high roller sat

MattBates

In Response to Re: high roller sat:

In Response to Re: high roller sat : With all due respect, I am not sure if you now work for Sky, or if not what actually qualifies you to answer my questions. I, along with many other players ask questions on the forum with a view to getting replies from the appropriate Sky person. I think you have been very helpful answering about how to get hold of customer services and the like, but the above questions were clearly directed at James. Just for clarity, there are a minimum number of runners stipulated in some games and not others. What I was saying about guaranteed prize money is that never in my experience have Sky said that due to a lack of runners they are reducing the prize pool of an mtt. Never ever. I am not concerned with any old sats being cancelled, only sats with guaranteed seats. For instance could you get any more ridiculous than cancelling a semi when a quarter is still going on. To say that sats often dont run due to insufficient players (and are therefore cancelled) in one breath and sats are not cancelled at a whim in the next makes little sense. Your issue is clearly not my issue, and I really dont need you to tell me what my issue is. You also seem to contradict yourself when you say on the one hand there are a minimum number of players in all games and then the issue is the template for sats not including the minimum number of players required. Therefore there is not a minimum number of players in all games. I am sure you meant well Matt, but I feel your comments are more confusing than helpful. My issue surrounds the word guarantee, what that means to me, and what it appears to mean to Sky.
Posted by HAYSIE

You post questions on a public forum, if you have questions directly for James then send him a private message.

What qualifies me to answer is having played nearly 19000 games on sky including over 4000 sats on sky.   

All sats have either a seat or seats guaranteed.

All games have a minimum number of players to run.

The wording template needs to be amended to show what the minimum players required for the sat to run.

It is a wording issue, because it isnt stipulated doesn't mean that a minimum number of players has not been set up.

Just because in your experience a game hasnt been cancelled when there is a guarantee in place doesnt mean it hasn't happened. If you are just playing the larger games on sky then you wont have noticed it as these games always meet the minimum players requirement.

Once the minimum number of runners required is met a tournament will run. If not it will be cancelled, sky would never adjust a guarantee once a game has started.

Sky__James

I'm only going to post once on this thread. All satellites have 1 or more seats guaranteed SHOULD the minimum number of runners be met.  If the minimum number of runners were set at 1 or 2 there would be countless satellites lasting 1 hand which we don't want. This would result in us not running many satellites which you don't want. We will continue to cancel satellites if the min runners are not reached. You want us to honour our "guarantee" but if I see a 5 seat guaranteed sat end after 1 hand with 6 runners then I would be forced to lower the guarantee which is not what either of us wants. As has been stated an obscene amount of times, the blurb should have stated the min runners. If you don't agree with what I have said then fine but you are wasting your time.

Jac35

In Response to Re: high roller sat:

I'm only going to post once on this thread. All satellites have 1 or more seats guaranteed SHOULD the minimum number of runners be met.  If the minimum number of runners were set at 1 or 2 there would be countless satellites lasting 1 hand which we don't want. This would result in us not running many satellites which you don't want. We will continue to cancel satellites if the min runners are not reached. You want us to honour our "guarantee" but if I see a 5 seat guaranteed sat end after 1 hand with 6 runners then I would be forced to lower the guarantee which is not what either of us wants. As has been stated an obscene amount of times, the blurb should have stated the min runners. If you don't agree with what I have said then fine but you are wasting your time.
Posted by Sky__James

You'll be putting Tikay out of a job with those kind of sick PR skills

Btw

I happen to think all of your points are fair 

rainman215

Has any one mentioned changing the £2.20 @2.20 deepstack back to 2.20 yet.

All the best.

Rainman215.

HAYSIE

In Response to Re: high roller sat:

In Response to Re: high roller sat : You post questions on a public forum, if you have questions directly for James then send him a private message. What qualifies me to answer is having played nearly 19000 games on sky including over 4000 sats on sky.    All sats have either a seat or seats guaranteed. All games have a minimum number of players to run. The wording template needs to be amended to show what the minimum players required for the sat to run. It is a wording issue, because it isnt stipulated doesn't mean that a minimum number of players has not been set up. Just because in your experience a game hasnt been cancelled when there is a guarantee in place doesnt mean it hasn't happened. If you are just playing the larger games on sky then you wont have noticed it as these games always meet the minimum players requirement. Once the minimum number of runners required is met a tournament will run. If not it will be cancelled, sky would never adjust a guarantee once a game has started.
Posted by MattBates

Absolutely correct it is a public forum. The purpose of which would seem to be to allow players to post their observations, views, opinions, and ask questions of the Sky management. However you seem to be answering questions on behalf of Sky and it is this that I would question your qualification to do. You are as entitled to post your own opinions as anyone else irrespective of how many games they have played.

