high roller sat

HAYSIE

In Response to Re: high roller sat:

In Response to Re: high roller sat : What is absolutely crystal clear to me is that you can have a guarantee or a minimum runners condition, you certaily cant have both. Sky is attempting to have the penny and the bun. Where you have a guarantee and a minimum runners condition and cancel the tournament, then the guarantee did not really exist in the first place.  
Posted by HAYSIE

I too have had enough now, and this is my last word on this topic.

Sky only cancelled the tourney in question to save money. It saved them over £600 which was over 60% of the prize pool. In my view this was not only short sighted as enough late registrants might have entered to cover the prize pool, but it was also short sighted not to think that this money was being saved at the expense of the players.

When I read that 2 seats were guaranteed prior to entering, I really believed it. My word is my bond, and expect the same from those that I deal with.

If Sky decided to reduce toights UKOPS rebuy prizemoney from 10k to 4k, due to lack of entries there would be uproar, but that would just be a 60% reduction in the prizepool.

Nuggy962

Great thread guys enjoyabke read

Not bothered too much with forum.. dmis a giggle 

hhyftrftdr

In Response to Re: high roller sat:

In Response to Re: high roller sat : What is absolutely crystal clear to me is that you can have a guarantee or a minimum runners condition, you certaily cant have both. Sky is attempting to have the penny and the bun. Where you have a guarantee and a minimum runners condition and cancel the tournament, then the guarantee did not really exist in the first place.  
Posted by HAYSIE

Why not?

''2 seats guaranteed with a minimum of 5 runners'' (for example)

StayOrGo

In Response to Re: high roller sat:

In Response to Re: high roller sat : Why not? ''2 seats guaranteed with a minimum of 5 runners'' (for example)
Posted by hhyftrftdr

Agree, most commercial guarantees I know, have conditions.

Here's a few examples:

Best Odds Guaranteed (Singles only)

Clothing Money Back Guarantee (Only if not worn)

Faulty Goods Refund Guarantee (Unless Damaged through Neglect)

Satisfaction Guaranteed (How can anyone say that lol, but they do)

So this is not unique to Sky or Poker even. My only gripe, is when the conditions that negate the guarantee are not detailed anywhere.

HAYSIE

In Response to Re: high roller sat:

In Response to Re: high roller sat : Why not? ''2 seats guaranteed with a minimum of 5 runners'' (for example)
Posted by hhyftrftdr

A guarantee is something that is definitely going to happen come hell or high water,  a condition therefore negates the guarantee. In the example you quote, if you only got 4 runners and the tournament was cancelled then the seats were not guaranteed.

To say that one in five qualify for a seat, and cancel the tourney if you only got four runners, is completely fair. To say that two seats are guaranteed when they are not, isnt.

The dictionary definition of the word guarantee is below

Provide a formal assurance, especially that certain conditions will be fulfilled relating to a product, service, or transaction.

The assurance in question was the guarantee, which didnt happen.

hhyftrftdr

In Response to Re: high roller sat:

In Response to Re: high roller sat : A guarantee is something that is definitely going to happen come hell or high water,  a condition therefore negates the guarantee. In the example you quote, if you only got 4 runners and the tournament was cancelled then the seats were not guaranteed. To say that one in five qualify for a seat, and cancel the tourney if you only got four runners, is completely fair. To say that two seats are guaranteed when they are not, isnt. The dictionary definition of the word guarantee is below Provide a formal assurance, especially that certain conditions will be fulfilled relating to a product, service, or transaction. The assurance in question was the guarantee, which didnt happen.
Posted by HAYSIE

What if it was worded.....''If this tournament starts with 5 or more runners, we guarantee 2 seats''.....

