UKPC Qualification

Dollie

Hi There,

It is possible that many of you will know that I have posted about this on the forum before and it is probable that many of you will think “He is whinging again!”.

I have played a few satellites for the forthcoming UKPC, including the 7.15pm quarter final tonight. My KK was beaten by AK, so that was me out, but that is not a problem. As this was my last opportunity to qualify, due to other commitments over the next few days, I will sadly not be in Nottingham. Good luck to all those who are playing.

I thought I would see who has qualified, and there are a lot of familiar names there. What I did not expect to find is that the player who knocked me out tonight already has a seat in Nottingham, is registered for the final on Sunday and the semi starting at 9.15pm. Having looked further 4 of the 8 players registered for the final on Sunday already have a seat in Nottingham and 3 of those were playing the same quarter final tonight.

Why do players who have already won an £1100 seat want to play daily £11.50 and £52 satellites and a weekly £240 final. The answer is obvious – to make money. That I understand, but is it fair? I don’t think so and I have made my feelings known before. At the same time it is unfortunate that the terms and conditions allow this.

I bet that there are a lot of people playing £1.30, £2.50 and £11.50 satellites who do not realise that they are going to come up against a bunch of “professionals” in their quest to qualify for the main event in Nottingham. That is their dream and some of them will be thwarted by those who are only in it for the money! I am sure that if they realised some of them would not enter and so protect their bankroll.

I remember the counter arguments from last time, but I am sorry they do not wash with me as I believe there is a principle involved. It is simple “the satellite process is a means to qualify for the main UKPC event”.

Isn't what is happening against the spirit of what Sky are trying to promote?  A chance for ALL regardless of level? On a level playing field?

Interesting.

Cheers

unknown_username

i noticed this the other day tbh and had the same thoughts.

sitting on the fence abit as the players are only earning money with shall we say value in these torns which isnt to say its right. 

hopefully the vegas torn is coming soon and i wanted a good crack at that so best to get in early

unknown_username

somebody will be along in abit Gordon to shoot you down saying if it wasn,t for these pros playing and making up the numbers there wouldn,.t be as many seats available and its not against the rules

goldon

 Hi Dollie   I have been trying like you and many others wanting to go to this event but find players after the money being rewarded by sky.  If they excluded existing qualifiers or said no monitory reward if they win then extra places would be available.  You hit the nail on the head when you said ... is it fair.....  ?   

BorinLoner

You've complained about this before but "...did not expect to find..." people playing this sat for cash? Don't feign surprise. Of course these players' motivation is to make money. That's why we all do it, isn't it? Not many players are hoping to qualify for the UKPC so they can give all the prize money away, after all.

You think that everyone should be on a level playing field. Explain how they're not? Other than some players being better at the game than others.

You think some players - those that don't know their opponents might be playing for cash - might not play if they knew. - That's called bumhunting. i.e. Refusing to play against players you think might be capable or competent.

The principle that the sats should be exclusively for winning seats is fine, though Stokefc has basically explained one consequence of the current system and, if you were that guy who sneaks through with a short stack in a sat with one or two extra seats because of those playing for cash, I doubt you'd complain. There wouldn't be extra places available if these players were unable to play. There are more places because of them. It's just that these players usually win more times than random chance, since they're usually good players... but it remains the case that there are more opportunities for others because of these players.

The other consequence of the current system is the reason it ain't going to change - Rake. It doesn't pay for Sky or any other onine poker site to lock paying players out of a particular tournament.

As to whether the current system is fair? Of course it is. It might not be in line with what you view as the purpose of these tournaments, but that doesn't mean anyone is advantaged or disadvantaged by it. Unfair isn't the right word here and it's the type of word that upsets people in this debate. Whether it's the intention or not, some take it as questioning their integrity.

bearlyther

I have won a seat and have been playing the 11.50 sats for the cash.  I think you seem to be forgetting about travel expenses for the weekend such as food, taxis, flights. Travel expenses for live events can add up very quickly.  

Lets give some rough estimations on expenses £80 for flights, £20 for return bus ticket from the airport, £200 for hotels, 6 taxi rides for someone who makes it to monday for to and from their hotel £72. Theres £372 and we havnt even included food or drink in that.  So the people that have qualified have every right to play the sats for cash.

unknown_username

I love reading , this player has already qualified so gets £1100 cash.

This inspires me, I can only dream  and strive to improve.