I targeted my post at James as he seems to be in charge, and specifically replied to his post.

Well done for playing so many games by the way

Your post is ambiguous and creates more questions.

Just about every sat having one seat guaranteed is a new development,  seems to be effective from today, and was suggested much earlier on in this thread. Does that mean the seat is guaranteed or there will be min runners. Logic says you can only have one or the other. If you want min. runners then dont have a guarantee. I am not sure what difference one seat guaranteed or not would make to the uptake. None of the sats have a minimum number of runners.

All games clearly dont have a required min. runners. Unless of course this is not published in many cases. How do you know this if it not published? What is the point of vital info. that the players are not aware of? Why set up a minimum and not tell the players?

How could I possibly know when a tourney doesnt reach its minimum when I am unaware what the minimum is?

I would suggest that it was a meaning of the word guarantee issue rather than a wording issue.

There have been a number of occasions where some of the bigger tournaments have massively failed to cover their guarantees, but have always paid out in full despite massive overlays. Why is this? Is it because of the word guarantee?

Why do you think that Sky would not adjust a guarantee after a game was started? Is it because of the word guarantee?

It is difficult to see how Sky could be so hard and fast over guaranteed prize pools and so flexible over guaranteed seats.

Interestingly after the high roller semis that were cancelled last week, causing lots of moaning, the tournament was 5 players short of the guarantee, but managed to make it up with the rebuys. How silly would it have been to cancel the semis and then end up 2.5k short of the guarantee.

Whatever anyone has to say on this, nobody will convince me that you can logically have guarantees and min runners. I wouldnt think it is even legal.

But there we are onwards and upwards.

MattBates

In Response to Re: high roller sat:

In Response to Re: high roller sat : Absolutely correct it is a public forum. The purpose of which would seem to be to allow players to post their observations, views, opinions, and ask questions of the Sky management. However you seem to be answering questions on behalf of Sky and it is this that I would question your qualification to do. You are as entitled to post your own opinions as anyone else irrespective of how many games they have played. I targeted my post at James as he seems to be in charge, and specifically replied to his post. Well done for playing so many games by the way Your post is ambiguous and creates more questions. Just about every sat having one seat guaranteed is a new development,  seems to be effective from today, and was suggested much earlier on in this thread. Does that mean the seat is guaranteed or there will be min runners. Logic says you can only have one or the other. If you want min. runners then dont have a guarantee. I am not sure what difference one seat guaranteed or not would make to the uptake. None of the sats have a minimum number of runners. All games clearly dont have a required min. runners. Unless of course this is not published in many cases. How do you know this if it not published? What is the point of vital info. that the players are not aware of? Why set up a minimum and not tell the players? How could I possibly know when a tourney doesnt reach its minimum when I am unaware what the minimum is? I would suggest that it was a meaning of the word guarantee issue rather than a wording issue. There have been a number of occasions where some of the bigger tournaments have massively failed to cover their guarantees, but have always paid out in full despite massive overlays. Why is this? Is it because of the word guarantee? Why do you think that Sky would not adjust a guarantee after a game was started? Is it because of the word guarantee? It is difficult to see how Sky could be so hard and fast over guaranteed prize pools and so flexible over guaranteed seats. Interestingly after the high roller semis that were cancelled last week, causing lots of moaning, the tournament was 5 players short of the guarantee, but managed to make it up with the rebuys. How silly would it have been to cancel the semis and then end up 2.5k short of the guarantee. Whatever anyone has to say on this, nobody will convince me that you can logically have guarantees and min runners. I wouldnt think it is even legal. But there we are onwards and upwards.
Posted by HAYSIE

"As has been stated an obscene amount of times, the blurb should have stated the min runners."

Just because it is not stated in the tournament blurb does not mean there is not a minimum number of runners.