HAYSIE

In Response to Re: high roller sat:

In Response to Re: high roller sat : Agree, most commercial guarantees I know, have conditions. Here's a few examples: Best Odds Guaranteed (Singles only) Clothing Money Back Guarantee (Only if not worn) Faulty Goods Refund Guarantee (Unless Damaged through Neglect) Satisfaction Guaranteed (How can anyone say that lol, but they do) So this is not unique to Sky or Poker even. My only gripe, is when the conditions that negate the guarantee are not detailed anywhere.
Posted by StayOrGo

I have to reply to this, because with all due respect it is absolute nonsense.

What happened was that Sky set up a semi final tourney. The only valid conditions as far as our discussion is concerned is that 2 seats in the final were guaranteed. There was no stipulation of a minimum number of runners. So as far as I was concerned 2 seats to the final were defintely being given away, because Sky said so, in writing, in the terms and conditions of the tourney. Yet someone from Sky decided to cancel the tourney, and therefore renege on the guarantee.

As far as your examples are concerned the only comparable one is the best odds guaranteed. You know beforehand that it is singles only, so couldnt moan about not getting it on a double or a treble.

Sky cancelled this tourney and didnt pay out the two seats purely to save money.

To compare this to the guaranteed odds scenario, what Sky have done is guaranteed the odds, and then after the event cancelled the bets because the guarantee was going to cost too much and just refunded your stake.

HAYSIE

In Response to Re: high roller sat:

In Response to Re: high roller sat : What if it was worded.....''If this tournament starts with 5 or more runners, we guarantee 2 seats''.....
Posted by hhyftrftdr

In the tourney we have been discussing they needed 10 runners to cover two seats. I think you must choose between guaranteeing or not, and if you guarantee any seats you have to give them away. The normal sats are one in five qualifies. So if you accept this and just say one in five will qualify for the final, everybody is happy and there is nothing that anyone can possibly moan about.

However, the problem with this is I think they like saying 5 or 10 seats guaranteed, to maybe attract more entries, and wheedle out of the guarantees when they dont get the runners.

To have guarantees and minimum numbers of runners is nonsense.

hhyftrftdr

In Response to Re: high roller sat:

In Response to Re: high roller sat : In the tourney we have been discussing they needed 10 runners to cover two seats. I think you must choose between guaranteeing or not, and if you guarantee any seats you have to give them away. The normal sats are one in five qualifies. So if you accept this and just say one in five will qualify for the final, everybody is happy and there is nothing that anyone can possibly moan about. However, the problem with this is I think they like saying 5 or 10 seats guaranteed, to maybe attract more entries, and wheedle out of the guarantees when they dont get the runners. To have guarantees and minimum numbers of runners is nonsense.
Posted by HAYSIE

No its not, and they go hand in hand. The guaranteed seats help generate interest/entries, the minimum number of runners required limits Sky's liability to big overlay/possible collusion.

Underlined bit....well I'm sure certain people would still find a way to complain.

HAYSIE

In Response to Re: high roller sat:

In Response to Re: high roller sat : No its not, and they go hand in hand. The guaranteed seats help generate interest/entries, the minimum number of runners required limits Sky's liability to big overlay/possible collusion. Underlined bit....well I'm sure certain people would still find a way to complain.
Posted by hhyftrftdr

Whats the point of having a guarantee if they ignore the guarantee and just cancel the tourney?

If you enter a tourney because of the number of guaranteed seats, and this can be changed at a whim, isnt that wrong?

If the required number to avoid any overlay is 1 in 5 then why not just say that. Therefore if there were 50 runners and 10 seats or 5 runners and one seat, your chance of winning is 1 in 5 irrespective of the actual number of entries.

MattBates

It is an industry standard that there are guarantees with minimum entries. The only issue is it not being clear as to how many runners were required for it to run.

MattBates

In Response to Re: high roller sat:

In Response to Re: high roller sat : Whats the point of having a guarantee if they ignore the guarantee and just cancel the tourney? If you enter a tourney because of the number of guaranteed seats, and this can be changed at a whim, isnt that wrong? If the required number to avoid any overlay is 1 in 5 then why not just say that. Therefore if there were 50 runners and 10 seats or 5 runners and one seat, your chance of winning is 1 in 5 irrespective of the actual number of entries.
Posted by HAYSIE

They aren't trying to avoid overlay, just stop situations where there is excessive overlay

HAYSIE

In Response to Re: high roller sat:

It is an industry standard that there are guarantees with minimum entries. The only issue is it not being clear as to how many runners were required for it to run.
Posted by MattBates

I dont really know what that means. Surely the poker industry cant have their own definition of the word guarantee.

