high roller sat

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

Have you thought of advising other companies on customer care, you seem to have a real flair for it.

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

I have have entered 7 of the £6.60 Vegas sats iin the last 2 days and they have all been cancelled. Would it work better if the micro sats were run on a sitngo basis, and start them when the correct number of players have registered. You could continue with the quarters and semis as scheduled games.

chilling

In Response to Re: high roller sat:

In Response to Re: high roller sat : I have have entered 7 of the £6.60 Vegas sats iin the last 2 days and they have all been cancelled. Would it work better if the micro sats were run on a sitngo basis, and start them when the correct number of players have registered. You could continue with the quarters and semis as scheduled games.
Posted by HAYSIE

I think the biggest problem is the lack of numbers obv.There's probably an average of over 2k players playing at any one time ,on any given day.

To get 2or 3 in a sat , is a very poor show imo.When the tv show was aired, playing the sats was often mentioned as a cheaper way in.

Have the sat numbers dropped of since the axing of SkyPoker tv?

hhyftrftdr

In Response to Re: high roller sat:

In Response to Re: high roller sat : I think the biggest problem is the lack of numbers obv.There's probably an average of over 2k players playing at any one time ,on any given day. To get 2or 3 in a sat , is a very poor show imo.When the tv show was aired, playing the sats was often mentioned as a cheaper way in. Have the sat numbers dropped of since the axing of SkyPoker tv?
Posted by chilling

I really don't think there is any kind of correlation.

HAYSIE

In Response to Re: high roller sat:

In Response to Re: high roller sat : I really don't think there is any kind of correlation.
Posted by hhyftrftdr

I am not sure either.

I just thought because there are so many different sats, if the micros were run like sitngos then you would only need one per tourney and start when the required number of players had registered. You could still have a late reg. so Sky could see the benefits of increased numbers. The quarters and semis could be scheduled to have some sort of structure.

The cancellations probably average 3 players, and I just wonder that if each one was available for entry for a bit longer, whether one or two of them might have started. 

StayOrGo

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

Totally fine with what you have said here James, but can you please make sure the above (highlighted in RED) happens, and if it doesn't, I feel Sky should compensate players by splitting the prize pool between the affected players. It might put a bit more focus on correcting the templates.

May I suggest that one automatically updates the other, ie when minimum runners is set blurb is automatically updated accordingly.

Cheers,

G

waller02

In Response to Re: high roller sat:

In Response to Re: high roller sat : I have have entered 7 of the £6.60 Vegas sats iin the last 2 days and they have all been cancelled. Would it work better if the micro sats were run on a sitngo basis, and start them when the correct number of players have registered. You could continue with the quarters and semis as scheduled games.
Posted by HAYSIE

I think this could work and would solve the issues raised. I don't see why you can't have a 6 seater stt sat with 1st winning seat, 2nd winning a bit of money and so on. It can be frustrating at times registering for a sat for it to be cancelled, registering for the next one and it gets cancelled. 

CxE1

In Response to Re: high roller sat:

In Response to Re: high roller sat : Totally fine with what you have said here James, but can you please make sure the above (highlighted in RED) happens, and if it doesn't, I feel Sky should compensate players by splitting the prize pool between the affected players. It might put a bit more focus on correcting the templates. May I suggest that one automatically updates the other, ie when minimum runners is set blurb is automatically updated accordingly. Cheers, G
Posted by StayOrGo

From reading posts, It looks like SB&G are reluctant to allocate sufficient resources to poker thus making life alittle more complicated for the boys and girls working in the poker department. This is the sense i get reading between the lines. Like my poker i may be well off the mark but to some extent they have my sympathy.

HAYSIE

In Response to Re: high roller sat:

In Response to Re: high roller sat : From reading posts, It looks like SB&G are reluctant to allocate sufficient resources to poker thus making life alittle more complicated for the boys and girls working in the poker department. This is the sense i get reading between the lines. Like my poker i may be well off the mark but to some extent they have my sympathy.
Posted by CxE1

I am afraid I completely disagree. I dont think that many of the discussions I have been involved in recently have concerned resources. To at least make the players aware of the min entries required for a sat to go ahead is just honesty, nothing to do with resources.

From my point of view the object wasnt to make them run loads of sats with a big overlay, it was about being honest and above board. All the sats now seem to have a min number of entries required for the sat to go ahead. So that is a good  thing that has been acheived by our recent discussions and a victory for common sense. Although I am certain the argument about guaranteed seats and min players will continue, while guaranteed seats are still being cancelled, but not here.

I suppose I started becoming more interested in January, and the long overdue revamp of the mtt schedule. I am not blaming Tikay for any of it, but he posted the following, in good faith and full of optimism,

Morning all.

As most of you know by now, Sky Poker are revamping the MTT Schedule. It's well overdue, & has to be done, & once it is all sorted, the MTT schedule here will be better, more logically arranged & timed, & better presented.

So if you have ANY questions, observations as & when changes happen, or, Heaven forbid, complaints, please post them on this thread. The Suits WILL read this thread daily, & if anything major arises during the changes, & you guys let us know, I'll send it straight upstairs.
 
Doing it this way will be far more efficient for both sides of the table, & help us all - players & business alike - get through the MTT Revamp more comfortably, & I'll happily explain why any particular MTT has been moved, changed, re-packaged or dropped.
 
It's a 2 way process - the players & The Business, Working together, we CAN make it better. And we will

Absolutely nothing changed in the mtts that I play, which was very disappointing. I am not sure what I was expecting, but I was expecting something. After such a build up I wasnt expecting everything to be exactly the same.

