Whats people's opinions on regs playing satellites when the've already qualified for the event?

devil_tear

oh no, you've gone and done it now.

devil_tear

I've noticed that their is a certain amount of regs/pros that play sattelites purely for monetary reasons after they've already got a seat. I know they'll be differing opinions on this (especially if you're one of those players) but i'm of the opinion that Satt's are their for the purpose of making the buyin more affordable for the recreational player. I find it kinda sad if someone new to the game has gone through different Satt's only to arrive at the last sattelite to be confronted with a table of players already qualified for the event.

I know ethics and poker is a difficult subject- after all we are playing a game in which we are trying to outwit our opponents. Saying that I think Sattelites should be a gateway for the recreational players, instead of a glorified sit and go.

Thoughts?

MrWh1te

Double edged sword.

I kind of agree with you in principle.

But then, there is money to be made in sats and if the system allows it, I see no reason why people shouldn't play them for profit.  Some sites even allow seats won to be exchanged for cash of T$ even if you don't have a seat.

I will admit to signing up to game just to get the cash and then unregistering, at times on sky, as I am sure most people have.

Also don't forget, without regs, many sats wouldn't even run

aussie09

alan, alan...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNfQda8ceGs

MAXALLY

#nocomment

devil_tear

Just to be clear I bring up the topic not to start controversy, but to hear opinions from both sides. If their is one thing that we all share is that we want the game to be around and healthy in 10-20 years.

unknown_username

In Response to Re: Whats people's opinions on regs playing satellites when the've already qualified for the event?:

Just to be clear I bring up the topic not to start controversy, but to hear opinions from both sides. If their is one thing that we all share is that we want the game to be around and healthy in 10-20 years.
Posted by devil_tear

 Hardly a new topic...

I've been complaining about it for years...

TommyD

In Response to Whats people's opinions on regs playing satellites when the've already qualified for the event?:

I've noticed that their is a certain amount of regs/pros that play sattelites purely for monetary reasons after they've already got a seat. I know they'll be differing opinions on this (especially if you're one of those players) but i'm of the opinion that Satt's are their for the purpose of making the buyin more affordable for the recreational player. I find it kinda sad if someone new to the game has gone through different Satt's only to arrive at the last sattelite to be confronted with a table of players already qualified for the event. I know ethics and poker is a difficult subject- after all we are playing a game in which we are trying to outwit our opponents. Saying that I think Sattelites should be a gateway for the recreational players, instead of a glorified sit and go. Thoughts?
Posted by devil_tear

It's a binary situation though.  Either you qualify or you don't, and if it's the later how does it effect you where the ticket goes?  And if you are saying that being the one person without a seat would have meant you would have qualified this time without the people who already have seats, that's completely wrong.  The whole satellite would have played out differently, including times where you have made chips from people who already have seats.

I don't understand the comparison.  If you're a recreational player the you're playing for fun and entertainment, therefore results are secondary provided everything is within your means.  Not everyone is entitled to a seat in any event they want just by virtue of the satellite count they play, regardless of any sense of entitlement.

Ethics. Let's have a conversation about ethics. So a little background, I used to play sats for cash a heck of a lot, mainly things like UKPC seats (although I never did for a SPT seat FWIW). Until this UKOPS series I had not played a sat for cash for months, possibly a year at least now I really think about it. The reason for this was the barrage of personal abuse I took, in chat, by PM, FB messages and so on. I got sick of it. Of course that continued for a while after I stopped but you'd expect that. I have entered events twice this UKOPS series for events I already had a seat in (for a £530 HR seat today and a £110 even a couple of days back I think, won a seat in both) because I thought, heck they hate me anyway, why not get back to it because the I consider the games +ev for me and it's not doing a thing wrong.  The act of playing Sats for Cash, which I maintain is not unethical in the slightest, gets so much coverage on this forum.  But the softplay I have seen in sats between mates gets none.  The angle shooting I have seen in sats where people either swerve flips after agreeing or stay quiet in the hope that everyone else gets it in and they get a free seat gets none.  It is completely ridiculous what is considered wrong and what is just ignored here, and directly related to an oversized sense of entitlement imo.  Just a side note, I have never received abuse from the OP or Maxally on sats for cash, however Maxally's and others' passive agressive posts on the subject undoubtedly stoke the flames.