StayOrGo

In Response to Re: high roller sat:

In Response to Re: high roller sat : They aren't trying to avoid overlay, just stop situations where there is excessive overlay
Posted by MattBates

FYI Matt, did you sat in or buy in direct to the cancelled MTT?

If you satellited in, there was a problem with the £115 refund. Just so you are aware, as you may not have noticed.

Cheers,

G

MattBates

In Response to Re: high roller sat:

In Response to Re: high roller sat : FYI Matt, did you sat in or buy in direct to the cancelled MTT? If you satellited in, there was a problem with the £115 refund. Just so you are aware, as you may not have noticed. Cheers, G
Posted by StayOrGo

Thanks G, satted in and have received my refund

LmfaoAllin

In Response to Re: high roller sat:

It is an industry standard that there are guarantees with minimum entries. The only issue is it not being clear as to how many runners were required for it to run.
Posted by MattBates

This seems to be the crux of it, have noticed that the information required isn't always consistent with regards to this. Meaning its a simple fix for Sky going forward.

Gravy.

StayOrGo

In Response to Re: high roller sat:

In Response to Re: high roller sat : I have to reply to this, because with all due respect it is absolute nonsense. What happened was that Sky set up a semi final tourney. The only valid conditions as far as our discussion is concerned is that 2 seats in the final were guaranteed. There was no stipulation of a minimum number of runners. So as far as I was concerned 2 seats to the final were defintely being given away, because Sky said so, in writing, in the terms and conditions of the tourney. Yet someone from Sky decided to cancel the tourney, and therefore renege on the guarantee. As far as your examples are concerned the only comparable one is the best odds guaranteed. You know beforehand that it is singles only, so couldnt moan about not getting it on a double or a treble. Sky cancelled this tourney and didnt pay out the two seats purely to save money. To compare this to the guaranteed odds scenario, what Sky have done is guaranteed the odds, and then after the event cancelled the bets because the guarantee was going to cost too much and just refunded your stake.
Posted by HAYSIE

This is the main point, yes we should have known before hand. But just like the singles and doubles that you refer to, the minimum runner criteria, if known beforehand, is a valid condition of the guarantee.

We may not like it, but it's legal and fair enough.

The system not automatically returning some peoples stakes, now that IS something to be wary of, and to watch out for. Hopefully this is something that Sky are addressing (Can James/Sam confirm?)

BTW Haysie, I am not trying to have a p***ing contest with you here, it's just how I see it.

GL at the tables.

Cheers,

G

P.S. Regarding the other examples. they were purely to show that other retail industries, float this word "GUARANTEE" about, but they do, in the main, have conditions.

HAYSIE

In Response to Re: high roller sat:

In Response to Re: high roller sat : This is the main point, yes we should have known before hand. But just like the singles and doubles that you refer to, the minimum runner criteria, if known beforehand , is a valid condition of the guarantee. We may not like it, but it's legal and fair enough. The system not automatically returning some peoples stakes, now that IS something to be wary of, and to watch out for. Hopefully this is something that Sky are addressing (Can James/Sam confirm?) BTW Haysie, I am not trying to have a p***ing contest with you here, it's just how I see it. GL at the tables. Cheers, G P.S. Regarding the other examples. they were purely to show that other retail industries, float this word "GUARANTEE" about, but they do, in the main, have conditions.
Posted by StayOrGo

I have no axe to grind with you graham, and wish you a succesful UKOPS.

The point that I am trying, but completely failing to make is you cant have a guarantee and a condition or conditions.