Sky treat tournament guarantees and seat guarantees in the same way. Once the minimum required runners is achieved the guarantee stands. With larger number of runners in MTTs compared to sats means that it is rare that a MTT is cancelled due to minimum runner requirement not being met.

Can you not see why one seat guarantee would encourage players to enter? If a sat is a 1 in 10 win a seat with one seat guaranteed players are encouraged to enter if they get better odds than 1 in 10.

It is not a new development that every sat has a minimum of one seat guaranteed, what is your basis for this comment? What sats have you seen without minimum one seat guaranteed? 

Essexphil

In Response to Re: high roller sat:

In Response to Re: high roller sat : "As has been stated an obscene amount of times, the blurb should have stated the min runners." Just because it is not stated in the tournament blurb does not mean there is not a minimum number of runners. Sky treat tournament guarantees and seat guarantees in the same way. Once the minimum required runners is achieved the guarantee stands. With larger number of runners in MTTs compared to sats means that it is rare that a MTT is cancelled due to minimum runner requirement not being met. Can you not see why one seat guarantee would encourage players to enter? If a sat is a 1 in 10 win a seat with one seat guaranteed players are encouraged to enter if they get better odds than 1 in 10. It is not a new development that every sat has a minimum of one seat guaranteed, what is your basis for this comment? What sats have you seen without minimum one seat guaranteed? 
Posted by MattBates

It is only right that different people have different opinions. It doesn't make anyone right or wrong.

Normally, I would be wary of entering what is becoming a bit of a heated debate, but as I agree with Matt on 1 point and Haysie on another, thought I would give it a go.

Turning first to whether you can have a guarantee with an additional stated number of runners. I can see what Haysie means from the point of view of the English language. However, every other site that I know of does it this way. A "conditional guarantee" (which is what this becomes) is nonetheless a guarantee. I appreciate that some people will always disagree with this, but I cannot see how this could be different (in part, for the marketing reasons given by Matt).

When we are talking about a guarantee which does not stipulate any minimum runners, then I am very much on Haysie's side. A conditional guarantee is no such thing unless the condition is made clear to the customer BEFORE they are induced into entering into the contract. There cannot be a "secret" minimum number.

Mistakes happen on the best-run sites. If this were to happen to me once, I would accept the return of the buy-in. Benefits of the doubt run both ways. If it were to happen regularly where Sky imposed a "minimum" that had not been disclosed, then (imho) I would really recommend that Sky take advice....

Phil

MattBates

In Response to Re: high roller sat:

In Response to Re: high roller sat : It is only right that different people have different opinions. It doesn't make anyone right or wrong. Normally, I would be wary of entering what is becoming a bit of a heated debate, but as I agree with Matt on 1 point and Haysie on another, thought I would give it a go. Turning first to whether you can have a guarantee with an additional stated number of runners. I can see what Haysie means from the point of view of the English language. However, every other site that I know of does it this way. A "conditional guarantee" (which is what this becomes) is nonetheless a guarantee. I appreciate that some people will always disagree with this, but I cannot see how this could be different (in part, for the marketing reasons given by Matt). When we are talking about a guarantee which does not stipulate any minimum runners, then I am very much on Haysie's side. A conditional guarantee is no such thing unless the condition is made clear to the customer BEFORE they are induced into entering into the contract. There cannot be a "secret" minimum number. Mistakes happen on the best-run sites. If this were to happen to me once, I would accept the return of the buy-in. Benefits of the doubt run both ways. If it were to happen regularly where Sky imposed a "minimum" that had not been disclosed, then (imho) I would really recommend that Sky take advice.... Phil
Posted by Essexphil

"As has been stated an obscene amount of times, the blurb should have stated the min runners."

No one wants the minimum number of entrants to be a secret, it is an error that the blurb template doesn't include the minimum number of players required. It is something that needs to be corrected and something which I am sure sky will correct.

MAXALLY

In Response to Re: high roller sat:

In Response to Re: high roller sat : "As has been stated an obscene amount of times, the blurb should have stated the min runners." No one wants the minimum number of entrants to be a secret, it is an error that the blurb template doesn't include the minimum number of players required. It is something that needs to be corrected and something which I am sure sky will correct.
Posted by MattBates

Can you not just change it Matt? The other sky employees are busy with other stuff.

