All Categories› Poker› Poker Chat

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!

Threat to Frenzies

bbMikebbMike
edited April 2017 in Poker Chat
Can anyone enlighten me as to what this is about?  Is whatever that's gone on unique to Frenzy games?  I did notice one got cancelled earlier today as there were only 2 runners in the lobby, is it the old early finish issue?
· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Comments

  • Sky__JamesSky__James
    edited March 2017
    It's about players agreeing to go all in first hand and not rebuy which causes big overlay of course. I'll chat ban any serial offenders and unfortunately if it continues I'll have to increase the minimum number of runners or stop running them altogether.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Jac35Jac35
    edited March 2017
    In Response to Re: Threat to Frenzies:
    It's about players agreeing to go all in first hand and not rebuy which causes big overlay of course. I'll chat ban any serial offenders and unfortunately if it continues I'll have to increase the minimum number of runners or stop running them altogether.
    Posted by Sky__James
    Chatban?
    Are they actually doing anything wrong? I understand it doesn't work for Sky if it happens but it just seems like common sense on their part.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • bbMikebbMike
    edited March 2017
    In Response to Re: Threat to Frenzies:
    In Response to Re: Threat to Frenzies : Chatban? Are they actually doing anything wrong? I understand it doesn't work for Sky if it happens but it just seems like common sense on their part.
    Posted by Jac35
    It's only common sense if they're working as a team. It always makes sense to rebuy, so why wouldn't you? Only because of a prior agreement that you know you'll be on the other side of it next time.
    ...

    Thanks for the confirmation James. So I guess the difference here for frenzies is the amount of overlay generated by this practice. I'm told it happens in other standard satellites, but you're not concerned about this practice in those games?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Jac35Jac35
    edited March 2017
    In Response to Re: Threat to Frenzies:
    In Response to Re: Threat to Frenzies : It's only common sense if they're working as a team. It always makes sense to rebuy, so why wouldn't you? Only because of a prior agreement that you know you'll be on the other side of it next time. ... Thanks for the confirmation James. So I guess the difference here for frenzies is the amount of overlay generated by this practice. I'm told it happens in other standard satellites, but you're not concerned about this practice in those games?
    Posted by bbMike
    Ah yeah 
    I was being a simpleton. Forgot it's a rebuy
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • bbMikebbMike
    edited April 2017
    A frenzy to the £33 game was cancelled today, there were only 3 runners in the lobby when it was due to start.  The one that started immediately before this one made 3 seats.

    Another frenzy to the Vegas game did start with 3 runners.  If you're interested in stopping people typing "flip?" into the chatbox I'd suggest you apply the rules equally across games.

    Also, it can't be difficult to have a look occassionally at chat history on frenzy games if you're interested in catching serial offenders.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • bbMikebbMike
    edited April 2017
    No interest?

    Some players are still trying to end these early, from what I've seen you've put a protection mechanism in for one set of games but not the Vegas versions.


    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Tikay10Tikay10
    edited April 2017
    In Response to Re: Threat to Frenzies:
    No interest? Some players are still trying to end these early, from what I've seen you've put a protection mechanism in for one set of games but not the Vegas versions.
    Posted by bbMike
    I've passed this up to the office, Mike, although I gather Frenzy "abuse" is being monitored now.

    The matter you mention in your previous post - checking the chat log of serial offenders - has already resulted in a number of players receiving chat bans, so that door is closed to those guys already.

    Only poker players could think this dodge makes sense - it's bad for the players overall, & bad for the site.
     
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • aussie09aussie09
    edited April 2017

    I think I have the answer to this.  if adopted can i be given a prize?  it will be worth a fortune to sky poker once adopted.  ready?


    it is better to prevent this practice from ever occuring rather than punish offenders afterwards. 

    change software so that the game cannot end until late registration closes. 

    problem solved.  revenues restored.


    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • MAXALLYMAXALLY
    edited April 2017
    In Response to Re: Threat to Frenzies:
    In Response to Re: Threat to Frenzies : I've passed this up to the office, Mike, although I gather Frenzy "abuse" is being monitored now. The matter you mention in your previous post - checking the chat log of serial offenders - has already resulted in a number of players receiving chat bans, so that door is closed to those guys already. Only poker players could think this dodge makes sense - it's bad for the players overall, & bad for the site.  
    Posted by Tikay10

    Firstly, I 100% agree that action should be taken against players who are 'abusing' the frenzies. 

    However, the same sort of thing is also happening in other sats which has already been alluded to in this thread by others. This is long term regs attempting to agree to flip for the seat/cash in sats which start with the min runners and usually with just one table.

    I find it difficult to separate the two practices and a little harsh that the frenzies have been targeted, while the other sats haven't. 

    Maybe Aussie09's idea or something similar needs to be implemented across the board to resolve this issue.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Sky__JamesSky__James
    edited April 2017
    Frenzies were targeted because the % overlay is much higher than a regular sat. I know there is a bit of abuse in regular sats but it doesn't happen enough for it to be a major issue. Making them minimum 4 runners is an option but this would result in a fair few more being cancelled that would otherwise have reached 5+ runners.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • hhyftrftdrhhyftrftdr
    edited April 2017
    In Response to Re: Threat to Frenzies:
    In Response to Re: Threat to Frenzies : Firstly, I 100% agree that action should be taken against players who are 'abusing' the frenzies.  However, the same sort of thing is also happening in other sats which has already been alluded to in this thread by others. This is long term regs attempting to agree to flip for the seat/cash in sats which start with the min runners and usually with just one table. I find it difficult to separate the two practices and a little harsh that the frenzies have been targeted, while the other sats haven't.  Maybe Aussie09's idea or something similar needs to be implemented across the board to resolve this issue.
    Posted by MAXALLY

    These are called 'all in' sats Alan, would've thought you'd be familiar with their concept by now.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.