Once you introduce conditions the guarantee is invalid. A guarantee has to be a definite thing. In your guaranteed odds scenario, you bet a horse and take the current price which is 4 to 1. The horse wins and the sp is 8 to 1. Because the best odds are guaranteed, the bookies have to pay you out at 8 to 1. That is definite because they have guaranteed it. They couldnt say you are only getting 4 to 1, or worse still the bet is cancelled and you are just getting your stake back because they have lost too much.

In the tourney in question Sky cancelled it through a lack of runners, this was exacerbated by the fact that there was no mention of minimum amounts of runners in the terms and conditions, but I am arguing that even when you have guaranteed seats and minimum runners the guarantee is not worth the paper it is written on, as was the case in our semi.

What was the guarantee worth on our semi?

There should either be a guarantee or min runners not both.

Interestingly I looked at tonights semi, still 2 seats guaranteed and no min runners.

HAYSIE

In Response to Re: high roller sat:

In Response to Re: high roller sat : I have no axe to grind with you graham, and wish you a succesful UKOPS. The point that I am trying, but completely failing to make is you cant have a guarantee and a condition or conditions. Once you introduce conditions the guarantee is invalid. A guarantee has to be a definite thing. In your guaranteed odds scenario, you bet a horse and take the current price which is 4 to 1. The horse wins and the sp is 8 to 1. Because the best odds are guaranteed, the bookies have to pay you out at 8 to 1. That is definite because they have guaranteed it. They couldnt say you are only getting 4 to 1, or worse still the bet is cancelled and you are just getting your stake back because they have lost too much. In the tourney in question Sky cancelled it through a lack of runners, this was exacerbated by the fact that there was no mention of minimum amounts of runners in the terms and conditions, but I am arguing that even when you have guaranteed seats and minimum runners the guarantee is not worth the paper it is written on, as was the case in our semi. What was the guarantee worth on our semi? There should either be a guarantee or min runners not both. Interestingly I looked at tonights semi, still 2 seats guaranteed and no min runners.
Posted by HAYSIE

Lets say you choose to buy in to a quarter final sat today, as you are looking for an opportunity to play in a big tourney that you are not prepared to buy into like a high roller that costs £530. You buy into the quarter partly because you are encouraged to see that the semi has two seats guaranteed into the final. A couple of hours and some good play later you qualify. You are ecstatic only to find out a couple of hours later that there wasnt really a guarantee, but youve got your stake back.

IrishRose

In Response to Re: high roller sat:

In Response to Re: high roller sat : I have no axe to grind with you graham, and wish you a succesful UKOPS. The point that I am trying, but completely failing to make is you cant have a guarantee and a condition or conditions. Once you introduce conditions the guarantee is invalid. A guarantee has to be a definite thing. In your guaranteed odds scenario, you bet a horse and take the current price which is 4 to 1. The horse wins and the sp is 8 to 1. Because the best odds are guaranteed, the bookies have to pay you out at 8 to 1. That is definite because they have guaranteed it. They couldnt say you are only getting 4 to 1, or worse still the bet is cancelled and you are just getting your stake back because they have lost too much. In the tourney in question Sky cancelled it through a lack of runners, this was exacerbated by the fact that there was no mention of minimum amounts of runners in the terms and conditions, but I am arguing that even when you have guaranteed seats and minimum runners the guarantee is not worth the paper it is written on, as was the case in our semi. What was the guarantee worth on our semi? There should either be a guarantee or min runners not both. Interestingly I looked at tonights semi, still 2 seats guaranteed and no min runners.
Posted by HAYSIE

You can frequently see guarantee with conditions though.  For instance manufacturers guarantees which supposedly last 2 or 5 years etc.  They usualy have a condition or provision that it excludes malicious or deliberate damage.

For the record I agree with your arguement about the sats not displaying the conditions such as minimum number of runners.  I'm really disappointed to note that even after this thread highlighting the issue it hasn't yet been addressed.  As you rightly say tonights 9.45 £115 semi final game openly displays the 2 seats guanranteed minimum but no mention of a minimum number of players.