HAYSIE

In Response to Re: high roller sat:

In Response to Re: high roller sat : "As has been stated an obscene amount of times, the blurb should have stated the min runners." Just because it is not stated in the tournament blurb does not mean there is not a minimum number of runners. Sky treat tournament guarantees and seat guarantees in the same way. Once the minimum required runners is achieved the guarantee stands. With larger number of runners in MTTs compared to sats means that it is rare that a MTT is cancelled due to minimum runner requirement not being met. Can you not see why one seat guarantee would encourage players to enter? If a sat is a 1 in 10 win a seat with one seat guaranteed players are encouraged to enter if they get better odds than 1 in 10. It is not a new development that every sat has a minimum of one seat guaranteed, what is your basis for this comment? What sats have you seen without minimum one seat guaranteed? 
Posted by MattBates

Unbelievable.

However many times it has been stated, the blurb still doesnt state min. runners.

You surely cant be supporting a position where  there are a minimum number number of runners required for every tournament to run, but this information is not available in the tournament blurb, its a secret. Where is this info available? Where can I go to discover this information? If you were running a poker site, would you not want to run it with openess, tranparency, and honesty, and not be saying there is a minimum number of runners but we are not going to tell anyone.

Do you know what the word guarantee means?

If we run a tournament with lets say 2 seats guaranteed, and due to a lack of runners we cancel the tournament then the seats were not guaranteed. A guarantee is unconditional or it cant be a guarantee.

In your example about the one in ten sat with one seat guaranteed, are you therefore saying the one seat guaranteed becomes a disincentive if there were already 9 or 10 runners, and completely offputting if there were 14 or 15 runners.

Sky patently dont treat guaranteed prizepools and guaranteed seats in the same way. I have played the main event on evenings where there is an England football international, or Valentines Day and the guarantee has not been changed, there has been a massive overlay, but they have still paid out the money. Yet sats with guaranteed seats were cancelled last week. Two high roller semis with 4 runners each to my knowledge, without any thought given to late entries. There were others cancelled as I had players moaning to me in the chat box a number of times.

The overwhelming majority of sats today have one seat guaranteed. It may be my imagination, but I believe that there usually seems to be more with 2 seats guaranteed.

In a nutshell it should either be guaranteed seats or min runners, not both. If there are min runners it should in the blurb rather than being kept a secret.

HAYSIE

In Response to Re: high roller sat:

In Response to Re: high roller sat : It is only right that different people have different opinions. It doesn't make anyone right or wrong. Normally, I would be wary of entering what is becoming a bit of a heated debate, but as I agree with Matt on 1 point and Haysie on another, thought I would give it a go. Turning first to whether you can have a guarantee with an additional stated number of runners. I can see what Haysie means from the point of view of the English language. However, every other site that I know of does it this way. A "conditional guarantee" (which is what this becomes) is nonetheless a guarantee. I appreciate that some people will always disagree with this, but I cannot see how this could be different (in part, for the marketing reasons given by Matt). When we are talking about a guarantee which does not stipulate any minimum runners, then I am very much on Haysie's side. A conditional guarantee is no such thing unless the condition is made clear to the customer BEFORE they are induced into entering into the contract. There cannot be a "secret" minimum number. Mistakes happen on the best-run sites. If this were to happen to me once, I would accept the return of the buy-in. Benefits of the doubt run both ways. If it were to happen regularly where Sky imposed a "minimum" that had not been disclosed, then (imho) I would really recommend that Sky take advice.... Phil
Posted by Essexphil[/QUOTE

Thankyou Phil the solicitor. I checked out Poker Stars earlier they have a nominal 3 runner minimum on every tournament, which you could never see coming in to effect.

