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.
Sky Poker forums will be temporarily unavailable from 11pm Wednesday July 25th.
Sky Poker Forums is upgrading its look! Stay tuned for the big reveal!
1 in 5 paid Good or bad at micro
I played the 2.20 deep stack last night a very healthy 126 runners.
25 paid 25th got 3.02 10th got 3.53
Carnt really see the point if I'm being honest takes a lot of play to come 10th for 3.53.
Got to make final table to win a tenner.
Just wondered what other 2.20 deepie players thought.
Daggers
Comments
I'm not sure I understand this.
If it keeps more players in the game for longer, that would mean LESS rake, not more, as they won't register for another game until they exit this one.
^^^^^
Ahh yes, I see what he means now.
I would tend to agree with him, too.
Apologies to Mr Sniper for missing his point, feel free to shoot me now.
It is much easier to cash when 20% get paid, regardless of the payout
It definitely is better for Sky if more players cash. As has been pointed out, it keeps the overall players funds in wider circulation which means more players can buy into more tourneys and this obviously generates more rake. More rake = bad for the players in general although Sky is not here as a charity organisation, they are a business at the end of the day.
If the payouts are very narrow, and on average the more skilled players run deeper than the less skilled players, then more of the funds will generally be going to a more select few higher skilled players who may be cashing out etc. While this may in theory be better for 'the players' as you would expect less rake revenue to be generated, it can choke the poker economy a bit and tourneys then have less runners (at least recreational runners as they find it harder to hold onto their funds).
Just how much this can negatively affect the poker economy can quickly be realised if you imagine every tourney only paid out 1 person. Some people would be rolling in the ££'s but the vast majority would lose all their funds and not be able to register for any games on Sky.
At the end of the day a balance has to be struck that works for Sky as a profit making business (otherwise us players have no site to play on) but also offers incentives that keep both recreational and profit seeking players alike playing on the site.
So the question becomes... Is paying out 20% finding this balance?
Personally this seems a bit too wide and flat of a payout structure and towards the more extreme end of the spectrum. Having said that... It is a deep stacked £2.20 so I wouldn't imagine the motives of most players would be to try and win a shedload of ££'s. On the contrary as this tourney last for a while, many players entering may be looking for milage out of their ££'s and paying out a bigger group of players may be in general the most favoured scenario.
I guess therefore the answer is to be found by looking at the number of players turning out for the tourney each night.
(Apologies for the book! Procrastinating a bit...)
If we still had Top of the Posts, that might just win it this week, or come 2nd to the good news from Tomgoodun.
It's very perceptive, & for the vast majority of players here, so true.
Many recreational players - & almost all of us here are recreational players - just want as much table time as possible for as little outlay as possible. If they can play 6 hours & get their buy-in back, that's a successful night. It is.
I used to go visit players at home as part of some series Channel 861 were doing. Not "big" players, just ordinary smallball players, who are the heart of any poker site.
I visited a family in Stoke Newington one night. The Mum played a £2 DYM whilst Dad was changing & showering after work. Then the Dad played a £5 Deepstack MTT, as the Mum wanted to watch EastEnders & Corrie, so she'd watch the TV, & he'd be sat there happily tip tapping, & lasting as long as he could so he did not have to watch rubbish TV.
Then, when he bust, he'd go take the dog for a walk, & the Mum would play another £1 or £2 DYM.
Another acquaintance of mine was a Big Noise at Sky TV. She was not much cop at the poker, but wanted to play every night for as long as possible, & at the minimum, cost, so she played a £5 Deepie every singe night.
I'd bump into her next day, & ask how she got on. "I was in it for 3 hours", or "I got a min cash, £13, chuffed to bits" sorta thing.
It's the fun, the banter, the diversion from TV or whatever, the entertainment. It's just a hobby, not to be taken too seriously, &, ideally, they want it to cost as little as possible, & get as many hours per £ lost as they can.
Some of us do take ourselves a little too seriously, but Mumsie nailed it in that post.
Another friend of mine who works in TV used to have a Direct Debit of £100 per month into Sky Poker, which was paid on the 1st of each month.
She only played the nightly £11 Deepstack. Once the £100 was gone, which might be as soon as 9 or 10 nights, she never played again until next month when the Direct Debit was paid again.
She'd get a few cashes, & that meant she could play more nights, maybe 15, 20, or 25.
In her dream world, she'd get enough back to be able to play every night of the month. That's all she wanted - that, & the banter, the chatting with virtual pals, and that lovely buzz of adrenalin & zing when she flopped a set, won an all-in or even cashed.
To these folks, paying 15% or 20% of the field is exactly what they want. Because it means they can play longer, & for more nights.
"Payday" is a very interesting thing on a Gaming site. Traffic always increases after "Payday Week", then gradually declines until Payday Week comes round again.