"Status

RegisteringStart Date/Time21:45 - 13 AprCurrent Prize Pool£106.00Buyin + Fee£106 + £9Description2 SEATS GUARANTEED. 1 in 5 win a seat into the £25,000 UKOPS 40 HIGH ROLLER on April 17th! 1 seat paid for every £530 in the prize pool. 10 minute blinds, late registration open for 1 hour."

unknown_username

if something is guaranteed it should be binding unless stipulated , the guarantee will be INVALID if it doesn,t reach the required number of runners which it doesn,t state in the tourny lobby imho

HAYSIE

In Response to Re: high roller sat:

if something is guaranteed it should be binding unless stipulated , the guarantee will be INVALID if it doesn,t reach the required number of runners which it doesn,t state in the tourny lobby imho
Posted by stokefc

Well then its not a guarantee.

HAYSIE

In Response to Re: high roller sat:

In Response to Re: high roller sat : Well then its not a guarantee.
Posted by HAYSIE

Gutted came second in the quarter, but only for a minute semi was cancelled again, so much for another 2 guaranteed seats. Probably far too many sats going on at the moment.

unknown_username

In Response to Re: high roller sat:

In Response to Re: high roller sat : Well then its not a guarantee.
Posted by HAYSIE

obviously

but sky can stipulate weather a guarantee can broken in certain circumstances afterall its there site , the tourny you were regged in didn,t state any circumstances so it should of run and guarantee met so i pretty much agree with you mate

HAYSIE

In Response to Re: high roller sat:

In Response to Re: high roller sat : obviously but sky can stipulate weather a guarantee can broken in certain circumstances afterall its there site , the tourny you were regged in didn,t state any circumstances so it should of run and guarantee met so i pretty much agree with you mate
Posted by stokefc

Thanks. Where there is some doubt about meeting a guaeantee, there is no need to guarantee, they can just say one in five, min 5 runners without mentioning the word guarantee. That would be more honest and transparent.

MattBates

In Response to Re: high roller sat:

In Response to Re: high roller sat : I too have had enough now, and this is my last word on this topic. Sky only cancelled the tourney in question to save money. It saved them over £600 which was over 60% of the prize pool. In my view this was not only short sighted as enough late registrants might have entered to cover the prize pool, but it was also short sighted not to think that this money was being saved at the expense of the players. When I read that 2 seats were guaranteed prior to entering, I really believed it. My word is my bond, and expect the same from those that I deal with. If Sky decided to reduce toights UKOPS rebuy prizemoney from 10k to 4k, due to lack of entries there would be uproar, but that would just be a 60% reduction in the prizepool.
Posted by HAYSIE

Is this a guarantee?

HAYSIE

In Response to Re: high roller sat:

In Response to Re: high roller sat : Is this a guarantee?
Posted by MattBates

It was, but I cancelled that one for a change.

StayOrGo

In Response to Re: high roller sat:

In Response to Re: high roller sat : Gutted came second in the quarter, but only for a minute semi was cancelled again, so much for another 2 guaranteed seats. Probably far too many sats going on at the moment.
Posted by HAYSIE

Hi Haysie, can I ask if you were refunded correctly on this ocassion, and if the minimum runner criteria was displayed in the description field?

Cheers,

G

HAYSIE

In Response to Re: high roller sat:

In Response to Re: high roller sat : Hi Haysie, can I ask if you were refunded correctly on this ocassion, and if the minimum runner criteria was displayed in the description field? Cheers, G
Posted by StayOrGo

I didnt qualify on this occasion, and no there was no min runner stipulation, Irish Rose copied and pasted the terms and conditions to an earlier post.

HAYSIE

In Response to Re: high roller sat:

In Response to Re: high roller sat : I didnt qualify on this occasion, and no there was no min runner stipulation, Irish Rose copied and pasted the terms and conditions to an earlier post.
Posted by HAYSIE

I think Rose qualified.