So I don't post much anymore because I'm sick of some players and I just try to get on with my game. But I will be back playing sats for cash. Because it is +ev for me, it is +ev for the continuing presence of sats and greater seats for all. And because it is not unethical.

rainman215

Good evening all.

As a rec player, i do play sats now and again and see no problem in players taking the cash.

If i was in the same position i would  do the same.

All the best.

Rainman215

MrWh1te

Is it unethical for me to play a sat for a seat that I won in a forum comp last night?

aussie09

i once tracked all results in qualifying for ukpc over several weeks and found that there was a net input from those who already had a seat. 

there are always more seats guaranteed by sky poker in the expectation of people playing for cash.  it amazes me that people believe that the number of guaranteed seats would remain the same if those who had a seat were prevented from entering more satellites.  that would be silly business.

finally, are we not only playing satellites?  if you satellite into a main event, isn't your success in that main event effectively financing your entry into a future tournament?  a world of satellites that at some stage you step out of and take the cash.

CraigSG1

If your playing poker to win money then it's all about edges. You play where you feel you have it. 

I personally couldn't care less if I'm playing with ppl who are playing for cash, it doesn't change the goal of the sat. 

devil_tear

In Response to Re: Whats people's opinions on regs playing satellites when the've already qualified for the event?:

i once tracked all results in qualifying for ukpc over several weeks and found that there was a net input from those who already had a seat.  there are always more seats guaranteed by sky poker in the expectation of people playing for cash.  it amazes me that people believe that the number of guaranteed seats would remain the same if those who had a seat were prevented from entering more satellites.  that would be silly business. finally, are we not only playing satellites?  if you satellite into a main event, isn't your success in that main event effectively financing your entry into a future tournament?  a world of satellites that at some stage you step out of and take the cash.
Posted by aussie09

That is some excellent points. 

I've not thought about the topic long and hard, it only came to my attention recently that it was a thing as I thught tourney seats were exchanged for tickets.

unknown_username

I've not read any previous replies,.


I love the fact that previous qualifiers are still playing, I want to be a previous qualified player playing.

IDONKCALLU

if there is money to be made why not  sky dont do tokens - tickets  for qualifying via sat so not your problem if u have a edge and if there is overlay take advantage   

StayOrGo

This is an age old topic, as I am sure you all know.

So I will keep it brief.

I would prefer it if the satellites were just for seats and not for cash, as I think it gives recreational players more chance.

However it is for Sky to determine the rule on this.

Sky currently have decided that playing sats for cash is OK, so, based on their rules, I'm not going to be too magnanimous about it.

So I happily play sats for cash, although, equally, I would have no problem, and as I alluded to earlier, I would prefer it, if Sky made the decision for sats only to be for seats.

However, I don't think individuals should be vilified, for doing something completely within the rules and indeed, "business model" of Sky.

So, on balance, there is a fair argument for both options, however, this question should be aimed at Sky and not the individuals that do play sats for cash.
Having said the above, I judge myself on my own ethics, so am not easily swayed or concerned by other peoples opinion of my ethical behaviour. (although I will listen to a reasoned argument.).
If people disapprove of me playing sats for cash, that is an opinion that they are entitled to, it doesn't unduly worry me, although a rule change from Sky would be pleasing.
Hmm, so much for keeping it brief. :=) 

Cheers,

G

IDONKCALLU

alot of peple still dont know if u qualify via sat u can have the cash i get asked a fair amount how can i get the cash if i qualify   and if your a rec player u need the money in your account to get the cash anyway for instance u qualify for £220 high roller for u to get the cash u need the £220 in your account which most recs dont have so they play for seats anyway 

dragon1964

Nobody seems to mind when the "sat for cash" players enter and lose.

