Timebank argument

Itsover4u

In Response to Re: Timebank argument:

If 10 seconds has no impact on gameplay what's the point bringing it in? The overwhelming majority of players will still play the same number of tables as they do now (one table in most cases) whether there's time bank available or not. Therefore any increase in available decision time will equate to fewer hands being played. Are Sky Poker really going to be inclined to spend a load of money developing a new feature that will in all likelihood lead to a slight reduction in rake collected? I think not.
Posted by GaryQQQ

I would like to think they Sky or the new owners as a company are trying to grow the Sky poker brand and improve the gameplay / glitching for everybody rather than think of miniscule loss. by improving the site and gameplay you are inviting new players not just to try the site but to actually stay with it..... this is a saturated market that one company seemingly has a monpoly over..... but this is a fantastic site it just needs a little tweak here and there. Also I seriously seriously doubt adding a timebank would cost a loads & loads of money. Just a developers coding time

Another massive benefit for the timebank would be for the times when the software decides it is going to load a husng or dym sng a minute or so after it has actually started

unknown_username

If I use my time bank to post a hand and seek advice would it be colluding ?

Itsover4u

In Response to Re: Timebank argument:

If I use my time bank to post a hand and seek advice would it be colluding ?
Posted by mumsie

If the person was at the table yes..... if not no.... it would be ghosting.

you think you can load hand history, discuss it and come up with the correct decison with somebody else in 10 seconds you have skills I dont

FeelGroggy

+1 to Lambert

I think a lot of the opposition on this thread is due to people overestimating how much of an effect time banks would have on the speed of the game.

If people want to tank near the bubble (which is a valid but annoying strategy) they will do so regardless of whether or not there is a timebank. They would only be able to use their timebank once, so it might literally only be 20 seconds longer of stalling than it otherwise might be. Mostly it would be used for the benefit of the players who need it.

I'd be very surprised if it put anyone off playing poker altogether on the site. If people find the speed slower they'd be more likely to open another table than stop playing altogether, but as I've said I don't imagine it would have a significant impact on the games speed.

In my opinion it benefits people of all skills levels and doesn't have adverse effects for the people who don't use it.

GaryQQQ

I have never once heard any player say the reason they don't play on Sky Poker is because there is no time bank available. Where are all these extra players going to come from?

I doubt very many exist. Even if they do they're going to grinders whose presence will have a net negative impact on the long-term future of the site. By taking a stance against HUDs (which generate far more queries here than timebanks) Sky have already shown they're not really interested in attracting those kinda guys.

Lambert180

When I said it would have no negative impact I meant on individuals and on overall gameplay. Is anyone really gonna notice if the average hand length increases by 0.6 seconds? Or if instead of getting 80 hands per hour, you get 79 hands per hour now? Not a chance imo.

BUT will the individual who just one time in a tournament wants to spend an extra few seconds on a tough decision notice that he has an emergecny 10 seconds to use? Definitely.

I've said it earlier in the thread, but I don't personally need it and I play about 10 Sky comps per night along side other sites too, and I still don't think I'd need to use the Sky timebank apart from rare occasions but it seems a bit selfish for me to say 'well I don't need it, so don't do it'... it's gonna have zero impact on me if others are using it so why not let people have that bit of extra time if they need it.

Itsover4u

In Response to Re: Timebank argument:

I have never once heard any player say the reason they don't play on Sky Poker is because there is no time bank available. Where are all these extra players going to come from? I doubt very many exist. Even if they do they're going to grinders whose presence will have a net negative impact on the long-term future of the site. By taking a stance against HUDs (which generate far more queries here than timebanks) Sky have already shown they're not really interested in attracting those kinda guys.
Posted by GaryQQQ

You can kid yourself to believe this if you wish but at the end of the day they make money.... If Sky really didnt want them playing with them they wouldnt be sending them to Abu Dhabi.

I am not saying I want a site full of 24 tabling robots playing the same strategy but to think the site would make a net loss by having an influx in grinders is again massively wrong.... at the end of the day a business is a business and this is not being run to lose money..... I completely understand that.

But.... what sky are doing is very similar to stars before Amaya takeover.... fantastic customer support, addressing problems and making improvements which is what this thread was initially intended for.

Some of the reactions to a 10 second timebank baffle me and the effect is being dramatically over estimated

percival09

First point: no, adding a timebank probably won't bring many players to the site. So, does this alone mean Sky shouldn't introduce it? no. A company should be constantly innovating their product/service. If Sky don't add things like timebanks, ante's, then they will forever be that site with 1940's software. The addition of plenty of small things, together, will help the site grow undoubtedly. This is about the progression of the site rather than a few guys really (for some reason unknown to me) not wanting that extra 10 seconds. 

Second point: HUDs. I completely agree with Sky's stance on external software. HUDs and other things probably would bring an influx of new players to the site, in the short term at least, but this wouldn't be for the greater good of the site. As we can see with other sites, they are now trying to follow in Sky's lead with respect to these external pieces of software. Should we compare HUDs to a timebank? Of course not. Anyone who compares the two doesn't know what they both offer. 

Third: "grinders whose presence will have a net negative impact on the long-term future of the site" this is an incredibly bold and inaccuate claim to make. Without these "grinders", no poker site would exist, so to question their importance is ludicrous. We shouldn't be focusing on the grinders, though, because the addition of this timebank feature actually would benefit the majority of people, and that's the most important thing. If it only benefited the minority, then sure, there's no point in adding it, but this quite clearly isn't the case (imo) and the reasons have been outlined in other posts. 

Itsover4u

In Response to Re: Timebank argument:

First point: no, adding a timebank probably won't bring many players to the site. So, does this alone mean Sky shouldn't introduce it? no. A company should be constantly innovating their product/service. If Sky don't add things like timebanks, ante's, then they will forever be that site with 1940's software. The addition of plenty of small things, together, will help the site grow undoubtedly. This is about the progression of the site rather than a few guys really (for some reason unknown to me) not wanting that extra 10 seconds.  Second point: HUDs. I completely agree with Sky's stance on external software. HUDs and other things probably would bring an influx of new players to the site, in the short term at least, but this wouldn't be for the greater good of the site. As we can see with other sites, they are now trying to follow in Sky's lead with respect to these external pieces of software. Should we compare HUDs to a timebank? Of course not. Anyone who compares the two doesn't know what they both offer.  Third: "grinders whose presence will have a net negative impact on the long-term future of the site" this is an incredibly bold and inaccuate claim to make. Without these "grinders", no poker site would exist, so to question their importance is ludicrous. We shouldn't be focusing on the grinders, though, because the addition of this timebank feature actually would benefit the majority of people, and that's the most important thing. If it only benefited the minority, then sure, there's no point in adding it, but this quite clearly isn't the case (imo) and the reasons have been outlined in other posts. 
Posted by percival09

Spot on