HAYSIE

In Response to Re: high roller sat:

In Response to Re: high roller sat : It is only right that different people have different opinions. It doesn't make anyone right or wrong. Normally, I would be wary of entering what is becoming a bit of a heated debate, but as I agree with Matt on 1 point and Haysie on another, thought I would give it a go. Turning first to whether you can have a guarantee with an additional stated number of runners. I can see what Haysie means from the point of view of the English language. However, every other site that I know of does it this way. A "conditional guarantee" (which is what this becomes) is nonetheless a guarantee. I appreciate that some people will always disagree with this, but I cannot see how this could be different (in part, for the marketing reasons given by Matt). When we are talking about a guarantee which does not stipulate any minimum runners, then I am very much on Haysie's side. A conditional guarantee is no such thing unless the condition is made clear to the customer BEFORE they are induced into entering into the contract. There cannot be a "secret" minimum number. Mistakes happen on the best-run sites. If this were to happen to me once, I would accept the return of the buy-in. Benefits of the doubt run both ways. If it were to happen regularly where Sky imposed a "minimum" that had not been disclosed, then (imho) I would really recommend that Sky take advice.... Phil
Posted by Essexphil

Also does it matter what the other sites are doing. I am not playing on the other sites and two wrongs dont make a right.

hhyftrftdr

In Response to Re: high roller sat:

In Response to Re: high roller sat : Absolutely correct it is a public forum. The purpose of which would seem to be to allow players to post their observations, views, opinions, and ask questions of the Sky management. However you seem to be answering questions on behalf of Sky and it is this that I would question your qualification to do. You are as entitled to post your own opinions as anyone else irrespective of how many games they have played. I targeted my post at James as he seems to be in charge, and specifically replied to his post. Well done for playing so many games by the way Your post is ambiguous and creates more questions. Just about every sat having one seat guaranteed is a new development,  seems to be effective from today, and was suggested much earlier on in this thread. Does that mean the seat is guaranteed or there will be min runners. Logic says you can only have one or the other. If you want min. runners then dont have a guarantee. I am not sure what difference one seat guaranteed or not would make to the uptake. None of the sats have a minimum number of runners. All games clearly dont have a required min. runners. Unless of course this is not published in many cases. How do you know this if it not published? What is the point of vital info. that the players are not aware of? Why set up a minimum and not tell the players? How could I possibly know when a tourney doesnt reach its minimum when I am unaware what the minimum is? I would suggest that it was a meaning of the word guarantee issue rather than a wording issue. There have been a number of occasions where some of the bigger tournaments have massively failed to cover their guarantees, but have always paid out in full despite massive overlays. Why is this? Is it because of the word guarantee? Why do you think that Sky would not adjust a guarantee after a game was started? Is it because of the word guarantee? It is difficult to see how Sky could be so hard and fast over guaranteed prize pools and so flexible over guaranteed seats. Interestingly after the high roller semis that were cancelled last week, causing lots of moaning, the tournament was 5 players short of the guarantee, but managed to make it up with the rebuys. How silly would it have been to cancel the semis and then end up 2.5k short of the guarantee. Whatever anyone has to say on this, nobody will convince me that you can logically have guarantees and min runners. I wouldnt think it is even legal. But there we are onwards and upwards.
Posted by HAYSIE

I was gonna put some stuff in bold ^^^ but it might as well all be in bold.

Why you don't think seats can be guaranteed with a certain number of runners is beyond me.

Head, meet wall.

Nuggy962

Something that happens once or twice is a mistake, a mistake that happens again and again is a behavioural choice.

Hopefully lessons learned on all sides. I think is a shame sky did not refund the prizepool when these mistakes happened imo.

Also think we need to move past this guarntee wording stuff now. Sky, like manu big companies, will have legal teams on side and will know what is and is not acceptable on a marketing front. 

Haysie if you want closure just ask the gambling commission seeimg as is clear your complaint is not resolved to your liking. They can give you the blurb that says what can and can not be done in these examples. Do not think any more needs to be vented here, tempers are high and can see from responses from regs and sky employees, not long till someone goes too far on this.

Fair play for sky letting this run along.... could of stopped thred days ago

IrishRose

With all due respect to everyone involved in this "debate" - I think the basic problem is not being addressed.  

The semi finals didn't run on a number of nights of this UKOPS.  I know we all realise that this is due to the minimum number of plyaers not being present at the start of the semi finals. 

HOWEVER

This happened on at least 3 occassions that I remember - there might have been more but I didn't keep track.  Even now we don't know how many players would have made up the minimum for the semi final to run.  On some nights there were 3 players regged at least (if not 4 on one of those nights?).

The fact that it happened once is unfortunate - but mistakes can and do happen.  For it to happen again (more than once) when Sky had been made aware of the issue and the high feeling surrounding it - this is what I what I find unacceptable.