If people don't complain when they win a seat at the expense of "sat for cash" players, then don't complain when  it's the other way round.

FeelGroggy

+1 to Tommy. Also without regs who have qualified playing sats the liquidity would simply not be there. These regs who have qualified give recreational players more opportunities to get a seat by virtue of more games running. DevilTear, Your opinion satellites are for the purpose of making the buy in cheaper for recreational players is just an illusion. We don't live in a poker utopia whereby everyone can get into these events cheap via satellites, Sky need to make their money back on these sats so people will always have to lose out for someone to win. The reality is recreational players are going to be losing money playing sats long term because they simply are not as skilled as their opposition. Sats are there for recs to have a fun game of poker and every now and again they get a shot at a big tournament without putting up the whole sum of the buy in. Really they will have overpaid for that seat by losing money in the satellite process. But that's okay as long as they have fun, not everyone plays the game for profit. There is nothing wrong with good players grinding satellites they have an edge in for profit. They have to put up the buy in just like everyone else. Also I'm sure you have no qualms busting the rec satellite qualifiers in the event itself, your crushing the dream of the big bink  just like the satellite grinders

rspca12

I played a lot sats for cash and got negative feedback from people about it. At the end of day I see both sides of argument but I fell sky has said we can do it so will be a minus ev move for me not to do it. And as Aussie said regs put a lot of money into these sats which create a lot of rake and keep pp seats guaranteed high. If regs couldn't play them for cash tickets tourney dollars the seats would be much lower per sat and therefore harder to,win anyway.

unknown_username

BinIn Response to Re: Whats people's opinions on regs playing satellites when the've already qualified for the event?:

Nobody seems to mind when the "sat for cash" players enter and lose. If people don't complain when they win a seat at the expense of "sat for cash" players, then don't complain when  it's the other way round.
Posted by dragon1964

+1

Darkangel7

Doesn't bother me tbh, if they've already qualified and they get the cash good on em. The satt might not have run if they weren't chasing the cash. Plus it gives the players more chance of buying into bigger tourneys. It's been going on longer than i've been on here. When I free rolled my way to UKPC I got crucified by one player for continuing to play free rolls and ukpc sats. To this day I will never forget what was said or how it was said. This happened at a time where I was going through a lot of horrible stuff and it stuck. Now if someone said anything its like water off a ducks back.   Yet this player has done the exact same thing over and over again. Good luck to everyone who plays satts and may you make a profit to enter into tourneys that you may not have had the bank roll to enter.

Itsover4u

i wish the regs wouldnt play any tournamnet...

or cash or sngs

weecheez1

it does not matter to me but i dont think women should be aloud when there is housework or ironing that needs done :-} GL ALL X X

Darkangel7

In Response to Re: Whats people's opinions on regs playing satellites when the've already qualified for the event?:

it does not matter to me but i dont think women should be aloud when there is housework or ironing that needs done :-} GL ALL X X
Posted by weecheez1

Equal ops :P xx

MrWh1te

In Response to Re: Whats people's opinions on regs playing satellites when the've already qualified for the event?:

it does not matter to me but i dont think women should be aloud when there is housework or ironing that needs done :-} GL ALL X X
Posted by weecheez1

I just  got banned from a well known forum after arguing with a load of feminists over 1000 posts.

They were arguing it wasn't nice and was just being sexist for a man to offer his seat to a woman on the bus.