If this were ever taken away it wouldnt be the same. I want to win and I want to win twice or thrice.

weecheez1

this is a hard one to call i try now and then for a seat who i play makes no differance i think i would rather play good players and try to improve my game but lets be honest if you pay your way in you have as much right as the next man what you do with the prize is up to you if i looked to see if there was better players playing i wouldnt be playing in many

jordz16

I havent played any sats so im sure i can give a neutral view, if people couldnt play the sats then it would cause many problems, firstly no one would want to play the early sats because they would want to wait til as late as possible when all the better players had already qualified so they would have a softer field, therefore sky would lose out an awful lot, secondly without these players playing for cash sky would not be able to guarantee as many seats or run as many qualifiers. Also at the end of the day its poker, a game designed around people trying to win money so you cant begrudge of anyone doing that. Also you dont need to play the sats to qualify, sats are a way of spinning up a small amount of money into a big amount which is used as an entry fee but you can do that normally on the sit n go/cash tables if you wished.

MAXALLY

FWIW, I totally agree  Gordon from where you are coming from. Always have, and always will, think that it is morally wrong that players play sats for cash but unfortunately Sky allow it. I understand why players do it also, so it is, as ever, a grey area.

That evokes the old argument about 'if we didn't play, the guaranteed seats would not be fulfiled'....etc etc etc. However, if the OVERALL guarantee is not met for the target tournament.....the organisers of said tournament may eventually see the root problem. I don't hold out much hope though.

Really hope you get there Sir...players like yourself are the essence of players who should be there to pit your wits against the 'big boys'.

I played my first APAT tourney last month....loved it. Sat next to Wilie Tan on the Friday night game and just enjoyed the game!....how it should be....poker for all levels.

TommyD

So I've read through this thread.  Funny really, I think I've spent every day on this site being as helpful, open and chatty to every single player who has chatted to me and I've gone out of my way on several occasions to really push a tourney schedule and promotions which should not only benefit all levels of bankroll but primarily focus on recreational players.  Then I read that I have done things previously which are 'morally wrong.'  That actually really hurts to read.  And I am extremely bothered by the comment.

But instead of me being all butthurt let's try to be constructive.  Just as a asterisk to this convo, while I have played several UKPC sats for cash in the past I haven't done this this time around as I have another place to be the Saturday of that weekend so I am very doubtful for making it to Notts.  As I side point I never played SPT sats for cash because I felt that was much more of a community event, the UKPC really isn't.

People playing sats for cash do keep the guaranteed number of seats and therefore the seats available to recreational players up.  There is not the liquidity on this site to maintain those guarantees for the length that these sats run for imo.  Those seats would snap be reduced.  Then less people enter.  Then they reduce some more and so on and so forth.

Now a solution, which I suggested at the in person forum they held at the last UKPC which was designed to help improve the site, was 'Tournament Cash.'  For those who don't know, tournament cash is essentially credit you can only spend on the site and not available for withdrawal.  I would want to see additional sats won be credited as this personally (and very importantly you would be able to enter/reenter Sky branded live events like the UKPC with tourney cash).  Why would this help?  Because the money stays in the site and liquidity is not as adversely affected, in fact it is ploughed back into Sky MTTs and contributes towards existing guarantees, helping to maintain them for all.  Also for people who genuinely want more than one seat for the UKPC in order to reenter, this is a much quicker and easier way to do so.  Lastly, this strikes a better balance between people who are playing the sats for cash and those (recreational and other) who just want to win that one seat as the sats for cash group are discouraged due to the cash won from this not being available for withdrawal.  I feel it helps everyone and have been suggesting this for an age.

But of course instead of people either getting behind this suggestion which for my money helps the player pool as a whole, top to bottom, or people intelligently arguing any flaws in my suggestion or heavens to Betsy coming up with a better solution, what happens?  I and others getting accused of doing things that are morally wrong.  My first reaction is to say that there is absolutely nothing morally wrong with this.  My second is to say be extremely careful when you throw around things like questioning peoples' morality on a matter which is opinions.

My final reaction is 'How dare you.'  Like I said, I am extremely bothered by the comment.

scotty77

Fantastic post by Tommy on so many levels.

Tournament cash is the way forward IMO and sky need to get this system implemented ASAP.

Phantom66

I can see the frustration in losing a seat to someone who already has one, but I fail to see how this is "morally wrong".

As for "tournament cash", a stepping stone to that could be making cash won in lieu of a seat to be "non-withdrawable" cash ie as on other parts of the site it has to be wagered once before it can be withdrawn? Could still be used for a re-entry if that was the intention. 