The biggest changes were this week, when lots of guarantees have been slashed. We have gone from Winter to Summer apparently. From a UKOPS week with double the usual entries to some tourneys, to 33% off some guarantees, in a week. Even though the main events on Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday are unaffected. So it seems that less people play poker in Summer than Winter except on Tuesday, Thurday, and Friday.

Some of the guarantee cuts will be the kiss of death I am sure. When the guarantee is cut, it creates a further loss of players due to the guarantee being cut, resulting in difficulty in meeting even the new guaranteed level in some cases. So the Summit on Tuesday is down to 6k, you probably couldnt drop it anymore before it goes. So on Tuesdays the main at 8pm has a buy in of £33, 10,000 chip starting stack, and a 6k guarantee, compared to the Summit, 5,000 starting stack, £110 buy in and the same guarantee. It wasnt that long ago when the main on Tuesday had the same guarantee for an £11 buy in.

Can the Sheriff survive at 2k?

The suits referred to in Tikays post seems to be an exaggeration, as it seems to be a suit. Unfortunately the suit in question seems to have abandoned answering some regular, well thought of players, questions, concerns, suggestions, and observations (I obviously dont include mine in this, as I no longer expect a reply). If the poker site was running perfectly, attracting new players hand over fist, and prize money going through the roof this would be fine, but as things are the way they are this must surely be considered misplaced arrogance, as is the extract from a reply to a post below.

If you don't agree with what I have said then fine but you are wasting your time.

I enjoy playing poker on Sky but do not appreciate being mugged off as a customer.

HAYSIE

In Response to Re: high roller sat:

In Response to Re: high roller sat : I think this could work and would solve the issues raised. I don't see why you can't have a 6 seater stt sat with 1st winning seat, 2nd winning a bit of money and so on. It can be frustrating at times registering for a sat for it to be cancelled, registering for the next one and it gets cancelled. 
Posted by waller02

I think that if the game was initially treated as a sitngo and started as soon as the minimum field had registered, you could still have a late entry, giving the best of both worlds, the extra players providing funds for extra seats or cash. You might start with say 5 players and end up with say 15.

The point is that if you need 5 players to cover the cost of the one guaranteed seat, then if it starts with 5 players and they go all in first hand, then there is no loss to Sky, and everyone is happy.

hhyftrftdr

Haysie, guarantees have dropped every Spring/Summer in all my time on Sky (6/7 years or so). Why is this suddenly an issue for you?

You're clearly an intelligent guy and have been on Sky since the beginning, I struggle to see why you can't grasp this concept.

HAYSIE

In Response to Re: high roller sat:

Haysie, guarantees have dropped every Spring/Summer in all my time on Sky (6/7 years or so). Why is this suddenly an issue for you? You're clearly an intelligent guy and have been on Sky since the beginning, I struggle to see why you can't grasp this concept.
Posted by hhyftrftdr

I have not paid much attention to this in the past.

You seem to know everything, so perhaps you could answer the following questions,

Why do less people play in the Summer than Winter, but only on some nights?

When does Summer start?

When does Winter start?

Have you ever started a post, or posted an observation of yours, asked a genuine question, shared your views on any topic? It seems you just wish to crticise other peoples views.

MattBates

In Response to Re: high roller sat:

In Response to Re: high roller sat : I have not paid much attention to this in the past. You seem to know everything, so perhaps you could answer the following questions, Why do less people play in the Summer than Winter, but only on some nights? When does Summer start? When does Winter start? Have you ever started a post, or posted an observation of yours, asked a genuine question, shared your views on any topic? It seems you just wish to crticise other peoples views.
Posted by HAYSIE

I think people find it frustrating when on the one hand you are very certain of things and seem to state things as fact then on the other hand you say you havent paid much attention to this in the past. Based on this I doubt anyone will respond to you anymore.

HAYSIE

In Response to Re: high roller sat:

In Response to Re: high roller sat : I think people find it frustrating when on the one hand you are very certain of things and seem to state things as fact then on the other hand you say you havent paid much attention to this in the past. Based on this I doubt anyone will respond to you anymore.
Posted by MattBates

I am not sure of what you are trying to say.

Some of my recent posts will have contained facts, questions, opinions, and views.

What you are responding to is my reply to a response made to a post of mine.

In the original post I stated that I had not really paid much attention to the prizepool guarantees in the past. This statement is true. I have never ever questioned prizepools in the past.

You seem to be putting forward that I have some devious underlying reason for asking any questions. The only reasons I have for asking any question that I have asked,is that either I dont know the answer, or am sceptical of the answer put forward.

For example the Summer and Winter thing.

I am sorry that people find me quoting facts on the one hand and saying I havent paid attention to other things on the other hand, frustating, but who can say they pay absolute attention to everything on Sky poker. Taking more interest has probably coincided with my retirement, which is a fairly recent event.

The threat of no response is not really a threat as I see well thought of players getting no response to their posts on a dailly basis, which I am certain must be very frustating for them.

On the plus side we now have a minimum entries required on every sat as a result of a thread I started. Another post of mine regarding the FACT that I was still playing a high roller quarter at the time the semi was cancelled was ignored. This debacle was repeated yesterday when the Vegas quarter was cancelled, as it was one player short of the minimum, with an all in Sat still in play. Causing massive moans on another thread.

Surely you cant say you dont know any facts, or that there is nothing that you havent paid much attention to?

In my case I have not stated facts about the same things as I have said I have not paid much attention to, if that is what you are alluding to.

Do you know the answer to the question that if the guarantees are being reduced due to there being less players in the Summer than there are in the Winter, then why this only applies to particular nights, and that the same numbers are expected on Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday during Summer and Winter.