So your post made me laugh more than it should have lol

devil_tear

In Response to Re: Whats people's opinions on regs playing satellites when the've already qualified for the event?:

+1 to Tommy. Also without regs who have qualified playing sats the liquidity would simply not be there. These regs who have qualified give recreational players more opportunities to get a seat by virtue of more games running. DevilTear, Your opinion satellites are for the purpose of making the buy in cheaper for recreational players is just an illusion. We don't live in a poker utopia whereby everyone can get into these events cheap via satellites, Sky need to make their money back on these sats so people will always have to lose out for someone to win. The reality is recreational players are going to be losing money playing sats long term because they simply are not as skilled as their opposition. Sats are there for recs to have a fun game of poker and every now and again they get a shot at a big tournament without putting up the whole sum of the buy in. Really they will have overpaid for that seat by losing money in the satellite process. But that's okay as long as they have fun, not everyone plays the game for profit. There is nothing wrong with good players grinding satellites they have an edge in for profit. They have to put up the buy in just like everyone else. Also I'm sure you have no qualms busting the rec satellite qualifiers in the event itself, your crushing the dream of the big bink  just like the satellite grinders
Posted by FeelGroggy

Ok I get it... We're all just dream crushers, and aspiring dream crushers

I feel like I opened up pandoras box with this post!

@Tommy i'm totally against people being vilified for playing within the rules. So if this happening to you i'm sorry to hear.

@Graham Good post as ever, basically said what I wanted to in a better way

MAXALLY

I actually now respect both sides of this discussion nowadays. Strange, but true.

Couple of food for points though.

Taken from the latest UKOPS day two blog...

 As things panned out, the £15,000 Main Event missed by 8 entries,

So lets just break that down more. Sky Poker put a £15gtd tournament on which only missed by 8. However, there were at least 8 players who qualified at least twice for it. If Sky now reduce that guarantee in the future, who will be the first ones to 'complain' about it?

A Happy Meduim?

How about putting sats on for a target event after it has started and restricting them to players who are not already in it? No guarantee of a seat if it misses the qualifying amount, and just cash won if it does miss. These would enable regs/recs to participate and increase the seat count.

All sites are endorsing sats for a cash ATM, but some are actually looking to improve them for recs instead of the regs. 

You carnt please all of the people all of the time, and you defiantly carnt please all poker players ever. 

(I knew I should not have commented)

HENDRIK62

In Response to Re: Whats people's opinions on regs playing satellites when the've already qualified for the event?:

In Response to Re: Whats people's opinions on regs playing satellites when the've already qualified for the event? : Offering seats to women on buses is wrong, cos it means they then spend allday on their backsides.
Posted by chilling

I have actually lost count of how many mysoginistic and sexist statements you have come out with on the forum, I guess they are in jest and you thinks its just fun, personally I think its awful.

just sayin...

MattBates

In Response to Re: Whats people's opinions on regs playing satellites when the've already qualified for the event?:

I actually now respect both sides of this discussion nowadays. Strange, but true. Couple of food for points though. Taken from the latest UKOPS day two blog...   As things panned out, the £15,000 Main Event missed by 8 entries, So lets just break that down more. Sky Poker put a £15gtd tournament on which only missed by 8. However, there were at least 8 players who qualified at least twice for it. If Sky now reduce that guarantee in the future, who will be the first ones to 'complain' about it? A Happy Meduim? How about putting sats on for a target event after it has started and restricting them to players who are not already in it? No guarantee of a seat if it misses the qualifying amount, and just cash won if it does miss. These would enable regs/recs to participate and increase the seat count. All sites are endorsing sats for a cash ATM, but some are actually looking to improve them for recs instead of the regs.  You carnt please all of the people all of the time, and you defiantly carnt please all poker players ever.  (I knew I should not have commented)
Posted by MAXALLY

The point has been made that sats wouldn't run without the regs playing for cash so not sure of the relevance 

Maggiesdad

As an old stager who does not use this site much anymore, I think that this subject has been more divisive than any other over the years. There is something that just does not sit right with many recs  with those who enter sats having already qualified and that is unlikely to change anytime soon. Just as there is rightful indignation from many regs when challenged about this. My view is that although it is legal, fair and reasonable and accepting all the financial arguements detailed by Tommy, Rob and others, the thing that is hardest to put a value on is "how much has it changed the personality of the site"