That may need less fiddling under the bonnet with the s/w - which takes time and money and competes for resources with other improvements and the wider parts of the site.

Tikay10

In Response to UKPC Qualification:

Hi There, It is possible that many of you will know that I have posted about this on the forum before and it is probable that many of you will think “He is whinging again!”. I have played a few satellites for the forthcoming UKPC, including the 7.15pm quarter final tonight. My KK was beaten by AK, so that was me out, but that is not a problem. As this was my last opportunity to qualify, due to other commitments over the next few days, I will sadly not be in Nottingham. Good luck to all those who are playing. I thought I would see who has qualified, and there are a lot of familiar names there. What I did not expect to find is that the player who knocked me out tonight already has a seat in Nottingham, is registered for the final on Sunday and the semi starting at 9.15pm. Having looked further 4 of the 8 players registered for the final on Sunday already have a seat in Nottingham and 3 of those were playing the same quarter final tonight. Why do players who have already won an £1100 seat want to play daily £11.50 and £52 satellites and a weekly £240 final. The answer is obvious – to make money. That I understand, but is it fair? I don’t think so and I have made my feelings known before. At the same time it is unfortunate that the terms and conditions allow this. I bet that there are a lot of people playing £1.30, £2.50 and £11.50 satellites who do not realise that they are going to come up against a bunch of “professionals” in their quest to qualify for the main event in Nottingham. That is their dream and some of them will be thwarted by those who are only in it for the money! I am sure that if they realised some of them would not enter and so protect their bankroll. I remember the counter arguments from last time, but I am sorry they do not wash with me as I believe there is a principle involved. It is simple “the satellite process is a means to qualify for the main UKPC event”. Isn't what is happening against the spirit of what Sky are trying to promote?  A chance for ALL regardless of level? On a level playing field? Interesting. Cheers
Posted by Dollie

Morning Gordon.

When business & pleasure mix, it gets tough for me, as you & I are friends & go back a way.

I perfectly understand your angst, but I have to say, I don't think it is "against the spirit of what Sky are trying to promote" at all.
 
A few bullet points to consider. Some of these points have been made before, & I know you disagree with a few of them, but anyway.....

1) The current system provides the liquidity to Guarantee the number of seats they do. Without that liquidity, Guarantees would be far smaller - maybe half the seats.
 
2) The current system allows Sky Poker - & it's players - to have UKPC, & in previous years, Viva Las Vegas & Punta Cana, too. This is very important for the site's growth, &, I'd argue, for the players. Sky Poker sent over 40 (forty) players to Las Vegas last year. Not too many sites can claim that, & it suggests the much maligned current system DOES work. It cuts both ways, too. Many recreational players have qualified for these prestige events. Sue Norsden - kidgirlgy - qualified for VLV at a cost of £2.40, beating one of the best players on the site Heads Up to do so - went to Vegas & won $35,000. That's the most ANY Sky Poker player has won in the VLV adventures.
 
3) Tommy mentioned Tournament Tokens. I totally agree, these would be perceived as better. But the reality is they amount to exactly the same thing. The fields would be populated by EXACTLY the same mix if Sky Poker had Tourney Tokens. It would not even remove this growing stigma against the better-rolled players, which, I must say, is unfair.
 
4) There is nothing unethical, immoral, or bad etiquette involved here. The players who play these for cash are doing nothing wrong, either by the letter or the spirit of the Rules. It's more than unfortunate that their actions are being demonised.

5) Sky Poker do more for Recreational players than any other site - that's why the % of the player base who are recreationals is higher here than anywhere else. Players can win a UKPC seat every night in a Freeroll, & that's been the case most nights (bar about one week) since early January. That is a tremendous piece of value. One chap, almost unbelievably, won THREE of these Freerolls. And he is a pure, out & out, 100% recreational by any yardstick. 
 
So yes, I empathise with you completely, but I don't think it's right or fair to say Sky Poker are acting outside the spirit of what they are trying to promote. They are a great site for recreational or "fun" players, there is no doubt about that. Sites that failed to look after the recreational players have failed, or are failing. Ladbrokes, Betfair, PKR are all in terminal decline, & Full Tilt Poker, once the 2nd biggest site on earth, disappeared this week. You can make your own assumptions why they failed, & Sky Poker continues to succeed, but in doing so, I doubt you or anyone would argue it is because Sky Poker's software is better.

So there it is. 

Sorry I could not agree, & I look forward to seeing you soon.   

Tikay10

Excluding New Player Freerolls, I believe Sky Poker have given away in excess of 60 x £1,100 UKPC Seats in Freerolls & Promos.