I realise James was off sick - but as Sky knew there was a problem with the tournament not displaying the mimimum number of players - surely someone - even a junior someone - should have been able to amend the future "blurb" and all this ill feeling could have been avoided.

CxE1

I am astounded at skys handling of this issue. Responses lacking in clarity, wit or charm.

This is an issue ongoing for more than 2 years. The response i got by email was a reference to t&c which in this case would have meant the tournament starting with 3 players.Its not there are issues, its the constant failure to fix them.

The refunds situation is absurd. There is a failure of duty of care to customers. Every poker player should be sent an email to advise them of this issue as clearly there is no response even suggesting they are going to fix it.Why should anybody wait till following day for a refund caused by a known error. And as Graham has pointed out, where is the audit trail. What if someone asks for a review over past year. 

If someone outside the poker department was looking at this they would be mortified as it makes sky look like a tin pot company which falls apart if someone goes sick. 

HAYSIE

In Response to Re: high roller sat:

I'm only going to post once on this thread. All satellites have 1 or more seats guaranteed SHOULD the minimum number of runners be met.  If the minimum number of runners were set at 1 or 2 there would be countless satellites lasting 1 hand which we don't want. This would result in us not running many satellites which you don't want. We will continue to cancel satellites if the min runners are not reached. You want us to honour our "guarantee" but if I see a 5 seat guaranteed sat end after 1 hand with 6 runners then I would be forced to lower the guarantee which is not what either of us wants. As has been stated an obscene amount of times, the blurb should have stated the min runners. If you don't agree with what I have said then fine but you are wasting your time.
Posted by Sky__James

I appreciate you have said that you have no intention of any further posts on this thread, so I am not expecting a response to this. I am not completely stupid.

Firstly I think it is important to say that, when starting this discussion I had no wish to cost Sky more money in overlay. The object of the exercise was not to get loads of sats with 2 or 3 runners running for one hand. My goal was fairness and transparency.

I am not really sure that I follow your answer above, as you say that if the min runners were set at one or two then you would have countless satellites lasting one hand, and go on to say this would result in you not running many satellites. If you didnt run many sats, you wouldnt have countless satellites running for one hand. If the result of this, was to run a few less sats that were better supported, that would be a good thing wouldnt it?

Anyway my opinion is that you can either have the guaranteed seats or the min runners, but not both. I will not be persuaded otherwise.

Matt put forward the marketing argument yesterday, but I dont beleive this argument stands up. He was arguing that if there was a guaranteed seat and the odds were in your favour you might be persuaded to enter. However these are the sats that you dont want to run. These are the sats with a big overlay. How could you argue that a guaranteed seat in a tourney with a big overlay attracts players to enter and you dont wish to run them. Not only that, when do you enter? The example he used was 6 runners in a one in ten sat. If you enter some time before there will probably be more runners. If you enter close to the start time, what about the late reg. If you entered at 6 runners and there were more entries would you deregister because your odds were gone? How could this actually work in practice?

In reality the vast majority of sats are priced up on a one in five basis, and if the odds are in the players favour ie 2 runners, you being the third entry. If it stays that way it is probable that you are not going to run the sat anyway. I feel that the marketing excuse is a red herring.

In the begining I was only thinking about the players point of view, but can now see the problem from the other side, but I dont think you are addressing it in the right way.

I remember many years ago football brought in the four step rule for goalkeepers. This was because many goalkeepers were guilty of wasting time. The four step rule was brought in to combat this. It never worked because the goalkeepers took the four steps, rolled the ball along the ground, then took another four steps and so on. So instead of stopping the goalkeepers wasting time, the four step rule actually enabled the goalkeeper to waste more time.

I think that you are doing the same thing. you are trying to solve a problem in a roundabout way, when head on maybe better.

If the problem is lots of sats with overlay running for one hand then why not void every sat that doesnt run until the late entry is over, and include this condition in the blurb. That would solve the problem, and not affect the genuine players.

For your info on sats I have been looking at the late entry duration and they run from 9 minutes to 30 minutes on the smaller ones. They dont have rhyme or reason to them as the 4k Vegas has 30 mins and the bigger Vegas is 25 mins.

They run for longer in the semis.

