:

In Response to Re: Anonymous? : Ooh, well done Barny, I'm glad it's not just me. As a general rule, one "!" per 1,000 words seems about right. They DO have a useful function, but overusing them destroys their function completely.  "Baked Beans 10p per tin!" is just horrible. If 10p is a good price, & your intended audience are grown ups, no exclamation mark is needed. We, the readers, are not stupid.  
Posted by Tikay10

Where from!!!!???????????