1 or 2 of the posts portray Sky Poker as a big bad evil thing. It's a Business, it needs to grow, & it grows by trying to keep the majority of it's player base happy. It's a virtuous circle.   

Tikay10

Tommy wrote.....

Now a solution, which I suggested at the in person forum they held at the last UKPC which was designed to help improve the site, was 'Tournament Cash.'

He is absolutely correct, he did suggest it at the Players Forum we held last August, & it has not been implemented. It amounts to the same thing though, generally. Fields would be populated by exactly the same players as now.

Tikay10

I'm struggling to think of any Online Poker Site which does not allow Satellite wins to either be used for different Target Events, for cash, or T-Tokens. 

DOHHHHHHH

In Response to Re: UKPC Qualification:

3) Tommy mentioned Tournament Tokens. I totally agree, these would be perceived as better. But the reality is they amount to exactly the same thing.
Posted by Tikay10

Thissss.

Purely from a players point of view, tourny tokens are worse than the current system.

Why deny yourself flexibility. 

You can have £33 worth of mtt vouchers or you can have £33 pounds to spend on whatever you like. 

Can anybody explain why they would prefer the vouchers there, given the choice?

FeelGroggy

I have been playing the satellites for cash. I can understand your frustration of not getting a seat Dollie, but I do think it's unfair to brand those playing satellites for cash morally wrong. 

What exactly is unfair? These players are risking as much money as any other players when they register these tournaments and can lose it like anybody else. Sure they might win more often- but is that really unfair? If somebody puts a lot of work into their game away from the tables is it unfair they have an advantage in the competitions they play? What if a weak player plays satellites for cash, are they also immoral? Is this immorality based on skill level or universally applicable to all who play sats once they have a seat?

With these 'professionals' playing it enables sky to give away more seats and so argubly gives a wider range of people the opportunity to get a seat. This is all hypothetical but without those playing for cash I'm not sure the satellites would have enough liquidity to even guarantee 5 seats to this weeks final. It may also encourage some recs who might not fancy them knowing they have to finish in the top 3, but suddenly a top 10 finish is much more achievable.

You also make out that if people weren't allowed to register after winning a seat that all these recreational players who dream of getting a seat would all find there way in Nottingham. I would argue that this is simply not the case. Sure maybe the final gets 18 runners and 3 recreational players get seats. In the scenario where players play cash for seats maybe there's 56 runners guaranteeing 11 seats and 3 or 4 recreational players get seats. Sure 7 or 8 'professionals' get seats but the number of recreational players getting seats is not diminished.

If there was no cash alternative then Sky would not have been able to guarantee 10 seats a week for such a sustained period of time. 

The beauty of poker is that anyone can win. We could have phil Ivey or Daniel Negreanu play nexts week satelite and they might not get a seat. The recreationals still have a fighting chance, even if they're against opponents who's chances may be better they will still win sometimes- and have.

As usual good post from Tommy. Also once again unlucky not to get the seat this time around, best of luck in the next live competition :-)

Tikay10

In Response to Re: UKPC Qualification:

I have been playing the satellites for cash. I can understand your frustration of not getting a seat Dollie, but I do think it's unfair to brand those playing satellites for cash morally wrong.  What exactly is unfair? These players are risking as much money as any other players when they register these tournaments and can lose it like anybody else. Sure they might win more often- but is that really unfair? If somebody puts a lot of work into their game away from the tables is it unfair they have an advantage in the competitions they play? What if a weak player plays satellites for cash, are they also immoral? Is this immorality based on skill level or universally applicable to all who play sats once they have a seat? With these 'professionals' playing it enables sky to give away more seats and so argubly gives a wider range of people the opportunity to get a seat. This is all hypothetical but without those playing for cash I'm not sure the satellites would have enough liquidity to even guarantee 5 seats to this weeks final. It may also encourage some recs who might not fancy them knowing they have to finish in the top 3, but suddenly a top 10 finish is much more achievable. You also make out that if people weren't allowed to register after winning a seat that all these recreational players who dream of getting a seat would all find there way in Nottingham. I would argue that this is simply not the case. Sure maybe the final gets 18 runners and 3 recreational players get seats. In the scenario where players play cash for seats maybe there's 56 runners guaranteeing 11 seats and 3 or 4 recreational players get seats. Sure 7 or 8 'professionals' get seats but the number of recreational players getting seats is not diminished. If there was no cash alternative then Sky would not have been able to guarantee 10 seats a week for such a sustained period of time.  The beauty of poker is that anyone can win. We could have phil Ivey or Daniel Negreanu play nexts week satelite and they might not get a seat. The recreationals still have a fighting chance, even if they're against opponents who's chances may be better they will still win sometimes- and have. Also as usual good post from Tommy. I've learnt that when he has something to say you should listen. Maybe tournament tokens would be a fairer thing to implement for sky but I don't think they would be able to. Allowing players to win the cash alternative is the next best thing.
Posted by FeelGroggy