Also some of todays sats have minimums quoted, does that mean where there is no min quoted in the blurb that there is no minumum, and that they will definitely run?

Lambert180

Just think how many sats would have not run if the people playing for cash didn't reg as well  

Lambert180

All jokes aside, as Phil said, in the strict sense of the word a guarantee means that they are guaranteeing to give X no matter what, that's what the word guarantee means. I believe DTD stick to the literal meaning of this quite often which is why they often suffer humungous overlay.

It's pretty widely known in online poker that guarantees are subject to a minimum number of runners. Obviously it never comes up with the main or w/e cos the main is never gonna start with 20 runners. Pretty sure it's happened in vv small regular MTTs before that run late at night.

Sky seem to have acknowledged that there is a minimum number of runners for every game, it currently isnt in every lobby, it should be, and it will be sorted. Surely that's discussion over?

MISTY4ME

Why have Late reg. at all for satellites?

If there was no late reg. for satellites it would encourage more people to actually start the tournament in the first place. I can understand why there is late reg. for one off tournaments (Main's, Mini etc.), but when there are sat's every 15 - 30 minutes, players could just wait for the next satellite, and it might actually make people more pro-active in starting or at least entering a satellite on time in the first place. Starting players would also know exactly how many seats they are playing for.

I'm sure if there was a freeroll put on where there was no late reg.,(I know it's not quite the same, but you can't obviously enter the All-in Freerolls after they've started), players would get their finger out and enter beforehand, and consequently the field is set at the start of the tournament

I think this would be worth trying to encourage players to make sure they are there for the start of the satellite's.

Nuggy962

Sat for the 7:30pm £22 entry £1500 BH..

1 seat guranteed.....

No blurb about min runners

And...... yep.... cancelled with registered player.

 

HAYSIE

In Response to Re: high roller sat:

Why have Late reg. at all for satellites? If there was no late reg. for satellites it would encourage more people to actually start the tournament in the first place. I can understand why there is late reg. for one off tournaments (Main's, Mini etc.), but when there are sat's every 15 - 30 minutes, players could just wait for the next satellite, and it might actually make people more pro-active in starting or at least entering a satellite on time in the first place. Starting players would also know exactly how many seats they are playing for. I'm sure if there was a freeroll put on where there was no late reg.,(I know it's not quite the same, but you can't obviously enter the All-in Freerolls after they've started), players would get their finger out and enter beforehand, and consequently the field is set at the start of the tournament I think this would be worth trying to encourage players to make sure they are there for the start of the satellite's.
Posted by MISTY4ME[/QUOT

One of Skys main concerns about sats is clearly the avoidance of small fields all in first hand, giving an edge to the players, and maximising the overlay as far as Sky is concerned.

A simple way to avoid this would be to void any sats that dont last until the end of the late reg period. You could standardise the late reg period to say 30 mins on all sats. This would resolve the problem.

If you had no late reg it wouldnt help with this problem.

HAYSIE

In Response to Re: high roller sat:

I'm only going to post once on this thread. All satellites have 1 or more seats guaranteed SHOULD the minimum number of runners be met.  If the minimum number of runners were set at 1 or 2 there would be countless satellites lasting 1 hand which we don't want. This would result in us not running many satellites which you don't want. We will continue to cancel satellites if the min runners are not reached. You want us to honour our "guarantee" but if I see a 5 seat guaranteed sat end after 1 hand with 6 runners then I would be forced to lower the guarantee which is not what either of us wants. As has been stated an obscene amount of times, the blurb should have stated the min runners. If you don't agree with what I have said then fine but you are wasting your time.
Posted by Sky__James

I was playing a Vegas sat yesterday and read in the tourney lobby that the quarter final was at 9.15 last night. When I looked in the poker lobby the quarter wasnt there. This happened to me the other day and Tikay said to me that it was only available for entry half an hour before the start, and because my filters are set at registering, and late reg, I would be unable to see the tourney until it was available for registration. The 4k quarter was available for entry all day. Why is this?

Yesterday the 11k Vegas quarter did not show up full stop until I cancelled my filters. It did not show at 8.45. Why was this?

Isnt this counter productive when it comes to entries?