To be fair, Dollie never said it was "morally wrong", he said it was "against the spirit", which is a totally different thing.

unknown_username

In Response to UKPC Qualification:

Hi There, It is possible that many of you will know that I have posted about this on the forum before and it is probable that many of you will think “He is whinging again!”. I have played a few satellites for the forthcoming UKPC, including the 7.15pm quarter final tonight. My KK was beaten by AK, so that was me out, but that is not a problem. As this was my last opportunity to qualify, due to other commitments over the next few days, I will sadly not be in Nottingham. Good luck to all those who are playing. I thought I would see who has qualified, and there are a lot of familiar names there. What I did not expect to find is that the player who knocked me out tonight already has a seat in Nottingham, is registered for the final on Sunday and the semi starting at 9.15pm. Having looked further 4 of the 8 players registered for the final on Sunday already have a seat in Nottingham and 3 of those were playing the same quarter final tonight. Why do players who have already won an £1100 seat want to play daily £11.50 and £52 satellites and a weekly £240 final. The answer is obvious – to make money. That I understand, but is it fair? I don’t think so and I have made my feelings known before. At the same time it is unfortunate that the terms and conditions allow this. I bet that there are a lot of people playing £1.30, £2.50 and £11.50 satellites who do not realise that they are going to come up against a bunch of “professionals” in their quest to qualify for the main event in Nottingham. That is their dream and some of them will be thwarted by those who are only in it for the money! I am sure that if they realised some of them would not enter and so protect their bankroll. I remember the counter arguments from last time, but I am sorry they do not wash with me as I believe there is a principle involved. It is simple “the satellite process is a means to qualify for the main UKPC event”. Isn't what is happening against the spirit of what Sky are trying to promote?  A chance for ALL regardless of level? On a level playing field? Interesting. Cheers
Posted by Dollie

Hi Dollie

I agree with you 100% with you on this.

I have kicked off on here about this before,and its got me nowhere apart from jeers from the same people who abuse these sats to get extra money in there account.

I really sympathise with you,and it must be gut wrenching to go out that way to a person who already has a seat.

I was going to try and qualify in the last one this sunday,but ,you know what,in protest to sky poker ,and how they run these sats,and after reading your letter,i might just bite the bullet and pay the £1100 entrance fee to nottingham.

Because,for sure, i dont want the same happening to me,as it did to you

FeelGroggy

In Response to UKPC Qualification:

. Isn't what is happening against the spirit of what Sky are trying to promote?  A chance for ALL regardless of level? On a level playing field? Interesting. Cheers
Posted by Dollie

I might be missing something but I don't understand why it isn't a level playing field. Do these 'professionals' start with more chips? I feel like your implying the unfairness is based on the professional's skill advantage. Poker is a competitive game. Imagine the best tennis players not being allowed to enter a grandslam because it's unfair on their opponents. It's just a ridiculous argument. I feel like you want a satellite to exist where only players below X amount of profit can enter and battle amongst themselves. Sky do promote a chance for all and is probably one of the most recreational orientated sites out there. Everybody does have a chance

unknown_username

In Response to Re: UKPC Qualification:

I have won a seat and have been playing the 11.50 sats for the cash.  I think you seem to be forgetting about travel expenses for the weekend such as food, taxis, flights. Travel expenses for live events can add up very quickly.   Lets give some rough estimations on expenses £80 for flights, £20 for return bus ticket from the airport, £200 for hotels, 6 taxi rides for someone who makes it to monday for to and from their hotel £72. Theres £372 and we havnt even included food or drink in that.  So the people that have qualified have every right to play the sats for cash.
Posted by bearlyther

???????????????

what are you talking about??

unknown_username

In Response to Re: UKPC Qualification:

In Response to UKPC Qualification : I might be missing something but I don't understand why it isn't a level playing field. Do these 'professionals' start with more chips? I feel like your implying the unfairness is based on the professional's skill advantage. Poker is a competitive game. Imagine the best tennis players not being allowed to enter a grandslam because it's unfair on their opponents. It's just a ridiculous argument. I feel like you want a satellite to exist where only players below X amount of profit can enter and battle amongst themselves. Sky do promote a chance for all and is probably one of the most recreational orientated sites out there. Everybody does have a chance
Posted by FeelGroggy

I dont think you read dollies post properly.

He quite clearly states ,its going against the principle of the satellite,and i agree with him.

its not a cash laddering tournament,which is what certain players are using it for

Sky_SamT

Let me give my point of view on this one. 

I can of course see all sides and I actually sat and had an in depth conversation in the office with somebody about this matter just yesterday. The reality is that we make a promise to DTD saying we are going to send 200 players to DTD for the UKPC. Our task is then to work out how we are going to do that.

I personally designed the satellite structure and that includes the number of guaranteed seats each day and in each final. The reality is that without the liquidity from those that have already secured seats we wouldn't reach that number. If we don't reach that number we may have to reduce our commitment to DTD and in the long run that could even jeopardise the longevity of the UKPC. Of course we would like 10 new players to win a seat every week but the reality is that is not going to happen. 

In January alone Sky Poker gave away almost £200,000 in freerolls and as Tikay has said we have given away almost 70 seats to the UKPC in freerolls.

As for tournament tokens, trust me I recognise the need for them and it is something that I will not rest until we have them. 

For now I am afraid nothing will change and the reality remains that if you have already won a seat you are as welcome to play satellites as the next guy who has not won a seat.

FeelGroggy

In Response to Re: UKPC Qualification:

In Response to Re: UKPC Qualification : I dont think you read dollies post properly. He quite clearly states ,its going against the principle of the satellite,and i agree with him. its not a cash laddering tournament,which is what certain players are using it for
Posted by lovejunky

Yes I did read his post properly, multiple times in fact. And yes that was one aspect of his post, but he didn't explain why it wasn't a level playing field, which is what I wanted to know.  

Tikay10

In Response to Re: UKPC Qualification:

In Response to UKPC Qualification : Hi Dollie I agree with you 100% with you on this. I have kicked off on here about this before,and its got me nowhere apart from jeers from the same people who abuse these sats to get extra money in there account. I really sympathise with you,and it must be gut wrenching to go out that way to a person who already has a seat. I was going to try and qualify in the last one this sunday,but ,you know what,in protest to sky poker ,and how they run these sats,and after reading your letter,i might just bite the bullet and pay the £1100 entrance fee to nottingham. Because,for sure, i dont want the same happening to me,as it did to you
Posted by lovejunky

To be fair, they are not "abusing the sats", they are perfectly entitled to play them.

It is the same on all sites, with or without Tournamemt Tokens.

unknown_username

In Response to Re: UKPC Qualification:

In Response to Re: UKPC Qualification : Yes I did read his post properly, multiple times in fact. And yes that was one aspect of his post, but he didn't explain why it wasn't a level playing field, which is what I wanted to know.  
Posted by FeelGroggy

I can answer this.

theres a certain amount of skill involved in poker,you know this,its why you were tutored yourself.

Its a level playing field for me,my friend.

Dollie is an intelligent and humble man,he doesnt come across as pretentiuos in any way.

For alot of recretional and part time players,its a daunting time in the final with a £1100 at stake,and they will get nothing

but pressure and bullying from regs who already have a seat,stealing blinds etc.

dollies correct,its just morally wrong

Tikay10

^^^^

"dollies correct,its just morally wrong"


Gordon never said it was morally wrong. He said it was "against the spirit of what Sky Poker promotes", which is a very different thing.  

unknown_username

In Response to Re: UKPC Qualification:

^^^^ "dollies correct,its just morally wrong" Gordon never said it was morally wrong. He said it was "against the spirit of what Sky Poker promotes", which is a very different thing.  
Posted by Tikay10

Yes,sorry Tikay buddy,

I Stand corrected:)

suzy666

In Response to Re: UKPC Qualification:

In Response to Re: UKPC Qualification : Thissss. Purely from a players point of view, tourny tokens are worse than the current system. Why deny yourself flexibility.  You can have £33 worth of mtt vouchers or you can have £33 pounds to spend on whatever you like.  Can anybody explain why they would prefer the vouchers there, given the choice?
Posted by DOHHHHHHH

Yes. I cannot attend the UKPC, but if we had Tokens, I could win a seat and delay till next year.

FWIW, I think TKs nailed it and we all choose to play within the framework sky sets.

An interesting option would be to introduce the option of tokens for larger buyin events that one cannot play but I have no issues with the current system.