MISTY4ME

In Response to Re: high roller sat:
 One of Skys main concerns about sats is clearly the avoidance of small fields all in first hand, giving an edge to the players, and maximising the overlay as far as Sky is concerned. A simple way to avoid this would be to void any sats that dont last until the end of the late reg period. You could standardise the late reg period to say 30 mins on all sats. This would resolve the problem. If you had no late reg it wouldnt help with this problem.
Posted by HAYSIE
To be honest a lot of sat's don't even last 30 minutes, and not because players go All-in first hand.... The Sunday ROLLER ones for example only last 15 - 25 mins. If no one had ever heard of late reg., and the only way to satellite into a tournament was to enter the satellite before it started, surely more people would enter, especially if there weren't as many satellite's.

Wasn't it amazing at UKPC how most people were there at least an hour before the Tournament started, and that the ones who were late started losing their chips as soon as the Tournament started. 

A mindset thing imo.

Nuggy962

In Response to Re: high roller sat:

In Response to Re: high roller sat :  One of Skys main concerns about sats is clearly the avoidance of small fields all in first hand, giving an edge to the players, and maximising the overlay as far as Sky is concerned. A simple way to avoid this would be to void any sats that dont last until the end of the late reg period. You could standardise the late reg period to say 30 mins on all sats. This would resolve the problem. If you had no late reg it wouldnt help with this problem. Posted by HAYSIE

To be honest a lot of sat's don't even last 30 minutes, and not because players go All-in first hand.... The Sunday ROLLER ones for example only last 15 - 25 mins. If no one had ever heard of late reg., and the only way to satellite into a tournament was to enter the satellite before it started, surely more people would enter, especially if there weren't as many satellite's. Wasn't it amazing at UKPC how most people were there at least an hour before the Tournament started, and that the ones who were late started losing their chips as soon as the Tournament started.  A mindset thing imo.
Posted by MISTY4ME

Diagree

Online, market is all about speed and ease of joining games

I have logged on, seen no games of interest in late reg so think nah nkt waiting 10 mins for x to start, will go do summit else

HAYSIE

In Response to Re: high roller sat:

In Response to Re: high roller sat :  One of Skys main concerns about sats is clearly the avoidance of small fields all in first hand, giving an edge to the players, and maximising the overlay as far as Sky is concerned. A simple way to avoid this would be to void any sats that dont last until the end of the late reg period. You could standardise the late reg period to say 30 mins on all sats. This would resolve the problem. If you had no late reg it wouldnt help with this problem. Posted by HAYSIE

To be honest a lot of sat's don't even last 30 minutes, and not because players go All-in first hand.... The Sunday ROLLER ones for example only last 15 - 25 mins. If no one had ever heard of late reg., and the only way to satellite into a tournament was to enter the satellite before it started, surely more people would enter, especially if there weren't as many satellite's. Wasn't it amazing at UKPC how most people were there at least an hour before the Tournament started, and that the ones who were late started losing their chips as soon as the Tournament started.  A mindset thing imo.
Posted by MISTY4ME

I can remember playing before Sky had late entries, and phoning people to log me in and enter the open whilst driving home from work.

Nevertheless, Sky see the number of small fields going all in first hand as a problem. Stopping late entries does not address this, it is another 4 step rule.

Maybe there should a shorter late reg period.

Ensuring that the sat ran for a reasonable time would stop the all in first hand.

I was playing one the day before yesterday where we reached the final table I think four times due to the  number of late entries joining the table. In this paticular case the late entries were the difference between profit and loss. Had the original players been all in first hand then it would have been a guaranteed loss.

If Sky are going to guarantee seats, its in everyones interest that the costs are covered. At the moment late entry gives them the best chance of acheiving this.

Jac35

Diagree Online, market is all about speed and ease of joining games I have logged on, seen no games of interest in late reg so think nah nkt waiting 10 mins for x to start, will go do summit else
Posted by Nuggy962

You can get a fair bit of trolling in in 10 mins tbf

waller02

You can do a LOT in 10 mins, ask my missus.

Nuggy962

In Response to Re: high roller sat:

You can do a LOT in 10 mins, ask my missus.
Posted by waller02

Haha brill +1

Essexphil

In Response to Re: high roller sat:

You can do a LOT in 10 mins, ask my missus.
Posted by waller02

I can disappoint my wife a lot quicker than that